MINUTES                                                                    DRAFT 1 – Printed 11/15/2006 1:36 PM

Orange County TMDL Project, SAG Meeting #10

Sabine River Authority of Texas

Authority General Office, Orange, Texas

Tuesday, July 25, 2006, 2:00 – 5:00 PM

 

Welcome & Introductions (Ann Galassi, Sabine River Authority)

 

Notebook Handouts (Miles Hall, SRA)

  • Agenda
  • April 25, 2005, SAG Meeting #9 Notes (DRAFT)
  • Slide Presentation
    • Adams and Cow Bayou Water Quality Modeling Results (Kirk Dean, Ph.D., Parsons)
    • The Orange County TMDL Project (Ward Ling, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality)

 

Approve Minutes from April 25, 2005, SAG Meeting #9 (Ann Galassi, SRA)

Meeting notes unanimously approved.

 

Adams and Cow Bayou Watershed Modeling Results (Dr. Kirk Dean, Parsons)

 

Discussion Items

 

  • Definition of segments (size) for WASP model;
  • Model calibration for dissolved oxygen (DO) and E. coli;
  • Possible percentage reductions necessary for E. coli;
  • How to reduce wildlife contributions to E. coli;
  • As focus is to reduce E. coli loads, should not be adding on septic tanks;
  • Adams Bayou System, reductions to meet E. coli geomean standard more substantial than to reduce single grab standard (if meet geomean standard, will also meet grab sample standard);
  • Cow Bayou Tidal: possibility that a standards adjustment for DO would be appropriate;
  • Methodologies for removing segment(s) from the 303(d) List.

 

Q. What is the actual BOD (biochemical oxygen demand) in the Cow Bayou lower reaches?

A. Fairly low (3-4 mg/L).

 

Q. What should it be?

A. 1-2 mg/L ambient; DO should be at least 4,4.5-5 mg/L for tidal standard (3 day minimum/4 day average);

 

Q. Does it appear that the majority of E. coli is due to failing septic tanks?

A. Yes.

 

Q. Could there be a “snowball effect” if improvements are made in the upper watersheds?

A. Yes; this will be addressed during the Implementation Plan Stage of the TMDL Process.

 

Q. Has percentage of impairment in one area been looked at in comparison with contributing area(s)?

A. This can be looked at in more detail in the Implementation Plan Stage.

 

Q. For Adams Bayou System Contact Recreation Standards Attainment (E. coli), will meeting it for just Gum Gully be enough to meet it for the entire system?

A. No. Gum Gully is a small percentage overall.

Q. What are the possible sources contributing to the Forest category?

A. E. coli: wildlife; BOD / nutrients: runoff of leaf litter.

 

Project Status Report (Ward Ling, TCEQ)

 

The current stage of the TMDL Process is 5: Model Analysis. The Draft TMDL Report will be presented to the SAG (Stakeholder Advisory Group) and TAG (Technical Advisory Group) prior to a 30-day public comment period.

 

Discussion Items

 

·        Draft TMDL Report currently a shell document, as of this meeting;

·        Once Draft TMDL Report ready for public comment, it will come back to the SAG/TAG prior to a 30-day public comment period;

·        SAG/TAG will provide comments;

·        Once changes are made, the Draft TMDL Report will go to the TCEQ for Commissioners approval, and thence to EPA;

·        Next SAG/TAG will develop the Implementation Plan;

·        TCEQ Task Force reviewing TMDLs in an effort to streamline the review process;

·        Historical septic tank failure rate in Orange County.

 

Q. Will there be a separately published modeling report?

A. Possibly; not required by EPA.

 

Public Comment/ Discussion (Ann Galassi, SRA)

 

No public comments.

 

Planning for Next Meeting (Ann Galassi, SRA)

 

The next SAG/TAG meeting was tentatively scheduled for late October or early November 2006 at the SRA Authority General Office. Potential presentations and topics of discussion include the preliminary Draft TMDL Report.

 

Adjourn