1. Working with Stakeholders in Developing Watershed and Water Quality Models: The Dos and Don’ts Well, at least some of them! Presented by: Brian J. Watson, PE, PH 05 September 2013 27 th Annual Alabama Water Resources Conference and Symposium Orange Beach, Alabama

3. Background of Floyds Fork TMDL  Segments of the Floyds Fork Watershed are on Kentucky’s 303(d) list for: Nutrients (organic enrichment), Dissolved Oxygen & Pathogens  At KDOW’s Request, EPA Started to Develop the 1 st Nutrient TMDL in 2007  EPA priorities shifted and work was delayed  EPA Receives Notice of Intent in 2011  EPA issues RFP for TMDL Support  Contract awarded to Tetra Tech for the development of watershed and water quality models to be used in a TMDL determination  Period of Performance: May 2011 – November 15, 2012  Modified during the process  Immediately initiated a Stakeholder Group  Contract initially called for 6 public outreach meetings

5.  Lessons Learned  Stakeholders are Valuable Resources  Site Specific Knowledge  Engaged in the Process  Have Individual Concerns  Regulatory Decision Making Process  Proposal  Final  EPA is using a stakeholder process in the development of the Floyds Fork TMDL  Status of the Model Development is presented meetings  Models have been made available for outside technical review  Have encouraged involvement Stakeholder Process

6.  Purpose of the TAC  Should Focus on Technical Issues, not implementation  Build a consensus in the development of the models  Technical review of reports and models  Provide guidance in model assumptions  Provide guidance on sensitivity/uncertainty scenarios Technical Advisory Committee

7. Timeline and Scheduling of Meetings

8. Floyds Fork TMDL Milestones June 13, 2011 – Award of Support Contract to Tt August 30, 2011 – Stakeholder Meeting #1 November 15, 2011 – Stakeholder Meeting #2 December 30, 2011 – Initial Release of Watershed Modeling Report (REV0) January 31, 2012 – Watershed Modeling Report (REV1) February 21, 2012 – Stakeholder Meeting #3 May 4, 2012 – Watershed Modeling Report (REV2) May 15, 2012 – Initial Release of Instream Modeling Report (REV0) July 13, 2012 – Watershed Modeling Report (REV3) July 24, 2012 – Stakeholder Meeting #4 July 26, 2012 – Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #1

9. Floyds Fork TMDL Milestones August 30, 2012 – Watershed Modeling Report (REV4) and Instream Modeling Report (REV1) September 6, 2012 – Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #2 November 28, 2012 – Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #3 February 8, 2013 – Watershed Modeling Report (REV5) February 20, 2013 – Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #4 March 15, 2013 – Instream Modeling Report (REV2) March 27, 2013 – Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #5 April 24, 2013 – Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #6 May 14, 2013 – Watershed Modeling Report (REV6) and Instream Modeling Report (REV3) May 14, 2013 – End of Tt Support Contract

10. Presentation of Modeling Results to both the Technical and Non-Technical

11. Hydrology Calibration  Calibration period  January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2010  7 USGS Stations  3 Main Stem  4 Tributaries  70+ sets of plots/figures!  Quantitative Calibration  Miscellaneous Plots  Summarized by Statistics  Qualitative Calibration  Analyzed Statistics  Developed Qualitative Calibration

17. Water Quality Calibration  Calibration period  January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2010  26 USGS Stations  8 Main Stem  18 Tributaries  5 MSD Stations  3 Main Stem  2 Tributaries  320+ sets of plots/figures  Quantitative Calibration  Qualitative Calibration

21. Nutrient Targets

22. Size category TN target C (mg/L) TN max D (mg/L) TP target C (mg/L) TP max D (mg/L) Headwater (<5 sq mi) A 0.71.00.090.12 Wadeable (5-100 sq mi) B 1.11.60.150.25 Transitional/Boatable (>100 sq mi) B 2.22.40.200.66 Proposed Nutrient Targets Developed by KDOW A – Annual Geometric Mean B – Growing Season (April through October) Geometric Mean C – Target may not be exceeded more than 1 time in 3 years D – Maximum Geometric Mean

