1 / 36

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

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.

lorna
Download Presentation

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

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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 27th Annual Alabama Water Resources Conference and Symposium Orange Beach, Alabama

  2. 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 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

  3. Stakeholder Process • 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

  4. Technical Advisory Committee • 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

  5. Timeline and Scheduling of Meetings

  6. 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

  7. 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

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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. Nutrient Targets

  12. Proposed Nutrient TargetsDeveloped 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

  13. 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 (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

  14. 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 (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!!

  15. 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

  16. Questions? • Madhu Akasapu-Smith • Tetra Tech • Environmental Engineer • 2110 Powers Ferry Road • Suite 202 • Atlanta, Georgia 30339 • 770-738-6044 • madhu.akasapu@tetratech.com • 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

  17. Development of Scenario List and Presentation of Scenarios

  18. Scenarios Suggested and Evaluated

  19. Scenario 0 – Baseline (Calibration)

  20. Scenario 1 – All Forested

  21. Scenario 2 – Point Sources Removed

  22. Scenario 4 – SSOs Removed

  23. Scenario 5 – Current Permit Limits

  24. Scenario 18 – KDOW Div/Elim of NPDES

  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 • Scenarios • Do: Assist Stakeholders in determining “good” scenarios • Don’t: Present numbers/reductions right away

More Related