Meeting Summary: Upper Oconee Council June 23, 2016 - Related Files
Meeting Summary: Upper Oconee Council June 23, 2016
To: Upper Oconee Regional Water Planning Council
From: Dale Jones and Zakiya Seymour, Jacobs
Date: July 29, 2016
Subject: Council Business/Wrap-Up Summary Joint Council Meeting 2 Summary
Upper Oconee Regional Water Planning Council Regional Water Plan Review and Revision Process
This memorandum provides the meeting summary of the Upper Oconee Regional Water Planning Business/Wrap Section of the Joint Council Meeting held on June 23, 2016 at the Oconee Fall Line Technical College in Dublin, Georgia. A Joint Council Meeting was held for the six eastern Regional Water Planning (RWP) Councils (Altamaha, Coastal Georgia, Middle Ocmulgee, Suwannee-Satilla, Savannah- Upper Ogeechee and Upper Oconee) from 10 AM to 3 PM. The Upper Oconee RWP Council held a brief individual Council Meeting subsequent to the Joint Council Meeting. This memorandum provides a summary of the items discussed at the Council Meeting that was held from approximately 3:10 PM to 3:55 PM.
Debrief with Council Members from Joint Meeting
A Council Member (CM) requested that additional information is provided to the Council regarding the models developed for the resource assessments. He mentioned that he has seen population projections used in other planning purposes that were different than what is being included in our population projections. He would like the additional information to detail the source of the models and how the models were validated.
The Council agreed that they would like to have this information package early so it can be reviewed. The Planning Contractor (PC) mentioned that more details of the models are provided in the technical memorandum that is being produced. The PC will request that a summary of the memorandum be developed so that the Council would be able to review it.
Christine Voudy clarified to the Council that saltwater intrusion is being modeled, but it is being modeled separately. A Council Member stated that saltwater intrusion is academically interesting but not relevant to the Upper Oconee RWP Council.
A proxy CM representative (Georgia Power) wanted to ascertain that the resource assessments presented today summarized the current situation. The PC confirmed that the information presented today was for current conditions, and that future conditions resource assessment information would be presented at the next meeting in September. The representative suggested that the September meeting should also be a joint meeting with council-specific breakout sessions earlier in the day.
A CM agreed with an earlier comment mentioned during the Joint Council Meeting Breakout Sessions that the overall size of the Joint Council Meeting may be too large.
Follow-up discussion from June 9, 2016 "Office Hours" Teleconference
The PC summarized the subcommittee “office hours” teleconference held on June 9, 2016. He mentioned that County-specific population projections and water/wastewater demands were reviewed at the teleconference. The County-specific information was also emailed to all CMs on June 15, 2019. Attendees of the teleconference included: Chairman Melvin Davis, Hunter Bicknell, Jennifer Welte (EPD), Shayne Wood (CDM Smith), Bill Davis (CDM Smith), Dale Jones (Jacobs), Andrew Jarrett (Jacobs), and Zakiya Seymour (Jacobs). During the June 9 teleconference:
- Dale Jones and Zakiya Seymour reviewed the supplemental material provided to the Council.
- Chairman Davis requested that a review be completed to understand those situations where County-level water demands are lower than their respective wastewater demands.
- Bill Davis mentioned that a wastewater analysis is still being completed to ensure that it is aligned appropriately.
- Jennifer Welte confirmed that some of the data used in the demand updates did detail when Counties were either serviced from other Counties or provided services to another County.
- Hunter Bicknell stated that while Round 1 projections did not recognize the economic downturn, the current projections may be under forecasted if areas begin to experience economic growth again. However, he felt that the current forecast provide a good analysis of where we are.
- Hunter Bicknell recognized the difficulty in developing projections for certain Counties. For example, Jackson County includes two water authorities and five water systems. He recalled how difficult it was to gather data and reinforced the importance to completing updates for the regional water planning process every five years.
- Dale Jones reviewed the analysis completed to review the Athens-Clarke County-led master planning effort projections to the draft results presented for this County in the updated demand projections. The projections are similar; the updated demand projections are slightly higher than those provided by Athens-Clarke County, but both sets of projections are compatible.
Question/Comment - A proxy CM representative from Oconee County questioned the 2050 municipal water and wastewater demand projections for Oconee County, which were estimated as being that the 2050 water demands are projected to be 6 million of gallons per day (MGD) while the wastewater demands are 12 MGD.
- Response - The PC will review the Oconee County information and provide a response to the proxy representative and CMs.
- Addendum - The PC and Lead Forecaster conducted a review of all wastewater demand projections provided to Counties in the Upper Oconee RWP Council. It was determined that inaccurate municipal wastewater demand forecasts were provided to the Council for Clarke, Jackson, Oconee, Putnam, and Washington Counties. The wastewater demand projections provided in the supplemental material package for these Counties were calculated based upon outdated NPDES reported discharge values. The municipal wastewater demand forecasts for these Counties have been updated to reflect the changes in 2014 NPDES reported discharge values. An updated set of
County-specific information is being provided to the Council and is summarized below:
- Clarke County - The 2014 NPDES reported discharge increased from 10.18 MGD to 11.82 MGD. For sense of the impact, this change increased the projections for 2050 municipal wastewater demands from 19.20 MGD to 21.80 MGD.
