the st. marys river basin · 2012. 6. 8. · hydrology water budget. the okefenokee swamp, as...

St.MarysRiverWatershed Blair, Ezell, Hall, & November

Page1

THE ST. MARYS RIVER BASIN

Susanna Blair

Mackenzie Ezell

Hollie Hall

&

John November

In collaboration with the University of Florida Conservation Clinic and the University of Georgia Environmental Law Practicum


Page2

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................4

St. Marys Watershed Atlas.............................................................................................................................5

Area and Location ......................................................................................................................................5

Climate .......................................................................................................................................................5

Hydrology ..................................................................................................................................................6

Water Budget .........................................................................................................................................6

Flow .......................................................................................................................................................6

Tidal Influence .......................................................................................................................................7

Flooding .................................................................................................................................................7

Geology ......................................................................................................................................................8

Soils............................................................................................................................................................9

Blackwater River Chemistry ....................................................................................................................10

Ecology ....................................................................................................................................................11

Resource Use................................................................................................................................................12

Land Use ..................................................................................................................................................12

Silviculture ...............................................................................................................................................13

Commercial and Recreational Fishing .....................................................................................................13

Recreation and Tourism ...........................................................................................................................14

Inlet and Coastal Areas ............................................................................................................................15

Development ............................................................................................................................................15

Water Use.....................................................................................................................................................18

Water Quantity .........................................................................................................................................18

Consumption ........................................................................................................................................19

Water Quality ...............................................................................................................................................20

Point Sources of Pollution ...................................................................................................................20

Nonpoint Sources of Pollution.............................................................................................................21

Assessment of Nutrient Pollution ........................................................................................................21

Septic Systems .....................................................................................................................................21

Assessment of Septic Systems .............................................................................................................21

Institutional and Management Framework ..................................................................................................23


Page3

Political Landscape ..................................................................................................................................23

Federal Environmental Institutional Framework .................................................................................23

Georgia Environmental Institutional Framework ................................................................................25

Florida Environmental Institutional Framework .................................................................................27

Local Environmental Institutional Framework ....................................................................................29

Regulatory Framework for Managing Water Quality..........................................................................30

Total Maximum Daily Loads...............................................................................................................32

Data Collection and Water Quality Assessment ..................................................................................33

Dissolved Oxygen ................................................................................................................................34

Silviculture ...........................................................................................................................................35

Septic System Pollution .......................................................................................................................36

Current Management....................................................................................................................................39

Wildlife Habitat........................................................................................................................................39

Water Quality Management .....................................................................................................................39

Water Quantity Management ...................................................................................................................40

Floodplain Management..........................................................................................................................41

Recommendations for an Adaptive Watershed Management Approach .....................................................42

Monitoring................................................................................................................................................42

Buffers......................................................................................................................................................42

Interstate Compact ...................................................................................................................................43

Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................................48

References ....................................................................................................................................................49


Page4

Introduction

The St. Marys River is one of the best-preserved and most unique blackwater river systems in America. The 125 mile long winding river forms the northeastern border between Florida and Georgia and connects two nationally recognized ecological sites. The river’s headwaters originate within the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge. The combination of rain and spring water sources form the composition of the 1,300 square mile basin that drains into the Cumberland Island National Seashore in the Atlantic Ocean. The waters of the St. Marys River have long been known for its outstanding water quality. Old sailing vessels would come from hundreds of miles off their course to fill the hulls of their ships with St. Marys River water to be used as drinking water for their voyages. To this day, the river serves as an important passageway for commercial, recreational, and naval vessels. It provides access to St. Marys Harbor Georgia, Fernandina Harbor, and the U.S. Navy Submarine Support Base at Kings Bay. The river system also supports extensive eco-tourism and silviculture industries.

The information contained within this report was produced by an interdisciplinary team and summarizes the biophysical, social, economic, and legal landscape of the St. Marys watershed. The first section of this report describes the watershed in its physical context. The interplay of climate, geology, hydrology, and ecology are discussed to develop an understanding of the key characteristics of this system. Overlaid on this framework are the key economic and social features of the watershed. Following the explanation of the physical characters of the watershed is a discussion of how the system is currently utilized by humans including the potential for these uses to affect the value of ecosystem services provided by the system. The final section of the report synthesizes the information presented to assess the current management efforts and make recommendations for taking an Adaptive Management approach in the watershed. Current and emerging management issues facing the watershed are explored with emphasis on the characteristics of the watershed that constrain management.


Page5

St. Marys Watershed Atlas

Biophysical Characteristics

Geographic Area

The St. Marys watershed is located on the eastern border between Florida and Georgia. The basin occupies 1,300 square miles with approximately 765 square miles located in Georgia and 535 square miles located in Florida. The river itself is 130 miles long. Its headwaters originate in the Okefenokee Swamp and the river eventually drains into the Atlantic Ocean at Cumberland Sound. About 86% of the watershed is located in four different counties: Camden and Charlton counties in Georgia and Nassau and Baker counties in Florida. Figure 1 is a map of the watershed area and location. The watershed is represented by the Hydrologic Unit Code 0307024 by the U.S. Geologic Survey.

Climate

The St. Marys Watershed has a sub temperate climate characterized by mild winters and hot summers. The average annual precipitation is between 40 and 52 inches per year. Summer is the wet season with one-third to one-half of all precipitation in the basin falling during this time. Fall is the driest season receiving only 20% of the annual precipitation. The average temperature in the area is 69 degrees Fahrenheit.

Figure 1: St. Marys River Surface Basin (SMRMC 2003).


Page6

Hydrology

Water Budget.

The Okefenokee Swamp, as mentioned above, is the origination point of the St. Marys and accounts for approximately 10% of the total river flow. The swamp’s water budget is representative of the St. Marys watershed with approximately 82% of the water in the swamp coming from rainfall, 15% from basin surface water runoff and 3% from groundwater discharge. Around 80% of this inflow is released back into the atmosphere through evapotranspiration. This is typical of water bodies in Florida and Georgia due to the warm climate and high summer temperatures. Only around 2% of the swamp’s discharge flows into the St. Marys River.

Flow.

The St. Marys has 3 distinct areas contributing flow: the headwaters, the middle St. Marys, and the lower St. Marys. The headwaters are formed from 5 significant tributaries: North Prong, Middle Prong, Cedar Creek, South Prong, and Deep Creek. These headwaters account for approximately 40% of the flow seen at the mouth of the river. The middle St. Marys has two significant tributaries: the Suwannee Canal and Spanish Creek. Cabbage Creek and the Little St. Marys contribute flow in the lower St. Marys. Figure 2 shows the increase in flow of the St. Marys along three points on the river- one near the origination point at Moniac, GA, one just past where the headwaters converge near MacClenny, FL, and one near the mouth of the river at Gross, Florida. The flow near the origin is only 250 cubic feet per second and increases to over 1500 cubic feet per second near the mouth of the river. There is a drop in river flow during May, June, and July due to the high evapotranspiration rates and an increase in flow during the hurricane season in September and October.

Figure 2: Average Daily River Discharge 1965-1990 in cubic feet per second


Page7

Tidal Influence.

The lower third of the St. Marys River is brackish water due to tidal fluctuations in the Atlantic Ocean. At low tide, there is a maximum discharge average of 6,000 cubic feet per second. During high tide, there is actually no discharge. Salt water is pushed back into the lower third of the river due to minimal topographic changes in the area. These tidal systems have undoubtedly shaped the ecosystem in the area. Figure 3 shows these daily tidal fluctuations at high tide, low tide, and an average daily flow of the system.

Flooding.

The two causes of flooding in the St. Marys Floodplain are tidal surges or extensive rainfall, which often cause the river to overflow its banks. Tidal surges would likely be the result of a hurricane or tropical storm affecting the region. A Hurricane Tidal Surge Inundation Map for this area shows possible flooding nearly a third of the way up the river. even if only a category 1

hurricane were to hit the east coast at the Florida Georgia border. In the case of a category 5 storm, large portions of northern Florida and southern Georgia would be covered to Highway 1 (American Red Cross, 2008). Hurricane flooding hazards are managed under the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), who supplies insurance as well as response and recovery if there were be a disaster.

Figure 3: Daily Tidal Fluctuations at Gross, FL in cubic feet per second

Figure 4: 100-Year Floodplains in the St. Marys River represented by the marigold color. (St. Marys River Management Plan p. 40)


Page8

Currently, a large portion of the river’s watershed is within the 100 year floodplain. Figure 4 shows the 100 year floodplains of the river highlighted in orange. The headwaters are largely floodplain areas, in the middle St. Marys the floodplains are largely confined to the river margins due to deeper banks, and the lower St. Marys, is approximately 50% floodplain areas. With these significant floodplain areas, flooding is a major concern.

This river is subject to flooding events most years, primarily as a result of heavy rain events. In the Florida portion of the watershed, 190,399 acres fall within the 100 year floodplain. Of these total acres 3,000 acres are currently developed, with an additional 16,200 acres designated for future development. (St. Marys River Management Committee Management Plan, 39). When putting this into context for this area, increased development in the floodplain would result in additional applications for National Flood Insurance Policies. At the very least, the issuance of these additional policies would likely result in increased stringency for construction within the floodplain. There is also a possibility that policy decisions at the federal level may lead to FEMA limiting the amount of NFIP policies issued in at-risk floodplain areas, which certainly would have an effect on development in the area. It may make sense for the St. Mary’s communities to attempt to continue to strive to achieve higher classifications within the NFIP which could lead to increased local control and lower premiums for its citizens.

Geology

The drainage basin of the St. Marys can be separated into two physiographic regions that are delineated by their geology. First, the Atlantic Coastal Plan, which extends from the coast west to the Trail Ridge, is a topographic high that runs north to south. This plain is distinctly different from the Northern Highlands that are to the west of the Trail Ridge, in that the elevation is no more than 100 ft above sea level. Unlike most of Florida, this region is not highly influenced by karstic hydrogeology. The Floridan aquifer in this region is nearly 2000 ft below the surface and the surface geology is

Figure 5: Geological Map of northeastern Florida (Scott et. al.)


Page9

primarily composed of silicious or quartz sand and clay material. Figure 5 is a geological map of northeastern Florida, which is representative of a majority of the geology in the watershed. To the west, the dunes are composed of siliciclastics, organics, and freshwater carbonates. Just east of these dune areas are the Trail Ridge Sands. This topographic high borders the eastern edge of the Okefenokee Swamp and it is also what creates the large “U” turn in this river, as the river chooses the path of least resistance as it flows around the relatively high topography. The Trail Ridge Formation is an important lithologic unit in the southeast as it has a relatively high concentration of heavy metals. The titanium minerals, rutile, ilmenite, and leucoxene, make up about 45 percent of the heavy-mineral fraction. Staurolite, zircon, kyanite, sillimanite, tourmaline, spinel, topaz, corundum, monazite and others make up the remainder of the heavy-mineral fraction (Scott et al.). This unit was once investigated for mining operations in this area. In fact, Dupont has a Titanium mine in Starke, Florida although this doesn’t affect our watershed, This mine is in the same Trail ridge formation, and could forecast future mining operations within the watershed in the future.

