Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout160_20_20110321CRCMinutes Prepared: May 11, 2011 Page 1 of 4 COMMUNITY RESOURCE COMMITTEE Future Water Withdrawal Permits Presentation Summary: Monday, March 21, 2011 @4:30pm MEMBERS PRESENT: Libby Bacon, Jim Burke, Lisa Callahan, Rusty Fleetwood, Shelly Krueger, Pat Locklear, Sandy Major, Judy Miller, Paul Wolff MEMBERS ABSENT: Don Ernst, Frank Kelly, Karen Kelly, Tommy Linstroth, Mallory Pearce, Freda Rutherford, Brad Sherman GUESTS: Bill Garbett, Bill Lovett, George Reese, Diane Schleicher, Kathryn Williams PRESENTERS: Brian Baker and Jeff Larson: Georgia Environmental Protection Division James (Jim) Kennedy: State Geologist, Georgia Environmental Protection Division SUMMARY: Rusty began the meeting at 4:30pm and explained that this is a combined meeting of the Infrastructure and the Community Resource Committees. He introduced Brian Baker from the Georgia Environmental Protection Division. Brian Baker reviewed the history of salt water intrusion and the Coastal Permitting Plan. Salt water intrusion became an issue in the 1940’s. s. In the 1960’s Hilton Head began developing as did the Savannah and Chatham County areas. This resulted in the Hilton Head wells beginning to salt up. In response, the state of Georgia initiated an interim strategy for managing salt water intrusion in April 1997. The interim strategy included Chatham, South Bryan and South Effingham Counties. Based on some of the work done on the interim strategy, the Coastal Permitting Plan was released in June 2006. Georgia coordinates with South Carolina to stave off the conflict as seen on the west side of the state. The technical advisory committee was formed between Georgia and South Carolina to share the cost with the Coastal Sound Initiative, paper companies and the City of Savannah. Most recently, South Carolina and Georgia have worked together by forming a salt water intrusion stakeholders group and steering committee. Brian reviewed five elements of the Coastal Permitting Plan of the Red Zone (Chatham County & Effingham County South of GA Highway 119) as follows: -Limit withdrawals from Upper Floridan Aquifer to 2004 actual amount -Reduce withdrawals by at least an additional 5 MGD by 2008 -Require implementation of water conservation and reuse measures -Ensure water withdrawal permit amounts requested are justifiable -Encourage /require use of alternate water supply sources. Brian expressed that there has been a great deal of success by changing the mindset and the way people think of the value of water and developing innovative ways to conserve water. Jeff Larson expressed that the issues are important to both states. There is a parallel effort in negotiating with South Carolina. Strategies to address salt water intrusion need to be addressed with both local efforts and bi-state efforts. Jeff introduced Jim Kennedy, Georgia’s State Geologist whose specialty is ground water geology. He presented information about the Coastal Georgia aquifers. He explained that all the work that has been done for the Coastal Sound Science Initiative came down to modeling 20110714 CC Packet 20110707 160_020_000001 Prepared: May 11, 2011 Page 2 of 4 (EPD 2006) the aquifer to produce a tool to make decisions about why is the saltwater occurring, how is it occurring and what can we do to manage it. Jim required the consultant to give EPD (Jeff and Jim) the model and train them about its use. The model shows that after 30 years of pumping with no reduction and with 50% reduction in the Savannah area and Hilton Head withdrawals the simulated plume moves inland. Jeff did more analyses with the model to simulate what it would take to stop the plume movement with ground water withdrawals. He looked at combinations of Savannah, Hilton Head and Bryan and Liberty Counties. He learned that in order to stop the plume movement you need a reduction of 97.5% in ground water withdrawals. He also did a theoretical analysis to figure out how the plume formed. Pumping in both South Carolina and Georgia contributed and that is why the states are working together. They also simulated stopping all pumping within the model for 100 years. The plume would stay in the same place. Stopping pumping is not going to flush the salt water out of the aquifer. It will remain for hundreds of years. He also presented the simulated chloride concentration. The conclusions they learned from the modeling follow (presentation slide 9): -The salt water intrusion model can be adequately calibrated to use for simulation of aquifer management scenarios -Reducing groundwater withdrawals from the aquifer, even by large amounts, would not eliminate salt-water intrusion into the Upper Floridan aquifer -Groundwater withdrawals in both the Savannah area and on Hilton Head Island were needed to create the inland extent of the current salt water plume on Hilton Head Island -Salt-water plumes would continue to exist well into the future even if all groundwater withdrawals were eliminated. South Carolina DHEC is also looking at chloride penetration into the confining unit and modeling the vertical migration of salt water through the confining unit. The modeling is not complete. One piece of work done for the Corp of Engineers regarding the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project (SHEP) was modeling how the deepening of the channel could affect the vertical migration of chloride into the aquifer along the channel. The year of the simulated effects Jim showed was 2050. With and without the dredging, the consultant found that the salt water intrusion vertical would be the same. Jim did modeling for a 40-year order of magnitude cost estimates. There is a fairly large range of cost estimates. At the March meeting of the SC/GA steering committee he was asked to concentrate on the options at the lower cost range for a model. One option with the lowest cost is to put an extraction barrier at the northern end of Hilton Head Island. Jim reviewed the lower Floridan Aquifer as an alternate source of water. Protocol for development of the lower Floridan Aquifer (Presentation slide 17): -Demonstrate that the Lower Floridan aquifer well is not open to the Upper Floridan aquifer as defined by USGS SIR 2010-5158 -Field test hydraulic properties of the Upper Floridan aquifer, Lower Floridan aquifer, and Lower Floridan aquifer confining unit in accordance