REGIONAL WATER PLAN
June 2017

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 ............................1-2 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. Current Conditions Resource Assessments ....................................3-1 3.2.1. Current Surface Water Quality (Assimilative Capacity) ........3-2 3.2.2. Current Ecosystem Conditions of Instream Uses .................3-6 3.2.3. Surface Water Availability ..................................................3-10 3.2.4. Groundwater Availability .................................................... 3-12
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..........................................5-3 5.3. Surface Water Quality Comparisons (Assimilative Capacity) ...........5-7 5.4. Summary of Potential Water Resources Issues.............................5-13
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 .......7-17 7.3. Alignment with Other Plans ........................................................... 7-28 7.4. Recommendations to the State ..................................................... 7-28
8. Monitoring and Reporting Progress.............................................................8-1 8.1. Benchmarks ....................................................................................8-1

June 2017

i

ALTAMAHA

Table of Contents

8.2. Plan Updates .................................................................................. 8-6 8.3. Plan Amendments........................................................................... 8-6
Bibliography ........................................................................................................B-1

Tables

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

Summary of Modeled 2050 Potential Surface Water Gaps ..................... ES-7 Permitted Assimilative Capacity for DO in Altamaha Planning Council .... ES-8 Short-Term Water Quantity Management Practices (0 10 Years) ......... ES-9 Short-Term Water Quality Management Practices (0 10 Years)............ ES-9 Current (Permitted) Conditions DO Assimilative Capacity in Altamaha Region ........................................................................................................ 3-4 Summary of Modeled Current Conditions Surface Water Gaps ................ 3-11 Population Projections by County ............................................................... 4-2 Agricultural Water Forecast by County (in AAD-MGD)................................ 4-7 Regional Thermoelectric Water Forecasts (in AAD-MGD) .......................... 4-9 2050 Municipal Forecast versus Groundwater Permitted Capacity ............. 5-3 Summary of Modeled 2050 Potential Surface Water Gaps ......................... 5-5 Characteristics of Modeled 2050 Potential Surface Water Gaps ................. 5-6 2050 Increased Annual Average Surface Water Demand within Potential Gap Areas ................................................................................................. 5-7 2050 Municipal Wastewater Forecast versus Existing Permitted Capacity (MGD)......................................................................................................... 5-8 Permitted Assimilative Capacity for DO in Altamaha Planning Council ....... 5-9 Summary of Potential Water Resource Issues by County ......................... 5-14 Management Practices Selected for the Altamaha Region ......................... 6-6 Implementation Schedule ........................................................................... 7-2 Cost Estimates for the Implementation Responsibilities ............................ 7-21 Benchmarks for Water Management Plans................................................. 8-2

Figures

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

Altamaha Regional Water Planning Council............................................. ES-2 2010 Water Supply by Source Type ........................................................ ES-3 2010 Water Use by Category................................................................... ES-4 Trends in Wastewater and Return Flows ................................................. ES-5 Altamaha Region Population Projections (2010-2050) ............................. ES-5 Implementation of Management Practices ............................................. ES-10 Regional Water Planning Councils.............................................................. 1-2 State Water Planning Process .................................................................... 1-3 Location 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 2010 Water Supply by Source Type ........................................................... 3-2 2010 Surface Water Withdrawal by Category ............................................. 3-2

ALTAMAHA

ii

June 2017

Table of Contents

3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6
3-7
3-8 3-9 3-10 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 4-5 4-6 5-1 5-2 5-3
5-4
6-1
6-2

2010 Groundwater Use Withdrawal Category .............................................3-2 2010 Surface Water Return Flow by Category ............................................3-2 Assimilative Capacity Models......................................................................3-3 Results of Assimilative Capacity Assessment DO at Current (Permitted) Conditions ................................................................................................... 3-5 Results of Assimilative Capacity Assessment DO at Current (2014 Discharge) Conditions in the Altamaha Basin .............................................3-6 Impaired Water Bodies with Completed TMDLs ..........................................3-9 Surface Water Planning Nodes .................................................................3-10 Sub-regions Associated with the Coastal Permitting Plan ......................... 3-12 Total Municipal Water Use Forecast (in AAD-MGD)....................................4-3 Total Municipal Wastewater Generation Forecast (in AAD-MGD) ...............4-4 Total Industrial Water and Wastewater Forecast (in AAD-MGD) .................4-6 Total Agricultural Water Forecast (in AAD-MGD) ........................................4-8 Water Demand Forecast per Sector (in AAD-MGD) ....................................4-9 Total Wastewater Forecast (In AAD-MGD) ...............................................4-10 Floridan Aquifer Demand vs. Estimated Yield .............................................5-2 2050 Potential Surface Water Gap Summary..............................................5-4 Results of Assimilative Capacity AssessmentDO at Permitted Conditions ................................................................................................. 5-11 Results of Assimilative Capacity Assessment DO at Assumed Future (2050) Permitted Conditions .....................................................................5-12 Recommended Surface Water Availability Management Practices in a Phased Approach .......................................................................................6-4 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

June 2017

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 Len Hauss Edward S. Jeffords (Chair) Phillip Jennings Dan McCranie Steve Meeks Buddy Pittman John E. Roller Sue B. Sammons Doug Sharp Paul A. Stavriotis (Vice-Chair) 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 Jesup Jesup Soperton Eastman
Kite Eastman Mount Vernon Lumber City
Jesup Glennville Screven Abbeville Cochran Swainsboro
-

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

The Altamaha Council would like to thank Rick Brown and Danielle Honour with CDM Smith and Jennifer Welte of Georgia EPD for providing the planning and technical guidance toward the development of this Plan.

ALTAMAHA

iv

June 2017

Acknowledgments
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

June 2017

v

Acknowledgments

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

June 2017

Table of Contents

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

June 2017

vii

ALTAMAHA

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

Point Sources Dissolved Oxygen

mi2

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

June 2017

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Executive Summary

Executive Summary

Water Resource Trends and Key

Introduction and Overview of the Altamaha Region

Findings for the 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 continues to be one of the fastest growing states in the nation. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, between 2010 and 2016, Georgia ranked 4th in total population gain (0.6 million new residents) and 12th in percentage increase in population (6%). During a portion of this same period, our State also experienced critical areas of severe drought. Georgia's growth and economic prosperity are vitally linked to our water resources.

south central portion of Georgia. Over the next 35 years, the population of the region is projected to increase from approximately 256,000 to 285,000 residents.
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.
Groundwater (the majority from the Floridan aquifer) is forecasted to meet about 70% of the water supply needs, with agricultural and industrial uses being the

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

dominant demand sectors. Surface water is utilized to meet about 30% of the forecasted 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.

use of our water resources. The

water planning process began in

2008, when the State of Georgia's

leadership

authorized

a

comprehensive state-wide water

planning process to help address

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.

these challenges and take a forward Management practices are needed to address these

look at how our State is expected to challenges including: water conservation; refining

grow and use water through 2050. planning information; alternate sources of supply in

The Altamaha Regional Water Planning Council (Altamaha Council) was established in February 2009 as part of this state-wide process. The

areas where surface water availability may be limited; improving/upgrading wastewater treatment; and addressing non-point sources of pollution.

Altamaha Council completed the

initial Regional Water Plan in 2011, and in 2016-2017 the Altamaha Council updated

the Regional Water Plan. The Altamaha Council is one of 11 planning regions charged with developing Regional Water Plans, and encompasses 16 counties in the south central portion of Georgia (shown in Figure ES-1). An overview of the updated findings

and recommendations for the Altamaha Region are provided in this Executive

June 2017

ES-1

ALTAMAHA

Executive Summary

Summary. The Altamaha Council's Regional Water Plan is available on the Council's website.

Figure ES-1: Altamaha Regional Water Planning Council

Georgia has ample 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 ample water in Georgia is available, 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 29,000 residents, or 11%, from 2015 to 2050 (Georgia's Office of Planning and Budget, 2015). 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.

ALTAMAHA

ES-2

June 2017

Executive Summary

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 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 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). As shown in Figure ES-2, surface water is used to meet about 39% of the region's water supply needs. Through 2050, the sources of agricultural surface water in the region are projected to come from the Altamaha River Basin (36%), Ocmulgee River Basin (29%), Ogeechee River Basin (20%), Satilla River Basin (7%), Suwannee River Basin (6%), and Oconee River Basin (2%). This information is based on the assumption that future use will follow current practices and trends. However, as described in more detail below, there are

Figure ES-2: 2010 Water Supply by Source Type
Data Source: "Water Use in Georgia by County for 2010; and Water-Use Trends, 1985-2010" (USGS, 2016).

June 2017

ES-3

ALTAMAHA

Executive Summary
some locations where current and/or future water needs exceed water availability, which causes the need to develop alternate sources of water supply.
Groundwater As shown in Figure ES-2, groundwater is used to meet about 61% of the region's water supply needs. Based on 2015 forecasted groundwater withdrawal data, approximately 96% 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, Dublin and Brunswick 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 72% percent of surface water withdrawals in the region are for the energy sector. However, only approximately 35 MGD of the total 57 MGD of energy water withdrawals are consumed, while the remaining 22 MGD are returned to the surface water. About 98 MGD of groundwater withdrawals are used to supply industrial (49%) and agricultural uses (30%), while municipal, self-supply (homes with groundwater wells), and energy make up the remaining uses.

ALTAMAHA

ES-4

June 2017

Executive Summary

Wastewater treatment types/values representing past trends and forecasted use in the region are shown in Figure ES-4. According to the updated Altamaha Water and Wastewater Forecast developed for the Regional Water Plan (CDM Smith, 2017), 64% of treated wastewater in the region is disposed of as a municipal/industrial point source discharge, energy discharge (19%), or to a land application system (5%). The remaining wastewater is treated by on-site sewage treatment (septic) systems (12%).
Altamaha Forecasted Water Resource Needs from the Year 2015 to 2050
Municipal water and wastewater forecasts are tied to population projections for the counties within the Altamaha Region. The updated 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 13% (33 MGD) from 2015 through 2050. Over the same

Figure ES-4: Trends in Wastewater and Return Flows

Point Source Discharge, 76 MGD,
64%

Total 119 MGD

Land Application
Systems, 6 MGD,
5%
On-site Sewage Treatment (Septic Systems), 14 MGD,
12%
Energy Discharge, 22 MGD,
19%

Data Source: Altamaha Water and Wastewater Forecasting Technical Memorandum; CDM Smith, 2017 and USGS data for energy withdrawals.
Energy totals shown represent total thermoelectric return flow; 35 MGD of the total 57 MGD (61%) is consumptive, the remainder (22 MGD) is discharged back to surface waters as return flow.

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

300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000
50,000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Source: Georgia Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, 2015

June 2017

ES-5

Population
ALTAMAHA

Executive Summary

period, total wastewater flows in the region are expected to grow by 10% (10 MGD).

Comparison of Available Resource Capacity to Future Water Resource Needs

Groundwater Availability

Groundwater from the 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 range of groundwater yield that can be pumped from select

regional aquifers before specific impacts become evident, also referred to as

sustainable yield. Overall, the results from the Groundwater Availability Resource

Assessment (EPD, March 2010) indicate that the estimated range of sustainable yield for the Summary of Resource

modeled portions of the regional aquifer(s) is Assessment Results

greater than the forecasted demands.

Therefore, at this time no groundwater Management Practices should be

resource shortfalls are expected to occur in the developed and implemented to

Altamaha Region over the planning horizon. address water resource shortfalls as

However, localized issues could arise in areas determined by the three Resource

where there is a high well density and/or high Assessments.

volumes of groundwater withdrawal.

Groundwater: Overall, results

Surface Water Availability

indicate that the estimated range of

Surface water is also an important resource used to meet current and forecasted future needs of the Altamaha Region. In order to

sustainable yield for the modeled portions of the regional aquifer(s) is greater than the forecasted demands.

analyze whether there is sufficient surface water to meet both off-stream uses of water and instream flow needs while meeting flow thresholds, a Surface Water Availability Resource Assessment model was developed and used in the state water planning process.

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.
The results of the future conditions modeling

from the Surface Water Availability Resource Assessment (EPD, May 2017) 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 off-stream uses of water results in projected impacts to instream flow thresholds (referred to as a potential "gap"). Table ES-1 summarizes the locations in or near

Surface Water Quality: There are two river reaches within the Ogeechee River Basin, four river reaches within the Altamaha River Basin, two river reaches in the Ocmulgee River Basin, two river reaches in the Oconee, and two river reaches in the Suwannee that may exceed assimilative capacity.

the region where there is a forecasted gap

between available surface water resources and

ES-6

June 2017

ALTAMAHA

Executive Summary

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 surface water use type is agricultural. The projected increase of agricultural surface water use for the areas within the Altamaha Region that have current and/or future potential gaps is 1.1 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 potential gaps. As described below, management practices are recommended by the Altamaha Council to address potential surface water gaps.

Table ES-1: Summary of Modeled 2050 Potential Surface Water Gaps

Node

Duration of Gap (% of total days)

Average Flow Deficit

Long-term Average Flow

Atkinson

5

20 cfs / 13 MGD

2,236 cfs / 1,445 MGD

Claxton

15

5 cfs / 3 MGD

452 cfs / 292 MGD

Eden

3.3

24 cfs / 16 MGD

2,213 cfs / 1,430 MGD

Kings Ferry

3

37 cfs / 24 MGD

3,658 cfs / 2,364 MGD

Statenville

12

32 cfs / 21 MGD

1,058 cfs / 684 MGD

Source: Synopsis Report, Surface Water Availability Assessment, May 2017, EPD Note: Surface Water Availability modeling simulation period is from 1939 to 2013

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 Water Quality (Assimilative Capacity) Resource Assessment (EPD, May 2017), 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 pollutants 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-2 summarizes the results of the assimilative capacity assessment for dissolved oxygen at permitted conditions. Assimilative capacity assessments indicate the potential need for improved wastewater treatment in some facilities within the Ogeechee, Altamaha, Ocmulgee, and Oconee River Basins.

ALTAMAHA

June 2017

ES-7

Executive Summary

Table ES-2: Permitted Assimilative Capacity for DO in Altamaha Planning Council

Available Assimilative Capacity (Total Mileage)

Basin

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)

Unmodeled

Modeled Miles in Council

Altamaha

152

57

44

86

46

0

385

Ocmulgee 120

81

54

22

29

0

306

Oconee

15

11

1

28

25

0

80

Ogeechee

19

69

65

15

10

4

182

Suwannee

0

1

0

<1

9

0

11

Source: GIS Files from the Updated Permitted Water Quality Resource Assessment; EPD, January 2017

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 74 impaired stream reaches (total impaired length of 755 miles) and 2 impaired lakes (total impaired area of 390 acres). Total maximum daily loads have been completed for 69 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 the Resource Assessments and the 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 potential gaps may

ES-8

June 2017

ALTAMAHA

Executive Summary

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-3 and ES-4.
The Altamaha Council believes the Regional Water Plan should continue to be reviewed in defined increments in the future, such as every 5 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 addressed 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.

Table ES-3: 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-4: 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

June 2017

ES-9

ALTAMAHA

Executive Summary
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, and 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-6. 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.
Figure ES-6: 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.