To the east of the Trail Ridge Sands is the Cyprus Head formation that is composed of shallow marine siliciclastics. There is a small outcropping of the Hawthorne group in this watershed. This is a clay formation with high concentrations of phosphorous. The undifferentiated sediments to the east of this are sands that were deposited in a freshwater system, and it has some organic content. The Holocene sediments are quartz and carbonate sands and muds, while the Beach Ridge and Dunes are more modern deposits of marine quartz sand (Scott et al.).

Knowing the geology of a watershed has many important implications. The geology is one of the major controls of topography, aquifer topology, infiltration rates, soil types, as well as possible contaminants. For example, the Hawthorn formation is rich in phosphorous, and may cause naturally occurring high phosphorous concentrations in ground or surface water. This same reasoning can be applied to some of the relatively high concentrations of iron that have been found in some groundwater wells in the watershed, as this mineral is present in some of the clay formations (Gihring et al, 2007).

Soils

There are four main types of soils in the St. Marys River basin. Histosols, comprised of mostly peat in this region, are commonly found in the upper reaches of the River in lower topographic features. This type of soil is identified by a thick surface layer that is very high in organic carbon. In the higher topographic regions of the watershed, Ultisols can be found. These soils have a sandy surface horizon and a clayey subsurface. Spodisols are primarily found along the main stem of the river. These soils are commonly poorly drained and have a shallow hardpan or spodic horizon. Finally, Entisols are found in the floodplain regions of the watershed. These are mineral and quartz sand dominated with little organic content. The ability of soils to drain water


Page10

has implications for the ability of the watershed system to filter contaminants before they reach the river. The soils in this watershed tend to have an upper depth of between two and nine feet of sand that overlays a dense clay layer. Water entering the basin rapidly infiltrates the sand layer; however infiltration is impeded when the water contacts the impermeable clay layer which concentrates and directs water flow to the river (SJRWMD, Watershed facts). The existence of this impermeable clay layer should increase the emphasis on ensuring that sources of pollution are controlled and functional buffers are required.

Blackwater River Chemistry

The inherently low nutrient and dissolved oxygen levels of the St. Marys River make it particularly vulnerable to contamination. The sandy materials comprising much of the geology and soils in the area do not retain organic materials well and nutrient pollutants move through them easily. The result is a rapid movement of nutrients from their source to nearby ground or river waters. Nutrients entering the river can drive a proliferation of algal growth increasing the biological oxygen demand, resulting in a decrease of the already low dissolved oxygen levels. Currently, there is a lack of knowledge as to what extent the native ecosystem can tolerate nutrient and dissolved oxygen fluctuations. The hypothesis that low dissolved oxygen levels are a natural occurrence in the river should not slow down research geared at determining whether there are also anthropogenic factors that have contributed to this level. Managers must have the foresight to understand that although past human action may not have lead to the low dissolved oxygen levels, the sensitive nature of this blackwater river will require stringent monitoring of even minor future activities that could impact the dissolved oxygen levels.

Ecology

The St. Marys Basin is a natural hot spot for ecological activity as it creates a wildlife corridor between the Okefenokee Swamp at its origination point and the estuaries at the mouth of the river. The watershed contains 34,223 hectares of undisturbed natural communities, approximately 8.7% of the catchment area. The St. Marys river and floodplain provides important ecological corridors for the Florida Black Bear, dry sandhill habitat for the Sherman’s fox squirrel, open habitat for the Southeastern American Kerstel, red cockaded woodpecker, and gopher tortoises, as well as pristine blackwater river habitat for several endangered species of fish.


Page11

The natural tidal system salt marsh, swamp and maritime forest communities in the St. Marys contributes to the existence of the large number of species in the estuary. The estuary and beaches provide foraging and nesting grounds for the West Indian Manatee, and the coastal waters are utilized as calving grounds for the critically endangered Northern Right Whale. Collectively, the basin’s ecosystems and waters are home to many federally threatened or endangered species including mammals, reptiles, birds, and fish. A partial list can be found in Table 1.

In 1996, Florida wisely identified critical areas that are home to endangered or threatened species and/or flora. In Georgia, however, there has been no marking of the critical species habitats in the area. Since Georgia has failed to identify these critical habitats, future development in this area could encroach on these significant areas, reducing their value and their ability to support the species that depend on these corridors in order to survive. Identification of these natural areas is only the first step, The communities of the St. Marys watershed must also support the public funding of land acquisition programs that can ensure that these significant areas are protected.

Common Name Endangered/Threatened Fish Atlanic Sturgeon Threatened Reptiles American Alligator Threatened Atlantic Loggerhead Turtle

Threatened

Atlantic Green Turtle Endangered Leatherback Turtle Endangered Eastern Indigo Snake Threatened Atlantic Hawksbill Endangered Kemp’s ridley Endangered Flatwoods Salamander Endangered Mammals Northern Right Whale Endangered Humpback Whale Endangered Florida Manatee Endangered Birds Red Knot Under Review Arctic Peregrine Falcon Endangered Wood Stork Endangered

Table 1: Federally threatened or endangered species


Page12

Resource Use

Land Use

Land use in the St. Marys is divided between many different groups of uses including: wetlands, agriculture, grasslands, forestry, urban development, and open water. Currently, there is not a significant amount of urban development in most of the St. Marys River watershed, with development limited mainly to the banks of the river and the coastal inlet. Currently, the main human use in the watershed is silviculture. Figure 6 is a graph showing the percentage of land cover for each land use category within the watershed. The uses from 1992 to 2001 change slightly, however there are more dramatic increases in grasslands and urban land cover. There are decreases in wetlands, forests and open water. The change in the amount of forest land could be a result of increased timber harvesting or the conversion of timberland to urban land cover. In merely this 9 year span there was an increase in urban development in the watershed of approximately 7%.

Figure 7 is a map of the St. Marys River Watershed. In this figure, the estuary is the light yellow region to the east, the river is the light yellow line moving through the watershed, making the large

Figure 6: Land Use by percent for the St. Marys RIver Watershed. The green bars represent the land use in 1992 and the orange are those from 2001 (data from USGS, 2009).

Figure 7. Map of St. Marys River Watershed, showing both the Areal Empower Intensity (AEI) and the forecasted land use change in Florida for 2020, 2040, and 2060 as indicated by the red colors (data from USGS, 2009 and FGDL, 2009).


Page13

“U” and ending in the Okefenokee Swamp, the light yellow region in the west. The yellow and orange colors that make the backdrop of this map represent the Areal Empower Intensity (AEI). This is a method of determining what land is susceptible to human influence. Areas with a value of 0, such as the river or the swamp are least susceptible, while the more orange colors are areas that are more susceptible to impacts. Superimposed on this AEI is the forecasted land use change for the Florida side of the river for the years of 2020, 2040, and 2060. The, light to dark red, colored regions show the projected increase in urban sprawl along most of the south side of the river. The most significant regions of development are directly along the river as well as in the southwestern portion of the watershed. This figure indicates that there is a strong chance that some of the silviculture industry’s land along the river will be converted into development and that the town of Macclenny, Fl will drastically increase in size. This figure acknowledges that the coastal areas will see little change, because it is already quite developed.

Silviculture

The timber industry dominates the physical, political, and economic spheres surrounding the St. Marys. In Nassau County, for example, in terms of physical dominance 323,400 acres out of 417,000 total land acres are timberland. The economic importance of the timber is demonstrated by the fact that in Nassau county alone, timber is valued at about $292,510,000. (Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 2009). When it comes to political significance, the dominant silviculture companies in the watershed have the reputation of oftentimes having enough political pull to sway government officials when they are making important policy decisions in the region. The silviculture industry has been the most powerful private stakeholder group in the St. Marys River watershed.

Commercial and Recreational Fishing

Over 65 species of fish have been identified in the River (St. Marys River Guide). At the St Marys Rivers’ mouth, redfish, flounder, and spotted sea trout are abundant, while largemouth bass, panfish, and catfish are popular species in the middle and upper portions of the River (St. Marys River Guide). Florida and Georgia agree on fishing and boating regulations in the form of a Reciprocal Agreement, which mainly assigns each state’s regulations to that side of the River (St. Marys River Management Plan). These regulations are supported through sufficient enforcement of activities on the River (St. Marys River Management Plan). Nevertheless, in recent years commercial fishing has nearly disappeared. Historically, the St. Marys River was a popular fishing location for sturgeon, largemouth bass, sunfish, and other fish. The mercury in fish tissues is causing the fishing of some species to be limited. This mercury is believed to be atmospheric in origin and deposited from industrial sources. It is converted into methylmercury through biological processes in the soil and water. Unfortunately, there are currently


Page14

consumptive guidelines in this river due because the hign mercury levels present in fish tissue is causing the river to not support its current designation as a Class III fishing river. In the Upper St. Marys, recommendations limit largemouth bass to 1 meal/month and redbreast sunfish to 1 meal/week. In the lower portion, recommendations limit largemouth bass to 1 meal/week. There are a number of unknowns associated with the mercury problem in the St. Marys including: how to reduce atmospheric mercury levels, the rate at which mercury levels in the fish tissue is rising, and if mercury levels in the river are actually significant enough to classify it as impaired.

The Atlantic sturgeons are a threatened species that was supported in the river until the mid-1980’s. Recent surveys have shown that the Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon have been extirpated from the river. No sturgeon was reported in the river in a study conducted over a 5.5 year span. A similar fate has been observed for shad in the river. The exact cause of the sturgeon extirpation is unknown, but potential causes include groundwater removal from paper mills, over-fishing, river-flow alterations, water quality declines, human population growth, human induced salinity level alteration, and nutrient-laden runoff from dairy farming and silviculture. Unfortunately, the St. Marys, has seen a reduction of 82% in the amount of fishing conducted on the river from 1986 to 1999. Nevertheless, recent actions may cause an improvement in fishing conditions on the river. The St. Mary’s Fisheries restoration Committee (SMFRC) is currently developing a plan to reestablish native fisheries in the river through effective partnerships and consensus adaptive management. The SMRMC has hypothesized that the improved water quality that is a result of the closing of the paper mill located at the headwaters of the river in 2002, along with the decrease in water withdrawals from the aquifer below, has provided the potential for sturgeon populations to be re-established in the river. This re-establishment of a sustainable fish population could eventually stimulate the economy and could provide the centerpiece for establishing hunting, tourism, and other related industries in the region.

