Floyds Fork TAC Meeting 9-6-12

TAC MTGATTENDEES:

Peter Goodmann - KDOW

Paulette Akers - KDOW

Clark Dorman - KDOW

Amy Siewart - KDOW

Brooke Shireman - KDOW

Lisa Hicks - KDOW

Adam Scott – KIA (Facilitator)

Tim Wool – EPA R4

Amy Newbold - EPA R4

Brian Watson – Tetra Tech

Madhu Akasapu – Tetra Tech

Karen Schaffer – URS (Jefferson Co – MSD)

Dave Derrick – Mount Washington

Ronnie Fick – Mount Washington

Russ Barnett – University of Louisville/KIESD

Pat Dominik – Home Builders Association of KY

Laurent Rawlings – Home Builders Assoc of KY

Teena Halbig – Floyds Fork Env Assoc

Scott Smith – Smith Management Group (Home Builders Assoc of KY)

Kori Andrews – Smith Mgt Group (Bullitt Co)

Catherine Skees – Smith Management Group

Adam Andrews – KY Corn Growers Assoc of KY

Tim Joice - Kentucky Waterways Alliance

Beth Stuber– Oldham Co

Carolyn Cromer – Oldham Co

Wayne Long – UK ExtensionOffice

Matt Michuad – Jefferson County Health Dept

Joan Lindop – Sierra Club

Rudy Hawkins – Bullitt County

Scott Fleming – City of Shepherdsville

Rusty Cress – League of Cities

Tibor Horvath - NRSC

Kurt Mason – NRCS

Zunfeng Zhu – Kentucky Geological Survey

Joe Burns – Kentucky Rural Waters Association

OPENING REMARKS:

  • Peter Goodmann (KDOW) – Thanked everyone for coming and expressed appreciation for everyone’s time and attendance. Requested that participants have real dialogue and not be talking heads.
  • Purpose of this TAC is to work on a model to determine what kind of loads Floyds Fork can receive and meet water quality standards.
  • This model will be a tool to help determine waste load allocations for point sources and to give non-regulated sources a target.
  • It’s been suggested that a TMDL is not the best way to go. It’s possible other options could be employed.
  • We received a Notice of Intent to sue under the CWA in Oct 2010 for the development of a TMDL.
  • We need a model to direct us towards the appropriate management decisions including Waste Load Allocations for permits. A model that is defensible, well understood, and the best we can get.
  • We are calibrating the model to current data and then we will apply new data to run additional scenarios.
  • Time frames have come up as a concern. KDOW wants to ensure that all participants are comfortable with the model. It is not in our best interest to rush this process.
  • If TAC members do not feel that they are a part of the process, KDOW are willing to meet one on one and address concerns or questions.
  • There has also been some concern about implementation scenarios. That discussion is a little premature. We will discuss these after the model is developed.
  • We are circulating a list of TAC members and alternates, please check the list and make sure the right people are identified.
  • Scott Smith (SMG – HBAK)
  • The problem is, we’ve communicated concerns about the data, but it seems like they never get fully addressed. We need to talk about the data that is driving this model. We are still concerned that the model doesn’t have the right application rates.
  • Tim provided a model from NC.
  • Peter G - Every comment that has been raised in writing, EPA and KDOW have addressed.
  • Adam Andrews (KCGA)- We still have concerns about the fertilizer application rates.
  • Raised concern back in January the use of tonnage reports in any fashion.
  • We got some written response that said provide more data. Data was on the next page of the request.
  • They go to the census report to get information, but missed the fertilization rates.
  • 2nd rev to model – used the same number divided by five crops. Farmers aren’t using that much fertilizer.
  • Brian Watson – Mr. Andrews and Mr. Smith were on phone call with EPA R4 and Tetra Techin late August to discuss the values we received from NRCS. Goal was to make sure the application rates were more in line. Those rates were directly implemented into model. There are four other counties where we don’t have this same data. We haven’t received that data yet. The application rates do not come from tonnage reports. We did sensitivity test on those (Appendix C). Four remaining counties model uses tonnage reports, but we will request the additional data from NRCS and incorporate it once we have it.
  • Adam A– We talked on the call about the dangers of using tonnage reports for any crop.
  • Brian W– Yes, and you’ve been making this argument since Nov 2011. We will incorporate the new data once we have it.
  • Russ Barnett– This discussion is a waste of the TAC’s time. We can argue each specific issue. Is your question whether KDOW is responsive, or whether data is accurate?
  • Scott S– It is errors like this that carry through to everything we’re going to talk about.
  • Ann Fredenburg – Brian is waiting for NRCS to send the rates for the other 4 counties.
  • Brian W– I have not made the request yet, but I plan to do so. We also plan to do the sensitivity analysis on this data.
  • Scott S– Why is this process being rushed? When you look at the agenda, we’re already at the end of the model
  • Russ B– We’re not even sure what the purpose of the TMDL is. Maybe we should focus the discussion on the purpose. If trading is on the table, then we should talk about it up front. I don’t think there’s a market. Peter why don’t you ask the TAC if they are comfortable with the process so far?
  • Scott S– We raise issues and keep coming back to them.
  • Peter G – I’ve been looking through the comments you passed out this morning and the issues you raise are outside of the model. Half of the issues identified are new issues. But to get to Russ’ question, are people comfortable with the process?
  • Teena Halbig – I’m not comfortable. I’ve interjected questions about karst, and Scott and they have been asking questions and that don’t seem to be getting addressed.
  • Kori Andrews – We’ve asked questions, and then the comments we get in response say that it’s going to be addressed,but then it’s not.
  • Russ B– We need to address the question of how issues will be resolved. We need to define a process where issues are brought up and the people that bring those issues up are part of the process in finding the solution.
  • Adam A– Comments were provided in April. And the dataset they were asking for was provided 4 lines down in the document.
  • Brian W– Awesome, this is what a TAC meeting should be. There have been different datasets that have been received. There are some data that we get that is verbiage. Once we get that type of data, we can then see there is a current layer available, but we had to go after the data (karst). In terms of the application loading rates, it wasn’t until this last go round that we had the data that could go into the model.