ES-10

June 2017

ALTAMAHA

Executive Summary
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 Regional Water Plan. The benchmarks are discussed in Section 8 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 revisions to the Plan.

ALTAMAHA

June 2017

ES-11

1. INTRODUCTION

1. Introduction

Section 1. Introduction

The Altamaha Council intends for this Regional Water Plan to be a working document, and work

Summary

on this document is part of the continual planning

process.

The Altamaha Regional

Georgia is one of the fastest growing states in the nation. Couple that with recent unprecedented drought, increased competition for water supplies, and changing perspectives on how we use and value water. Based on these factors, we recognize the challenges of managing our valuable water resources. In response to these challenges, a State Water Council was formed to develop a state-wide

Water Planning Council, established in February 2009 under the State Water Plan, has adopted a Vision and Goals for prioritizing water resource use and management within the region.

water planning process.

These guiding principles

The water planning processes began in 2008, when the State Water Council submitted the Georgia Comprehensive State-wide Water Plan (State Water Plan) to the Georgia General Assembly and the statewide water planning process was approved. The purpose of the State Water Plan is to guide Georgia

were used to identify and select water management practices that best address the needs and resource conditions of the Altamaha Region.

in managing water resources in a sustainable manner

to support the State's economy, protect public health

and natural systems, and enhance the quality of life

for all our citizens. The State Water Plan identifies state-wide policies, provides

planning guidance, and establishes a planning process for completion of Regional

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

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

completion of the 2011 Regional Water Plan and they have now produced this

update. The Altamaha Council is composed of membership based on a nomination

and appointment process by the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Speaker of the

House.

The Altamaha Regional Water Plan was first completed and adopted in 2011. During the 20162017 plan update process, this document was updated from the original 2011 Regional Water Plan for the Altamaha Region based on updated regional water demand forecasts, updated resource assessment modeling, and the evaluation of future gaps in water availability and water quality. This updated plan also includes the revised management practices recommended by the Altamaha Council to either address future water resource management needs or to refine or clarify management practices. A table is provided in Appendix A that identifies the portions of the plan that have been updated and provides a short explanation for why the update was made (for instance, a change in circumstance in the region, or an update to the technical work such as updated projections or forecast).

June 2017

1-1

ALTAMAHA

1. Introduction

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.

Figure 1-1: Regional Water Planning Councils

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

This Regional Water Plan prepared and updated 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 35 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. The original (2011) Regional Water Plan was 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

1-2

June 2017

ALTAMAHA

1. Introduction
Plan (PIP), the process required and benefited from input of other regional water planning councils, local governments, and the public. For this plan update, a similar approach was followed, including a review of the original vision and goals, updates to the water and wastewater demands, updates to the resource assessments, and a reevaluation of future gaps. Public/local government input and coordination with other regional water planning councils also informed the plan update.
Figure 1-2: State Water Planning Process

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 23 members, which includes 3 alternates and 2 ExOfficio Members. Figure 1-3 provides an overview of the Altamaha Region and the residential locations of the Altamaha Council members.
To develop the 2011 Regional Water Plan, the Altamaha Council met collectively for the first time on March 13, 2009 at a kickoff meeting for the 10 regional water planning councils. The meeting

June 2017

1-3

ALTAMAHA

1. Introduction
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. As part of this update, the Altamaha Council met over a series of meetings in 2016 and 2017 to revise and update each of the sections of the plan, as appropriate.
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 Council's website.
In support of the Memorandum of Agreement, the Altamaha Council formed six subcommittees to provide planning guidance during various development stages of the development of the 2011 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 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).

ALTAMAHA

1-4

June 2017

1. Introduction

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 groundwater 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 1. Manage and develop water resources to sustainably and reliably meet domestic, commercial, agricultural, and industrial water needs.
2. Manage groundwater and surface water to encourage sustainable economic and population growth in the region.
3. Identify opportunities to minimize excessive regulations and the resulting negative economic impacts (especially in rural areas); while maintaining quality and quantity of water supply.
Quality of Life and Public Health Enhancement 1. 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.
2. Optimize existing water and wastewater infrastructure, including identifying opportunities to implement regional water and wastewater facilities.
3. 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.
4. 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 the Council's website.
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

June 2017

1-5

ALTAMAHA

1. Introduction
Council developed a Public Involvement Plan to help guide and implement an inclusive planning process. The Public Involvement Plan was adopted by the Altamaha Council on November 19, 2009 and can be accessed at the Council's website.
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 the Council's website.

ALTAMAHA

1-6

June 2017

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 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

June 2017

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 2015 forecasted groundwater withdrawal data, approximately 96% 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, Dublin and Brunswick 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 the historical average for the region is 0.1 inches near the coast to 0.3 inches further inland.

ALTAMAHA

2-2

June 2017

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 2015 population of approximately 256,305 (Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, 2015). 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 two colleges within the Technical College System of Georgia: Coastal Pines Technical College in Jesup and Southeastern Technical College (Vidalia and Swainsboro campuses). The region also includes East Georgia State College in Swainsboro, which is part of the University System of Georgia, as well as Middle Georgia State University in Eastman and Brewton-Parker College in Mount Vernon. 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 2008 land cover distribution is shown in Figure 2-3, based on data

obtained from the University of Georgia Natural Resources Spatial Analysis. Forests

cover 45% of the Altamaha Region, and agriculture and wetlands cover 24% and

18% of the region,

respectively. The term

wetland refers to land cover

and does not infer a

regulatory

determination.

Urban development accounts

for only 6% of the land cover

within the Altamaha Region.

The remaining land cover

(7%) consists of water and

open spaces. Based on the

inventory of Georgia's

irrigated cropland developed

as part of the agricultural

demand assessment in 2016,

peanut, corn and cotton

account for the majority of

crops irrigated in the

Altamaha Region. These

crops cover nearly 69% of the

irrigated acreage within the

region. Fresh vegetables and

ALTAMAHA

June 2017

2-3

2. The Altamaha Water Planning Region
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 completed their Regional Plan in 2013.

ALTAMAHA

2-4

June 2017

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 2016 USGS report "Water Use in Georgia by County for 2010; and Water-Use Trends, 1985-2010", water supply in the Altamaha Region for 2010 totaled approximately 203 million gallons per day (MGD) and was comprised of 61% groundwater and 39% surface water, as shown in Figure 3-1. Approximately 79 MGD were 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 124 MGD of groundwater withdrawn were predominantly used to supply industrial (49%) and agricultural uses (30%) while municipal, self-supply, and energy made up the remaining uses. Wastewater treatment types in the region are shown in Figure 3-4. Approximately 108 MGD of surface water were returned; 52% from industries and 48% from municipal sources.
3.2 Current Conditions Resource Assessments
EPD developed three Resource Assessments to evaluate surface water quality, surface water availability, and groundwater availability throughout the State. These assessments analyzed the capacity of water resources to meet demands for water supply and wastewater discharge without causing unacceptable local or regional impacts according to metrics established by EPD. These assessments were completed on a resource basis (river basins and aquifers). The results of the updated Resource Assessments (EPD) under current conditions are summarized herein as they relate to the Altamaha 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 causing unacceptable impacts.

Summary
In 2010, surface water and groundwater withdrawal in the Altamaha Region totaled approximately 203 MGD to accommodate municipal, industrial, agricultural, and energy demands. Groundwater supplies are currently sufficient on a regional basis to meet uses across the region.
The availability of surface water to meet current uses varies significantly across the region, but in the majority 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.
Under current conditions, there are several locations in the region where dissolved oxygen levels may be insufficient to assimilate wastewater discharges. The majority of wastewater in the region is disposed of as a point source discharge from municipal, industrial, and energy uses.
Water quality in several river reaches and water bodies does not meet the designated use for the resource. The majority of these occurrences are associated with low dissolved oxygen and fecal coliform.

ALTAMAHA

June 2017

3-1

3. Water Resources of the Altamaha Region

3.2.1. Current Surface Water Quality (Assimilative Capacity)
The Water Quality (Assimilative Capacity) Resource Assessment (EPD, 2017) 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 harming aquatic life or humans who come in contact with the water. A water body can be overloaded and violations of water quality standards may

ALTAMAHA

3-2

June 2017

3. Water Resources of the Altamaha Region

result. Water quality standards define the uses of a water body and set pollutant limits to protect those uses. The Water Quality (Assimilative Capacity) Resource Assessment evaluated the capacity of surface waters to process pollutants without violating water quality standards. 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 withdrawals, land use, and meteorological conditions.

Figure 3-5: Assimilative Capacity Models

Assimilative Capacity (Dissolved Oxygen)

Modeling

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 Figure 3-5, DO modeling was performed by EPD for each reach that has upstream wastewater dischargers (light blue segments and orange segments). The current conditions assimilative capacity analysis incorporated municipal and industrial wastewater facilities operating at their full permitted discharge levels (flow and effluent discharge limits as of 2014).1 Based on the results, each segment was classified as exceeding DO capacity, meeting DO capacity, or having available DO capacity. The results of the current permitted conditions DO modeling are presented in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-6 for the Altamaha Region, which includes portions of the Altamaha, Oconee, Ocmulgee, Ogeechee, and Suwannee river basins.

Segments with exceeded assimilative capacity may result from a number of factors including: point and/or non-point sources of pollutants; modeling assumptions regarding wastewater discharge, stream flow and temperature; and naturally low DO conditions in the receiving stream. When model results show DO assimilative capacity as exceeded, a potential "gap" exists between the amount of pollutants

1 Since 2014, updated effluent discharge limits were issued to one of the major wastewater discharge facilities in the region (Rayonier Advanced Materials, Wayne County). The updated effluent discharge limits are incorporated into the future conditions DO assimilative capacity analysis (see Section 5.3 and Figure 5-4).

June 2017

3-3

ALTAMAHA

3. Water Resources of the Altamaha Region

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.

Table 3-1: Current (Permitted) Conditions DO Assimilative Capacity in Altamaha Region

Basin

Available Assimilative Capacity (Total Mileage)

Total

River

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)

Unmodeled

Miles in the
Council Area

Altamaha

152

57

44

86

46

0

385

Ocmulgee

120

81

54

22

29

0

306

Oconee

15

11

1

28

25

0

80

Ogeechee

19

69

65

15

10

4

182

Suwannee

0

1

0

<1

9

0

11

Source: GIS Files from the Updated Permitted Water Quality Resource Assessment; EPD, January 2017

The current permitted conditions DO modeling incorporated municipal and industrial wastewater dischargers operating at their full permitted flow and effluent limits. EPD also provided the Council with the results of current conditions DO modeling analysis in the Altamaha basin that incorporated actual wastewater discharge levels (flow and effluent) from 2014. The results of that analysis are shown in Figure 3-7.
Nutrient Modeling
In addition to Assimilative Capacity modeling for DO, EPD completed nutrient (total nitrogen and total phosphorus) modeling. The location of the watershed model boundaries, and lakes, harbors and estuaries model locations are shown in Figure 35. There are currently no nutrient standards for total nitrogen and total phosphorus, but these standards may be developed within this region following a public stakeholder process. 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

June 2017

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

June 2017

Legend Avalable Assimilative Capacity
Very Good 1 mg/L DO available Good 0.5 mg/L to < 1 mg/L DO available Moderate 0.2 mg/L to < 0.5 mg/L DO available Limited >0 mg/L to <0.2 mg/L DO available At Assimilative Capacity 0 mg/L DO available None or Exceeded < 0.0 mg/L DO available Unmodeled Lakes and Streams
3-5

ALTAMAHA

3. Water Resources of the Altamaha Region
Figure 3-7: Results of Assimilative Capacity Assessment DO at Current (2014 Discharge) Conditions in the Altamaha Basin

Legend Avalable Assimilative Capacity
Very Good 1 mg/L DO available Good 0.5 mg/L to < 1 mg/L DO available Moderate 0.2 mg/L to < 0.5 mg/L DO available Limited >0 mg/L to <0.2 mg/L DO available At Assimilative Capacity 0 mg/L DO available None or Exceeded < 0.0 mg/L DO available Unmodeled Lakes and Streams
3.2.2. 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.

ALTAMAHA

3-6

June 2017

3. Water Resources of the Altamaha Region

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 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 are 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 estuary itself. Sources of freshwater for estuaries include: fresh water river discharges, industrial and municipal discharges of

ALTAMAHA

June 2017

3-7

3. Water Resources of the Altamaha Region
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 was removed, the diversity would change immensely from what is found today. Maintaining fresh water 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 74 impaired stream reaches (total impaired length of 755 miles) and 2 impaired lakes (total impaired area of 390 acres).
Of the impaired reaches in the region (note that a reach may be impaired for more than one parameter):
30% are impaired for low dissolved oxygen
40% are impaired for fecal coliform
17% are impaired for Biological (Fish Community)
10% are impaired for trophic-weighted residual mercury in fish tissue
2% are impaired for lead
1% 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 69 of the impaired stream reaches and 2 of the impaired lakes, as shown in Figure 3-8. A full list of impaired waters can be found on the EPD website, http://epd.georgia.gov/georgia-305b303d-listdocuments. This list is updated every 2 years by EPD; the above information is based upon the 2014 list.

ALTAMAHA

3-8

June 2017

3. Water Resources of the Altamaha Region
Figure 3-8: Impaired Water Bodies with Completed TMDLs

ALTAMAHA

June 2017

3-9

3. Water Resources of the Altamaha Region

3.2.3 Surface Water Availability

The Surface Water Availability Resource Assessment (EPD, May 2017) estimates the availability of surface water to meet

Figure 3-9: Surface Water Planning Nodes

current and future municipal, industrial,

agricultural, and thermal power water

needs as well as the needs of instream

and downstream users. The assessment

evaluated the impact of water

consumption (withdrawals from a water

body that are not returned to that water

body) on stream flows at certain

locations in each river basin. Modeled

stream flows were compared with a flow

regime based on low flow thresholds

(from state policy) selected as indicators

of the potential for water consumption to

impact instream uses such as fishing,

boating, and aquatic life habitat. The

modeled flow was compared with the

flow regime; where the modeled stream

flow was less than the flow regime, a

potential "gap" was identified. The

potential gaps were analyzed in terms of both magnitude (i.e., the amount by which

the modeled stream flow fell below the flow regime) and duration (i.e., the number of

days the stream flow fell below the flow regime). As shown in Figure 3-9, there are

several surface water planning nodes (shown as yellow circles with red triangles)

located in 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 2013. At these nodes, during certain low flow periods, the

model estimates that current off-stream demands cannot be met without causing

stream flows to fall below the flow regime.

Surface water is an important resource used to meet current and future needs in the region, especially for the agricultural and energy sectors. Between 2015 and 2050, the use of surface water for agricultural purposes is expected to increase by 4.3 MGD from 36.4 MGD to 40.7 MGD (Altamaha Water and Wastewater Forecasting Technical Memorandum; CDM Smith, 2017). The only planning node within the region with a potential surface water gap is the Claxton node (Canoochee River). However, there are potential surface water gaps outside the region that may be associated with water use within the region.

