Working with Stakeholders in Developing Watershed and Water Quality Models: The Dos and Don’ts

Working with Stakeholders in Working with Stakeholders in Developing Watershed and Water Developing Watershed and Water

Quality Models: Quality Models: The Dos and Don’tsThe Dos and Don’ts

Well, at least some of them!Well, at least some of them!

Presented by:Presented by:Brian J. Watson, PE, PHBrian J. Watson, PE, PH

05 September 201305 September 2013

2727thth Annual Alabama Water Resources Annual Alabama Water Resources Conference and SymposiumConference and Symposium

Orange Beach, AlabamaOrange Beach, Alabama

I 64

I 26

5

I 65

I 71

I 264 I 64

I 65

I 64I 64

I 65

I 71

I 71

I 65

Floyds Fork Watershed: LocationMaps produced by M.Akasapu, 11-8-2011

NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N0 3 61.5

Miles

0 3 61.5Kilometers

Jefferson

Bullitt

Spencer

Shelby

Henry

Oldham

Louisville

La Grange

ShelbyvilleSimpsonville

Peewee Valley

Middletown

Jeffersontown

Shepherdsville

Salt River

Floy

ds F

ork

Ced

ar C

reek

Long

Run

Floyds Fork

Ch

enow

eth

Run

Pen

nsyl

vani

a R

un

Cu

rrys

For

k

Metropolitan area

Highways

Waterways

Watershed Boundary

County

Legend

Background of Floyds Fork TMDLBackground 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 1st 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

Floyds Fork Watershed:Segments of InterestMaps produced by M.Akasapu, 11-8-2011

NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N0 3 61.5

Miles

0 3 61.5Kilometers

Jefferson

Bullitt

Spencer

Shelby

Henry

Oldham

Waterways

Watershed Delineation

County

Ashers Run 0.0 to 4.8

Brooks Run 0.0 to 2.7



Cane Run 0.0 to 7.3

Cedar Creek 4.3 to 11.1

Chenoweth Run 0.0 to 2.5 (Upper)

Chenoweth Run 0.0 to 5.25 (Lower)

Chenoweth Run 5.25 to 9.2 (Lower)

Currys Fork 0.0 to 4.8

Floyds Fork 0.0 to 11.7






Long Run 0.0 to 9.9

North Fork Currys Fork 0.0 to 6.0

Pennsylvania Run 0.0 to 3.3

Pope Lick 0.0 to 2.1

Popelick 2.1 to 5.5

South Fork Currys Fork 0.0 to 6.1

South Long Run 0.0 to 3.35

UT to Brooks Run 0.0 to 2.0

UT to South Fork Currys Fork 0.0 to 1.8

Legend

Segments of Interest

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 ProcessStakeholder Process

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 CommitteeTechnical Advisory Committee

Timeline and Timeline and Scheduling of MeetingsScheduling of Meetings

Floyds Fork TMDL MilestonesFloyds 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

Floyds Fork TMDL MilestonesFloyds 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

Presentation of Modeling Presentation of Modeling Results to both the Results to both the

Technical and Non-TechnicalTechnical and Non-Technical

Hydrology CalibrationHydrology 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

Floyds Fork Watershed: Hydrology Calibration StnsMaps produced by M.Akasapu, 11-8-2011

NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N0 3 61.5

Miles

0 3 61.5Kilometers

Jefferson

Bullitt

Spencer

Shelby

Henry

Oldham

Salt River

Floy

ds F

ork

Ced

ar C

reek

Long

Run

USGS ID: 03297900

USGS ID: 03298000

USGS ID: 03298135

USGS ID: 03298150

USGS ID: 03298200

Floyds Fork

Low

er

Ch

enow

eth

Run

Pen

nsyl

vani

a R

un

Cu

rrys

For

k

USGS ID: 03298300

USGS ID: 03298250

Legend

Hydrology Calibration Stations

Waterways

Watershed Boundary

County

Floyds Fork Watershed: Hydrology Calibration Maps produced by M.Akasapu, 11-8-2011

NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N0 3 61.5

Miles

0 3 61.5Kilometers

Jefferson

Bullitt

Spencer

Shelby

Henry

Oldham

Salt River

Floy

ds F

ork

Ced

ar C

reek

Long

Run

USGS ID: 03297900

USGS ID: 03298000

USGS ID: 03298135

USGS ID: 03298150

USGS ID: 03298200

Floyds Fork

Ch

enow

eth

Run

Pen

nsyl

vani

a R

un

Cu

rrys

For

k

USGS ID: 03298300

USGS ID: 03298250

Legend

Flow Calibration

VG (80-75)