Recreation and Tourism

Recreational uses of the St. Marys River include boating, fishing, and hiking in the state parks. The St. Marys River Canoe Trail is officially designated as part of Florida’s Statewide System of Greenways and Trails. In 2000, 17 public access sites on the main River were identified, with 7 located on the Florida side. A variety of publicly accessible recreational sites are located on the River, including two national sites (Okefenokee Swamp National Wildlife Refuge and Cumberland Island National Seashore) and three state sites in Florida (Ralph E. Simmons Memorial State Forest, John M. Bethea State Forest, and Fort Clinch State Park).

The St Marys River Management Committee (SMRMC) also continues to support and encourage public knowledge about the River and the recreational activities it has to offer. In conjunction with the St. Johns River Management District, the SMRMC published the St. Marys River Guide


Page15

in order to further this objective. The Guide lists opportunities to see the basin’s wildlife and notable sites for environmental education along with providing camping and visitor information.

Inlet and Coastal Areas

The St. Marys’ inlet and coastal area is comprised of both estuarine and marine waters with exceptional biological, aesthetic, and economic value. Human use of this land dates back to 3500 B.C. and today, the inlet has been significantly modified by humans to provide access to the Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base and the Port of Fernandina. Fernandina Beach and Amelia Island to the south of the inlet are significantly developed while Cumberland Island and the Fort Clinch State Park are both protected areas around the inlet with minimal development and significant ecological value.

The St. Marys River, Amelia River, and Cumberland Sound all empty into the Atlantic Ocean at this inlet. The St. Marys inlet is an altered natural inlet maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers. The actual inlet has been significantly modified to achieve its current depth and width by two federal navigation projects. The first project began in 1881 with the construction of parallel jetties to maintain the navigation channel. These jetties have been modified over the years and currently the north jetty is 19,500 feet long and the south jetty is 11,200 feet. The channel extends out approximately 12.5 miles into the Atlantic. The inlet influences beaches four miles north of the inlet and 13 miles south of the inlet.

Sand is accumulating in excessive amounts on the north side and inside the inlet while it is not able to nourish the southerly beaches. Amelia Island, directly south of the inlet, has 9.1 miles of beach that are currently experiencing critical erosion. The channel is also slowly migrating south, eroding away land in the process. The Kings Bay Naval Submarine Station in the inlet area uses a constructed access channel initially constructed in 1955 to allow the movement of submarines in and out of the Atlantic. This project has extended the entrance of the channel to 125 miles offshore. This inlet channel and Cumberland Sound require massive annual maintenance dredging to maintain a depth of 46 feet and a width of 500 feet.

The inlet and sound construction has brought about serious concerns regarding the beaches, wildlife, and development. Suitable material must be acquired to help nourish beaches down drift from the inlet to help mitigate the impacts of erosion. Dredging of excess material north of the inlet must also occur to prevent marine life such as whales and dolphins from becoming beached. Several species of endangered turtles use these beaches as nesting grounds making protection of them vital. With the inlet migrating southward, there is the real possibility of the highly populated areas of Fernandina Beach and Amelia Island to become eroded over time (St. Marys River Entrance Inlet Management Study Implementation Plan 1997).


Page16

Development

Developments of Regional Impact, also known as DRI’s, are projects in either Florida or Georgia that will affect an area well beyond the local government jurisdiction where the project may be located. These projects require the developer to submit an Impact Statement to the local governments of the area. These governments coordinate with regional planning councils to determine if the project is in the best interest of the region and therefore the state. The DRIs go through a process that includes this step, as well as public notices and hearings. Figure 8 shows the process of DRI permitting that must be done in order to be approved in the State of Florida. In Florida, only after the DRI has gone through these steps, will the project be either approved or denied by the local government. In Georgia, the DRI process is not binding, and instead simply provides recommendations for the developers to improve the project from ecological, social, and economical standpoints.

In Georgia, there are currently over 40 DRIs in the process of being reviewed in our watershed. Many of these DRIs propose massive development in the watershed. One prime example of these projects is the Villages at Kingsland. This 15,000 acre project will not only double the city’s area and take over 20 years to build, but will require significant capacity increases. In order to serve this DRI alone, 5 new groundwater wells must be drilled to provide an extra 16 million gallons per day (MGD) of water to the area, a new treatment plant will be built for the 12 MGD of wastewater, and the problem of 180,000 tons of solid waste produced annually by the development has not yet been able to be solved. This presents significant concern that these projects are not only being approved as in the best interest of the region, but also how these projects will affect the water supply in the area. Without further regulation of these developments, it is probable that they will significantly alter the face of the watershed.

On the Federal level, the National Environmental Policy Act attempts to regulate the federal development through Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). While there is only one such EIS in our watershed, it has been consistently updated and supplemented with ongoing expansion. The EIS was first applied for in 1976 by the Navy for the construction of the Kings Bay Naval Submarine Station. The study attempted to forecast the social, economic, fiscal, and environmental impacts of this project on the area, particularly the estuary and inlet at the mouth of the St. Marys River. This project was approved as well as the supplemental EIS despite the fact that all these EIS’s have acknowledged that the project has significant impacts through dredging, marine mammals, resources, sanctuaries for threatened and endangered species, and water resources.

The St. Marys watershed has a high potential to continue providing ecosystem services

Figure 8: Florida Developments of Regional Impact Permitting Process


Page17

including provision of habitat for a great diversity of wildlife like the black bear and sea turtles. As you can see, with the expanding local and federal projects, there is concern over the protection of wildlife and their habitat. In our watershed, there are rare, threatened, and endangered species that need or will soon need protection. Two species are particularly representative in this area, the turtles and black bear. There are six endangered turtles in estuary, inlet, and surrounding ocean waters. These turtles use the coastal beaches at Cumberland Sound and the inlet beaches as nesting grounds. The Florida Black Bear uses the large forested areas and surrounding rivers as its habitat. The conservation of valuable wildlife corridors within the St. Marys watershed will assist in the connection of an ecological greenway between the Ocala and Osceola National Forests.


Page18

Water Use

Water Quantity

Both Florida and Georgia have state regulations concerning water withdrawals from both surface and groundwater. Although both states utilize “regulated riparian” systems based on reasonable use, there water regulations often differ. Currently, all water withdrawals in the state of Georgia are handled through the Georgia Environmental Protection Department. When EPD is making permitting decisions related to surface water consumption they must balance a number of public interest factors such as the nature and size of the water body, the extent, importance, and nature of the planned consumption, how the consumption would affect flows in accompanying water bodies, the nature of impairments of the water body which could have adverse effects on competing water uses, and the injury that would result to the public health, safety, and welfare if such impairment are not prevented. (Ga Code § 12-5-31(e)) For surface water or groundwater use, an applicant who plans on using more than 100,000 gallons per day must apply for a water use permit from the Georgia EPD (rule 391-3-2-.03). Under this rule the applicant must prove that this water use will not cause material injury or detriment to other water users of the same area and is not contrary to the public interest. Most of these permits are issued for 10 years and may be renewed (Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 2002). A positive addition to Georgia’s water law regulations is that when applying for a permit for increased water consumption the applicant must include a water conservation plan. (Ga Code § 12-5-96 (a)(2)2007) A permit is required for all public drinking water sources. As of 1998, all applicants who apply for a new permit for groundwater withdrawals must also provide an approved back-up water supply source that is capable of providing adequate water service, if the groundwater source becomes nonfunctional. This has strong implications for withdrawals directly from the relatively pristine St. Marys River, especially if development increases as expected within the region. Permits must also be applied for agricultural water use if the amount exceeds 100,000 gallons per day. Unfortunately, in the state of Georgia agricultural water use permits do not expire and are exempted from most regulatory oversight. Additionally, agricultural water users are not required to record or report their water usage, and there is little to no enforcement requiring them to stay within the permitted amount. There is evidence that agricultural water use in Georgia has been increasing. In 1970 only 175,000 acres were irrigated and by 2004 there were nearly 1.49 million irrigated acres in Georgia (Haire, 2005).

In Florida, the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) has governance over water usage in the St. Marys Watershed. Consumptive Use Permits (CUPs) are required for users who plan to use 100,000 gallons or more per day. These permits are not for water use intended for in home domestic use (Chapters 40C-2, 40C-20, or 40C-22, F.A.C.) In the CUP ruling there are very strict instructions about water uses for irrigation, reclaimed water, even fountains, and a strong focus on reclaimed water usage especially for golf course irrigation. The applicant must show that the water use will be reasonable and beneficial, that it will not interfere


Page19

with any presently existing legal use of water, and it must be consistent with the public interest. (Chapter 40C-2, F.A.C.) (GaDNR, 2002 and SJWMD, 2009).

Current water withdrawals from the St. Marys River watershed are shown in Table 2. This table represents both surface water and groundwater withdrawals and is split up by specific permitted use. The agricultural water use in Georgia is an estimate, due to the lack of an accurate reporting mechanism. The total water use in this basin is approximately 100 MGD. By comparison, Gainesville, Florida main well field, Murphree Well Field operated by

Gainesville Regional Utility, has a projected withdrawal amounts for 2010 at 29.5 MGD.

Consumption

Figure 9 is a map of central and north Florida showing the projected drawdown of the potentiometric surface of the Florida aquifer to year 2030. Most of this drawdown is associated with the city of Jacksonville, but the cone of the depression associated with this water usage does extend well into our watershed. From just these projections the aquifer below the St. Marys could see decreases from 0.5 to 10 feet. It is important to remember that this figure only illustrates the impact to groundwater sources in Florida and gives no indication as to the amount of drawdown associated with groundwater use in Georgia.

The over use of groundwater will undoubtedly lead to an increased use in surface water, as this has already happened with the withdrawal of water from the St. Johns River to supply Seminole County in Florida. Besides the St. Johns, the St. Marys River is the closest supply of freshwater for the Jacksonville area,

Public Agriculture Industry Golf Courses

Georgia 2.13 0.52 31.32 --

Florida 11.85 1.53 33 20

TOTAL 13.98 2.05 64.32 20

Table 2. Water use (MGD) by permitted type in Georgia and Florida. St. Marys River Water Management Plan from the Committee and Fisher and Thompson (2003).

Figure 9: Projected changes in the elevation of the potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer system in response to projected increases in groundwater withdrawals, 1995-2030 (from SJRWMD, January 2009)


Page20

and with increased urban development in the watershed proper, this river could definitely become a source for area water withdrawals.

There is little doubt that there will be increased development in and surrounding the St. Marys River Watershed. This increased development will require increased water use, which begs the question, what is the holding capacity of the water in this watershed?

Water Quality

Designated Use

In Florida water quality standards use water quality criteria to define designated uses of the States water bodies (FDEP, 2007). The St. Marys River is designated a Class III which means that the River must be “suitable for recreation, propagation & maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife” to meet its designated use. In Georgia the designated use of the St. Marys River is a Fishing River. Florida and Georgia agree on fishing and boating regulations in the form of a Reciprocal Agreement, which mainly assigns each state’s regulations to that side of the River.