Modeling of current conditions indicates potential surface water gaps at the Atkinson node in the Satilla River Basin. Surface water uses in three counties (Appling, Jeff

ALTAMAHA

3-10

June 2017

3. Water Resources of the Altamaha Region

Davis, and Wayne) contribute to surface water runoff to the Satilla River. In the Ogeechee River Basin, there are also potential surface water gaps at the Eden and Kings Ferry nodes. The Kings Ferry node is below the confluence of the Canoochee and Ogeechee Rivers. There is a very small portion of Tattnall County as well as portions of Candler, Emanuel and Evans counties that contribute surface water runoff to the Kings Ferry node. The northern portion of Emanuel County contributes surface water runoff to the Eden node. Finally, there is a potential 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 were no potential surface water gaps identified at the Doctortown (Altamaha River), Lumber City (Ocmulgee River), and Mount Vernon (Oconee River) nodes. More detailed information about potential gaps at these nodes under future conditions is included in Section 5.
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) as the low flow thresholds to determine the flow regime. It is important to note that when a potential surface water gap exists, management practices are needed to address times when off-stream uses increase the severity and/or frequency of 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 or drought conditions. The results of the current conditions potential gaps are shown in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2: Summary of Modeled Current Conditions Surface Water Gaps

Node

Duration of Gap (%
of total days)

Average Flow Deficit

Long-term

Maximum Corresponding

Average Flow 1-Day Gap Flow Regime

Atkinson

24 cfs

2,208 cfs

69 cfs

188 cfs

10

(16 MGD)

(1,427 MGD)

(45 MGD)

(76 MGD)

Claxton

6 cfs

448 cfs

16 cfs

16 cfs

21

(4 MGD)

(290 MGD)

(10 MGD)

(10 MGD)

Eden

6

16 cfs

2,207 cfs

35 cfs

139 cfs

(10 MGD)

(1,426 MGD)

(23 MGD)

(90 MGD)

Kings Ferry

6

35 cfs

3,634 cfs

81 cfs

422 cfs

(23 MGD)

(2,349 MGD)

(52 MGD)

(273 MGD)

Statenville

26 cfs

1,047 cfs

89 cfs

100 cfs

17

(17 MGD)

(677 MGD)

(58 MGD)

(65 MGD)

Source: Surface Water Availability Resource Assessment, May 2017, EPD Note: Surface Water Availability modeling simulation period is from 1939 to 2013

ALTAMAHA

June 2017

3-11

3. Water Resources of the Altamaha Region

3.2.4 Groundwater Availability
The Groundwater Availability Resource Assessment (EPD) evaluates the amount of water that can be withdrawn from the modeled area of a prioritized aquifer without reaching specific thresholds of local or regional impacts. Indicators of impacts included declines in groundwater levels that may affect neighboring wells (drawdown) and reductions in the amount of groundwater that seeps into streams and thereby contributes to stream flows. The assessment estimates a range of yield that can be withdrawn from an aquifer before specific impacts become evident. The results reflect modeled aquifer responses to specific baseline conditions and specific pumping scenarios.

EPD prioritized the aquifers based on the characteristics of the aquifer, evidence of negative effects, anticipated negative impacts, and other considerations. If negative impacts occur or are expected to occur, then a groundwater "gap" exists.

Groundwater from the Floridan aquifer is a vital resource for the Altamaha Region. In

2010, groundwater was relied upon to meet about 61% of the water use in the region

(USGS, 2016). Overall, the results from the Groundwater Availability Resource Assessment indicate that on a regional

Figure 3-10: Sub-regions Associated with the Coastal Permitting Plan

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

Groundwater Availability Resource

Assessment.

As shown in Figure 3-10, 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 Floridan aquifer in this area; however, there are several water conservation requirements related to groundwater withdrawals.

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

ALTAMAHA

3-12

June 2017

4. FORECASTING FUTURE WATER RESOURCE NEEDS

4. Forecasting Future Water Resource 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 35 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 2015 through 2050 for by 11%, increasing the

four water use sectors: municipal, industrial, agriculture, demands for surface water

and thermoelectric generation.

and groundwater and

increasing the quantity of

The methodology to forecast water and wastewater wastewater generated.

demands is based primarily on the assumption that

there will be a continuation of existing trends and Total water withdrawals by

practices. It does not make a determination regarding municipal, industrial,

the efficiency or inefficiency of forecasted demands, agricultural, and energy

only that they are expected to occur given current sectors are projected to

trends. Initial forecasting does not take into account increase by 13% (33 MGD)

management practices, including water conservation from 2015 to 2050.

(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 water conservation and other management practices).

Total wastewater flows are projected to increase by 10% (10 MGD) over the same period.

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

June 2017

4-1

4. Forecasting Future Water Resource 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

2015

2020

2030

2040

Appling

18,693 19,311 20,429 21,341

Bleckley

12,817 12,894 13,073 13,462

Candler

11,039 11,290 11,710 11,864

Dodge

21,257 21,303 21,137 20,861

Emanuel

23,245 24,153 25,716 26,968

Evans

10,930 11,166 11,627 12,043

Jeff Davis

15,201 15,675 16,445 16,891

Johnson

9,748 9,710 9,600 9,305

Montgomery 9,023 9,019 8,973 8,853

Tattnall

25,896 26,787 28,351 29,933

Telfair

16,497 16,255 15,695 15,001

Toombs

27,723 28,802 30,555 31,673

Treutlen

6,728 6,762 6,779 6,593

Wayne

30,535 31,643 33,504 34,779

Wheeler

8,050 8,414 9,182 9,932

Wilcox

8,923 8,842 8,712 8,568

Total Altamaha Region

256,305 262,028 271,485 278,067

Source: Georgia Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, 2015.

2050
22,405 13,823 11,931 20,730 28,161 12,557 17,229 9,072 8,774 31,940 14,469 32,497 6,330 35,917 10,863 8,549
285,248

Difference % Increase (2015-2050) (20152050)

3,712

20%

1,006

8%

892

8%

-527

-2%

4,916

21%

1,627

15%

2,028

13%

-676

-7%

-249

-3%

6,044

23%

-2,028

-12%

4,774

17%

-398

-6%

5,382

18%

2,813

35%

-374

-4%

28,943

11%

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).

ALTAMAHA

4-2

June 2017

4. Forecasting Future Water Resource Needs
To support this Plan update, EPD reviewed withdrawal data and the estimated population served reported by permitted municipal water systems from the years 2010 through 2014. Based on the trends observed from those data, an adjustment factor for each County was developed and applied to the gallons per capita per day values used in 2010 for public-supplied municipal demand. The self-supplied per capita values remained unchanged.
The forecasted water use rates for the Altamaha Region were also adjusted based on two plumbing code changes that mandate new water saving lavatory fixtures. The 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 Smith, 2017).
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.

ALTAMAHA

June 2017

4-3

4. Forecasting Future Water Resource 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).
In 2010, estimates of wastewater generated from publicly-supplied and self-supplied water use 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 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.
Wastewater effluent flow from centralized treatment facilities is either discharged as a point source to a receiving water body or delivered to an LAS. 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.
For this Plan update, the percent of county total wastewater flow that is septic was retained, with the septic flow forecast adjusted based on the percent change in county population between the prior (2010) and updated (2015) OPB population projections. Centralized wastewater flows from 2014, including point discharges and LAS, were analyzed. The sum of the 2014 point discharges per county was adjusted based on any adjustment in the ratio of septic/centralized treatment over time as well as the population projections. Similarly, the sum of 2014 LAS flows by county was adjusted based on the ratio of septic/centralized treatment over time and the population projections. Municipal wastewater forecasts are shown in Figure 4-2.

ALTAMAHA

4-4

June 2017

4. Forecasting Future Water Resource 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 industryspecific 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 planning period, while employment projections in the food manufacturing sector are maintained relatively constant.
Industrial Water Forecasts Industrial water forecasts were not updated as part of this Plan update and were originally 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 not updated as part of this Plan update and were originally 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

June 2017

4-5

4. Forecasting Future Water Resource Needs

4.3. Agricultural Forecasts
The agricultural water use forecasts include irrigation demands for both crop and noncrop uses (i.e., livestock, nurseries, and golf courses). The crop forecasts, developed by the Georgia Water Planning & Policy Center at Albany State University (GWPPC), with support from the University of Georgia's (UGA) College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences for 2015 through 2050, provide a range of irrigation water use from dry to wet climate conditions based on the acres irrigated for each crop. Table 42 lists a drier-than-normal year crop irrigation forecast for each county.
Non-crop (including non-permitted) agricultural water demands were identified 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 4-2. For golf courses and livestock production, current water forecasts were developed, but future forecasts were not developed due to lack of available data. Current water demands were held constant throughout the planning period for these water use sectors.

ALTAMAHA

4-6

June 2017

4. Forecasting Future Water Resource Needs

Figure 4-4 shows the regional agricultural demands by source of supply. A 13% increase in agricultural water demand is projected by 2050 for the Altamaha Region. The largest increase in forecasted demand occurs in Montgomery County, with a 29% increase by 2050. Candler, Appling, and Tattnall Counties have the next largest forecasted demand increases at 25%, 23% and 21%, respectively. All other counties in the region are forecasted to have increases of less than 20% through 2050, with Treutlen and Johnson Counties having the smallest increases at 1% and -3%, respectively. As shown in Figure 4-4, the majority of the agricultural withdrawals (over 70%) are supplied by groundwater and the remainder by surface water.
Table 4-2: Agricultural Water Forecast by County (in AAD-MGD)

County Appling

2015 6.5

2020 6.7

2030 7.2

2040 7.6

2050 8.0

% Change
23%

Bleckley

12.5

12.6

12.9

13.0

13.1

5%

Candler

5.2

5.4

5.8

6.1

6.4

25%

Dodge

12.6

12.9

13.4

13.7

14.0

11%

Emanuel

4.7

4.7

4.9

5.0

5.1

9%

Evans

5.2

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

12%

Jeff Davis

6.6

6.6

6.7

6.7

6.7

2%

Johnson

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.2

3.2

-3%

Montgomery

4.2

4.4

4.7

5.1

5.4

29%

Tattnall

16.5

17.1

18.1

19.0

20.0

21%

Telfair

10.6

10.9

11.5

12.0

12.4

17%

Toombs

11.6

11.8

12.1

12.4

12.7

10%

Treutlen

1.8

1.9

1.9

1.9

1.9

1%

Wayne

3.6

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.8

8%

Wheeler

3.5

3.6

3.6

3.7

3.7

5%

Wilcox

18.6

18.9

19.7

20.3

20.9

12%

Total

126.7

129.6

134.9

138.9

142.9

13%

Source: Altamaha Water and Wastewater Forecasting Technical Memorandum (2017) Note: Crop demands represent dry year conditions, in which 75% of years had more rainfall and 25% of years had less.

Agricultural withdrawals (crop and non-crop) are supplied by groundwater and surface water.

AAD-MGD: average annual demand represented as million gallons per day

ALTAMAHA

June 2017

4-7

4. Forecasting Future Water Resource Needs

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.
Thermoelectric water demands for the Altamaha Region are shown in Table 4-3. The forecast analysis covers both water withdrawal requirements and water consumption associated with energy generation. Information related to water withdrawals is an important consideration in planning for the water needed for energy production. However, water consumption is the more important element when assessing future resources because a large volume of water is typically returned to the environment following the energy production process. The only current or planned facility that is explicitly part of the analysis in the Altamaha Region is the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Power Plant.
Within the previous statewide analysis, the generating capacity of the existing and planned facilities was not able to meet the projected statewide power needs through 2050 and additional generating capacity was assumed to be developed beyond 2020. The Altamaha Region had assumed a portion of this future generation could occur in their region. In the updated analysis, additional generating capacity may be needed to meet the statewide power need estimate. However, the water requirements associated with the potential new capacity are minimal; less than 20 MGD withdrawals and less than 10 MGD consumption, statewide. Thus, no future water demands for currently unassigned power generation facilities have been added to the estimates for the Altamaha Region.

ALTAMAHA

4-8

June 2017

4. Forecasting Future Water Resource Needs

Table 4-3: Regional Thermoelectric Water Forecasts (in AAD-MGD)

Category

2015 2020 2030 2040

Existing and Planned Facilities' Withdrawals

54

Existing and Planned Facilities' Consumption

35

54

55

60

34

35

39

Source: Memorandum: Update of GA Energy Needs & Generating Facilities (2016) AAD-MGD: average annual demand represented as million gallons per day

2050 68 44

4.5. Total Water Demand Forecasts
Total water demand forecasts for the years 2015-2050 for the Altamaha Region are summarized in Figure 4-5. This figure presents the forecasts for municipal, industrial, agricultural, and thermoelectric power. Overall, the water demands in the region are expected to grow by 13% (33 MGD) from 2015 through 2050.
Figure 4-6 summarizes total wastewater forecasts from 2015 through 2050 for the Altamaha Region. This figure presents the forecasts by the anticipated disposal system type: point discharge, LAS, or discharge into a septic system. Overall, wastewater flows in the region are expected to grow by 10% (10 MGD) from 2015 through 2050.

ALTAMAHA

June 2017

4-9

4. Forecasting Future Water Resource Needs

ALTAMAHA

4-10

June 2017

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 estimated 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.
5.1. Groundwater Availability Comparisons
Groundwater from the 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 estimated range of sustainable yield for the modeled portions of the regional aquifer(s) is greater than the updated forecasted demands (see Figure 5-1).
At this time, no regional groundwater resource gaps are expected to occur in the Altamaha Region over the planning horizon. However, localized gaps could occur if well densities and/or withdrawal rates result in exceedance of sustainable yield metrics. In addition, some counties including Emanuel, Evans, Jeff Davis, and Wheeler Counties may need additional permitted capacity if future demand for groundwater exceeds permitted 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.

Summary
Over the next 35 years, forecasted surface water demand within the Altamaha Region is projected to exceed the available resource in the Canoochee River at the Claxton planning node based on modeling analysis. Increased demand in the region may also add to modeled surface water gaps downstream of the region on the Ogeechee River at the Kings Ferry, Eden planning nodes, the Satilla River at the 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 planning horizon.
Assimilative capacity assessments indicate the need for improved wastewater treatment in some facilities within the Altamaha, Ocmulgee, Ogeechee, and Suwannee river basins.
Addressing non-point sources of pollution and existing water quality impairments will be a part of addressing the region's future needs.

ALTAMAHA

June 2017

5-1

5. Comparison of Available Resource Capacity and Future Needs
Local water providers in counties with large demand forecasts should review their permitting needs.
Figure 5-1: Floridan Aquifer Demand vs. Estimated Yield
Sources: Groundwater Availability Assessment, January 2011, EPD Altamaha Water and Wastewater Forecasting Technical Memorandum, 2017, CDM Smith. Other regions utilizing portions of the modeled Floridan aquifer to meet demand include: Coastal Georgia, Middle Ocmulgee, Suwannee-Satilla, Savannah-Upper Ogeechee, Upper Oconee, Lower Flint-Ochlockonee, and Upper Flint.