G (74-55)

F (54-35)

P (34-20)

Waterways

Watershed Boundary

County

Water Quality CalibrationWater 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

Floyds Fork Watershed:USGS WQ Calibration, TNMaps produced by M.Akasapu, 07-02-2012

NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N0 3 61.5

Miles

0 3 61.5Kilometers

Jefferson

Bullitt

Spencer

Shelby

HenryOldham

Salt River

Floy

ds F

ork

Ced

ar C

reek

Floyds Fork

Che

now

eth

Run

Pen

nsyl

vani

a R

un

Pope Lick

USGS ID: 03297930USGS ID: 03298150

USGS ID: 03298138

USGS ID: 03298250

USGS ID: 03298300

USGS ID: 03297830

USGS ID: 03297850

USGS ID: 03297855

USGS ID: 03297860

USGS ID: 03297950

USGS ID: 03297975

USGS ID: 03297980

USGS ID: 03298020

USGS ID: 03298000

USGS ID: 03298005

USGS ID: 03297875

USGS ID: 03297880

USGS ID: 03297900 USGS ID: 03297845

USGS ID: 03298110

USGS ID: 03298100

USGS ID: 03298135

USGS ID: 03298120

USGS ID: 03298160

USGS ID: 03298200

USGS ID: 03298470

Legend

Water Quality Calibration

TN Score

VG (< 30)

G (31 - 70)

F (71 - 120)

P (121 - 180)

Waterways

Watershed Boundary

County

Floyds Fork Watershed:USGS WQ Calibration, TPMaps produced by M.Akasapu, 07-02-2012

NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N0 3 61.5

Miles

0 3 61.5Kilometers

Jefferson

Bullitt

Spencer

Shelby

HenryOldham

Salt River

Floy

ds F

ork

Ced

ar C

reek

Floyds Fork

Che

now

eth

Run

Pen

nsyl

vani

a R

un

Pope Lick

USGS ID: 03297930USGS ID: 03298150

USGS ID: 03298138

USGS ID: 03298250

USGS ID: 03298300

USGS ID: 03297830

USGS ID: 03297850

USGS ID: 03297855

USGS ID: 03297860

USGS ID: 03297950

USGS ID: 03297975

USGS ID: 03297980

USGS ID: 03298020

USGS ID: 03298000

USGS ID: 03298005

USGS ID: 03297875

USGS ID: 03297880

USGS ID: 03297900 USGS ID: 03297845

USGS ID: 03298110

USGS ID: 03298100

USGS ID: 03298135

USGS ID: 03298120

USGS ID: 03298160

USGS ID: 03298200

USGS ID: 03298470

Legend

Water Quality Calibration

TP Score

VG (< 30)

G (31 - 70)

F (71 - 120)

P (121 - 180)

Waterways

Watershed Boundary

County

Nutrient TargetsNutrient Targets

Size categoryTN targetC

(mg/L)TN maxD

(mg/L)TP targetC

(mg/L)TP maxD

(mg/L)

Headwater (<5 sq mi)A 0.7 1.0 0.09 0.12

Wadeable (5-100 sq mi)B 1.1 1.6 0.15 0.25

Transitional/Boatable (>100 sq mi)B 2.2 2.4 0.20 0.66

Proposed Nutrient TargetsProposed Nutrient TargetsDeveloped by KDOWDeveloped by KDOW

A – Annual Geometric MeanA – Annual Geometric MeanB – Growing Season (April through October) Geometric MeanB – Growing Season (April through October) Geometric MeanC – Target may not be exceeded more than 1 time in 3 yearsC – Target may not be exceeded more than 1 time in 3 yearsD – Maximum Geometric MeanD – Maximum Geometric Mean

Floyds Fork TMDL MilestonesFloyds 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 (1st 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

Floyds Fork TMDL MilestonesFloyds 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 (2nd 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!!

SummarySummary

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

Questions?Questions?