Point Sources of Pollution

Both the states of both Florida and Georgia permit point source discharge into the St. Marys Basin. Permission to discharge domestic or industrial wastewater or storm water to surface water bodies is provided through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (FDEP 2007). In addition to NPDES permitted point discharges, Florida & Georgia also regulate the land application of domestic and industrial wastewater. Permitted point sources of contamination in the St. Marys include treated wastewater from sewage treatment, concrete and other industrial plants. The 200 or more permitted wastewater discharges are known sources of metals, nutrients, and coliforms. Point source discharges of wastewater have a high probability of reducing water quality. While this fact is known, the activities continue to be allowed as long as the water quality standards governing the rivers designated use are not violated. Generally permitted discharge loads are not reduced unless a Basin Management Action Plan has been implemented for the receiving water body.

The receiving waters of point source discharges are not adequately monitored for water quality. Without monitoring of the waters receiving point-source discharge it is impossible to determine to what extent these activities may have altered the River. The associated management implications are that extensive monitoring of the system must occur to allow for the identification of a loss of water quality and ecological function.


Page21

Nonpoint Sources of Pollution

Nonpoint sources of pollution generally enter surface waters with rainwater as it flows from the landscape carrying with it naturally occurring and anthropogenic materials. Agricultural activities are known sources of nonpoint pollutants such as sediment, fertilizers, animal wastes, pesticides, and pathogens. Rainwater leaving urban, industrial and residential landscapes is referred to as ‘urban runoff’. Urban runoff carries with it sediments, nutrients, oil, grease, metals, bacterial, pesticides, herbicides and other toxic wastes into the St. Marys River. The potential future conversion of timberlands in the basin to urban sprawl will increase the amount of nonpoint pollutants entering the river. Florida and Georgia both utilize Best Management Practices for their silviculture industries. Utilizing the proper Best Management Practices during silvicultural activities may lead to a reduction in the contribution of nutrients, sediment, organic debris, pesticides and herbicides to the St. Marys River. It is essential that further studies are conducted to establish whether these BMP’s are effectively protecting water quality, including within the tributary areas. Also of great concern in the St. Marys Basin is the potential for near river septic tanks to act as nonpoint sources of nutrients and coliforms (Georgia Department of Natural Resources 2002). The collective contribution of nonpoint source contaminants to the St. Marys River has the potential to negatively impact water quality unless Best Management Practices are effectively utilized and updated to ensure that their purpose of improving water quality is achieved.

Assessment of Nutrient Pollution

Currently in the state of Florida the definition of nutrient loads that exceed acceptable limits are based on a narrative definition rather than a numeric value. The narrative states, “In no case shall nutrient concentrations of a body of water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna (Florida’s Division of Water Resource Management, 2007).” This rule considers other information that might “indicate an imbalance in flora or fauna due to nutrient enrichment, such as algal blooms, excessive macrophyte growth, a decrease in the distribution (density or aerial coverage) of sea grasses or other submerged aquatic vegetation, changes in algal species richness, and excessive dissolved oxygen swings (Florida’s Division of Water Resource Management, 2007).” This definition is useless without adequate monitoring of water quality to allow the identification of system changes. To gain the States support in remediating excessive nutrient loads that may emerge in the future it is imperative that extensive and coordinated monitoring of the above-mentioned ecological parameter begins and continues indefinitely. It also may make sense to measure excessive loads through the use of a numeric value system.


Page22

Septic Systems

Nutrients and coliforms originating from septic systems are considered a non-point source of pollution. Degradation of water quality due to septic systems is a major stakeholder concern in the St. Marys. Septic systems provide small-scale sewage treatment in rural areas that are not connected to municipal sewer systems. Septic systems consist of a tank and a drainage field as show in Figure 10. Household wastewater flows into the septic tank where the solids sink, the scum floats and anaerobic bacteria begin the decomposition process. When the volume of the septic system reaches capacity the liquid waste flows out of the tank and into the drainage field via porous piping. Complete treatment of wastewater depends on in-tank processing and dispersal of effluent to the leach field. If not properly maintained septic systems can become a source of organic matter, nutrients, oxygen demanding bacteria and pathogens to the environment. Proper functioning of the septic tank depends on the maintenance of sufficient tank volume and drain field capacity to allow for sufficient decomposition of waste. Maintenance requires the removal of accumulated partially decomposed solid waste from the septic tank every 3 to 5 years. If sufficient septic tank volume is not maintained sufficient decomposition of waste is not achieved, the leach field will become clogged and fail releasing organic matter, nutrients, oxygen demanding bacteria and pathogens into the environment (Cogger, 2009).

The St. Marys River is particularly vulnerable to septic contamination. Until 2005 there were no regulations associated with septic tank installation location along the river, resulting in the presence of aging septic systems within 100 feet of the river. The sandy materials comprising much of the geology and soils in the area do not retain organic materials well and liquids move through them easily. The result is a rapid movement of wastewater through the septic systems leach field to near by ground or river waters. Additionally, the St. Marys River frequently floods. Floodwaters increase the already shallow water table potentially inundating septic tanks, flushing waste materials into the river. Collectively, these conditions lead to a high probability of septic tank contamination of ground and river waters in the St. Marys System.

Figure 10: Septic System Diagram


Page23

Political Framework

Political Landscape

As with any region in the United States, The St. Marys River Basin is under the jurisdiction of a myriad of federal and state legislations and is under the watchful eye of many stakeholders from the federal, state, regional, and local levels. As it is, the management of the St. Marys is shaped by stakeholder concerns. Below is a discussion of the framework of the political landscape that structures management of the St. Marys Watershed. The complex layering of authorities across agencies and state boundaries often cause disjointed management efforts within the watershed and also provides the dynamic foundation for the potential to adaptively manage this watershed.

Federal Environmental Institutional Framework

Figure 11: Overview of Federal Legal Framework in St. Marys River Watershed

Figure 11 above depicts the general federal agencies and acts that have impacted the St. Marys River watershed. The major federal stakeholders listed above include the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Defense, Department of Agriculture, Department of Interior, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). These stakeholders oversee the implementation of several acts described below. The Environmental Protection Agency oversees the implementation of the Clean Water Act (CWA), which intends “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters” (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2009). The CWA establishes requirements for recognizing and improving impaired surface waters. This includes the development of the Total Maximum Daily Loads


Page24

(TMDLs) and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination (NPDES) programs. In 1987 Congress amended the Clean Water Act to establish a “non-point source management program”, recognizing the need for greater federal leadership in guiding state and local non-point source water protection efforts (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2009).

Other influential federal legislation includes Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). The CZMA was enacted in to effectively manage, protect, and develop the coastal zones of the United States. The St. Marys River watershed’s coastal region is oftentimes subject to stringent regulation and rules that are aresult of programs initiated because of this act. Current and future policy decisions related to FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program may have considerable impacts on the watershed. Fernandina Beach is located on the barrier island just south of the St. Marys outlet and is a major population center within the river’s watershed. Policy changes within the National Flood Insurance Program in the future could have a large effect on development trends on Fernandina and the other barrier islands along the coast.

The National Environmental Policy Act is managed by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Council on Environmental Quality. This policy requires federal agencies to apply for and be granted permits before developing an area. These applications are called Environmental Impact Statements, and currently the King’s Bay Naval Submarine Base located at Cumberland Sound is the only EIS permit in our watershed.

The Department of Forestry, in collaboration with the Environmental Protection Agency, have coordinated with both Florida and Georgia to develop similar Silviculture Best Management Practices (BMPs). In Florida, it is suggested that silviculture operators utilize the “Silvicultural Best Management Practices Manual”. These BMPs are developed specifically for silviculture and are intended to be applied on all such operations in the state regardless of whether or not the operation is subject to other regulatory standards or permits. Silviculture operations in Florida are presumed to comply with state water quality standards as long as they voluntarily provide a notice of intent to implement BMPs on their property and follow the other requirements established under the Florida Administrative Code [F.A.C.] 5i-6 (DACS‐11305 2009). These requirements include the maintenance of documentation that verifies the implementation and maintenance of BMPs on the subject property.

The Department of Interior’s National Park Service manages a significant number of sites within the watershed, the Cumberland Island National Seashore and the Okefenokee Swamp. Also under the Department of the Interior, the Fish and Wildlife Service has become an influential agency within the watershed through the passage of the Endangered Species Act and the Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act. The Endangered Species Act can in some cases prohibit certain activities that would cause harm to the endangered and/or threatened species and their habitats. The addition of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to the federal regulatory framework requires the USACE to coordinate permit applications with federal and state fish and wildlife


Page25

agencies. This additional level of environmental protection has lead to increased assurances that protection of wildlife will be taken into consideration when analyzing permit applications under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This section regulates the filling in of wetlands and other navigable waterbodies with dredged or fill material. This act has also been used as the primary authority for federal wetlands protection.

Georgia Environmental Institutional Framework.

In Georgia, the state is currently in the process of developing a statewide comprehensive water management plan (Georgia Department of Natural Resources 2002) through the Environmental Protection Department. The process for developing this plan is diagramed in Figure 12.

This plan calls for the creation of Regional Water Planning Councils. The operation of each council is defined in a Memorandum of Agreement between the council, EPD, and the Georgia Department of Community Affairs Various state agencies and officials, including the Governor, the DOA, and the DCA take part in nominating members for the water planning councils. These councils have been formed in each of the 11 districts. The state has been divided the state into 11 districts, although there are 14 major river systems in Georgia, as shown in Figure 13. Many believe that these districts have been drawn primarily for political concerns instead of being formed in response to natural watershed boundaries. The political nature of the division related to water transfers policy and also an emphasis on planning for future growth is demonstrated in the plan’s executive summary- “Water resources and water needs vary widely by region, and

Figure 12: Georgia Environmental Institutional Framework


Page26

future growth and development will occur differently in each region. The plan allows for these regional differences while also providing statewide policies and management practices to support regional planning.” (Georgia Department of Natural Resources 2002).

This division of the state into 11 districts could have a significant effect on the future management of Georgia rivers and the St. Marys River watershed in particular. The St. Marys Watershed has been split between the Suwannee/Satilla and the Coastal Georgia planning districts. This split causes concerns over whether the interests of the St. Marys watershed will be given proper consideration when developing future water policy. For example, the EPD is called on to develop a Water Conservation and Implementation Plan (WCIP). These long-term regional water resource management plans will include a report from each of the regional planning councils that will include resource assessments, estimates of current and future water needs, and an evaluation of management practices that will be essential to meet the region’s needs within the capabilities of the resources. This type of planning based on the regional level may lead to the splitting-up of the constituents of the St. Marys River watershed. This could lead to the watershed not being properly represented in regional water management and planning.The plan does however recognize that “all of the water planning regions border other regions or share surface or groundwater resources with other regions; therefore, each regional planning council will communicate and coordinate with adjacent, upstream and/or downstream councils as well as EPD to ensure the appropriateness of the recommended management practices” (Georgia Department of Natural Resources 2002). This acknowledgement hopefully will influence the Suwannee/Satilla and the Coastal Georgia planning districts to communicate effectively when developing policy that will affect the St. Marys watershed.