ALTAMAHA

5-2

June 2017

5. Comparison of Available Resource Capacity and Future Needs

Table 5-1: 2050 Municipal Forecast versus Groundwater Permitted Capacity

County

2015 Public Demand Forecast
(AAD MGD)

2050 Public Demand Forecast
(AAD MGD)

Existing Permitted Capacity
(AAD MGD)

Additional Permitted Capacity
Needed in 2050 (AAD MGD)*

Appling

0.93

1.04

1.40

-

Bleckley

0.64

0.64

2.15

-

Candler

0.47

0.46

0.90

-

Dodge

1.40

1.29

3.05

-

Emanuel

2.03

2.31

1.95

0.36

Evans

0.52

0.54

0.50

0.04

Jeff Davis

1.40

1.51

0.85

0.66

Johnson

0.50

0.43

0.85

-

Montgomery

0.62

0.55

0.80

-

Tattnall

1.23

1.39

3.37

-

Telfair

1.59

1.30

2.03

-

Toombs

2.70

2.96

5.00

-

Treutlen

0.40

0.35

0.65

-

Wayne

2.15

2.40

2.63

-

Wheeler

0.38

0.48

0.40

0.08

Wilcox

0.67

0.60

0.91

-

*Analysis does not account for demands in one county that may be met by permits from another county. Values provided are average annual demands in millions of gallons per day (AAD-MGD)

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 updated Surface Water Availability Resource Assessment (EPD, 2017), the basic conclusions of the future conditions modeling show potential surface water gaps (i.e., times when there is insufficient water to meet off-stream demands and also meet the targets for support of instream uses based on the modeling analysis) at the following nodes: 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). The location of these planning nodes and the portion of the Altamaha Region that is within the local drainage area (LDA) are shown in Figure 5-2. A summary of the modeled potential surface water gaps in 2050 is provided in Table 5-2. The darker shading within the Altamaha region indicate the areas that drain to a planning node with potential surface water gaps.

June 2017

5-3

ALTAMAHA

5. Comparison of Available Resource Capacity and Future Needs
Figure 5-2: 2050 Potential Surface Water Gap Summary

ALTAMAHA

5-4

June 2017

5. Comparison of Available Resource Capacity and Future Needs

Table 5-2: Summary of Modeled 2050 Potential Surface Water Gaps

Node

Duration of Gap (%
of total days)

Average Flow Deficit

Long-term Average Flow

Maximum Corresponding 1-Day Gap Flow Regime

Atkinson

5

20 cfs

2,236 cfs

42 cfs

85 cfs

(13 MGD)

(1,445 MGD) (27 MGD)

(55 MGD)

Claxton

15

5 cfs

452 cfs

15 cfs

15 cfs

(3 MGD)

(292 MGD) (10 MGD)

(10 MGD)

Eden

3.3

24 cfs

2,213 cfs

47 cfs

102 cfs

(16 MGD)

(1,430 MGD) (30 MGD)

(66 MGD)

Kings Ferry

3

37 cfs (24 MGD)

3,658 cfs (2,364 MGD)

80 cfs (52 MGD)

247 cfs (160 MGD)

Statenville

12

32 cfs

1,058 cfs

77 cfs

77 cfs

(21 MGD)

(684 MGD) (50 MGD)

(50 MGD)

Source: Surface Water Availability Resource Assessment, May 2017, EPD Note: Surface Water Availability modeling simulation period is from 1939 to 2013

When assessing this issue, the Altamaha Council recognized that modeled 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 not likely to experience any potential gaps to instream needs. In dry years, the potential gaps are likely to be more severe. In order to better assess these potential gaps and to better understand the types of management practices that may be required, a more detailed quantification of the frequency and severity of modeled potential surface water gaps was completed.
The quantification and frequency of potential gaps 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 should 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 that may be needed because stream flow needs can then be addressed by controlling the rate of flow released from the reservoir. In addition, since the largest potential gaps occur less frequently, there are important costbenefit considerations associated with addressing the largest and more infrequent potential gaps. The quantification and frequency of the modeled potential gaps are provided in Table 5-3. It is important to note that the majority of the modeled potential gaps were shorter in duration (1 to 7 day and 8 to 14 day potential gaps events). The more infrequent and severe gaps are indicative of drought conditions and will most likely be addressed through drought management measures implemented by EPD and users in the region.

ALTAMAHA

June 2017

5-5

5. Comparison of Available Resource Capacity and Future Needs

Table 5-3: Characteristics of Modeled 2050 Potential Surface Water Gaps

Gap Event Duration

Number of Gap Events (% of Total Gap Events)1

Total Gap Days (% of Total Days)2

Average Daily Flow Deficit per
Event

Average Cumulative Flow Deficit per Event

Atkinson Node

1-7 days

43 (51.2%)

146

(0.5%)

9 cfs (6 MGD)

35 cfsd (23 MG)

8-14 days 11 (13.1%)

109

(0.4%) 16 cfs (10 MGD) 158 cfsd (103 MG)

15-30 days 17 (20.2%)

403

(1.5%) 21 cfs (14 MGD) 498 cfsd (324 MG)

>30 days 13 (15.5%)

608

(2.2%) 22 cfs (14 MGD) 1,031 cfsd (670 MG)

Totals

84 (100.0%) 1266 (4.6%)

Claxton Node

1-7 days 139 (51.7%)

482

(1.8%)

3 cfs (2 MGD)

13 cfsd (8 MG)

8-14 days 55 (20.4%)

598

(2.2%)

5 cfs (3 MGD)

56 cfsd (36 MG)

15-30 days 39 (14.5%)

851

(3.1%)

6 cfs (4 MGD)

123 cfsd (80 MG)

>30 days 36 (13.4%) 2181 (8.0%)

6 cfs (4 MGD)

335 cfsd (218 MG)

Totals

269 (100.0%) 4112 (15.0%)

Eden Node

1-7 days

44 (61.1%)

178

(0.6%) 11 cfs (7 MGD)

52 cfsd (34 MG)

8-14 days 12 (16.7%)

114

(0.4%) 15 cfs (10 MGD) 150 cfsd (98 MG)

15-30 days 10 (13.9%)

222

(0.8%) 29 cfs (19 MGD) 633 cfsd (411 MG)

>30 days

6

(8.3%)

388

(1.4%) 28 cfs (18 MGD) 1,795 cfsd (1,167 MG)

Totals

72 (100.0%) 902

(3.3%)

Kings Ferry Node

1-7 days

40 (58.0%)

137

(0.5%) 20 cfs (13 MGD)

82 cfsd (530MG)

8-14 days 9

(13.0%)

98

(0.4%) 41 cfs (27 MGD) 468 cfsd (302 MG)

15-30 days 13 (18.8%)

291

(1.1%) 57 cfs (37 MGD) 1,264 cfsd (817 MG)

>30 days

7

(10.1%)

413

(1.5%) 75 cfs (49 MGD) 4,363 cfsd (2,820 MG)

Totals

69 (100.0%) 939

(3.4%)

Statenville Node

1-7 days

91 (48.4%)

298

(1.1%)

9 cfs (6 MGD)

37 cfsd (24 MG)

8-14 days 37 (19.7%)

405

(1.5%) 21 cfs (14 MGD) 229 cfsd (149 MG)

15-30 days 27 (14.4%)

554

(2.0%) 26 cfs (17 MGD) 536 cfsd (348 MG)

>30 days 33 (17.6%) 2044 (7.5%) 38 cfs (25 MGD) 2,444 cfsd (1,589 MG)

Totals

188 (100.0%) 3301 (12.1%)

1 The total number of modeled gap events is presented for each duration range, as well as the percentage in that duration range to the total number of all modeled gap events.
2 The total number of days within the modeling period (1939-2013) in which a potential gap occurred is presented, as well as the percentage of that total to the total number of days analyzed in the modeling period.

ALTAMAHA

5-6

June 2017

5. Comparison of Available Resource Capacity and Future Needs

The projected increased use of surface water for the counties within the Altamaha Region that have potential current and future modeled gaps is shown in Table 5-4. Since there are current modeled 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 potential gaps.

Table 5-4: 2050 Increased Annual Average Surface Water Demand within Potential Gap Areas

County

Planning Node

Increase in Agricultural

with Potential Gap Demand by 20501 (MGD)

Increase in Agricultural Demand by 20501 (cfs)

Appling

Atkinson

0.10

0.16

Claxton

0.49

0.75

Candler

Kings Ferry

0.002

0.00

Claxton

0.07

0.10

Emanuel

Eden

0.01

0.01

Kings Ferry

0.01

0.01

Claxton

0.04

0.07

Evans

Kings Ferry

0.08

0.12

Jeff Davis

Atkinson

0.03

0.04

Claxton

0.09

0.13

Tattnall

Kings Ferry

0.08

0.12

Wayne

Atkinson

0.01

0.01

Wilcox

Statenville

0.12

1All surface water demands within the planning node drainage areas are agricultural.

0.19

5.3. Surface Water Quality Comparisons (Assimilative Capacity)
This Section summarizes the results of the Water Quality (Assimilative Capacity) 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 LAS that are permitted under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or state LAS permits. As

ALTAMAHA

June 2017

5-7

5. Comparison of Available Resource Capacity and Future Needs

shown in Table 5-5, no counties are projected to exceed their permitted capacity by 2050. It should be noted that the comparison in Table 5-5 was completed at the county level and localized shortages in treatment capacity may exist.

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

Point Source (PS)

Land Application Systems (LAS)

County

2050

Permitted 2050 Surplus

Forecast1 Capacity

or Gap (-)

2050 Forecast1

Permitted 2050 Surplus Capacity or Gap (-)

Appling

1.23

2.80

1.57

Bleckley

0.49

1.00

0.51

Candler

0

0

0

Dodge

0.64

1.80

1.16

Emanuel

2.87

3.01

0.14

Evans

0.05

0.52

0.47

Jeff Davis

0.84

1.50

0.66

Johnson

0.55

0.75

0.20

Montgomery

0.34

0.35

0.01

Tattnall

2.01

2.91

0.90

Telfair

0.55

1.30

0.75

Toombs

1.51

3.23

1.72

Treutlen

0.39

0.60

0.21

Wayne

2.36

2.50

0.14

Wheeler

0.59

1.04

0.45

Wilcox

0.20

0.67

0.47

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.60

1.00

0.40

0.32

0.50

0.18

0.29

1.00

0.71

0.05

0.22

0.17

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.03

0.15

0.12

0.31

0.74

0.43

0.70

1.80

1.10

1.48

1.80

0.32

0

0

0

0.14

0.18

0.04

0.09

0.21

0.13

0

0

0

Total

14.62

23.96

9.35

1 Includes industrial wastewater expected to be treated at municipal facilities.

4.00

7.59

3.59

Assimilative Capacity Assessments
The Water Quality (Assimilative Capacity) Resource Assessment drew upon water quality modeling tools to estimate the ability of streams and estuaries to assimilate pollutants under current and future conditions. The modeling focused on instream dissolved oxygen (DO) and incorporated all municipal and industrial wastewater facilities operating at their full permitted discharge levels (flow and effluent discharge limits as of 2014). The results of the DO modeling at current permitted conditions are presented in Figure 5-3 and Table 5-6 for the Altamaha Region, which includes portions of the Altamaha, Oconee, Ocmulgee, and Ogeechee River basins.
The results show the modeled effects of oxygen-demanding compounds in wastewater and other factors on instream DO levels. A stream segment with "none or exceeded" available assimilative capacity (denoted as red lines in Figure 5-3) has

ALTAMAHA

5-8

June 2017

5. Comparison of Available Resource Capacity and Future Needs

estimated instream DO levels that are at or below the DO water quality criteria and therefore indicate conditions of no available assimilative capacity or exceeded assimilative capacity. It is important to note that an exceedance of DO assimilative capacity on a stream segment could be the result of a point source discharge, nonpoint source loading, or a naturally low instream DO condition. Reaches within the Altamaha Planning Council that have exceeded their full assimilative capacity under the current conditions assessment include:
Beards Creek, Big Cedar Creek, Ohoopee River, and the base of the main stem of the Altamaha River in the Altamaha Basin;
Alligator Creek, and portions of the main stem of the Ocmulgee River in the Ocmulgee Basin;
Peterson Creek and portions of the main stem of the Oconee River in the Oconee Basin;
Cedar Creek and Tenmile Creek in the Ogeechee Basin; and
Alapaha River and Mill Creek in the Suwannee Basin.

Table 5-6: Permitted Assimilative Capacity for DO in Altamaha Planning Council

Available Assimilative Capacity (Total Mileage)

Basin

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)

Unmodeled

Modeled Miles in Council

Altamaha

152

57

44

86

46

0

385

Ocmulgee 120

81

54

22

29

0

306

Oconee

15

11

1

28

25

0

80

Ogeechee

19

69

65

15

10

4

182

Suwannee

0

1

0

<1

9

0

11

Source: GIS Files from the Updated Permitted Water Quality Resource Assessment; EPD, May 2017

ALTAMAHA

June 2017

5-9

5. Comparison of Available Resource Capacity and Future Needs
Based on the results shown in Figure 5-3, EPD also conducted modeling under future conditions. In order to address areas of limited or no assimilative capacity for DO, EPD incorporated some assumptions regarding future (2050) permitted flows and modifications to permit effluent limits. Since EPD cannot issue permits that will violate water quality standards, EPD will continue to evaluate and modify future permit requests and adjust permit limits to avoid potential DO violations. Figure 5-4 shows the assimilative capacity at assumed future (2050) permitted flows and effluent limits. More information regarding the type of assumptions made under future conditions modeling is provided in the Synopsis Report Water Quality (Assimilative Capacity) Resource Assessment (EPD, 2017).
Along the Altamaha River in Wayne County, the permitted effluent limits for one of the major wastewater discharge facilities (Rayonier Advanced Materials, Wayne County) in the region were modified under a permit issued in late 2015, and the updated limits from that permit are incorporated into the future conditions modeling. Those results indicate that there will be no exceedance of DO assimilative capacity in the Altamaha River under future conditions, as shown in Figure 5-4.

ALTAMAHA

5-10

June 2017

5. Comparison of Available Resource Capacity and Future Needs
Figure 5-3: Results of Assimilative Capacity Assessment DO at Permitted Conditions

ALTAMAHA

Source: Provided GIS Files from Updated Assimilative Capacity Assessment; EPD, January 2017

June 2017

5-11

5. Comparison of Available Resource Capacity and Future Needs
Figure 5-4 Results of Assimilative Capacity Assessment DO at Assumed Future (2050) Permitted Conditions

Source: Provided GIS Files from Updated Assimilative Capacity Assessment; EPD, January 2017

ALTAMAHA

5-12

June 2017

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 2014 303(d) list of Rivers, Streams, Lakes, and Reservoirs published by EPD (see discussion in Section 3). 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.
An analysis of nutrients (total nitrogen and total phosphorus) that may occur due to point sources and nonpoint sources in watersheds was conducted. The goal was to identify nutrient loading rates from different portions of the watersheds 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 watersheds where there are higher concentrations of nutrients (total nitrogen and total 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. More detail regarding the nutrient model results is available in the Water Quality (Assimilative Capacity) Resource Assessment (EPD, 2017). Nutrient and non-point source control management practices specific to land uses within the Altamaha Region are discussed in Section 6.
5.4. Summary of Potential Water Resources Issues
This section summarizes the potential water resources issues in the Altamaha Region. These potential water resources issues are the basis for the recommended management practices in Section 6. Table 5-7 summarizes the potential water resource issues and permitted capacity needs in the Altamaha Region by County.
Over the planning horizon, forecasted surface water demands within the Altamaha Region are projected to exceed the available resource in the Canoochee River. Increased demand in the region may also add to potential surface water gaps downstream of the region on the Ogeechee River at the Kings Ferry, Eden and Claxton planning nodes, 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 planning horizon.