  • Tim Wool – The way this will work is if you provide the data, and not just say that it is wrong. We’ve backed up and we will continue to back up in this process until the TAC is comfortable. The TAC should come to a consensus on what the values are. TACs in the past have been successful by forming subgroups.
  • Russ B – The TAC needs to decide on what the process will be.
  • Adam S (Facilitator) – We can set up a subgroup to bring recommendations back to the TAC.
  • Peter G – Let’s identify a process. Teena raised the karst issue, should that be a subcommittee?
  • Teena H. – I’ve recommended sources for information, are we supposed to get the document and hand it to you?
  • Brian – We received the fax you sent us regarding the study on karst. However, what we really need is a GIS coverage rather than a faxed document.
  • Adam S (Fac) – Let’s talk about the process. What does the TAC want?
  • Catherine Skees – We want accuracy.
  • Matt Michuad - There has to be subcommittees
  • Ann F– The subcommittee can send data to KDOW so that that KDOW can post it for the TAC.
  • Adam S (Fac) – During the meeting, should there be a short Q&A of the subcommittee?
  • Scott S– Shouldn’t the TAC set the agenda for these meetings?
  • Adam S (Fac)– There should be more by-in from TAC on what the agenda is.
  • Pat Dominik - You folks asked for public comment. I submitted comments on Aug 6th. I’m not a scientist, I’m a practitioner. I have real concerns about the accuracy. You set up parameters, “really good, good, and fair”, which seem very generous. I’ve seen no response to any comments I’ve put out there.
  • Tim W – We’ve received your comments and we will get back to you.
  • Scott – Tim, in your experience, what have you seen for TACs that really seem to work?
  • Tim – When you bring issues forward, bring solutions forward at the same time. Everyone is here for their own reason. All we’re developing here is a tool that you as a TAC and the KDOW can use to make decisions.
  • Scott – The workplan for 303(d) list indicates that the TMDL will be developed by EPA and Tetra Tech. Is that the case? What is the timeline?
  • Tim – The contract Tetra Tech has is up in November, there is a 6 month extension available to us. If we’re not done by May 15th, we can still use Tetra Tech, or we can do this with EPA and KDOW technical staff. The “draft” is a strawman to help KDOW.
  • Ann – The last TAC meeting had a stop date of 2014, but it could take longer or shorter.
  • Russ – TAC should have guidelines on how issues should be resolved. Tetra Tech should be at the subcommittee meetings to have their expertise. How will the subcommittee reports be approved or disapproved?
  • Adam S (Fac) - It’s important to have subcommittee members that are diversified.
  • Wayne Long– Can we go ahead and determine these subcommittees? Springs and karst should be one and fertilizer should be another. We need to limit the number of subcommittees.
  • Adam S (Fac) – Let’s go ahead and list the subcommittees:
  • Land Use (suggested by Scott)
  • Septic Systems (Russ)
  • Fertilizer
  • Springs and karst
  • Point sources
  • Non point sources
  • Ag
  • Urban MS4
  • Hydrology – Important to understand how hydrology drives the model
  • Data – look at data to determine if there are outliers and what they mean
  • Tim W – The % of the total load is so low that it doesn’t impact the model. At the end we can run scenarios to show land use changes (scenario type thing). It would be great to form a subcommittee to start thinking about these scenarios. You could break non point sources into Ag and Urban MS4 b/c they are handled differently in the model.
  • Peter G – Think there should be a hydrology subcommittee
  • Scott S – The hydrologic data – gets back to understanding the accuracy of the data.
  • Tim W – Sensitivity analysis – that’s how we know that septic systems do not have a major impact on the model.
  • Teena H – There is no time for public to participate. Is there time for public to ask questions? Is there some point to allow public to ask questions?
  • Pat D - Are MS4s included as treatment plants?
  • Ann F – No – we should designate point source subcommittee as facilities.
  • TeenaH – The point sources are the majority of the problem.
  • Tim W – It depends where you are in the watershed.
  • Adam S (Fac) – We’ve got subcommittees, are there any other subcommittees to bring forward?
  • Karen – We should include precipitation in hydrology.
  • Adam S (Fac) – At what point do we want to form the subcommittees?
  • Matt M – Now!
  • PeterG – We’ll have sign in sheets at lunch
  • Scott S– We’ve raised the issue of atmospheric deposition.
  • Tim W – We can run a scenario where atmospheric deposition can be changed and ran.
  • Karen S– I have a question on the scope of the data. One of the questions seems to be centered around the level of impairment, the assessment, the current extent of impairment, and how we got to a TMDL.
  • Tim W – the listing is off the table.
  • Karen S – There has been additional monitoring should we reevaluate the data.