with the Georgia EPD January 2003 hydrogeological study protocol -Develop a groundwater model to simulate the equivalent Upper Floridan aquifer pumping that induces the identical maximum drawdown in the Upper Floridan aquifer that would be expected as a result of pumping the Lower Floridan aquifer. Considerations for development of the Lower Floridan Aquifer (Presentation slide 18): -Limited information on the Lower Floridan aquifer at Tybee Island requires site specific testing -Lower Floridan aquifer well yield may be low 20110714 CC Packet 20110707 160_020_000002 Prepared: May 11, 2011 Page 3 of 4 -Water quality may require treatment -Possible high costs for field testing of Lower Floridan aquifer well yield, water quality, and aquifer hydraulic properties; and for development of groundwater model to simulate Upper Floridan aquifer drawdowns caused by Lower Floridan aquifer pumping -Reduction of Upper Floridan aquifer pumping to offset drawdown cased by Lower Floridan aquifer pumping may be high Jeff Larson reiterated that entities from both South Carolina and Georgia are working through the various scenarios that Jim presented. The stake holders are reviewing those and asking for more modeling. If an extraction barrier South Carolina has to be included for implementation and it has to be funded. It is not a short term idea. Political senior management needs to agree with the option the Stakeholders come up with and the funding mechanism. Governors committee exists in South Carolina and Georgia. They take up these issues. There are layers within this bi-state situation to find a solution. The steering committee is working on recommendations to give to the stake holders group. He anticipates mid-year that a report can be given to the Governors committees regarding the selected option(s). Then the other phases come into play. The current red zone does not change. It has been reduced to 2004 levels. The plans and the items reviewed are in place and viable sources will continue to be reviewed. The extraction barrier might ease up the Upper Floridan Aquifer, but, even though it is cheaper, but should not be done at the sacrifice of salt water intrusion and salting up wells and having it move towards us. QUESTION & ANSWER PERIOD: Rusty confirmed with Jeff that Tybee remains under the 2004 pumping limits and it is not expected to change until a permitting strategy between the two states develops. The salt water intrusion aspect is what is driving the stakeholder group. Rusty asked if there is a chance that Tybee’s limits would be reduced. Jim said that no mention has been made of looking at reductions of current groundwater withdrawals. The vertical movement as shown in his presentation graphs, if it were to affect Tybee, would take a long time. The concentrations from the vertical wells would be less than the lateral. Jim explained what an extraction barrier does. A line of wells are put in and the saltwater plume moving to you and it creates a line of depression. The saltwater hits that extraction barrier and gets pumped out and discharged out to Port Royal Sound. It creates a hole in the aquifer and the saltwater comes to that low point and is pumped out. A permit is necessary to discharge it. The barrier captures the saltwater. An injection barrier is where the water would be pumped in and creates a fence, which also requires permitting. Pat asked about permit holders. Bill Lovett confirmed the annual average permit is per day and the monthly average, which cannot be exceeded. Essentially, it has two numbers. Pat asked who would allow another permit holder to give Tybee part part of their allocations. Jeff confirmed it would be EPD. Jeff confirmed the federal government is involved with the permitting aspect as well. Paul asked if EPD was providing any guidance, models and or incentive for residential /commercial /industrial reuse when it is not feasible at the municipal level. Brian confirmed they leave that up to the industry. Jeff confirmed they do have management practices and can talk to groups about conservation and reuse. Jeff confirmed with Paul that they could review a proposed local ordinance that enabled reuse within a structure. Diane spoke to clarify that if an entity /city has unused water capacity that they are not using, they cannot transfer that capacity to another entity. Jeff confirmed EPD would have to look at 20110714 CC Packet 20110707 160_020_000003 Prepared: May 11, 2011 Page 4 of 4 permitted amounts and, if they wanted to take a part of that to move to someone else, they would have to look at that balance moving from one well /permit to another and there is a possibility to transfer the water. Jeff confirmed for Bill that EPD is not hearing about any further reductions from the stakeholders group, which is not done deliberating, of groundwater withdrawal lower than 2004 levels. Bill reiterated that Tybee has done what they need to do to meet the required levels, even with an impact to the industry. Jim stated that so far he has not been directed to include this scenario in his final simulations. They are looking at the engineered solutions for that reduction because of cost effectiveness. Jeff stated that the stakeholders and steering committee do not want to reduce anymore. They are happy /more comfortable to see an option that is less costly with the extraction barrier with no reduction. Jim stated that the steering committee (technical and water users) has said figuring out who will pay for a barrier is a good decision /question for the Governor appointed Savannah committee to undertake. Pat read an excerpt from a letter he has from the Ogeechee River Keepers regarding a statewide ban on so called aquifer storage and recovery. Jim confirmed it is not a statewide ban. It is a ban on Georgia coastal counties covered under the Georgia Coastal Management Act. It is not a restriction on ASR. It is a restriction on the Director of EPD granting a bond for the drilling of a well to transfer surface water to ground water. Jim confirmed South Carolina does not have the same restriction on ASR as Georgia does. Jim confirmed the modeling is not 100%, but 80% overall is accurate. He does not foresee anything happening to change the geology in Coastal Georgia and South Carolina to change the hydrology and throw the modeling off track. The meeting ended at 5:44pm. 20110714 CC Packet 20110707 160_020_000004