Brian J. Watson, PE, PH

Tetra Tech

Director, Water Resources Group

2110 Powers Ferry Road

Suite 202

Atlanta, Georgia 30339

770-738-6030

[email protected]

Madhu Akasapu-Smith

Tetra Tech

Environmental Engineer

2110 Powers Ferry Road

Suite 202

Atlanta, Georgia 30339

770-738-6044

[email protected]

Development of Scenario ListDevelopment of Scenario Listandand

Presentation of ScenariosPresentation of Scenarios

Scenarios Suggested and Scenarios Suggested and EvaluatedEvaluated

Scenario Number Scenario Name0 Baseline (Calibrated Model)1 All Forested2 Point Sources Removed3 Septics Removed4 SSOs Removed5 Current Permit Condition for the NPDES facilities6 Agricultural to Low Intensity Residential Land Use Change7 Increase in Agricultural Animals by 50%8 Direct Discharge of Septic Systems 9 Directing Septic Load to NPDES facilities

10 Removal of Septic Systems from Small Watersheds11 Increase of Urban Land Use by 25% 12 Removal of all NPDES facilities13 Removal of all NPDES facilities except Lagrange14 Half the Current Permit Limits15 Specified Permit Limits16 Future Diversion/Elimination of the NPDES facilities17 Septic Decay Rate decreased from 60 to 6 days18 KDOW’s Diversion/Elimination of the NPDES facilities19 50 foot Buffer around the streams

Scenario 0 – Baseline Scenario 0 – Baseline (Calibration)(Calibration)

Floyds Fork Watershed:Scenario # 0Maps produced by M.Akasapu, 04-17-2013

NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N0 3 61.5

Miles

0 3 61.5Kilometers

Jefferson

Bullitt

Spencer

Shelby

HenryOldham

Salt River

Floy

ds F

ork

Ced

ar C

reek

Floyds Fork

Che

now

eth

Run

Pen

nsyl

vani

a R

un

Currys F

ork

Asher

s Run

Pope Lick

Long

Run

LSPC Watershed Model Revision # 6, 04-12-2013WASP Water Quality Model Revision # 3, 04-17-2013

Legend

Scenario # 1: BaselineResults for TNAnnual/ Growing Season Geometric Mean

Exceeds the Endpoint

Meets the Endpoint

Waterways

Watershed Boundary

County


NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N0 3 61.5

Miles

0 3 61.5Kilometers

Jefferson

Bullitt

Spencer

Shelby

HenryOldham

Salt River

Floy

ds F

ork

Ced

ar C

reek

Floyds Fork

Che

now

eth

Run

Pen

nsyl

vani

a R

un

Currys F

ork

Asher

s Run

Pope Lick

Long

Run


Legend

Scenario # 0: BaselineResults for TPAnnual/ Growing Season Geometric Mean


Meets the Endpoint

Salt River

Watershed Boundary

County

Scenario 1 – All ForestedScenario 1 – All Forested


NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N0 3 61.5

Miles

0 3 61.5Kilometers

Jefferson

Bullitt

Spencer

Shelby

HenryOldham

Salt River

Floy

ds F

ork

Ced

ar C

reek

Floyds Fork

Che

now

eth

Run

Pen

nsyl

vani

a R

un

Currys F

ork

Asher

s Run

Pope Lick

Long

Run


Legend

Scenario # 1: All ForestedResults for TNAnnual/ Growing Season Geometric Mean


Meets the Endpoint

Waterways

Watershed Boundary

County


NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N0 3 61.5

Miles

0 3 61.5Kilometers

Jefferson

Bullitt

Spencer

Shelby

HenryOldham

Salt River

Floy

ds F

ork

Ced

ar C

reek

Floyds Fork

Che

now

eth

Run

Pen

nsyl

vani

a R

un

Currys F

ork

Asher

s Run

Pope Lick

Long

Run


Legend

Scenario # 1: All ForestedResults for TPAnnual/ Growing Season Geometric Mean


Meets the Endpoint

Waterways

Watershed Boundary

County

Scenario 2 – Point Sources Scenario 2 – Point Sources RemovedRemoved


NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N0 3 61.5

Miles

0 3 61.5Kilometers

Jefferson

Bullitt

Spencer

Shelby

HenryOldham

Salt River

Floy

ds F

ork

Ced

ar C

reek

Floyds Fork

Che

now

eth

Run

Pen

nsyl

vani

a R

un

Currys F

ork

Asher

s Run

Pope Lick

Long

Run


Legend

Scenario # 1: Point Sources RemovedResults for TNAnnual/ Growing Season Geometric Mean


