TMDL Program Research Articles

The Green Bay saga: Environmental change, scientific investigation, and watershed management

Abstract The Green Bay watershed, draining a total area of approximately 40,468 km2, comprises about a third of the Lake Michigan drainage. In the early years, fur trade was the dominant economic activity within the watershed. Later, when timber harvesting, papermaking, and agriculture came on the scene in the 19th and early 20th centuries, major environmental changes occurred in a relatively short period of time. Nutrient and sediment loadings, accompanied by organic wastes from sawmills and paper mills, resulted in a pollutant overload in the Fox River and in the eutrophication of the waters of lower Green Bay. Citizen complaints about these severely degraded conditions initiated a period of scientific investigation. Starting slowly with a few studies and surveys in the first half of the 20th century, serious investigatory work began at mid-century with support from the University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute. Examples of topics that have been investigated since then with support from numerous sources are: biological oxygen demand (BOD), phosphorus and total suspended solids loads, trophic status and food chain efficiencies, coastal wetland characterization, dynamics of the benthic layer, algae and abiotic solids, phosphorus cycling and mass balance, PCBs, seasonal hypoxia, and climate change impacts. These studies have provided the scientific foundation for government-led programs such as the Green Bay Remedial Action Program, the PCB clean-up program, and the TMDL program. Progress has been made—reduction in BOD is an example—but a fuller rehabilitation of this large-scale ecosystem remains an elusive goal. The saga goes on.

A study on Determination Method of the Compliance Concentration of Effluent Limitation from Public Sewage Treatment Works in the Jinwee-stream Watershed Sewer System

In accordance with the Watershed Sewer System Maintenance Plan enforced on February 2, 2013, the different compliance concentration of effluent limit be applied to effluent discharged from public sewage treatment works(PSTWs) in each watershed on the basis of water quality thereof. With the introduction of watershed sewer system, it is necessary to set the compliance concentration of effluent limit for PSTWs situated in the watershed, by region and PSTW size, to achieve water quality criteria for regional watersheds or target water quality under TMDL program. Watershed Environmental Agencies establish the Watershed Sewer System Maintenance Plan and set the compliance concentrations of effluent limit for PSTWs under the plan. The agencies plan to apply tougher effluent BOD concentration limits in Class I to IV areas. Effluent BOD concentration limits will be toughened from 5~10 mg/L to 3 mg/L in class II~III areas, from 10mg/L to 5mg/L in class IV areas. Uniform application of effluent BOD concentration limits to PSTWs in the watershed sewer system need to be complemented considering type of sewage treatment technology employed and watershed characteristics. Therefore, this study presents method to determine the compliance concentration of effluent limit from PSTWs in the watershed.

Modification of the Channel BOD Simulation Scheme in SWAT for Korean TMDL Application

Many streamflows in Korea are discontinuous or intermittent due to stream hydraulic structures, such as dams and diversions constructed to control streamflow and for water use. This is primarily because rainfall is concentrated in the summer. These hydraulic drop structures can enhance the stream re-aeration process, whereas a reduced flow upstream of a structure can promote algae proliferation. Therefore, these phenomena need to be incorporated into a water quality simulation process. SWAT is one of the most popular watershed models and adopts QUAL2E as the channel water quality simulation module. The QUAL2E module has a DO-centered water quality simulation structure because the model was developed based on continuous stream conditions. However, because the flows of many streams in Korea are discontinued due to stream hydraulic structures, flow discontinuity phenomena need to be considered for more accurate algae or nutrients simulation. In addition, bottle BOD5 is the primary BOD indicator that is measured and incorporated into the Korean TMDL program. This is in contrast to CBOD, which the current SWAT model deals with. In this study, a modified QUAL2E model to simulate algae growth kinetics in detail was incorporated into the SWAT model to allow for an increase in internal organic matter and bottle BOD5 simulation. The reliability of BOD simulation was improved, and the modified model was applied successfully to a watershed under the TMDL program to estimate the BOD pollutant loads over a wide range of flow conditions. Overall, the modified SWAT, namely SWAT-KQ, can be a useful tool to improve BOD simulation and help enhance the TMDL program.

Clean Water Act Developments: The Aftermath of TMDL Litigation - Consent Decrees and Settlement Agreements

This article provides the latest developments about TMDL lawsuits nationally. It concludes that the results of TMDL settlements are mixed, least so where it matters most. The glory is that EPA has reviewed anew, or had the states review, readily existing and available water quality related data and information for 40,000 waters, finding 20,000 more ones impaired, bringing the national total to 60,000. EPA has agreed to backstop TMDL development for about 20,000 of these, and set or approved TMDLs for 10,000 impaired waters. EPA has for the first time reviewed and evaluated CPPs in six states. It has conducted dozens of associated ESA consultations. EPA's Office of Watersheds and Wetlands now incorporates TMDL planning into all facets of its operations. Every EPA Region, state and territory now boasts at least one FTE TMDL coordinator and program. Congress and state legislators have dedicated millions of dollars to TMDLs. The legal, policy and scientific academies know the language of TMDLs. The glum is that TMDLs have had little or no impact where they matter most: restoring over-polluted waters. The program is both administratively mature and practically irrelevant. Thirty years plus into the program and the CWA's hope of an ambient-based response to the nation's overly polluted waters is at best ossified and at worst over.