It is also valuable to point out that the Department of Human Resources (DHR) Public Health Department (DPH) regulates Septic Tanks in Georgia. Septic tanks are quite prevalent along the river banks and are a major concern as a possible source of nutrient loading as well as harmful bacteria into the river.

Figure 13: Georgia Water Planning Regions


Page27

Florida Environmental Institutional Framework

In Florida, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is the lead agency in state government for environmental management and is one of the more diverse agencies in state government, protecting our air, water, and land (Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2009). FDEP’s authority is diagramed in Figure 14. A few significant agencies within the DEP are the Office of Greenways & Trails (OGT), Division of State Lands, and the Division of Recreation and Parks. The OGT has officially designated a paddling trail along the river, the St. Mary’s River Canoe Trail. The Division of State Lands (DSL) has acquired numerous tracts of land within the watershed that serve as valuable wildlife corridors through programs such as Florida Forever, the state’s acquisition program which is credited with acquiring over 600,000 acres of land since (Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2009). The Division of Recreation and Parks manages numerous public parks within the watershed, including Ft. Clinch state park.

Many of Florida DEP’s most significant responsibilities in terms of water quality are performed within the Watershed Management Program. This program is charged with the coordination of monitoring, data management, assessment, the state TMDL program, non-point source management, and protecting our ground water resources (Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2009). The Office of Water Policy plays a key role in ensuring the effective implementation of DEP’s responsibilities under the Florida Water Resources Act (Chapter 373, Florida Statutes). The office addresses statewide water management issues in coordination with the water management districts and other agencies. Examples of their work includes water plans for the DEP and water management districts, minimum flows and levels for the state’s water resources, and regional water supply planning and conservation. The Office of Water Policy’s function includes working in close coordination with each of Florida’s five regional water management districts (WMDs) and other agencies to resolve statewide water planning and management issues. The office is also responsible for the production of the Florida Water Plan

Figure 14: Florida Environmental Institutional Framework


Page28

Annual Progress Report, updating the Water Resource Implementation Rule (Chapter 62-40, F.A.C.), preparing the Annual Status Report on Regional Water Supply Planning and also with developing the Five-Year Water Resource Development Work Programs. Florida is currently in the process of adopting quantitative nutrient water quality standards. The process includes recognizing that the different water bodies of the state contain hydrologic variability that naturally cause nutrient levels to vary. This process, which is being developed and administered by the FDEP, has been spurred by the EPA formally ordering that “a numeric nutrient criteria should be established on an expedited schedule.” The plan took a positive step towards reaching this goal in March of 2009 when the FDEP submitted its “Current Numeric Nutrient Criteria Development Plan” to the EPA. (FDEP- Development of Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida’s Waters, 2009)

The DEP is also involved in managing the quality and quantity of water in Florida through its relationship with the state's five water management districts. The districts are Northwest Florida Water Management District, Suwannee River Water Management District, St. Johns River Water Management District, South Florida Water Management District and Southwest Florida Water Management District, shown in Figure 15. Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, gives the DEP "general supervisory authority" over the districts and directs the Department to delegate water resources programs to them where possible. These districts are authorized to administer flood protection programs and to perform technical investigations into water resources. They are also authorized to develop water management plans for water shortages in times of drought. Regulatory programs delegated to the districts include programs to manage water consumption, aquifer recharge, well construction, and also surface water management. The St. Marys River watershed falls within the jurisdiction of the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD).

Florida Fish & Wildlife Service’s Division of Habitat & Species Conservation and also its Division of Fish & Wildlife Research have worked hard to accomplish many important tasks such as Ecosystem Assessment & Restoration, and also Freshwater Fisheries & Wildlife

Figure 15: Florida Water Management Districts


Page29

Research. Their science-based approach has put additional checks on development in order to protect species in the region. FF&WS has been quite influential in assisting local efforts, including its current efforts in assisting the St. Marys Fisheries Restoration Committee in the development of a plan which incorporates adaptive management approaches to habitat and species restoration.

Local Environmental Institutional Framework

The St. Marys River Management Committee was established in 1993 as an intergovernmental entity of appointed and elected members that meet monthly to implement plans and programs related to the management of the St. Marys River. In 2003 with the assistance of the SJRWMD, the SMRMC developed a management plan to guide the river’s future. This management plan was adopted by area governments in a four-county resolution. It is important to point out that the SMRMC has little independent power, without the support and agreement of the local county governments. See Figure 16 for an explanation of the groups working with the SMRMC to manage the St. Marys River.

The committee’s goal is “to promote and protect the long term viability of both the environmental and economic resources in the St. Marys in a way that retains local control, protects property rights, and fosters cooperation among individuals, governments, and agencies at all levels.” (St. Marys River Management Plan, 2003) The members of the SMRMC have demonstrated their strong dedication to the environmental protection of the river through past efforts such as the establishment of consistent setbacks for septic drainfields along the river and annual river “clean ups”. Nevertheless, the statement of their goals also illustrates that the management committee is responsive to economic interests, property rights issues, and the retention of local control within the watershed. This retention of local control could turn out very positively for the watershed, as long as local management is responsive to identified impairments.

Figure 16: Groups working with the St. Marys River Management Committee to produce a watershed wide management plan. The dotted line represents collaboratively produced watershed management instrumentation. To date the Committee has produced the Septic Think Tank which provided the networking critical for the successful implementation of Watershed wide septic tank setbacks.


Page30

A positive example of how local control is working positively is the emergence of the “Septic Think Tank”. This committee of government and private individuals dedicated to improving septic tank regulation in the watershed is presently making positive strides towards uniform regulation amongst the counties that will hopefully lead to a reduction in impairments caused by septic tank failures.

On the other hand, this retention of local control could be problematic if this preference for local control leads to a general policy leaning towards anti-regulation. This concern is why it is so important that the SMRMC continues to take the lead in the development of progressive policies and programs that will protect the health of the river and fill the vacuum that could have been filled by additional state and federal regulation. The current management plan does an admirable job of addressing most of the important issues within the watershed. In the future, it will be essential that the SMRMC continues to update the management plan when it becomes appropriate.

Regulatory Framework for Managing Water Quality

The regulatory framework for water quality management in Florida is depicted in Figure 17. The Regulatory framework for water quality management in Georgia is depicted in Figure 18. Rules set by the Clean Water Act hold the State responsible for managing water quality. The state acknowledges the Clean Water Act

through the establishment of a partnering state law. In Florida, the Florida Watershed Restoration Act (Fla. Stat 403.067) is the law that supports the Clean Water Act. In Georgia the Georgia Comprehensive Statewide Water Management Plan supports the Clean Water Act and empowers the Georgia Environmental Protection Department to enforce the Identification of Impaired Surface Waters Rule. Collectively the Clean Water Act and the supporting State Law hold the State

Figure 18: Georgia Water Quality Management Framework

Figure 17: Florida Water Quality Management Framework.


Page31

department of environmental protection responsible for enforcing management of clean water in the State.

To identify impaired waters in each of the state’s river basins, both states departments of environmental protection evaluates existing water quality data using the Identification of Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR). The rule establishes specific criteria for defining impairment. The IWR states that for each river basin in the state the Department will establish a Planning List of potentially impaired waters. The IWR states that “the methodology for developing the Planning List includes an evaluation of aquatic life use support, primary contact and recreational use support, fish and shellfish consumption use support, drinking water use support, and protection of human health. Data older than 10 years cannot be used to evaluate water quality criteria for the Planning List (FDEP, 2009).” If the waters on the Planning List are determined to be due to anthropogenic causes the waters are placed on the Verified List. The Florida DEP must develop TMDLs for waters placed on the Verified (Water Quality Assessment Report). If an assessed water body meets its designated use then it does not require additional management. However, if the assessed water body contains contaminants that exceed the standards, then the managing agency has three options: first, it can prove that management for this contaminant is already under way, second prove that this contaminant is naturally occurring. If the contaminant is naturally occurring or already under management then no additional management needs to occur. However, the third option is to establish TMDLs and associated management plans for restoring water quality.

Total Maximum Daily Loads

The Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) development process is utilized by both states to restore water quality. While researching the regulatory framework for water quality management it was realized that the TMDL process provides an excellent basis for the Adaptive Management of Water Quality. The TMDL process for Georgia is presented in Figure 19 (Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 2009). The red boxes in this diagram Figure 19: Georgia TMDL Development Process


Page32

contain the common elements of standard management protocols. The blue boxes in this diagram contain elements of the TMDL process that reflect an Adaptive Management Approach. Georgia relies on it’s Basin Planning Councils to synthesize management recommendations from 4 state agencies into a TMDL Plan. Once this plan is implemented Georgia relies on Watershed Protection Measures such as permitting of wastewater, storm water, and water withdrawals to reduce point source pollution. Control of non-point sources of pollution is left to the stakeholders and their willingness to voluntarily implement Best Management Practice’s. Once these Watershed Protection Measures are implemented continuous monitoring of their effectiveness allows for the evaluation of management strategies. Results from monitoring and water quality assessment feedback into TMDL development and implementation of Watershed Protection Measures. The inclusion of monitoring, evaluation and management plan adjustment are critical components of an Adaptive Management approach to watershed management.

Florida’s process for developing TMDL’s are presented in Figure 20 (FDEP, 2009). Once again the elements of this management plan that reflect an Adaptive Management Approach are in blue. Florida depends on its Water Management Districts to develop Basin Management Action Plans. These BMAPS are developed with extensive stakeholder input. Once implemented the effectiveness of the BMAP is monitored, evaluated, and adjustments are made if management is not working. The inclusion of stakeholder input and the monitoring and evaluation of BMAP effectiveness stake this is a truly Adaptive Management Approach to Watershed management.

Data Collection & Water Quality Assessment

The information presented in Figure 21 was derived from Florida’s Division of Water Resource Management’s Water Quality Assessment Report for the St. Marys River that was conducted in 2007. Of the 364 water body segments making up the St. Marys Basin, 242 lack sufficient data for making a water quality assessment. Of the 112 water body segments with enough data to make an assessment, 76 are Not Impaired, 18 are Impaired and 28 are on the Planning List

Figure 20: TMDL Development Process in Florida


Page33

awaiting confirmation of impairment. Of those 46 water body segments that are potentially impaired 17 are due to high mercury levels in fish and 10 are due to low dissolved oxygen levels. The other impairments found are for silver, cadmium, BOD, coliforms, copper, DO and iron. In total the water quality has been assessed for 30% of the water body segments in the St. Marys Watershed. Due to insufficient data we do not know the status of 66% of the water body segment making up the St. Marys River watershed. In all, 40% of water bodies with sufficient data are impaired. The most common causes of impairment are mercury and dissolved oxygen levels as shown in Figure 22. Examination of this information shows that 60% of water bodies with sufficient data for assessment are impaired. If this trend holds true for the water body segments without data there are 145 unidentified impaired water body segments in the St. Marys Basin. Assessment of these water bodies is of great importance for the establishment of baseline data from which management decisions can be made.