ALTAMAHA

June 2017

5-13

5. Comparison of Available Resource Capacity and Future Needs

Assimilative capacity assessments indicate the need for improved wastewater treatment in some facilities within the Altamaha, Ocmulgee, Ogeechee, and Suwannee river basins.
Addressing non-point sources of pollution and existing water quality impairments will be a part of addressing the region's future needs.

Table 5-7: Summary of Potential Water Resource Issues by County

County

Municipal Water Permitted
Capacity Need

Part of Drainage Area with
Modeled Surface Water Gaps

Municipal Wastewater Permitted Capacity Need

Water Quality DO Assimilative Capacity Issues

Source

Table 5-1

Figure 5-2

Table 5-5

Figure 5-3

Appling

-

Yes

-

-

Bleckley

-

-

-

-

Candler

-

Yes

-

-

Dodge

-

-

-

Yes

Emanuel

Yes

Yes

-

Yes

Evans

Yes

Yes

-

-

Jeff Davis

Yes

Yes

-

-

Johnson

-

-

-

Yes

Montgomery

-

-

-

-

Tattnall

-

Yes

-

Yes

Telfair

-

-

-

-

Toombs

-

-

-

-

Treutlen

-

-

-

Yes

Wayne

-

Yes

-

Yes

Wheeler

Yes

-

-

Yes

Wilcox

-

Yes

-

-

Notes: 1) "Yes" indicates a predicted gap in the indicated county (for surface water, "yes" indicates part or all of the indicated county lies in the area contributing to a potential gap)
2) Permitted capacity need is based on the comparison of permitted municipal capacity versus 2050 forecasted demand.

ALTAMAHA

5-14

June 2017

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

surface water low flow conditions at the Claxton and

Practices

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 where

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

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 governments and water providers as well as

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.

neighboring Councils that share these water Additional water and

resources.

wastewater permit capacity

Review of Existing Plans and Practices
The Council conducted a comprehensive review of existing local and regional water management plans and relevant related documents to frame the selection

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

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)

ALTAMAHA

June 2017

6-1

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals
Best Management Practices (agriculture, forestry, and stormwater management)
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 Altamaha Council reviewed the management practices to ensure they were in alignment with the region's vision and goals.
The most significant gaps in the Altamaha Region are potential 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). Table 5-2 and Figure 5-3 both summarize the location and magnitude of potential regional surface water gaps and should be referenced to provide the geographic focus of the management practices. The Altamaha Council considered a number of agricultural conservation practices to address these surface water availability gaps. 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

ALTAMAHA

6-2

June 2017

66.. AAddddrreessssiinnggWWaatteerrNNeeeeddssaanndd RReeggiioonnaall GGooaallss
needs are not met and/or gaps are not addressed, then more costly and complex management practices will be pursued.
Potential surface water gaps in the region exist under current and future conditions at the Claxton node, and the shared resource planning nodes outside the region (Eden, King's Ferry, Statenville, and Atkinson), 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. A portion of the potential gaps in the Ogeechee basin (Claxton, Eden and King's Ferry nodes) at Claxton occur primarily as a result of net consumption associated with agricultural water use in the February-November time frame; another portion of the potential gaps are associated with periods of drought. 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 over time address surface water gaps at the Claxton, Eden and King's Ferry nodes. The management practices can also serve to address portions of the potential gaps at the Statenville and Atkinson nodes. Finally, as described in Section 5.2 it is important to keep in mind that potential gap conditions do not occur every year. In some cases, for years with potential gaps, the gaps 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 practices such 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

June 2017

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

June 2017

66.. AAddddrreessssiinnggWWaatteerrNNeeeeddssaanndd RReeggiioonnaall GGooaallss
Figure 6-2: Recommended Surface Water Quality Management Practices in a Phased Approach

ALTAMAHA

June 2017

6-5

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals

Table 6-1: Management Practices Selected for the Altamaha Region

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 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

Consumption water use and the projected or refine if agricultural consumption is

Data

surface water gaps on the

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 Statenville, Satilla River at

consumption" with Resource Assessment models with "new"

Atkinson (hereafter referred

information on consumptive use to

to as "gap areas")

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

2,3

when and how much water is needed to

maximize crop yield with efficient

irrigation1

ALTAMAHA

6-6

June 2017

66.. AAddddrreessssiinnggWWaatteerrNNeeeeddssaanndd RReeggiioonnaall GGooaallss

Table 6-1: Management Practices Selected for the Altamaha Region

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)

DCAR-6 Minimize Groundwater Use Impacts on Surface Water
DCAR-7 Address Low Flow with Wetland Restoration and Retention Structures
DCAR-8 Analyze Addressing Extreme Conditions

Improvement of surface water flows (in gap areas) where groundwater and surface water are hydrologically connected and groundwater use impacts surface water flows Examine potential role of wetlands restoration and water retention structures in addressing surface water low flow conditions. Evaluate implementation considerations for each option.
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

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
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.
Conduct analysis of the socioeconomic benefits and cost in comparison to ecological benefits of addressing surface water gaps. Council discussion, and additional detail provided by EPD during the 2016-17 updates to the resource assessments, indicated the need to focus this Management Practice on the more frequent, smaller magnitude gaps, rather than the larger, longer duration gaps that would likely be addressed through drought management measures. Additional analysis is also needed (similar to the examples shared during the surface water shared resources subcommittee meeting in January 2017) regarding the locations of demands contributing to the gaps within specific counties and portions of the local drainage areas (LDAs).

2,3,6,9 2,6,9,11
2,5,6,11

ALTAMAHA

June 2017

6-7

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals

Table 6-1: Management Practices Selected for the Altamaha Region

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

Measures for water and groundwater established in existing and future rulemaking

Municipal and supply needs

processes and plans [WCIP, Coastal

Industrial

throughout the region Permitting Plan (including applicable Tier 3 and

Users

Tier 4 practices), Water Stewardship Act of

2010 and EPD rules for public water systems

to improve water supply efficiency through

water loss audit and water loss control

programs (391-3-33)] by local

governments/utilities

WC-2

Help meet current and Encourage implementation of Tier 1 and Tier 2

3

Tier 1 and

forecasted agricultural conservation measures and adherence to

Tier 2

surface water and

WCIP by agricultural groundwater users

Measures for groundwater supply

Agriculture

needs throughout the

region

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

ALTAMAHA

6-8

June 2017

66.. AAddddrreessssiinnggWWaatteerrNNeeeeddssaanndd RReeggiioonnaall GGooaallss

Table 6-1: Management Practices Selected for the Altamaha Region

Management Practice Number

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

Description/Definition of Action

WC-7
Efficient Planting Methods

Utilize cropping and crop rotation methods that promote efficiency

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 Tillage
WC-9 Control Loss
WC-10

forecasted agricultural ground and surface water supply needs
- Help address surface water gap areas

Control water loss 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 High Priority Management Practices

ASWS-1
Incentives for Sustainable Groundwater Development

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

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 estimated 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

ASWS-2
Land Management Incentives

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

1,9,12

ALTAMAHA

June 2017

6-9

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals

Table 6-1: Management Practices Selected for the Altamaha Region

Management Practice Number

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

Description/Definition of Action

ASWS-3
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

Relationship of Action or Issue to Vision and Goals
(Section 1.4)
2,6,10,11

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

Medium Priority Management Practices

ASWS-4
Monitor Gap Closure and Manage Adaptively

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

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

2,4,6,9

ASWS-5
Restoration Incentive Programs

Based on outcome of research (DCAR-7 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

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

Low Priority Management Practices

ASWS-6
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 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-7
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

ALTAMAHA

6-10

June 2017

66.. AAddddrreessssiinnggWWaatteerrNNeeeeddssaanndd RReeggiioonnaall GGooaallss

Table 6-1: Management Practices Selected for the Altamaha Region

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)

PSDO-1
Collect Water Quality Data

Point Sources Dissolved Oxygen (PSDO)

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

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

MGWPC-1
Increase Municipal Groundwater Permit Capacity

Action Needed - Address Water Withdrawal Permit Capacity Needs

Municipal Groundwater Permit Capacity (MGWPC)

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

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

6,9,11

ALTAMAHA

June 2017

6-11

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals

Table 6-1: Management Practices Selected for the Altamaha Region

Management Practice Number

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

Description/Definition of Action

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

Relationship of Action or Issue to Vision and Goals
(Section 1.4)
6,9,11

Table 6-1: Management Practices Selected for the Altamaha Region

Management Practice Number

Description/Definition of Action

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

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
GW-2 Research Groundwater Sustainability
GW-3 Promote AquiferFriendly Land Use

Continue to sustainably drill wells and withdraw groundwater from the Floridan and other prioritized aquifers and use of other aquifer systems in the region to meet regional needs
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 Encourage land use practices that sustain and protect aquifer recharge areas (both inside and outside the region) for the aquifers that are present in the region

2,6,9 2,4,6
1

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

ALTAMAHA

6-12

June 2017

66.. AAddddrreessssiinnggWWaatteerrNNeeeeddssaanndd RReeggiioonnaall GGooaallss

Table 6-1: Management Practices Selected for the Altamaha Region

Management Practice Number

Description/Definition of Action

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

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

Use soil erosion and sediment control measures
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 9,11 1,9,11

NPSU-4

Protect and maintain riparian buffers along urban streams

9,11

Riparian Buffers

NPSU-5

Implement street sweeping program (City of Baxley Watershed Protection

9,11

Street

Plan, 2007)

Sweeping

ALTAMAHA

June 2017

6-13

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals

Table 6-1: Management Practices Selected for the Altamaha Region

Management Practice Number

Description/Definition of Action

NPSR-1 Advocate Implementing Road Runoff BMPs
NPSF-1 Support Forestry Commission Water Quality Program
NPSF-2 Improve BMP Compliance

Rural Best Management Practices (NPSR)
Implement BMPs to control runoff from dirt roads by encouraging County implementation of the BMPs identified 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 of BMP development, education/outreach, implementation/compliance monitoring, and complaint resolution process
Improve BMP compliance through State-wide biennial BMP surveys and BMP assurance exams, Master Timber Harvester workshops, and continuing logger education

Relationship of Action or Issue to Vision and Goals
(Section 1.4) 9,11
9,11
9,11

NPSF-3

Incentives to restore wetlands and historically drained hardwood and

9,11

Wetland and Forest

other areas. Where applicable, support United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) incentive programs through the Farm Service Agency

Restoration

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

June 2017

66.. AAddddrreessssiinnggWWaatteerrNNeeeeddssaanndd RReeggiioonnaall GGooaallss

Table 6-1: Management Practices Selected for the Altamaha Region

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

Data collection and confirmation of sources to remove streams listed due

8,9

Evaluate

to "natural sources"

Impairment

Sources

TMDL-2

Data collection to refine river/stream reach length for impaired waters;

8,9

Analyze

focus on longest reaches to refine location and potential sources of

Impaired

impairments

Segments

and Sources

TMDL-3

Stormwater Management:

9,11

Stormwater Management BMPs

- Agricultural BMPs - Forestry BMPs - Rural BMPs

- Urban BMPs

See Above Non-Point Source for Details

Nutrients Regional Watershed Models (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) within all watersheds that affect the Altamaha Region

- 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

June 2017

6-15

6. Addressing Water Needs and Regional Goals

Table 6-1: Management Practices Selected for the Altamaha Region

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 (Examples include the Lumber City

9,11

Clean-Up

Watershed Protection Plan, 2007, City of Eastman, Wayne County)

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

ALTAMAHA

6-16

June 2017

66.. AAddddrreessssiinnggWWaatteerrNNeeeeddssaanndd RReeggiioonnaall GGooaallss

Table 6-1: Management Practices Selected for the Altamaha Region

Management Practice Number

Description/Definition of Action

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

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 Eden and 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 address potential gaps at Kings Ferry will also address the potential gaps at Claxton and Eden.
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 to address a portion of the cumulative gap at Statenville.
Surface Water Quality:
Regional Watershed Models 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, Evans and Tatnall 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

June 2017

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 time frames 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 2015 to 2025 and long-term as 2025 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 time frame for implementation and the specific steps required for implementation.

ALTAMAHA

June 2017

7-1

7. IImmpplleemmeennttiinnggWWaatteerrMMaannaaggeemmeenntt 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)

For Short-term Actions (2015-2025):

For Long-term Actions
(2025-2050):

Further Action to Complete Implementation and Associated Dates

Responsible Parties

DCAR-1

Current and N/A

through

Future

DCAR-51

Surface Water

Agricultural Use in Gap

Data Collection

Areas (Canoochee,

and Irrigation Ogeechee,

Research

Satilla, and

DCAR-6 Minimize

Alapaha Rivers)

Groundwater

Use Impacts

on Surface

Water

DCAR-7

Current and N/A

Address Low Future

Flow with

Surface Water

Wetland

Use in Gap

Restoration Areas

and

(Canoochee,

Retention

Ogeechee,

Structures

Satilla, and

Alapaha

Rivers)

Data Collection/Additional Research (DCAR)

Develop scope of work (
and key partnering agencies

Complete data collection, N/A research, and evaluation by 01/2020
Incorporate data/findings in next Regional Water Plan revision

Develop scope of work and key partnering agencies

Complete data collection, N/A research, and evaluation by 01/2020

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

ALTAMAHA

7-2
June 2017

7.7I.mImplpelmemenetnintigngWWataetreMr Manaangaegmemenetnt PrParcatcictiecses

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)

DCAR-8 Analyze Addressing Extreme Conditions

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

For All Actions: Initial Implementation Step(s)

For Short-term Actions (2015-2025):

For Long-term Actions
(2025-2050):

Further Action to Complete Implementation and Associated Dates

Water Conservation (WC)1

Confirm and verify status of selected practices

Continue to implement water conservation practices through 01/2025

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

Verify conservation savings estimates

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

ALTAMAHA

June 2017

7-3

7. IImmpplleemmeennttiinnggWWaatteerrMMaannaaggeemmeenntt 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)

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

For All Actions: Initial Implementation Step(s)
Confirm and verify status of selected practices
Conduct outreach/ education/incentives to encourage implementation of conservation measures

For Short-term Actions (2015-2025):

For Long-term Actions
(2025-2050):