- Jackson County - The 2014 NPDES reported discharge increased from 1.35 MGD to 1.96 MGD. For sense of the impact, this change increased the projections for 2050 municipal wastewater demands from 8.01 MGD to 9.94 MGD.
- Oconee County - The 2014 NPDES reported discharge decreased from 2.08 MGD to 0.70 MGD. For sense of the impact, this change decreased the projections for 2050 municipal wastewater demands from 12.05 MGD to 5.92 MGD.
- Putnam County - The 2014 NPDES reported discharge increased from 0.39 MGD to 0.43 MGD. For sense of the impact, this change increased the projections for 2050 municipal wastewater demands from 2.08 MGD to 2.13 MGD.
- Washington County - The 2014 NPDES reported discharge increased from 1.05 MGD to 1.07 MGD. For sense of the impact, this change increased the projections for 2050 municipal wastewater demands from 1.70 MGD to 1.71 MGD.
Council Meeting Business
Approve meeting minutes from March 22, 2016 Council Meeting
The CMs present agreed to approve the meeting minutes as presented.
319h Grant Project and Partner Selection Discussion
Christine Voudy (EPD) presented the options for the 319(h) grant watershed selection. Prior to this Council meeting, Lebone Moeti (EPD) assisted Chairman Davis with determining the options for the Council.
Ms. Voudy stated that the most important decision for the Council to make is the selection of the priority watershed. EPD can assist with finding the appropriate partner on behalf of the Council. She also clarified that the 319(h) funding opportunity includes $35,000 of federal funding and $23,000 of in-kind matching.
The Council agreed that they would prefer Option 2 (Ochwalkee Creek) if there is coordination on the selection of this priority watershed with the Altamaha RWP Council as well as agreement from Pine Country RC&D to serve as their potential partner.
If Option 2 cannot be coordinated with both the Altamaha RWP Council and Pine Country RC&D, the Council would prefer to select Option 1.
Question/Comment - A proxy Council representative from Oconee County asked who will control the implementation of the plan.
- Response - The partner selected to administer the plan will coordinate with the Council and any stakeholders during the beginning phases of the watershed management plan to discuss those types of options.
Ms. Voudy will follow up with the Altamaha RWP Council to determine if Option 2 is a suitable option for both Councils.
- Addendum – Ms. Voudy followed up with the Altamaha RWP Council and the EPD 319(h) Grants Unit. The Altamaha Council selected a watershed directly downstream of Ochwalkee Creek. The EPD 319(h) Grants Unit can work with Pine County RC&D to coordinate development of a 9-element watershed management plan for the entire hydrologic unit code (HUC) 10 area of Ochwalkee Creek.
The PC reviewed the selection of the Altamaha Council with Chairman Davis and Vice-Chair Graham. Both Chairman Davis and Vice-Chair Graham provided their approval of Ochwalkee Creek as the 319(h) watershed selected for Upper Oconee.
Public Comment/Local Official Comment
No public verbal comments were made.
Wayne Haynie, Director of the Oconee County Utility Department, provided written comments to the PC requesting clarifications on the updated municipal water and wastewater projections for Oconee County. Specifically, he requested the following:
- Water Demand Projections - Clarification on the impact that the 2015 per capita rate of 136 gallons per capita daily (gpcd) to the 2050 water demand projections.
- Wastewater Demand Projections - Review the wastewater demand projections for better alignment with water demand.
- Basis of Projections - Identification of the basis of water flow rates be provided
Addendum - Following the Joint Council Meeting, the PC met with the Lead Forecaster regarding Oconee County projections and addressed the above requests:
- Water Demand Projections - As approximately 40% of County population is self- supplied, 40% of the population uses 75 gpcd, and 60% of the population uses 136 gpcd in 2015. Due to the impact of the plumbing codes, both gpcd values are reduced over time. At year 2050, the self-supplied population is estimated to use 68.6 gpcd and the public-supplied population is estimated to use 129.2 gpcd.
- Wastewater Demand Projections – Values for Oconee County wastewater demand projections provided in the supplemental material package were incorrectly calculated based upon former NPDES discharge values. Upon review, the updated wastewater demand projections decreased due to the changes in 2014 NPDES discharge values. For Oconee County, the 2014 NPDES discharge decreased from 2.08 MGD to 0.70 MGD.
- Basis of Projections –Projections are based on annual average as reported to EPD.
Upper Oconee Regional Water Council Members in attendance:
- Charles Armentrout; Stuart Cofer; Larry J. Eley; Patrick Hardy; Danny Hogan; Jim Luke; W. Rabun Neal; Bill Ross; George Martin attended as a proxy for Linda S. Gantt; Wayne Haynie attended as a proxy for Melvin Davis
Georgia EPD Representative in attendance:
- Christine Voudy
Regional Water Council Planning Contractors in attendance:
- Dale Jones, Zakiya Seymour (representing Jacobs)
- Bryce Jaeck (representing Madison, Georgia)
- Patti Lanford (representing Georgia Department of Natural Resources – Wildlife Resources)
Meeting Summary: Upper Oconee Council June 23, 2016 - Related Files