Meets the Endpoint

Waterways

Watershed Boundary

County


NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N0 3 61.5

Miles

0 3 61.5Kilometers

Jefferson

Bullitt

Spencer

Shelby

HenryOldham

Salt River

Floy

ds F

ork

Ced

ar C

reek

Floyds Fork

Che

now

eth

Run

Pen

nsyl

vani

a R

un

Currys F

ork

Asher

s Run

Pope Lick

Long

Run


Legend

Scenario # 1: Point Sources RemovedResults for TPAnnual/ Growing Season Geometric Mean


Meets the Endpoint

Waterways

Watershed Boundary

County

Scenario 4 – SSOs RemovedScenario 4 – SSOs Removed


NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N0 3 61.5

Miles

0 3 61.5Kilometers

Jefferson

Bullitt

Spencer

Shelby

HenryOldham

Salt River

Floy

ds F

ork

Ced

ar C

reek

Floyds Fork

Che

now

eth

Run

Pen

nsyl

vani

a R

un

Currys F

ork

Asher

s Run

Pope Lick

Long

Run


Legend

Scenario # 4: SSOs RemovedResults for TNAnnual/ Growing Season Geometric Mean


Meets the Endpoint

Waterways

Watershed Boundary

County


NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N0 3 61.5

Miles

0 3 61.5Kilometers

Jefferson

Bullitt

Spencer

Shelby

HenryOldham

Salt River

Floy

ds F

ork

Ced

ar C

reek

Floyds Fork

Che

now

eth

Run

Pen

nsyl

vani

a R

un

Currys F

ork

Asher

s Run

Pope Lick

Long

Run


Legend

Scenario # 4: SSOs RemovedResults for TPAnnual/ Growing Season Geometric Mean


Meets the Endpoint

Waterways

Watershed Boundary

County

Scenario 5 – Current Permit Scenario 5 – Current Permit LimitsLimits


NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N0 3 61.5

Miles

0 3 61.5Kilometers

Jefferson

Bullitt

Spencer

Shelby

HenryOldham

Salt River

Floy

ds F

ork

Ced

ar C

reek

Floyds Fork

Che

now

eth

Run

Pen

nsyl

vani

a R

un

Currys F

ork

Asher

s Run

Pope Lick

Long

Run


Legend

Scenario # 5: Current Permit ConditionResults for TNAnnual/ Growing Season Geometric Mean


Meets the Endpoint

Waterways

Watershed Boundary

County


NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N0 3 61.5

Miles

0 3 61.5Kilometers

Jefferson

Bullitt

Spencer

Shelby

HenryOldham

Salt River

Floy

ds F

ork

Ced

ar C

reek

Floyds Fork

Che

now

eth

Run

Pen

nsyl

vani

a R

un

Currys F

ork

Asher

s Run

Pope Lick

Long

Run


Legend

Scenario # 5: Current Permit ConditionResults for TPAnnual/ Growing Season Geometric Mean


Meets the Endpoint

Waterways

Watershed Boundary

County

Scenario 18 – KDOW Div/Elim of Scenario 18 – KDOW Div/Elim of NPDESNPDES


NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N0 3 61.5

Miles

0 3 61.5Kilometers

Jefferson

Bullitt

Spencer

Shelby

HenryOldham

Salt River

Floy

ds F

ork

Ced

ar C

reek

Floyds Fork

Che

now

eth

Run

Pen

nsyl

vani

a R

un

Currys F

ork

Asher

s Run

Pope Lick

Long

Run


Legend

Scenario # 18: KDOW's Diversion/EliminationResults for TNAnnual/ Growing Season Geometric Mean


Meets the Endpoint

Waterways

Watershed Boundary

County


NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N0 3 61.5

Miles

0 3 61.5Kilometers

Jefferson

Bullitt

Spencer

Shelby

HenryOldham

Salt River

Floy

ds F

ork

Ced

ar C

reek

Floyds Fork

Che

now

eth

Run

Pen

nsyl

vani

a R

un

Currys F

ork

Asher

s Run

Pope Lick

Long

Run


Legend

Scenario # 18: KDOW's Diversion/EliminationResults for TPAnnual/ Growing Season Geometric Mean


Meets the Endpoint

Waterways

Watershed Boundary

County

SummarySummary 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

Documents

Working with Stakeholders in Developing Watershed and Water Quality Models: The Dos and Don’ts