Figure 21: Proportion & Agencies collecting data in the St. Marys Watershed

Figure 22: A. Water Quality Assessment status for water bodies in the St. Marys basin. streamB. Reasons for impairment of waterbodies on the Verified and Planning Lists.


Page34

Dissolved Oxygen

Low dissolved oxygen levels have been identified as the reason for impairment in 10 of the verified impaired rivers. In Florida, the St. Marys River is classified as a Class III River and the standard for dissolved oxygen under this classification any measurement of 5 mg/l or lower of dissolved oxygen is considered impaired. Below, are two graphs taken from the Water Quality Analysis Report prepared by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection illustrating the dissolved oxygen trends overtime for the upper stretch of the river (Upper) and the lower stretch (Lower) (Figure 23). There are number of sampling locations, but these are typical values seen along the river. A number of measurements are below 5 mg/l, especially in the lower stretch of the river. This decrease in dissolved oxygen could be interpreted as a possible spatial trend, however in close examination of the data sets, there are some sampling inconsistencies.

For dissolved oxygen measurements the depth at which a sample is taken, the temperature of the water, the air temperature, the cloud cover, as well as the time of day can all influence the dissolved oxygen measurement. The samples for dissolved oxygen were taken by a number of different state and federal agencies, at countless sampling locations, at various depths, and with little to no consistencies. So, although there is a great deal of data supplied by the FDEP Water Quality Analysis Report as well as the STORET database, one must be careful in the interpretation. However, these data do show that this river does innately have low dissolved oxygen concentrations, and should be managed accordingly.

Figure 23: Dissolved oxygen measurements overtime for an upper and lower section of the St. Marys River. The red line is the 5 mg/l Class III River standard for Florida rivers. (adapted from Gehring et al. 2007).


Page35

Impacts of Silviculture

Nearly 70% of the land in the St. Marys River Watershed is utilized by the silviculture industry. This being known, it is important to consider the potential negative environmental effects that this could have on the watershed. After tree removal, or cultivation, there could be increased stream flow due to more surface water run-off as well as less subsurface water interference. This increase flow off the land surface could bring with it excess nutrients into the stream system as well as increased sedimentation and woody debris. A decrease in river pH has been identified after cultivation in other river systems. River temperature may also increase due to decreased forest cover. Roads, culverts, and trenches can lead to excess sediment being delivered to the river, as well as intercept subsurface water flow. Excess fertilization can cause nutrient enrichment in river systems, which cause ecosystem change. All of these possible effects of silviculture have the potential for causing ecosystem change. This change maybe quite localized, as much of the increased sedimentation may be a point source, and a number of these effects only occur during cultivation. This is an important consideration during river quality monitoring. A stretch of the river may be experiencing local effects do to activity on the surrounding lands. This change in river characteristics may be short lived, but only necessitates consistent monitoring along the river course.

While the negative effects listed above are just “worst case scenarios” it is important that they be measured, especially when they are considered with the natural chemistry of the river. The St. Marys River is a blackwater river due to the location of its headwaters in the Okefenokee Swamp as well as the soils on the banks of the river having high levels of organic carbon. The river also innately has low dissolved oxygen levels, low pH, low nutrient concentrations, and low conductivity values.

Silviculture is the most prominent land-use in this watershed and must be considered when evaluating ecosystem health. Contamination from septic tanks is the largest stakeholder concern, and point source discharge has the potential to deliver high concentrations of nutrients and other contaminants directly into the river flow. These three represent

Figure 24 : Schematic of compounding effects of silviculture, point source discharge, and septic tank contamination on the innate chemical characteristics of the St. Marys River.


Page36

the three most probable sources of river contamination and it is important to consider these in the context of the fragile chemistry of this black water river. Figure 24 is a visual representation of the compounding affects of these possible sources of contamination (in the yellow boxes) on the river (red box). Silviculture can decrease the pH of an already low pH system. An increase water temperature and the addition of organic debris can decrease the dissolved oxygen in the water in already low dissolved oxygen conditions. Silviculture as well as point source discharge can increase sedimentation into a river, which has the possibility of changing species habitat. Point source discharge as well as septic tank contamination can lead to nutrient enrichment, which can directly increase primary productivity, leading to a decrease in dissolved oxygen. All of these activities can have the combined effect of exacerbating an already fragile river chemistry.

Septic System Pollution

Septic systems are known sources of bacteria and nutrients. As assessments of nutrients have already been discussed above, here the focus is on the various types of bacteria measured to indicate septic tank contamination of water bodies in the St. Marys Watershed.

Fecal bacteria are a broadly defined group of bacteria that are commonly found in human and animal feces. Fecal bacteria themselves are generally harmless. However, they often co-occur with pathogenic bacteria, viruses and protozoa that are harmful to people swimming in or eating shellfish from contaminated waters (U.S.E.P.A. 2009). Elevated levels of fecal bacteria often result in the degradation of water quality by causing cloudiness, smell, and increase oxygen demand. The sub-group of fecal streptococcus, enterococcus is the most valuable bacterial indicator of fecal contamination of recreational surface waters. Enterococcus originates only in the fecal matter of mammals and is tolerant of both fresh and salt-water environments. The EPA approved Standard Method 9230C membrane filter technique may be used for fresh and saline water

Table 3: Agencies sampling, characters quantified, and analytical methods utilized for quantification of coliforms in the St. Marys River


Page37

samples, but is unsuitable for highly turbid waters (APHA, AWWA & WEF 2006). Enterococci bacteria serve as the best indicator of health risk associated with septic system pollution in the recreational waters throughout the stretch of the St. Marys River (U.S.E.P.A. 2009). There are four agencies reporting quantified fecal associated bacteria from the St. Marys River watershed to the EPA’s STORET database. Between the four agencies there are 10 identified and 1 unidentified method utilized for quantifying fecal bacteria characters. Table 3 shows the agency sampling, the character sampled for and method used for fecal bacteria in the St. Marys River watershed.

To assess the extent of septic tank contamination of the St. Marys River was being quantified those methods utilized in the St. Marys were compared with those approved by the USEPA. This research and a comparison of these methods with those approved by the EPA revealed a major finding. None of the agencies collecting coliform data in the St. Marys Watershed are quantifying E. coli bacteria. Furthermore, both the Georgia and Florida Table 5: Summary of Water Quality Concerns in the St. Marys Basin.

CharacterMeasured U.S.E.P.A.StandardMethod

Coliform(total) 1. APHA‐9221‐B

2. APHA‐9222‐B

3. APHA‐9222‐B+B.5c

Coliform(fecal)

1. APHA‐9221‐CorE

2. APHA‐9222‐D

Fecalstreptococci 3. APHA‐9230‐B

4. APHA‐9230‐C

Enterococci 5. APHA‐9230‐B

6. APHA‐9230‐C

Escherichiacoli 7. APHA‐9221‐B.1/‐F‐12‐14

8. APHA‐9223‐B‐13

9. APHA‐9222‐B/9222‐G‐19/9213‐D

Table4:U.S.EPAapprovedmethodsforquantifyingcoliformsinfreshwaters


Page38

Environmental Protection Departments measure broader coliform groups and report them as E. coli. Without the monitoring of E. coli bacteria septic tank contamination of the St. Marys River cannot be confirmed, nor can the effects of septic tank setbacks be evaluated.

Assessment of the methods used for data collection showed that a major management weakness is the lack of cooperation between agencies. A major first step in taking an Adaptive Management approach in this watershed is for all of the agencies to agree on what they are going to measure and use the same methods to do so. To take this a step further we recommend that only USEPA approved methods be utilized to allow for nationwide comprehension and comparison of data. The methods approved by the USEPA for quantification of coliforms are presented in Table 4.


Page39

Current Management

The St. Marys watershed has a high potential for providing ecosystem services including provision of habitat for a great diversity of wildlife like the black bear and sea turtles. In our watershed, there are rare, threatened, and endangered species that need or will soon need protection. Two species are particularly representative in this area, the turtles and black bear. There are six endangered turtles in estuary, inlet, and surrounding ocean waters. These turtles use the coastal beaches at Cumberland Sound and the inlet beaches as nesting grounds. The Florida Black Bear uses the large forested areas and surrounding rivers as it habitat. The St. Marys watershed holds a critical portion of the greenbelt providing this habitat.

Wildlife Habitat

Currently, in the St. Marys watershed there is not a true wildlife habitat protection management plan in place. Nassau County recently took a positive step when it hired the Nature Conservancy to study the county’s ecology and make recommendations related to protecting the natural spaces in the county. This type of study needs to be emulated by the other counties in the region, and then each of them should cooperate to develop a regional plan for conservation. The fact that the region is currently relatively undeveloped has fortunately caused less impacts to many of the species’ habitats in the area. However, in order to protect the wildlife in this area from becoming listed on the federally endangered wildlife list, preemptive action needs to be taken. The watershed should be managed as a whole, functioning system.

Strategy should be developed to manage and protect the ecology of the St. Marys watershed by integrating management of the entire system through cross-boundary cooperation. Ecosystem management theory is one approach to accomplishing this goal. This management is basically adaptive management applied to ecosystem where management decisions are made based on the best available science and revised as new science is gathered. This management approach also involves looking beyond the boundaries of the St. Marys watershed to find ecological connections with neighboring areas. The St. Marys River corridor provides a riparian connection to the Okefenokee Swamp as well as ecological connections between areas outside of the basin due to the relatively undeveloped land that provide ecological connections. This is particularly important for species (St. Marys River Management Committee 2003).

Some of these actions include: maintaining natural river flows, identifying and marking notable intact ecosystems for important species, acquiring conservation easements, and establishing buffers to protect wildlife.


Page40

Water Quality

Both Florida and Georgia are currently in the process of assessing and restoring water quality in their states’ water bodies. Georgia completed a State Water Plan in 2008. The emphasis of this plan is to promote sustainable use, re-use and conservation of the water as well as to protect against water shortages. The plan is based upon modeled projections of future water quality and demand. Water quality improvement and management projects are funded by the Georgia EPA and Environmental Facilities Authority. TMDL’s were completed for 20% of the St. Marys River Basin on the Georgia side in 2008 and full restoration of water quality is projected for 2012. In comparison, the Florida Water Management Districts are charged with administering flood protection programs, gathering research in support of water management, and developing plans for periods of water scarcity, acquiring land to support water resource management, and regulating water use. So their job is much broader than the water planning councils in Georgia. Water quality has been assessed for about 30% of the St. Marys Basin as of 2007. The DEP’s TMDL completion is planned for 2011.