논 유출수 BOD의 유량가중평균농도(EMC) 확률분포

Identification of probability distribution for water quality constituents from specific land use is important to achieve successful implementation of TMDL program. In this 3-year study, distribution of discharge and BOD(Biological Oxygen Demand) concentration from paddy rice fields were monitored. Four probability distributions, normal, log-normal, Gamma and Weibull were fitted and the goodness-of-fit was assessed using probability plots and Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. <TEX>$EMC_s$</TEX> of BOD in runoff from paddy field ranged 0.37 to <TEX>$7.99\;mgL^{-1}$</TEX>, and all four probability distributions were acceptable. But the normal distribution would be preferred for BOD from paddy fields considering nature of straight forward application.

A Bayesian changepoint–threshold model to examine the effect of TMDL implementation on the flow–nitrogen concentration relationship in the Neuse River basin

In-stream nutrient concentrations are well known to exhibit a strong relationship with river flow. The use of flow measurements to predict nutrient concentrations and subsequently nutrient loads is common in water quality modeling. Nevertheless, most adopted models assume that the relationship between flow and concentration is fixed across time as well as across different flow regimes. In this study, we developed a Bayesian changepoint–threshold model that relaxes these constraints and allows for the identification and quantification of any changes in the underlying flow–concentration relationship across time. The results from our study support the occurrence of a changepoint in time around the year 1999, which coincided with the period of implementing nitrogen control measures as part of the TMDL program developed for the Neuse Estuary in North Carolina. The occurrence of the changepoint challenges the underlying assumption of temporal invariance in the flow–concentrations relationship. The model results also point towards a transition in the river nitrogen delivery system from a point source dominated loading system towards a more complicated nonlinear system, where non-point source nutrient delivery plays a major role. Moreover, we use the developed model to assess the effectiveness of the nitrogen reduction measures in achieving a 30% drop in loading. The results indicate that while there is a strong evidence of a load reduction, there still remains a high level of uncertainty associated with the mean nitrogen load reduction. We show that the level of uncertainty around the estimated load reduction is not random but is flow related.

Effects of Streamflow Routing Schemes on Water Quality with SWAT

The TMDL program has been implemented as a watershed management measure for the control of both point and nonpoint pollution sources. An accurate estimation of runoff is essential for the reliable estimation of pollutant loads and thus the development of appropriate pollutant control measures. The objectives of this study were to compare the performance of two different streamflow routing methods (the Muskingum method and the nonlinear storage method) for water quality simulation. SWAT2005 and its modified version SWAT-NSR, which adopt the respective streamflow routing schemes, were compared in terms of their water quantity and quality simulations. From the simulation results, the streamflow routing methods quite affected the peak flows and their attenuation, and subsequently reflected different water quality simulations with respect to sediments and nutrients. Accordingly, the estimated pollutant loads to surface waterbodies were also different depending on the routing scheme used.

Invasive Species and the TMDL Program

Invasive Species and the TMDL Program

Enhancements in Model Development to Meet the Demands of the TMDL Program

Enhancements in Model Development to Meet the Demands of the TMDL Program

A New Approach to Adaptive Implementation in the TMDL Program

An expert panel was convened to explore the use of adaptive implementation in the TMDL program, following a 2001 National Research Council report recommendation. This paper summarizes the panel’s report suggesting an adaptive implementation process for water quality management. In current practice, what the panel calls standard implementation, a plan for reducing pollutant loads to meet water quality standards, is established when a TMDL is completed, and that TMDL and plan are not intentionally revisited. Adaptive implementation (AI) by contrast means that the TMDL and the implementation plan are continually updated and revised based on an intentional and well-resourced process to secure new information to reduce technical uncertainties. This paper identifies situations warranting an adaptive implementation approach, describes in concept adaptive implementation, and identifies key regulatory and technical challenges.