Further Action to Complete Implementation and Associated Dates

Continue to implement water conservation practices through 01/2025

Verify conservation savings estimates

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

ASWS-1 Incentives for Sustainable Groundwater Development

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

High Priority

Current and Agricultural

Develop strategy

Encourage groundwater

N/A

Future

Surface/

and work with

development as preferred

Surface Water Groundwater

Use in Gap

Withdrawal

Areas

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

source of supply
Identify the need for, and feasibility of, incentive based seasonal surface water permit conditions to

address 7Q10 low flow

conditions (by 01/2020)

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

ALTAMAHA

7-4
June 2017

7.7I.mImplpelmemenetnintigngWWataetreMr Manaangaegmemenetnt PrParcatcictiecses

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)

For Short-term Actions (2015-2025):

For Long-term Actions
(2025-2050):

Further Action to Complete Implementation and Associated Dates

ASWS-2 Land Management Incentives
ASWS-3 Incentives for Greater Wastewater Returns
ASWS-4 Monitor Gap Closure and Manage Adaptively

Current and Future Surface Water Use in Gap Areas

City and County Land Use

Incentive-based practices to promote infiltration and aquifer recharge

Determine effectiveness and feasibility of implementing practice (by 01/2020)

If deemed effective and feasible, implement practice based on status of gap closure (by 01/2030)

Wastewater/ N/A
Stormwater NPDES Discharge,
Sanitary Sewer Extension

Continue to monitor land use and hydrologic relationships

Wastewater/
Stormwater NPDES Discharge,
Sanitary Sewer Extension

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

Current and Agricultural

Develop strategy

Evaluate need and

N/A

Future

Surface/

and work with

feasibility to conjunctively

Surface Water Groundwater potential

manage groundwater and

Use in Gap

Withdrawal

participants/

surface water to address

Areas

impacted users to

7Q10 low flow conditions

increase support for (by 01/2020)

and implementation

of strategy

Responsible Parties
EPD, Municipalities and Water/ Wastewater Utilities in the Altamaha Region
EPD and Agricultural surface water users in the Altamaha Region for implementation

ALTAMAHA

June 2017

7-5

7. IImmpplleemmeennttiinnggWWaatteerrMMaannaaggeemmeenntt 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)

ASWS-5 Restoration Incentive Programs

Current and Future Surface Water Use in Gap Areas

Wetland Restoration

For All Actions: Initial Implementation Step(s)
Encourage research to determine effectiveness and feasibility of restoring wetlands (see DCAR-7)

For Short-term Actions (2015-2025):

For Long-term Actions
(2025-2050):

Further Action to Complete Implementation and Associated Dates

Determine effectiveness and feasibility of restoring wetlands (by 01/2020)

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

Responsible Parties
EPD

ASWS-6 Consider Low-Flow Conditions in Future Surface Water Permitting

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

Future Surface Water Use in Gap Areas

Agricultural Surface Withdrawal

EPD to develop Data N/A Needs and Guidance for Analysis Requirements
Applicants to submit analysis from 20152020

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 01/2025)

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

ALTAMAHA

7-6
June 2017

7.7I.mImplpelmemenetnintigngWWataetreMr Manaangaegmemenetnt PrParcatcictiecses

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)

ASWS-7 Incentives for Dry-Year Releases from Ponds

Current and Future Surface Water Use in Gap Areas

Agricultural Surface Withdrawal

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

For Short-term Actions (2015-2025):

For Long-term Actions
(2025-2050):

Responsible Parties

Further Action to Complete Implementation and Associated Dates

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

N/A

Examine

EPD, GSWCC,

opportunities to Georgia DOA, and

modify farm and Agricultural surface

other pond

water users in the

operations to

Altamaha Region for

obtain releases implementation

in dry/gap years

Modify farm and other pond operations to obtain releases in dry/gap years (by 01/2035), if deemed feasible

ALTAMAHA

June 2017

7-7

7. IImmpplleemmeennttiinnggWWaatteerrMMaannaaggeemmeenntt 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)

For Short-term Actions (2015-2025):

For Long-term Actions
(2025-2050):

Further Action to Complete Implementation and Associated Dates

Responsible Parties

Point Sources Dissolved Oxygen (PSDO)

PSDO-1

Water Quality

Collect Water Gaps

Quality Data

General Wastewater

PSDO-2
Point Discharge Relocation

PSDO-3 Enhance Point Source Treatment

Water Quality Gaps

General Wastewater

EPD to work with potentially effected entities as part of permitting process
Confirm wastewater facilities to upgrade/improve treatment to address low dissolved oxygen conditions in receiving streams

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)
Upgrade/improve treatment of identified wastewater facilities

N/A
If feasible and cost effective, relocate discharge location (by 01/2025) Continue to upgrade/improve treatment of identified wastewater facilities (by 01/2040)

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

ALTAMAHA

7-8
June 2017

7.7I.mImplpelmemenetnintigngWWataetreMr Manaangaegmemenetnt PrParcatcictiecses

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)

For Short-term Actions (2015-2025):

For Long-term Actions
(2025-2050):

Further Action to Complete Implementation and Associated Dates

Responsible Parties

Available Industrial Wastewater Permit Capacity (IWWPC)2

IWWPC-1 Collect Additional Industrial Permit Data

Wastewater Permit Capacity Gap

Industrial

Obtain additional

Expand or construct new N/A

Wastewater permit data on flow facilities and/or obtain

volumes and permit additional wastewater

conditions for

permit capacity to meet

industrial wastewater forecasted needs (by

facilities forecasted 01/2020)

needs

Available Municipal Groundwater Permit Capacity (MGWPC)

EPD, Industrial wastewater facilities in the Altamaha Region

MGWPC-1 Increase Municipal Groundwater Permit Capacity

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

Municipal Groundwater Withdrawal

EPD and entities to confirm assumptions and needs

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

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

EPD, Municipal water utilities in the Altamaha Region

ALTAMAHA

June 2017

7-9

7. IImmpplleemmeennttiinnggWWaatteerrMMaannaaggeemmeenntt 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)

For Short-term Actions (2015-2025):

For Long-term Actions
(2025-2050):

Further Action to Complete Implementation and Associated Dates

Responsible Parties

Available Industrial Groundwater Permit Capacity (IGWPC)

IGWPC-1 Increase Industrial Groundwater
Permit Capacity

Groundwater Permit Capacity Gap (Evans and Wayne Counties)

Industrial Groundwater Withdrawal

EPD and entities to confirm assumptions and needs

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

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

EPD, Industrial water facilities in the Altamaha Region

GW-1 Sustainable Groundwater Use
GW-2 Research Groundwater Sustainability

Future Groundwater Needs
(Emanuel, Evans, Jeff Davis, Wheeler, and Wilcox Counties)

Groundwater Withdrawal (Municipal, Industrial, and Agricultural)

Groundwater (GW)

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

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

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

ALTAMAHA

7-10

June 2017

7.7I.mImplpelmemenetnintigngWWataetreMr Manaangaegmemenetnt PrParcatcictiecses

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)

GW-3 Promote AquiferFriendly Land Use

N/A

Monitor land use

changes and further

delineate aquifer

recharge areas

For Short-term Actions (2015-2025):

For Long-term Actions
(2025-2050):

Further Action to Complete Implementation and Associated Dates

Responsible Parties

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

Continue to monitor land use and hydrologic relationships

EPD, Municipalities within the Altamaha Region

SW-1 Maintain Current Permitted Capacity

Current and Future Surface Water Use Outside Gap Areas

Surface water Withdrawal

Surface Water (SW)

Confirm non-gap areas and available surface water resource capacity

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

SW-2
Monitor and Evaluate Estuaries

N/A

Monitor Atlantic

Determine flow conditions N/A

slope river flow

that sustain estuary health

conditions

(by 01/2020)

EPD, Coastal Resources Division, Wildlife Resources Division

ALTAMAHA

June 2017

7-11

7. IImmpplleemmeennttiinnggWWaatteerrMMaannaaggeemmeenntt 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)

For Short-term Actions (2015-2025):

For Long-term Actions
(2025-2050):

Further Action to Complete Implementation and Associated Dates

Responsible Parties

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

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

Water Quality Outside Gap Areas

Stormwater (NPDES Discharges)

Collect data to

Confirm sources of loading N/A

determine dissolved and develop programs to

oxygen, fecal

address (by 01/2025)

coliform, and nutrient

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 01/2020)

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

ALTAMAHA

7-12

June 2017

7.7I.mImplpelmemenetnintigngWWataetreMr Manaangaegmemenetnt PrParcatcictiecses

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)

NPSF-1 through NPSF-3 Various Management Practices Related to Forestry Uses
NPSA-1 through NPSA-5 Various Management Practices Related to Agricultural Uses

Water Quality Outside Gap Areas

Stormwater (NPDES Discharges)

Continue to support BMP programs

For Short-term Actions (2015-2025):

For Long-term Actions
(2025-2050):

Further Action to Complete Implementation and Associated Dates

Responsible Parties

Implement a variety of

N/A

BMPs related to forestry

and agricultural uses (by

01/2020)

Georgia Forestry Commission (GFC), and possibly county commissions

GSWCC, Agricultural users within the Altamaha Region

ALTAMAHA

June 2017

7-13

7. IImmpplleemmeennttiinnggWWaatteerrMMaannaaggeemmeenntt 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)

For Short-term Actions (2015-2025):

For Long-term Actions
(2025-2050):

Further Action to Complete Implementation and Associated Dates

Responsible Parties

TMDL-1 through TMDL-3
Evaluate Impaired Segments and Sources

Water Quality Outside Gap Areas

Stormwater (NPDES Discharges)

NUT-1
Link Nutrient Loading With Current Land Use

Water Quality Outside Gap Areas

Stormwater (NPDES Discharges)

Collect data to confirm impairment and determine sources
Align current land use with nutrient loading data to optimize management practice based on consideration of land uses and actual nutrient loading

Remove streams listed due to "natural sources" (by 01/2020)
Refine river/stream reach length for impaired waters (by 01/2025)
Support research and development of tools such as the Southern Group of State Foresters and USFS Sediment Prediction modeling tool being developed by Auburn University (by 01/2025)

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

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

ALTAMAHA

7-14

June 2017

7.7I.mImplpelmemenetnintigngWWataetreMr Manaangaegmemenetnt PrParcatcictiecses

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)

For Short-term Actions (2015-2025):

For Long-term Actions
(2025-2050):

Further Action to Complete Implementation and Associated Dates

Responsible Parties

Educational Practices (EDU)

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

Education/
Outreach Support

Entities' Applicable Programs

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

EDU-5
Stream Clean-up Events

Education/
Resource Improvement

Entities' Applicable Programs

Encourage coordinating and arranging of cleanup events

Complete clean-up events

Continue cleanup events

EPD, Municipalities and Utilities within the Altamaha Region,
Adopt-a-Stream organizations, Riverkeepers, and other applicable nongovernmental entities

ALTAMAHA

June 2017

7-15

7. IImmpplleemmeennttiinnggWWaatteerrMMaannaaggeemmeenntt 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)

For Short-term Actions (2015-2025):

For Long-term Actions
(2025-2050):

Further Action to Complete Implementation and Associated Dates

Responsible Parties

Ordinance and Code Policy Practices (OCP)

OCP-1

Ordinances N/A

through

and Code

OCP-3

Policies

Stormwater

Management

through

Ordinance/

Code Updates and

Integrated Planning

Identify ordinances Identify and implement

N/A

and standards to

strategies for stormwater

implement/update on management to help

stormwater and land improve water quality (by

development

01/2025)

(including green

space)

Conduct regional

environmental planning

Encourage

(e.g., land use, stormwater,

coordinated

wastewater)

environmental

planning

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

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

7-16

June 2017

77.. ImImpplelemmeennttininggWWaatteerrMMaannaaggeemmeenntt PPrraacctticiceess

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. The guidance documents and sources used to inform the planning level cost information in Table 7-2 have not been updated. Accordingly, the values shown below should only be used as a general guide. Specific costs should be further evaluated and updated before being relied upon.
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.

June 2017

7-17

ALTAMAHA

77.. ImImpplelemmeennttininggWWaatteerrMMaannaaggeemmeenntt PPrraacctticiceess
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).
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 (as of 2011) 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

7-18

June 2017

77.. ImImpplelemmeennttininggWWaatteerrMMaannaaggeemmeenntt PPrraacctticiceess
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

June 2017

7-19

77.. ImImpplelemmeennttininggWWaatteerrMMaannaaggeemmeenntt PPrraacctticiceess
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:
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program
Conservation of Private Grazing Land Program
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
Resource Conservation and Development Program

ALTAMAHA

7-20

June 2017

77.. ImImpplelemmeennttininggWWaatteerrMMaannaaggeemmeenntt PPrraacctticiceess

Table 7-2: Cost Estimates for the Implementation Responsibilities

Management Practice No. (See Table 6-1)
DCAR-1 Agricultural Consumption Data
DCAR-2 Source of Supply Data to Refine Forecasts
DCAR-3 Metering Data
DCAR-4 Support Irrigation Efficiency Research
DCAR-5 Irrigation Education and Research
DCAR-6 Minimize Groundwater Use Impacts on Surface Water
DCAR-7 Address Low Flow with Wetland Restoration and Retention Structures
DCAR-8 Analyze Addressing Extreme Conditions

Issues to be Addressed

Capital/
Programmatic Cost

Funding
Sources and Options1

Notes and Sources for Costs

Data Collection/Additional Research (DCAR)

Surface

$0.25M

Water Gaps

State incentive Various recent similar projects programs

$0.5M $0.5M

Local governments; State incentive programs

$0.2M

$0.1M

$0.05M

$0.125M

$0.15M

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

Surface Water Gaps

Water Conservation (WC)

$0.1M to $0.2M

Local governments; utilities

Supplemental Guidance

ALTAMAHA

June 2017

7-21

77.. ImImpplelemmeennttininggWWaatteerrMMaannaaggeemmeenntt PPrraacctticiceess

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

WC-2
Tier 1 and Tier 2 Measures for Agriculture

$0.1M to $0.2M

WC-3 Audits

$1,300/system

State/federal loan or grant

Irrigation Conservation Practices Appropriate for the Southeastern United States

WC-4 Metering

$2.7M

(3,026 existing irrigation pumps) times 10% increase in pumps times $800/totalizer

WC-5 Inspections

$0 to $0.25M

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

WC-6
Minimize HighPressure Systems

$4,700/system

Irrigation Conservation Practices Appropriate for the Southeastern United States

WC-7
Efficient Planting Methods

$0.1M to $0.2M

Educate farmers on benefits of cropping and crop rotation

WC-8
Conservation Tillage

$0.1M to $0.2M

Educate farmers on benefits of conservation tillage

WC-9
Control Water Loss

$0.1M to $0.2M

Educate farmers on practices to prevent water loss through more efficient detention of rainfall

WC-10 End-Gun Shutoffs
WC-11 Low Pressure Systems

$700/system $3,400/system

Irrigation Conservation Practices Appropriate for the Southeastern United States

WC-12
Application Efficiency Technologies

$2,000/system

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

ASWS-1
Incentives for Sustainable Groundwater Development

Surface Water Gaps

$0.01M to $0.1M per MGD

State incentive programs

From local well driller data and Supplemental Guidance. Includes only cost of supply. This is a high priority management practice.