Water Quantity

In Florida, water management districts assign minimum flows and levels (MFLs) to rivers. These are the minimum water levels and/or flows assigned to a particular water body as necessary to prevent significant harm to water resources or ecology. Three to five MFLs are defined for each water body and may reflect the minimum infrequent high, minimum frequent high, minimum average, minimum frequent low and minimum infrequent low (SJRWMD, 2001). The management equivalent in Georgia is 7q10 levels. This solitary level is assigned to a particular water body and reflects the measure of minimum river flow required to protect the ecological integrity. Technically, the 7q10 level is the historical minimum stream flow that occurs over 7 consecutive days during a period of 10 years.

Neither Florida nor Georgia have established minimum flows for the St. Marys River. There is little long-term gauge readings over the length of the river. Currently, the USGS monitors water level gauges at Moniac, Georgia and Macclenny, Florida near the origination and headwaters convergence areas of the St. Marys River. However, the USGS stopped monitoring the river gauges downstream from Macclenny. This makes it difficult to determine the minimum flow levels to be required from Macclenny to the mouth of the river. This area is where the greatest potential for urban sprawl and/or withdrawals from Jacksonville may occur. Secondly, it is difficult to develop minimum levels because these generally require an understanding of natural fluctuations and consistent long term monitoring is essential. Thirdly, a number of TMDLs are set based on flow rates so designating this type of TMDL may not be possible. It may make sense to set minimum flow levels for the St. Mary under either Georgia’s or Florida’s system and then develop uniform management based on these measurement guidelines.


Page41

Floodplain Management

Floodplain management in Florida is governed by local planning ordinances and by storm water regulations under the SJRWMD. The management district requires that there is no let loss of storage in the 10-year floodplain. This essentially requires that there be no structures built in the floodplain or if there are structures built in the floodplain they must be elevated on pilings. The 100-year floodplain construction is required to be above the elevation of the 100-year flood. This is commonly accomplished through the use of clean fill mounds on which homes are built. However, this technology compromises the function of the floodplain, because it limits the amount of water storage on the land and forces water on to other areas. The SJRWMD is currently working on a plain that requires all further construction in the 100-year floodplain to be on pilings (Committee Management Plan). There are no specific floodplain management strategies in Georgia. The 100-foot buffer under the River Corridor Protection Act does contribute to some floodplain regulation. However, the regulation in this act is quite limited when compared to what is required in Florida. Both states participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which requires some construction limitation. This is primarily done through the use of rate map, which delineate specific at risk areas. However, these maps are quite outdated and may not reflect current and especially future high-risk areas (Committee Management Plan). There is further protection under NFIP known as the Community Rating Service program. This is an incentive program, which can lower the flood insurance premiums, in some cases up to 45%. This program does have required floodplain regulation to which the counties have to comply. Neither Georgia nor Florida currently participates in this program.


Page42

Recommendations for an Adaptive Management Approach

Under the current management scheme the future of the St. Marys Watershed in its current state is uncertain. The major hindrances to the success of the current management process are the lack of coordination between management groups and the lack of an organized effort for data collection and analysis. Without these two key changes it is impossible to determine how the increase in development will affect water wildlife habitat and quality and quantity. Nor can we properly estimate the impact of global warming and rising sea levels have on the estuarine systems. Due to this shortfall we are unprepared to identify the causes of ecosystem degradation. Following are some recommendations for improving the current management efforts in the St. Marys. The recommendations are in part based upon the core aspects of the Adaptive Management process.

Monitoring

Both of the states have agencies that are collecting water quality data. The lack of coordination between these agencies in the St. Marys Basin results in spatial and temporal data gaps and inconsistencies in analytical methodologies. These agencies are commonly measuring the same constituents and the sampling locations can overlap. Money and time is being wasted with these uncoordinated efforts. We recommend that an effective monitoring program be established to coordinate the two states’ efforts. Such a program would include harmonizing TMDL’s as well as the coordination of water sampling methods, location, and timing. We suggest the adoption of EPA approved laboratory procedures for the quantification of contaminants to allow consistent interpretation of data. Implementation of a coordinated monitoring program will allow for the establishment of baseline water quality data and provide needed information for model development and management decision-making. We find that a base line for both water quality as well as quantity is essential for the future of this watershed. With the potential for growth in development of this area, it is very important to evaluate the impact and without a starting point, this is nearly impossible. Proper collection of baseline data and monitoring of management effects will allow the identification of sources of degradation to the river system.

Buffers

In order to sustain the wildlife habitat and scenic beauty in the St. Marys, minimum buffer widths should be implemented along the river and its tributaries throughout the watershed to prevent degradation due to increased development and land and water use changes. The Center for Watershed Protection has indicated that a minimum of a 100 ft buffer is essential to provide a water body with the protection it needs to maintain water quality. (Shueler, T.R., and Holland, H.K. (editors), 2002). The St. Marys watershed should follow the example of jurisdictions that have established plans for wildlife habitat corridors. (Hillsborough County, 2006). For example, in Hillsborough County they have established wildlife habitat corridors by utilizing the


Page43

methodology established by UF’s center for wetlands “Wekiva River Basin Buffer Study.” (Brown, 1989). This study suggested a science-based methodology focused on targeting significant species of animals and plants and then evaluating their buffer requirements to ensure their protection. (Brown, 1989) For wetlands, it is recommended by some experts that the buffers be a minimum of 322 feet and can increase to over 550 feet with no development. In the estuary areas, some studies of similar areas have recommended that the buffers be at least 322 feet with no maximum width established. Buffers of these widths would provide more than adequate protection for the wildlife in these areas (Brown 1990).

The SMRMC has already made positive steps by implementing 100 foot buffers along the river’s edge for septic drainage fields. These buffers do not actually prohibit the building/development in this area, but only these drainage fields; therefore, they do not provide adequate protection for ecology in the area. If these buffers were increased to 100 feet for both Florida and Georgia and prohibited all development in these zones, they would begin to provide more adequate ecological protection.

Silviculture buffers based on Best Management Practices are currently in place and range from 35 feet in the tributaries to 200 feet along the main stem of the river. However, these buffers do not completely prohibit the harvesting of trees within these areas. After additional scientific analysis is completed regarding the adequacy of the silvicultural buffers included in each state’s BMPs, consideration should be given to adjusting the width of these buffers to reflect all ecological considerations, including wildlife habitat. In addition, increasing the buffers throughout the entire stream to 100 feet would moderate stream temperatures and prevent woody debris from entering the river. 200 foot buffers provide effective sediment removal, and 350 foot buffers will provide protection for habitats and nutrient retention.

Administration through Interstate Cooperation

Throughout the history of the United States there have been many legal battles fought over watersheds that cross state boundaries. Although the St. Marys presents no imminent threat of a conflict between Georgia and Florida, the watershed will benefit from proactive management decisions that will provide a unified “vision” for this unique transboundary watershed. As part of this “vision”, management efforts in the St. Marys River Watershed could greatly benefit from increased interstate coordination to induce consistent management from one riverbank to the next. While the Supreme Court or Congress are often forced to intervene in decisions related to shared water bodies, in this type of adversarial setting at least one party will become unsatisfied with the results. By acting while the river remains relatively healthy, both states may be able to develop an agreement that will dictate future management policy in a manner acceptable to both parties.

The complexity of the mechanisms for this type of agreement can range. On one end of the continuum, a simple “memorandum of understanding” between the EPD and DEP could result in


Page44

increased cooperation amongst the two states at the state level, in the same way that the SMRMC operates on the county level. On the other end of the continuum, an “interstate compact” could provide a durable and responsive framework for management issues within the watershed through a unique regulatory program with federal oversight. Any agreement could also fall somewhere in between these poles. What is most important is that any arrangement fits the unique attributes of the watershed and represents a collective vision among stakeholders.

It would be essential that an initial “advisory group”, composed of key stakeholders and state and local government officials, reexamine the substantive issues in the watershed based on this adaptive management assessment and propose a structure that could effectively implement management solutions. (National Center for Interstate Compacts (NCIC), 2009) Fortunately, the formalization of an interstate agreement has already gained momentum through the efforts of the SMRMC, supported by the University of Georgia and University of Florida. Stakeholders who expressed concern over the proposed strategy of designating the St. Marys as an Outstanding Florida Water under Florida law expressed interest in instead pursuing an interstate agreement, including a compact. Since “interstate compacts” represent a common form of interstate agreement, it may be beneficial to examine what a compact between Georgia and Florida for the St. Marys might look like, how interstate compacts are created, and the different ways that they can be structured.

An interstate compact between Florida and Georgia would be a contractual agreement that would create uniform policy to protect the St. Marys River watershed. (NCIC, 2009). It would allow both states to develop a management structure for interstate cooperation that fits the particular attributes of the St. Marys watershed. This sort of compact would be considered a “regulatory or administrative compact” (NCIC, 2009), under one taxonomy. Regulatory or administrative compacts often require the consent of congress to become effective because the regulations may impact one of congress’ enumerated powers. (NCIC, 2009). However, congressional approval is not required of all compacts, only those that increase a state’s political power and encroach on federal authority. The process of forming the interstate compact requires that one state adopt the terms of the compact into law through enacting legislation. If the terms of the compact are deemed acceptable to the other party state, it can then choose to adopt the same terms into its own law (NCIC, 2009). Once the states have “adopted identical compact language” the agreement becomes effective (NCIC, 2009).

While the process of developing an interstate compact can be arduous and sometimes takes decades, in many cases it can be the most effective answer to current and anticipated water conflicts. (NCIC, 2009). A St. Marys interstate compact need not be complex. It could begin simply and then be amended or modified as necessary to meet newly arising demands and pressures within the watershed. (NCIC, 2009). A positive characteristic of a potential compact would be that both Florida and Georgia would be able to develop harmonized rules and regulations for the watershed that could be adapted as necessary without the need to go back to


Page45

the legislature each time for approval, subject to the authority legislatively delegated by the terms of the compact (NCIC,2009). However, the interstate compact would have disadvantages as well. For example, the requirement that any regulatory language be substantially similar may affect current law in one state or the other. (NCIC, 2009). Using a compact as an adaptive framework, each state’s rules and regulations could continuously be adjusted to reflect a adaptive watershed approach to the management of the river in two states.

There are three different possibilities as at to how the institutional framework for this compact could be structured:

(1)The compact could create a brand-new multi-state governmental authority/ “commission” to administer the compact.

(2 ) The states could utilize an existing local institution, such as the St. Mary River Management Committee, to administer the agreement.