The Tmdl Program Results Analysis Project: Matching Results Measures with Program Expectations

The evaluation of environmental results from federal programs has increased significantly in recent years, both due to government-wide review requirements and agencies’ own interest in identifying potential program improvements. The USEPA’s Clean Water Act TMDL program has undertaken a self-evaluation of TMDL environmental results, program milestones, and explanatory factors that can collectively improve understanding of program results, provide a feedback loop for program managers, and lead to results-based program improvements. An effective approach to results analysis initially required the clarification of TMDL program goals and expectations, followed by identification of measurable results concepts that relate directly to progress toward program goals. We reviewed several recent analyses of the TMDL program and similar restoration programs to identify lines of evidence that showed possible results patterns that could be monitored with available databases. From the available evidence we developed evaluation metrics of three types. Response measures relate to environmental outcomes – interim improvements and full recovery in waters that have been addressed by the TMDL program. Programmatic measures track key milestones in the several-step TMDL program process from TMDL development and implementation through recovery. Explanatory measures assess linkages between environmental response results and potential causes; these measures are crucial for revealing why certain results are occurring and focusing attention on specific causes that should be addressed in program improvements. As this five-year effort accumulates new insights into TMDL results and their driving factors, the TMDL results analysis project will provide insights and evidence for improving the TMDL program. This paper provides the conceptual overview and unifying context for several papers comprising a special session on TMDL results analysis at the WEF TMDL 2007 conference.

Applying Results Findings: the Recovery Potential Project

The growing body of evidence and results from numerous restoration projects, TMDLs, and other efforts demonstrate that the success of efforts to restore impaired waters is closely linked with watershed and waterbody traits that influence the potential of the waterbody to recover its functionality. Restoration success is not exclusively determined by the success or failure of the externally applied restoration techniques. Specific attributes of the waterbody itself and its watershed collectively indicate its recovery potential, and can be represented by metrics of three primary types: measures of ecological capacity to reestablish natural processes, measures of current and projected stressor exposure, and measures of social context. These metrics can be identified and evaluated at a screening level to compare recovery prospects across multiple sites, using landscape modeling methods as a tool for broad-area planning and priority-setting for impaired waters restoration. In the Clean Water Act’s TMDL program and Section 319 nonpoint source grants program as well as in state restoration initiatives, states face challenging decisions on which sites to address in what order, with what fraction of limited restoration resources. Our project’s goal was to develop and demonstrate statewide-scale analytical tools that could help states carry out these tasks with more systematic and science-based consideration of recovery potential as a primary driver. An extensive search of the restoration literature was used to initially identify recovery-potential-related traits from empirical studies and syntheses, and then evaluate the ability to translate each of these traits into spatial metrics with specific, GIS-based measurement protocols. This effort resulted in the development of over 80 recovery potential indicators across the aforementioned categories of ecological capacity, stressor exposure, and social context. Using as a hypothetical test bed the 2002 State of Illinois’ 303(d) list for approximately 725 impaired waters, EPA impaired waters databases, and numerous supporting GIS datasets, we developed several approaches for prioritizing impaired waterbodies based on recovery potential. We focused on developing suites of prioritization options to demonstrate recovery potential as a flexible statewide screening tool, and because the differing context of each impairment suggests that a single prioritization scheme would not likely be suitable for all impaired waters or the priority decisions of all states. In the analyses presented here, we compare rank orders (highest rank = most recoverable) of selected measures of ecological capacity and social context to the nominal priority ranks of low, medium and high that accompanied the 2002 Illinois 303(d) list. The simple, single-indicator comparisons demonstrate site-to-site variability in factors that should influence likelihood of recovery. We close with a cluster analysis of recovery potential metrics, again comparing the cluster groups to the nominal priority rankings of low, medium, and high. The results of the cluster analysis suggest that there is a geography to recovery potential. We discuss how the geographic pattern in the cluster groups could be exploited as a TMDL and restoration prioritization tool. Wickham, J.D. and D.J. Norton. 2007. Applying results findings: the recovery potential project. Proceedings: Water Environment Federation TMDL 2007 Conference, Bellevue, WA, pp. 492-506.

ECONOMIC MODELS FOR TMDL ASSESSMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION

The TMDL assessment and implementation process is designed to achieve designated uses for water bodies, whichare set by states based on criteria including perceived costs and benefits. Setting water quality goals based on designateduses and plans to achieve these goals have important implications for public welfare. Both treatment and damage costs shouldbe considered in simultaneously determining the desired water quality goal and allocating pollution reductions amongsources to achieve that goal. Assessing and implementing TMDL plans are complicated by uncertainties about pollutiondamages and stakeholder responses. Economic optimization or simulation models linked to water quality models allow waterquality impacts and costs of TMDL standards to be assessed. Higher water quality thresholds may be reserved for watershedswith higher estimated benefits. Costs of achieving standards can be reduced by targeting reductions at pollution sources withthe lowest costs of achieving reductions. Trading programs can help achieve efficient targeting of pollution reductions whiledistributing costs equitably. The effectiveness of economic models to assist in setting water quality goals and in TMDLprogram planning and implementation can be improved by using economic models to analyze costs and benefits of waterquality improvements and to assist with pollution targeting and trading programs to minimize costs of reducing pollution.Multi-media impacts of pollution should be included within economic and environmental water quality models. Givenuncertainties about benefits and costs of achieving TMDL standards, policymakers and program managers need to collectmore data on stakeholder responses to TMDL programs as well as better monitoring data on pollutant levels and functioningof aquatic systems.