23. Floyds Fork TMDL Milestones June 13, 2011 – Award of Support Contract to Tt August 30, 2011 – Stakeholder Meeting #1 October 26, 2011 – KDOW submits Nutrient Targets to EPA/Tt November 15, 2011 – Stakeholder Meeting #2 December 30, 2011 – Initial Release of Watershed Modeling Report (REV0) January 31, 2012 – Watershed Modeling Report (REV1) February 21, 2012 – Stakeholder Meeting #3 (1 st Presented to Stakeholders) May 4, 2012 – Watershed Modeling Report (REV2) May 15, 2012 – Initial Release of Instream Modeling Report (REV0) July 13, 2012 – Watershed Modeling Report (REV3) July 24, 2012 – Stakeholder Meeting #4 July 26, 2012 – Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #1

24. Floyds Fork TMDL Milestones August 30, 2012 – Watershed Modeling Report (REV4) and Instream Modeling Report (REV1) September 6, 2012 – Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #2 November 28, 2012 – Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #3 (2 nd times mentioned to Stakeholders. Mentioned each subsequent meeting) February 8, 2013 – Watershed Modeling Report (REV5) February 20, 2013 – Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #4 March 15, 2013 – Instream Modeling Report (REV2) March 27, 2013 – Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #5 April 24, 2013 – Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #6 May 14, 2013 – Watershed Modeling Report (REV6) and Instream Modeling Report (REV3) May 14, 2013 – End of Tt Support Contract May 2013 to Present – Still discussing Nutrient Targets!!

25. Summary  Timelines and Scheduling Meetings  Do: Get TAC involved early  Don’t: Vet technical issues to general Stakeholders  Presentation of Technical Results  Do: Present results in a easy to read fashion  Don’t: Present numbers/graphs and allow interpretation  Nutrient Targets  Do: Educate Stakeholders about Targets and get buy-in  Don’t: Glaze over the obvious

26. Questions? Brian J. Watson, PE, PH Tetra Tech Director, Water Resources Group 2110 Powers Ferry Road Suite 202 Atlanta, Georgia 30339 770-738-6030 brian.watson@tetratech.com Madhu Akasapu-Smith Tetra Tech Environmental Engineer 2110 Powers Ferry Road Suite 202 Atlanta, Georgia 30339 770-738-6044 madhu.akasapu@tetratech.com

27. Development of Scenario List and Presentation of Scenarios

28. Scenarios Suggested and Evaluated Scenario NumberScenario Name 0Baseline (Calibrated Model) 1All Forested 2Point Sources Removed 3Septics Removed 4SSOs Removed 5Current Permit Condition for the NPDES facilities 6Agricultural to Low Intensity Residential Land Use Change 7Increase in Agricultural Animals by 50% 8Direct Discharge of Septic Systems 9Directing Septic Load to NPDES facilities 10Removal of Septic Systems from Small Watersheds 11Increase of Urban Land Use by 25% 12Removal of all NPDES facilities 13Removal of all NPDES facilities except Lagrange 14Half the Current Permit Limits 15Specified Permit Limits 16Future Diversion/Elimination of the NPDES facilities 17Septic Decay Rate decreased from 60 to 6 days 18KDOW’s Diversion/Elimination of the NPDES facilities 1950 foot Buffer around the streams

29. Scenario 0 – Baseline (Calibration)

30. Scenario 1 – All Forested

31. Scenario 2 – Point Sources Removed

32. Scenario 4 – SSOs Removed

33. Scenario 5 – Current Permit Limits

34. Scenario 18 – KDOW Div/Elim of NPDES

36. Summary  Timelines and Scheduling Meetings  Do: Get TAC involved early  Don’t: Vet technical issues to general Stakeholders  Presentation of Technical Results  Do: Present results in a easy to read fashion  Don’t: Present numbers/graphs and allow interpretation  Nutrient Targets  Do: Educate Stakeholders about Targets and get buy-in  Don’t: Glaze over the obvious  Scenarios  Do: Assist Stakeholders in determining “good” scenarios  Don’t: Present numbers/reductions right away