ALTAMAHA

7-22

June 2017

77.. ImImpplelemmeennttininggWWaatteerrMMaannaaggeemmeenntt PPrraacctticiceess

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

ASWS-2
Land Management Incentives

$0 to $1 per capita

State incentive programs

Supplemental Guidance. Total population in 2050: 374,565. This is a high priority management practice.

ASWS-3
Incentives for Greater Wastewater Returns

$0.1M to $1M per MGD

State incentive programs;
utilities

Supplemental Guidance. This is a high priority management practice.

ASWS-4
Monitor Gap Closure and Manage Adaptively

$1M to $2M

Various recent similar projects. This is a medium priority management practice.

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. This is a medium priority management practice.

ASWS-6
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. This is a low priority management practice.

ASWS-7
Incentives for Dry-Year Releases from Ponds

$1M to $2M

State incentive programs

Various recent similar projects. This is a low priority management practice.

Point Sources Dissolved Oxygen (PSDO)

PSDO-1 Collect Water Quality Data
PSDO-2 Point Discharge Relocation
PSDO-3 Enhance Point Source Treatment

Water Quality Gaps

$0.25M to $0.5M
$0.1M to $0.3M

Local governments; utilities
GEFA Georgia Fund Loan; utilities

$7M to $10M per MGD

Various recent similar projects Supplemental Guidance

ALTAMAHA

June 2017

7-23

77.. ImImpplelemmeennttininggWWaatteerrMMaannaaggeemmeenntt PPrraacctticiceess

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

Available Industrial Wastewater Permit Capacity (IWWPC)

IWWPC-1
Collect Additional Industrial Permit Data

Wastewater Permit Capacity Gap

$0.1M to $0.2M

Various recent similar projects

Municipal Groundwater Permit Capacity (MGWPC)

MGWPC-1 Increase Municipal Groundwater Permit Capacity
IGWPC-1 Increase Industrial Groundwater Permit Capacity
GW-1 Sustainable Groundwater Use GW-2 Research Groundwater Sustainability
GW-3 Promote Aquifer-Friendly Land Use

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

Future Groundwater Needs

Groundwater (GW)

$0.01M to $0.1M per MGD

Georgia Reservoir and
Water Supply Fund

$0.2M to $0.4M

Supplemental Guidance
State of Georgia Groundwater Resource Assessment

$750 to $8,500 State incentive Supplemental Guidance

per MGD

programs

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

Current and Future Surface Water
Uses Outside Gap Areas

Surface Water (SW)

$0.05M to $0.1M per applicant

Local governments; utilities

$0.1M to $0.15M

Includes cost of permitting and impact evaluation
Various recent similar projects

ALTAMAHA

7-24

June 2017

77.. ImImpplelemmeennttininggWWaatteerrMMaannaaggeemmeenntt PPrraacctticiceess

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

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)

NPSU-3
Increase Stormwater Infiltration

Future Water Quality NPS Needs

NPSU-4 Riparian Buffers
NPSU-5 Street Sweeping

$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

$0 to $0.25M $0.4M to $0.8M

GEFA Land Conservation Program
Clean Water Act Section
319(h) Grants; (NPS Implementation Grant)

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

NPSR-1
Advocate Implementing Road Runoff BMPs

Rural Best Management Practices (NPSR)

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)

ALTAMAHA

June 2017

7-25

77.. ImImpplelemmeennttininggWWaatteerrMMaannaaggeemmeenntt PPrraacctticiceess

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

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 NPSA-2 Utilize Buffers
NPSA-3 Livestock Management NPSA-4 Manure Control
NPSA-5 Wetland and Forest Restoration Incentives
TMDL-1 Evaluate Impairment Sources

Future Water Quality NPS Needs

$0.1M to $0.2M

Conservation tillage and cover crop

$0 to $0.25M

Future Water Quality NPS Needs

$0 to $0.25M $0.5M to $1M

$5,000 to $9,000 per credit

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

ALTAMAHA

7-26

June 2017

77.. ImImpplelemmeennttininggWWaatteerrMMaannaaggeemmeenntt PPrraacctticiceess

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

TMDL-2
Analyze Impaired Segments and Sources

$35,000 to $130,000 per impairment

Various recent similar projects

TMDL-3
Stormwater Management BMPs

$19M to $30M

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

Nutrients Regional Watershed Models (NUT)

NUT-1
Link Nutrient Loading With Current Land Use

Future Water Quality NPS Needs

$10 to $150 per acre

Supplemental Guidance

Educational (EDU)

EDU-1
Promote Conservation Programs

Future Educational Needs

$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
EDU-3 Septic System Maintenance Education
EDU-4 Forestry BMP Education
EDU-5 Clean-Up Events

Future Educational Needs

$0 to $0.85M $0 to $0.25M
$0.05M to $0.15M

State incentive programs; utilities; local governments

$0 to $2.25 per capita per Supplemental Guidance. Total population in 2050: 374,565
$0 to $0.7 per capita per Supplemental Guidance. Total population in 2050: 374,565
Support Georgia Forestry BMPs

$0.05M to $0.1M

Various recent similar projects

OCP-1
Engage Local Governments

Ordinance and Code Policy (OCP)

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

ALTAMAHA

June 2017

7-27

77.. ImImpplelemmeennttininggWWaatteerrMMaannaaggeemmeenntt PPrraacctticiceess

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

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.
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:

ALTAMAHA

7-28

June 2017

77.. ImImpplelemmeennttininggWWaatteerrMMaannaaggeemmeenntt PPrraacctticiceess
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 EPD's Agricultural Water Withdrawal Permitting and Water Metering Program, as well as other partners, including but not limited to, the University of Georgia and the Georgia Department of Agriculture 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.
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.
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.

ALTAMAHA

June 2017

7-29

77.. ImImpplelemmeennttininggWWaatteerrMMaannaaggeemmeenntt PPrraacctticiceess
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 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, sedimentation, and pollution control plans. This will help address the water quality needs of the region.
Continue education and outreach efforts to agricultural interests to inform farmers of available technologies and funding sources to make more efficient use of water resources without incurring hardship.
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.

ALTAMAHA

7-30

June 2017

77.. ImImpplelemmeennttininggWWaatteerrMMaannaaggeemmeenntt PPrraacctticiceess
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.
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

June 2017

7-31

88.. MMOONNIITTOORRIINNGG AANNDD RREEPPOORRTTIINNGG PPRROOGGRREESSSS

88..MMoonnitiotorirninggananddRRepepoortritningg PProroggrerses s

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

meeting regional needs and

8.1. Benchmarks

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

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

of the Plan will require the availability of sufficient state agencies, and

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

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

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

June 2017

8-1

88.. MMoonniittoorriinnggaannddRReeppoorrttiinngg PPrrooggrreessss

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-8
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
- Incorporate data and findings into forecasts, Resource Assessments, and Water Plan updates

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

5 years 5 years

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

2-5 years

Address Current and Future Surface Water Use in Gap Areas Additional/Alternate to Existing Surface Water Supply Sources (ASWS)

ASWS-1
Incentives for Sustainable Groundwater Development

-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

- Verify information and educational outreach via survey or direct agency reporting
- Monitor and track surface water versus groundwater permit applications

1-3 years 1-5 years

ASWS-2 through ASWS-3

- Feasibility studies completed (for short-term studies)

Reevaluate need during 5 years next Regional Water Plan update

ALTAMAHA

8-2

June 2017

88.. MMoonniittoorriinngg aanndd RReeppoorrttiinngg PPrrooggrreessss

Table 8-1: Benchmarks for Water Management Plans

Management Practice No. (See Table 6-1)
Various land management and wastewater incentive measures

Benchmark
- Feasibility studies initiated (for long-term studies/actions)

Measurement Tools

ASWS-4
Monitor Gap Closure and Manage Adaptively

- 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

Identify and monitor participation and conversion rates from surface water to groundwater

Time Period 1-3 years 1-5 years

ASWS-5
Restoration Incentive Programs

Pending feasibility study

Assess research results 5 years

ASWS-6
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-7
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

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

- Outreach activities to dischargers completed and feasible options have implemented by dischargers

Monitor permit applications and verify

1-5 years

ALTAMAHA

June 2017

8-3

88.. MMoonniittoorriinnggaannddRReeppoorrttiinngg PPrrooggrreessss

Table 8-1: Benchmarks for Water Management Plans

Management Practice No. (See Table 6-1)
PSDO-3 Enhance Point Source Treatment

Benchmark

Measurement Tools

- EPD to conduct outreach and improved data collection facilitate improved treatment in for dischargers
low dissolved oxygen reaches

Time Period

Obtain Additional Municipal and Industrial Water and Wastewater Permit Capacity

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

June 2017

88.. MMoonniittoorriinngg aanndd RReeppoorrttiinngg PPrrooggrreessss

Table 8-1: Benchmarks for Water Management Plans

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 Regional Watershed Models
- 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

June 2017

8-5

ALTAMAHA

88.. MMoonniittoorriinnggaannddRReeppoorrttiinngg PPrrooggrreessss

Table 8-1: Benchmarks for Water Management Plans

Management Practice No. (See Table 6-1)

Benchmark

Measurement Tools

Shared Resources

Combined management practices for the Claxton, Eden, Kings Ferry, Atkinson, and Statenville gaps
(Coastal Georgia, SuwanneeSatilla, Savannah-Upper Ogeechee, Upper Oconee, and Upper Flint Regions)

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 5 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 5 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

June 2017

BIBLIOGRAPHY

8. Monitoring aBnibdliRoegpraoprthinyg Progress

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 - Groundwater Availability Assessment Updates. Report completed in cooperation with CDM Smith. May 2017.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Environmental Protection Division. Synopsis Report - Surface Water Availability Resource Assessment. Report completed in cooperation with ARCADIS. May 2017.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Environmental Protection Division. Synopsis Report - Water Quality (Assimilative Capacity) Resource Assessment. Report completed in cooperation with TetraTech. May 2017.

June 2017

B-1

ALTAMAHA

Bibliography

Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Environmental Protection Division. Supplemental Guidance for Regional Planning Contractors: Water Management Practice Cost Comparison. March 2010 (Revised: March 2011).
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/
Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Wildlife Resources Division. State Wildlife Action Plan. Revised 2015.
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).

ALTAMAHA

B-2

June 2017

8. Monitoring anBdibRlieopgorartpinhgy Progress
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.
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

June 2017

B-3

EAXPEPCEUNTDIVIXEASUMMARY

Section ES ES ES ES ES ES ES ES ES ES ES ES
ES
ES

Location
Trends and Key Findings

Change
Updated summary box text with the most recent information.

Introduction/ Overview Introduction/ Overview Introduction/ Overview Water Resources and Use, Figure ES-2
Water and Wastewater Needs, Figure ES-3
Water and Wastewater Needs, Figure ES-4
Figure ES-5

Updated state growth information
Minor text revisions/updates
Updated population projections
Updated water use information and figures
Updated water use information and figure
Updated return flow information and figure
Updated figure

Summary of Resource Assessment Results
Groundwater Availability Surface Water Availability

Updated summary box text with the most recent surface water quality information Updated/modified text
Updated/modified text

Table ES-1
Assessment of Water Quality Conditions

Replaced Figure ES-6 with Table ES-1 Updated/modified text

Table ES-2

Modified table number and updated information

Description Population information was updated based on the most recent statewide population projections (Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, 2015). Updated water use information from the Altamaha Water and Wastewater Forecasting Technical Memorandum (CDM Smith, 2017). Values for the state of Georgia were updated based on the most recent information from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Text was revised/updated to reflect the purpose of this document as an update to the Plan completed in 2011. Removal of Council website. Values were updated based on the most recent statewide population projections (Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, 2015). Updated water use information based on the most recent information compiled by USGS (2016 USGS Publication).
Updated water use information based on the most recent information compiled by USGS (2016 USGS Publication).
Updated return flow information from the Altamaha Water and Wastewater Forecasting Technical Memorandum (CDM Smith, 2017).
Population information was updated based on the most recent statewide population projections (Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, 2015). Updated summary of assimilative capacity based on results from Surface Water Quality (Assimilative Capacity) Resource Assessment (EPD, March 2017).
Updated sentence structure with word removal.
Removed references to Figure ES-6 and replaced with references to Table ES-1. Removed text describing Figure ES-6 and updated word choice in section. Updated contribution of agricultural surface water use to current and/or future surface water gaps from 5.32 MGD to 1.1 MGD. Replaced Figure ES-6 with Table ES-1 to describe the forecasted surface water gaps.
Updated discussion of water quality impairments based on results from Surface Water Quality (Assimilative Capacity) Resource Assessment (EPD, March 2017). Added reference (EPD, March 2017). Replaced Table ES-1 reference to ES-2. Text was updated for impaired streams and TMDLs.
Because Table ES-1 was added (see above), subsequent table numbers were revised accordingly. The 2011 Table ES1 is Table ES-2 in 2017 update. Table updated based on results from Surface Water Quality (Assimilative Capacity) Resource Assessment (EPD, March 2017).

March 2017 - DRAFT

Altamaha A - 1

Section
ES
ES ES ES ES 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2 2

Location
Identifying Water Management Practices to Address Water Resources Shortfalls and Future Needs

Change Updated/modified text

Description
Updated EPD reference from 2010 to 2017. Added additional wording to modify language about Regional Water Plan. Updated Table reference from ES-2 and ES-3 to ES-3 and ES-4.

Table ES-3 Table ES-4 Implementing Water Management Practices Figure ES-7 Section 1.0 Section 1.0 Section 1.1 Section 1.2
Section 1.3 Figure 1-3 Section 1.3
Section 1.3
Section 2.1
Section 2.1 Section 2.2 Section 2.2 and Figure 2-3 Section 2.2 Section 2.3

Modified table number Modified table number Updated/modified text

Because Table ES-1 was added (see above), subsequent table numbers were revised accordingly. The 2011 Table ES2 is Table ES-3 in 2017 update. Because Table ES-1 was added (see above), subsequent table numbers were revised accordingly. The 2011 Table ES3 is Table ES-4 in 2017 update. Updated Table reference from ES-7 to ES-6.

Modified figure number
Minor text revisions/updates in first three paragraphs of Introduction. Added fourth paragraph to Introduction. Minor text revisions/updates Minor text revisions/updates
Updated to current Altamaha Council member numbers. Updated to current Altamaha Council member numbers cities. Minor text revisions/updates
Revised website references
Updated percentage of groundwater supplied from the Floridan aquifer system Refined climate description Updated population projection
Updated land cover distribution
Updated description of irrigated crops Minor text revisions/updates in second paragraph

Because Figure ES-6 was removed, subsequent figure numbers were revised accordingly. The 2011 Figure ES-7 is Figure ES-6 in 2017 update. Text was revised/updated to reflect the purpose of this document as an update to the Plan completed in 2011.
Added a brief description of the purpose of the Regional Water Plan update process and resulting changes to the revised management practices. Text was revised/updated to reflect the purpose of this document as an update to the Plan completed in 2011. Text in this section was revised/updated to reflect the purpose of this document as an update to the Plan completed in 2011 and to describe the similar approach to process utilized for the Plan update. Updated Altamaha Council member numbers, including positions of alternates in first paragraph.
Updated Altamaha Council member location cities in the map showing each county in the council.
Text in this section was revised/updated to reflect the purpose of this document as an update to the Plan completed in 2011 and to describe the similar approach to process utilized for the Plan update. Website links for the Memorandum of Agreement, Vision and Goals, Public Involvement Plan, and Public Outreach Technical Memorandum were updated or removed because they were no longer valid. Please refer to the Council's website if link is not available in the document. Updated percentage of groundwater supplied to the Altamaha Planning Region from the Floridan aquifer system based on new 2015 forecasted groundwater withdrawal information.
Refined description of snowfall historical average in climate section. Updated population value to the 2015 population projection based on updated reference (Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, 2015). Updated land cover distribution based on most recent available information from the University of Georgia Natural Resources Spatial Analysis Laboratory (2008) Updated description based on the most recent available information in the 2016 agricultural demand assessment.
Updated text in second paragraph to reflect that the Regional Plan was completed.