(3) The states could choose to forgo the establishment of any type of “commission” and instead could develop uniform standards, which both Florida and Georgia would implement individually within their current regulatory framework. The additional administrative duties that would emerge as a result of this compact could be taken on by existing agencies within Florida and Georgia that would be charged with coordinating the effective management of the compact.

If the states chose to develop a brand-new multi-state governmental authority/ “commission” to administer the compact, the process would certainly be expensive and complicated. It would be necessary to clearly establish:

- How the commission would be funded, since a commission would most require at least some staff;

- Strict financial monitoring procedures for the commission;

-The commission’s scope of authority and the type of enforcement mechanisms/power they would possess;

- The rulemaking procedures of the commission;

- Whether the commission would be subject to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA);

- How the commission would ensure that each state complied with the terms of the compact;

- Clear guidelines that would control whom would serve on the Commission and how the composition of the commission would be properly balanced between each state.

Even if a new “commission” were not formed, it would still be essential to determine:


Page46

- How each state would administer the compact and provide resources to coordinate management;

- What agencies would be involved in the compact;

- If Florida and Georgia could develop a uniform management regime amidst constantly evolving statewide management plans;

- Who would be responsible for developing lobbying, educational, and training materials to ensure public awareness and compliance.

Due to the expense and arduous process connected with forming a new commission it may make sense to utilize an existing local institution, such as the St. Mary River Management Committee, to administer the agreement. By utilizing this established local institution as the management entity, the difficulties and costs associated with forming a new “commission” could be avoided while taking advantage of the procedures/structure that have already been developed by the SMRMC. This type of structure for the compact may also make sense because it would continue the tradition of retaining local participation in management of the St. Marys watershed by continuing to emphasize each of the four county’s role in management. Nevertheless, because the SMRMC is a voluntary organization, it would still be worthwhile to establish at least one full time person to serve as staff to the SMRMC for purposes of implementing the agreement.

Issues that may be Included within Interstate Compact

- Septic Tank Regulations and Setback Requirements- The “Septic Think Tank” is currently developing recommendations. These recommendations could be in the compact.

- Common Protocols for Water Monitoring/ Sampling- This part of the compact would provide the framework for an agreement between the two states to effectively exchange information and technical support. The collaboration that would result from an interstate compact on the St. Marys could reduce the costs associated with managing the watershed by creating economies of scale that can more effectively address problems than efforts by either state on its own (NCIC, 2009). Please see this paper’s section on monitoring for further suggestions.

- Uniform Water Quality Standards- In order to effectively utilize the common protocols for monitoring/sampling, it is essential that both states establish uniform water quality standards. The two states should collaborate to establish uniform numeric criteria, including nutrients, that reflect the unique characteristics of this watershed. A vital step in accomplishing this goal would be to make sure that officials from the EPD, DEP, both the Suwannee/Satilla & Coastal Georgia water planning councils, and the SJRWMD are taking part in the process from the beginning. Please see this paper’s section on water quality for further details.


Page47

Conclusions

The St. Marys Watershed system, including managing agencies and stakeholder groups, are on the path to taking an Adaptive Watershed Management Approach. Stakeholder groups are engaged and are willing to explore management alternatives. The Total Maximum Daily Load development process in place for both Florida and Georgia includes emphasis on stakeholder involvement, data collection, and evaluation of management effectiveness. Collectively, these situations form a strong foundation from which an Adaptive Watershed Management approach can be built. However, for the St. Marys River, to be successfully managed into the future there must be greater coordination between both governance and data collection agencies. Both States must work together to harmonize TMDL’s and other regulations, based on the specific needs of the river along both banks. Data collection agencies must work together to develop a river-monitoring plan that includes timing and location of sampling as well and utilization of EPA approved analytical methods. While these recommendations may seem daunting, it is our opinion that coordination of agency efforts and the installation of an effective monitoring regime will be more cost effective than the current strategy and provide better protection than the current management strategies.

The implementation of Adaptive Management requires a clear set of goals to be set for the future state of the river. These goals must be decided on by federal, state, and local authorities, as well, and arguably most importantly, by the local stakeholders and users of this ecosystem. With constant, effective, and coordinated monitoring the path towards these goals can be followed or changed if that is required. To accomplish this most effectively an interstate agreement, which could be a compact, that guides future use of water and land use in the watershed, is recommended. We believe that the St. Marys has nearly all the tools in place to accomplish this. The St. Marys River Management Committee, composed of representatives from the four main counties, stakeholders, and landowners in the watershed, all volunteer their time to make decisions in the best interest of this watershed. They would undoubtedly be one of the most important and effect means for facilitating the formation of an interstate agreement or compact.


Page48

References

American Red Cross. “Maps and Demographic Resources: Florida 2008.” [Online] Available arcims.redcross.org/website/maps/images/Florida/ARC_FL_Links.html, April 9, 2009.

Brown, Mark T, “Evaluation of the Applicability of Upland Buffers to the Wekiva River Basin.” St. Johns River Water Management District Report 1989.

Brown, Mark T. and Joseph Schaefer. “Buffer Zones for Water, Wetlands, and Wildlife in East Central Florida.” Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations Journal Series No. T-00061. May 1990, 3-202.

Council of State Governments National Center for Interstate Compacts. “10 Frequently Asked Questions.” [Online] Available http://www.csg.org/programs/ncic/default.aspx, May 19, 2009.

Council of State Governments, National Center for Interstate Compacts. “Interstate Compact Tool Kit.” [Online] Available http://www.csg.org/programs/ncic/resources.aspx, May 19, 2009.

Fisher, Donna and Ben Thompson. “Basin Water Plans for Georgia’s Coastal Region: The “Empty Shelf” of Data Critical for the Planning Process Water Policy Working Paper #2003-003.” Georgia Southern University: Coastal Rivers Water Planning and Policy Center. 2003.

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Division of Forestry. “Best Management Practices for Silviculture and Notice of Intent to Implement.”. [Online] Available. www.doacs.state.fl.us/onestop/forms/11305.pdf, January 13, 2009.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. “Designated Uses and Classification Refinement.” [Online] Available http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/stormwater/npdes/, February 26, 2009.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. “Development of Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida’s Waters.” [Online] Available http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/, May 20, 2009.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. “Florida Water Policy.” [Online] Available www.dep.state.fl.us/water/waterpolicy, March 26, 2009 .

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.” [Online] Available http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/d_use.htm, February 26, 2009.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. “St. Marys River Canoe Trail.” [Online] Available www.dep.state.fl.us/gwt/guide/regions/north/trails/st_marys_river.htm, February 26, 2009.


Page49

Florida Geographic Data Library. “Florida Projected Population Growth - 2060.” [Online] Available http://www.fgdl.org/metadata/fgdc_html/fl2060growth.fgdc.htm, January 15, 2009.

Georgia Department of Environmental Protection. “Georgia State-wide Comprehensive Water Management Plan.” [Online] Available www.georgiawatercouncil.org/Files_PDF/water_plan_20080109, April 10, 2009.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division. “Saint Marys River Basin Management Plan 2002.” [Online] Available www.gaepd.org/Documents/st_marys.html, February 26, 2009.

Georgia Water Coalition. “Statewide Water Planning.” [Online] Available www.garivers.org/gawater/waterplanindex.html, March 30, 2009.

Gihring, Jennifer, David Wainwright, Janis Paulsen, Julian Simonelli, Cindy Cosper, Patti Sanzone, Tom Kallemeyn, Lee Banks, John Davis. “Water Quality Analysis Report: Nassau/St. Marys 2007.” Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Resources Management, Northeast District, Group 4 Basin. [Online] Available www.dep.state.fl.us/Water/docs/2008_Integrated_Report.pdf, April 15, 2009.

Haire, Brad. “Georgia Irrigation Expansion Slows.” Southeast Farm Press. [Online] Available http://southeastfarmpress.com/mag/farming_georgia_irrigation_expansion/, April 10, 2009.

Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission. “Developing Scientifically-Based Ecological Buffers to Protect the Watersheds in Hillsborough County, Florida.” [Online] Available http://www.tampabay.wateratlas.usf.edu/upload/documents/Tech-Memo-Buffers-01-25-2006.pdf, 20,2009.

Scott, Thomas M, Kenneth M. Campbell, Frank R. Rupert, Jonathan D. Arthur, Thomas M. Missimer, Jacqueline M. Lloyd, J. William Yon, and Joel G. Duncan. “Geologic Map of the State of Florida.“ The Florida State University Florida Resources and Environmental Analysis Center. [Online] Available http://sflwww.er.usgs.gov/publications/maps/florida_geology, February 2, 2009.

Shueler, T.R. “The Practice of Watershed Protection: The Architecture of Urban Stream Buffers.” Center for Watershed Protection. [Online] Available http://www.cwp.org/Resource_Library/pwp.htm, May 19,2009.

St. Marys River Management Committee. “St. Marys River Management Plan.” [Online] Available www.saintmarysriver.org/plan.html, March 29, 2009.

St. Marys River Management Committee and St. Johns River Water Management District. “Saint Marys River Guide.” [Online] Available www.sjrwmd.com/stmarysriverguide/index.html, March 17, 2009.

St. Johns River Water Management District. “Chapter 40C-400, F.A.C. Noticed General Environmental Resource Permits.” [Online] Available http://sjr.state.fl.us/rules/pdfs/40C-400.pdf , January 15, 2009.


Page50

St. Johns River Water Management District. “Draft Water Supply Assessment 2008, Planning for Northeast Florida’s Water Supply Needs through 2030.” [Online] Available sjr.state.fl.us/WaterSupplyFS_south.pdf, April 10, 2009.

St. Johns River Water Management District. “Minimum Flows and Levels.” [Online] Available http://sjr.state.fl.us/publications/pdfs/fs_minflowlevels.pdf, March 29, 2009.

St. Johns River Water Management District. “Program Overview: Consumptive Use Permitting.” [Online] Available http://sjr.state.fl.us/programs/cuppermitting.html, February 8, 2009.

St. Johns River Water Management District. “Watershed Facts, St. Marys River at State Road 2.” [Online] Available http://sjr.state.fl.us/archhydro/factPages/1901006.html/soilsdrainage, February 8, 2009.

United States Army Corps of Engineers. “St. Marys River Entrance Inlet Management Study Implementation Plan.” [Online] Available bcs.dep.state.fl.us/bchmngmt/st-marys.pdf, March 15, 2009.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Monitoring and Assessing Water Quality.” [Online] Available http://epa.gov/owow/monitoring/, April 10, 2009.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Polluted Runoff (Nonpoint Source Pollution).” [Online] Available www.epa.gov/owow/nps/sec319cwa.html, April 17, 2009.

United States Geological Survey. “National Map Seamless Server.” [Online] Available http://seamless.usgs.gov/website/seamless/viewer.htm, January 15, 2009.