  • Ann F – The assessments are made based on biological impairment. KDOW has recently conducted biological monitoring in the Floyds Fork watershed. They are working on that data, it should be complete in October. We do not have the results yet. We can give a presentation on that data at the end of Oct.
  • Wayne Long – Can KDOW post that data on KDOW’s website.
  • Ann F– I’m not sure what the best way to post that data.
  • Wayne Long – I’ve received data from you guys before and it’s valuable.
  • Ann F – Data is always available by request. We’ll look into how we can get that data to you.
  • Scott S – What about the consent decrees? How does that play into process?
  • Peter G – There is a consent decree in Jefferson Co that applies to some of the wastewater treatment plants. That consent decree addresses to both CSOs and SSOs.
  • Tim W – As MSD goes through and does retrofits, we can adjust the model. In scenario mode we can take things out or add things to the model.
  • TeenaH– What about regionalization?
  • Tim W– All that could be handled with scenarios.
  • Peter G – We are talking with counties about potential scenario runs but we haven’t defined them?
  • Pat D– Where in the process do we run these scenarios?
  • Tim W– After the model is developed. Our charge is to develop the two models so that they represent Floyds Fork with the best data available, and then run scenarios.
  • Clark D– That was something we planned to discuss at the end of this meeting. We would like to know from the TAC suggestions.
  • Adam S (Fac) – Before we go to break, how do we want to approve subcommittee recommendations.
  • Teena H – The committee is too unbalanced by government and Homebuilders. That being said, approval of subcommittee recommendations by consensus if fine.
  • Peter G – TAC role is to advise KDOW. There are a lot of regulated entities on the subcommittee because they are disproportionally affected by the TMDLs.
  • Adam S (Fac) – Let’s decide on the new agenda
  • Suggested topics:
  • Pt source model assumptions
  • Calibration
  • MS4s
  • Lack of data
  • Non point sources
  • Method of getting LSPC data into WASP
  • Tim W – prioritization of topic discussion
  • Lack of data – let’s talk about data, there’s nothing we can do about the lack of data. KDOW is collecting more data, MSD is collecting more data. We have enough data to go, could we have more data, absolutely. If we had all the data in the world we wouldn’t need a model. There’s data that is actually a direct measurement. Then there is indirect data – fertilization rates, runoff rates.
  • Carolyn C - Is it fair to ask that EPA to respond individually on how data is incorporated. Data has been submitted to you, but you aren’t using it.
  • Tim – We’ll do a better job on reporting out what we’re doing with the data.
  • Carolyn C – We’re being told to send data to KDOW’s Floyds Fork email box.
  • Tim W– We get data from KDOW and we use that data. We haven’t responded to Pat’s comments yet. One of the biggest assumptions in this model is landuse.
  • Pat D– 2009 aerial photography is pretty good. If it’s good enough for MSD to bill stormwater from.
  • Adam S (Fac) – Let’s table land use to later in the agenda.
  • Scott S – One of the concerns for folks is that the TMDL sets WLAs based on data with inaccuracies. It gets translated into real numbers.
  • Tim W – That’s one of those things that gets worked out in the model sensitivity analysis. Sensitivity analysis gives you an error band. The regulated community wants the top of the band, the environmental groups want the bottom of the band. We try to develop to the middle of the band. It’s an annual average that we’re using asking you to meet not an absolute.
  • Land Use
  • Tim W – We know that there are other options out there. Aerial Imagery has to be interpreted and then ground-truthed. It represents the mid-point of what we’re calibrating to. This is the most complete dataset that we have (showing FF map of landuse from 2006 NLCD). In the scenario mode, think of changes you want to make in the form or scenario runs to simulate different land use characterizations.
  • Pat D – Do you use this data to develop impervious cover?
  • Brian W – This is not used to develop impervious cover, they are two separate coverages.
  • Tim W– It’s 2007 and 2008 where most of the data we’re calibrating to.
  • Karen S– I discussed this with Justin at MSD, it is possible to develop a GIS land use coverage from aerial imagery.
  • Tim W– Is MSD going to do this for the whole basin?
  • Karen S– There are some issues around this. MSD is concerned that if they are part of the process there may be some issues if they comment on the TMDL. Are you using polygon data or raster data?
  • Tim W – It’s 10m raster data.
  • TeenaH – In Jefferson Co – aerial data was taken in 2002.
  • Tim W – Imagery and coverage is not the same.
  • Tim J (KWA) – The fundamental lack of understanding is that it takes hundreds of hours to convert imagery to land use coverage.
  • Catherine S – How much money would it cost us if we don’t put in that work now?
  • Tim J (KWA) – We would have to go out and collect the ground-truth data and then you’d get to 2014 and you’d want to redo all the landuse data all over.
  • Tim W– This is not a stagnant tool.