March 2017 - DRAFT

Altamaha A - 2

Section

Location

3

Summary

Change Minor text revisions/updates

3

Section 3.1

Updated water use information

3

Figures 3-1 to 3-4

Updated water use information and

figures

3

Section 3.2

Minor text revisions/updates

3

Section 3.2.1

Text revisions/updates

3

Figure 3-5

Updated

3

Section 3.2.1 -

Text revisions/updates

Assimilative Capacity

Modeling Section

Description
Updated year and data. Revised word choice. Updated water use information to the most recent information compiled by USGS (2016 USGS Publication). Removed text related to outdated references. Updated water use information to the most recent information compiled by USGS (2016 USGS Publication).
Updated word choice and sentence structure. Removed text related to outdated references. Text was added to more accurately describe the nature of the Assimilative Capacity Resource Assessment. Removed text related to outdated references. Figure updated with most recent assimilative capacity model. Updated word choice and sentence structure. The Suwannee River Basin was included in the list of Council's in the Altamaha Region. Text was added after Table 3-1 to provide additional information regarding DO modeling and Figure 3-7.

3

Table 3-1

Updated

3

Section 3.2.1 -

Text revisions/updates

Nutrient Modeling

Section

3

Figure 3-6

Updated

3

Figure 3-7

Added

3

Section 3.2.2 -

Section moved

Current Ecosystem

Conditions and

Instream Uses

3

Section 3.2.2 -

Impaired Water

Bodies

Minor text revisions/updates

3

Figure 3-8

3

Section 3.2.3

Updated Text revisions/updates

3

Table 3-2

3

Section 3.2.4

4

Summary

4

Section 4

Revised Text revisions/updates
Minor text updates Minor text updates

Values updated with most recent results of the assimilative capacity assessment. Updated word choice and sentence structure.
Values updated with most recent results of the assimilative capacity assessment. This figure was added to demonstrate the 2014 Discharge Conditions in the Altamaha Basin. subsequent figures were renumbered. Section 3.2.2. was previously Section 3.3 in the 2011 RWP; Sections 3.2.2 (Surface Water Availability) and 3.2.3 (Current Groundwater Availability) in the 2011 RWP are now Sections 3.2.3 and 3.2.4, respectively.
The text was updated with the 2014 percentages of impaired reaches. Added the EPD website link. Added text regarding the list of impaired waters. Removed text related to outdated references. The figure has been updated to show the types of impairments, the surrounding text has also been updated based on the 2014 303(d) list. Updated descriptions of the Surface Water Availability Resource Assessment to more accurately describe the nature of the analysis. The text was updated to reflect the most recent data and modeling results. Updated word choice and sentence structure. Removed text related to outdated references. Table was revised to align with the 2017 updates. Values presented are based on the Surface Water Availability Assessment, March 2017, EPD. Updated descriptions of the Groundwater Availability Resource Assessment to more accurately describe the nature of the analysis. Updated water use information to the most recent information compiled by USGS (2016 USGS Publication). The text was updated to reflect the revised forecasts. The text was updated for 2015.

March 2017 - DRAFT

Altamaha A - 3

Section

Location

4

Table 4-1

4

Section 4.1 -

Municipal Water

Forecasts Section

4

Former Table 4-2

Updated

Change

Text additions

Removed

4

Figure 4-1

Updated

4

Section 4.1 -

Text revisions/updates

Municipal

Wastewater

Forecasts Section

4

Figure 4-2

Updated

4

Section 4.2 -

Minor text revisions/updates

Employment

Projections Section

4

Section 4.2 -

Minor text revisions/updates

Industrial Water

Forecasts Section

4

Section 4.2 -

Minor text revisions/updates

Industrial Wastewater

Forecasts Section

4

Figure 4-3

4

Section 4.3

Updated Text Updates

4

Table 4-2

Updated

4

Figure 4-4

4

Section 4.4

4

Table 4-3

Updated Text revisions/updates Updated

4

Section 4.5

4

Figure 4-5

March 2017 - DRAFT

Minor text revisions/updates Updated

Description Population projections were updated based on the most recent statewide population projections (Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, 2015). Text was added to describe updated methodology utilized during the Plan update.
This table was removed as the revised methodology did not split out the specific contributions from each individual piece of legislation that reduced flush volumes of toilets for passive conservation. This figure was updated to reflect the revised municipal water forecasts. The text was updated for the most recent information available. A contribution for I/I was not explicitly added under the revised methodology but instead forecasts were based on the reported discharges. Thus the paragraph describing I/I flows was removed. Text was added regarding septic wastewater and LAS. This figure was updated to reflect the revised municipal wastewater forecasts. The text related to the planning period was updated.
The text was updated for clarification.
The text was updated for clarification.
This figure was updated to include 2015 data also other values remained the same. The text was updated to reflect the updated methodology for forecasting agricultural demands that were updated in 2016. Updated word choice and sentence structure. The text was updated based on the most recent data. Table was renumbered to Table 4-2 because Former Table 4-2 was removed (see above) and subsequent tables were re-numbered. This table was updated with the revised agricultural forecasts. Values quoted in surrounding text was also updated based on current information. This figure was updated to reflect the revised agricultural water use forecasts. The forecast is no longer being split between crop and non-crop values. The text was updated to reflect the updated energy forecast that was completed in 2016 and updates to the methodology. Table was renumbered to Table 4-3 because Former Table 4-2 was removed (see above) and subsequent tables were re-numbered. The table was updated with the revised thermoelectric water forecasts. There is no longer a regional portion of unassigned energy sector withdrawals as the Statewide unassigned withdrawals were significantly reduced since the previous round and this was no longer a factor. Updated word choice and sentence structure. The text was updated based on the most recent data. This figure was updated with the revised water demand totals per sector. The figure was converted from pie charts to a bar chart to better show the trend of increasing demands.
Altamaha A - 4

Section

Location

4

Figure 4-6

5

Summary

5

Section 5.1

5

Figure 5-1

5

Table 5-1

5

Section 5.2

Updated

Change

Minor text revisions/updates

Text revisions/updates

Added

Updated

Text revisions/updates

Description
This figure was updated with the revised total wastewater flows. The figure was converted from pie charts to a bar chart to better show the trend of increasing flows. Updated word choice and sentence structure. The text was updated to reflect the most recent data. Updated word choice and sentence structure. Second paragraph, list of counties in the modeled aquifer area was cross checked with the county demands being included as part of the groundwater availability comparison.
This figure was previously included in the RWP of other councils. It was added to visually show the projected demands compared to the calculated sustainable yield as well as the portion of demand attributed to Suwannee-Satilla in the modeled aquifer area.
Updated with the latest permitted water withdrawal values and the updated demand forecasts. There are now fewer counties with a projected need for additional future permitted water withdrawal capacity, most likely due to lower demand estimates based on the most recent, readily-available population growth information.
Updated word choice and sentence structure. The Eden planning node on the Ogeechee River is now part of the potential surface water gap discussion. There is only a small portion of the Altamaha region (northern part of Emanuel county) which drains to the Eden node. The current methodology includes any planning nodes that had drainage areas crossing the Altamaha council area. Text was added regarding Figure 5-2 and Table 5-2. The text was updated to reflect the updates to the methodology. Text related to former Figure 5-1 was deleted.

5

Table 5-2, and Figure Elements added to replace former This figure replaced Figure 5-1. Figure 5-2 was added to highlight the portions of the region which drain to a planning

5-2

Figure 5-1

node that was identified as having a potential gap.

Table 5-2 contains a summary of the identified potential gaps that was previously included as part of Figure 5-2.

Subsequent tables were renumbered.

5

Table 5-3

Added

5

Table 5-4

Updated

5

Section 5.3 - Future Text revisions/updates

Treatment Capacity

Needs Section

5

Table 5-5

Updated

5

Section 5.3 -

Text revisions/updates

Assimilative Capacity

Assessments Section

Table 5-3 (new) and related text were added based on updated resource assessment information, and in order to provide information regarding the frequency and duration of potential gaps. This information was used in determining the most relevant management practices for addressing the potential gaps. Subsequent tables were renumbered. Values in the table were updated based on the updated demands and the updated potential gaps (former Table 5-2).
Updated word choice and sentence structure. The text was updated to reflect the most recent data. No counties are projected to exceed their permitted capacity.
Table updated with the latest permitted discharge flow values and the updated wastewater flow forecasts. Two of the previously identified potential gaps for wastewater permitting capacity were eliminated. Updated word choice and sentence structure. The text was updated based on the results of the current assimilative capacity resource assessment. Text was added regarding the current modeling results.

5

Table 5-6

Updated

Updated based on the results of the current assimilative capacity resource assessment under current permitted conditions.

March 2017 - DRAFT

Altamaha A - 5

Section 5
5

Location
Figure 5-3 and Figure 5-4 Former Figure 5-3

Change Replaced former Figure 5-2
Removed

5

Section 5.3 - Non-

Minor text revisions/updates

Point Source

Pollution Section

5

Section 5.4 and

Table 5-7

Added

6

Section 6.2

Text revisions/updates

6

Table 6-1

Updated

7

Introduction

7

Table 7-1

Updated Updated

7

Section 7.2 -

Added verbiage regarding planning

Planning Level Cost level cost estimate.

Estimates Section

Description
These figures were reworked to provide a single view of the whole region rather than the individual snapshots provided previously. This figure was removed as revised information was not available. The core components of the figure are still included within the text and new figures. Updated word choice and sentence structure. Text was added regarding the Resource Assessment.
A summary section was added to recap major finding in the section. Table 5-7 was added to summarize the counties with specific identified issues. Revised the discussion to focus on agricultural conservation to address potential surface water availability gaps due to agricultural water use and periods of drought. The text referencing Table 5-2 and Figure 5-3 was revised. Deleted references to 7Q10. The text and descriptions of potential surface water gaps was updated based on most recent gap analysis presented in Section 5.
The Description/Definition of Action of various management practices was updated to align with 2017 updates and to capture the recommendations made by the council. Additional updates include:
Management practice DCAR-7 (Study Potential Use of Aquifers to Address Gap) was removed. Revised management practice numbers because former DCAR-7 was removed. Management practices for Additional/Alternative to Existing Surface Water Supply Sources (ASWS) were categorized to high priority, medium priority and low priority management practices. Management practice MWWPC-1 (Increase Wastewater Capacity) was removed. MWWPC-1 impacted counties were revised (Emanuel, Evans, Jeff Davis, Wheeler, and Wilcox Counties).
Years of the planning horizon were updated. Updated "For All Actions: Initial Implementation Step(s) and Associated Date(s)" and "Further Action to Complete Implementation and Associated Dates" to align with the 2017 updates for multiple management practices. Additional updates include:
Management practice DCAR-7 (Study Potential Use of Aquifers to Address Gap) was removed. Revised management practice numbers because former DCAR-7 was removed. Management practices for Additional/Alternative to Existing Surface Water Supply Sources (ASWS) were categorized to high priority, medium priority and low priority management practices. Management practice MWWPC-1 (Increase Wastewater Capacity) was removed. MWWPC-1 impacted counties were revised (Emanuel, Evans, Jeff Davis, Wheeler, and Wilcox Counties). GW-1 to GW-3 impacted counties were revised (Emanuel, Evans, Jeff Davis, Wheeler, and Wilcox Counties).
Neither the cost guidance prepared by EPD in April 2011 ("GAEPD Cost Guidance") nor the cost estimates have been updated therefore EPD recommended cautioning the public.

March 2017 - DRAFT

Altamaha A - 6

Section 7

Location
Section 7.2 - Funding Sources and Options Section

Change
Revised various USDA NRCS funding options.

Description
The Conservation Security Program (CSP) was not reauthorized in the 2008 Farm Bill and is no longer available. The Agricultural Act of 2014 (Act) establishes the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) and repeals the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP). F24ACEP combines the purposes of FRPP and the similarly repealed Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) into the new Agricultural Land Easements (ALE) that protect the agricultural use and conservation values of eligible farm and ranch land. Wetland Reserve Program: The Agricultural Act of 2014 establishes the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP). It repeals FRPP, GRP, and WRP but does not affect the validity or terms of any FRPP, GRP, or WRP contract, agreement or easement entered into prior to the date of enactment on February 7, 2014 or any associated payments required to be made in connection with an existing FRPP, GRP, or WRP contract, agreement or easement. Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program: The Agricultural Act of 2014 (enacted on February 7, 2014) repealed the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP). NRCS will continue to support existing active WHIP contracts entered into prior to passage of the Agricultural Act of 2014, using the rules and policy in effect at the time of contract obligations. Portions of the WHIP Statute were rolled into the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP).

7

Table 7-2

7

Section 7.4

8

Table 8-1

General updates completed throughout the plan

Updated
Text revisions/updates Updated
Updated references to "Upper Floridan" aquifer to read "Floridan" aquifer. Removed references to the current State Water Plan or Council webpages (instead referring to availability on the Council's website of the Water Planning website).

Table was modified to be consistent with Table 6-1. Management practice DCAR-7 (Study Potential Use of Aquifers to Address Gap) was removed. Revised management practice numbers for DCAR because former DCAR-7 was removed. Management practices for Additional/Alternative to Existing Surface Water Supply Sources (ASWS) were renumbered and categorized to high priority, medium priority and low priority management practices. Management practice MWWPC-1 (Increase Wastewater Capacity) was removed.
The text was updated to identify changes since 2011. In 2016, the Agricultural metering program was moved out of GS&WCC and into EPD. Table was modified to be consistent with Table 6-1. Management practices for Additional/Alternative to Existing Surface Water Supply Sources (ASWS) were renumbered and regrouped. Revised management practice numbers for DCAR because former DCAR-7 was removed. Reference to management practice MWWPC-1 (Increase Wastewater Capacity) was removed.
References to the "Upper Floridan" aquifer were updated to read "Floridan," to ensure consistency with terminology used by EPD in the 2013 Announcement regarding Future Withdrawals from the Floridan Aquifer and in other documents.
EPD is currently working to build a new Regional Water Planning website. Once the new site is up, the former site will be taken down. Web links in the Regional Water Plan document will be updated once the new website is completed.

March 2017 - DRAFT

Altamaha A - 7

Printed on recycled paper