APPLICATION OF THE DQO PROCESS TO THE DELAWARE ESTUARY PCB TMDL PROGRAM

APPLICATION OF THE DQO PROCESS TO THE DELAWARE ESTUARY PCB TMDL PROGRAMWe applied U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Data Quality Objectives (DQO) process to collecting the data needed for decision-making in support of the Stage 2 PCB TMDL program for the Delaware Estuary. The DQO process, which is a seven-step planning approach, was used to develop sampling designs for data collection activities that focused on the challenges of identifying significant sources...Author(s)Lawrence R. SandeenJeffrey D. WetheringtonDavid R. BlyeRao SankarmanchiSourceProceedings of the Water Environment FederationSubjectSession 2: Delaware Estuary PCB TMDL: A Case StudyDocument typeConference PaperPublisherWater Environment FederationPrint publication date Jan, 2005ISSN1938-6478SICI1938-6478(20050101)2005:3L.192;1-DOI10.2175/193864705783967034Volume / Issue2005 / 3Content sourceTMDLS ConferenceFirst / last page(s)192 - 211Copyright2005Word count407

Managing the Water Program

Not too long ago, it was common to hear the national waterquality program referred to as mature. This description carried with it the conclusion that the hard work was over and that all that was left to the states, interstate agencies, and EPA was to continue implementing existing programs and await inevitable improvements in water quality. As this special issue indicates, nothing could be further from the truth. The challenges faced by the national water program are as distinct and complex as they were when the Clean Water Act ~CWA! was passed in 1972. The challenges we all face are defined by two recognitions, one of how the Clean Water Act programs have been working, the other of how much more work remains. The first recognition is that while states, interstates, and the EPA deploy much statutory, policy, administrative, and financial tools, the joint exercise of these instruments has not focused water program efforts on ambient water quality. Efforts have focused on building wastewater treatment plants, designing and implementing discharge permit programs, promulgating industrial discharge requirements, and developing best management practices. In simple terms, these efforts have focused on the sources of pollution with the expectation that controlling all the sources would facilitate water quality improvement. The second recognition, brought forcefully to attention by recent actions, is that there remain many waters that, while showing improvement, do not meet their quality goals. This includes waters where controls have been implemented as well as some just now being identified as impaired. The response to both of these recognitions is the same. Collectively, the national water program must deploy all of its tools more effectively in a watershed context that will move existing source control programs into a focus on achieving in-stream or ambient water quality goals. Existing programs have not failed, but they must take the next logical, watershed-based steps. Part of the reason that this next step for the water program is evident is the attention generated by the requirements of Section 303~d! of the CWA. Most recent attention regarding TMDLs has focused on EPA’s recent efforts to decide exactly which set of regulatory requirements should govern implementation of the program. As of this writing, the regulations promulgated in 1985 and slightly revised in 1992 continue to govern the TMDL program. Also, as of this writing, EPA has proposed to withdraw regulations promulgated in July 2000 and halted by Congress and will decide soon ‘‘whether and how’’ to propose new regulations. The temptation is to think that program improvements are contingent upon the promulgation of new regulations. EPA, however, is moving forward with a series of actions intended to improve and integrate a host of water program activities. The main thrust of hese actions is put TMDLs into proper relief with the suite of

TMDL PROGRAM MANDATED UPGRADES - ARE THEY REALLY NECESSARY? OR - WILL IMPLEMENTATION TRULY RESULT IN SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVED WATER QUALITY?

TMDL PROGRAM MANDATED UPGRADES - ARE THEY REALLY NECESSARY? OR - WILL IMPLEMENTATION TRULY RESULT IN SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVED WATER QUALITY?Are TMDL program mandated upgrades likely to result in significantly improved water quality? The answer could be a resounding NO! An examination of the TMDL development and implementation process for several tidally influenced coastal plain water bodies reveals the TMDL process is ripe with multiple opportunities for regulatory agencies to make inappropriate technical decisions. A technical flaw...Author(s)J. Paul JonesPaul JensenKent PriceSourceProceedings of the Water Environment FederationSubjectSession 7 Industrial Wastewater Regulatory IssuesDocument typeConference PaperPublisherWater Environment FederationPrint publication date Jan, 2003ISSN1938-6478SICI1938-6478(20030101)2003:2L.389;1-DOI10.2175/193864703784343910Volume / Issue2003 / 2Content sourceWEF EventFirst / last page(s)389 - 406Copyright2003Word count464

The Myths and Truths That Ended the 2000 TMDL Program

The Myths and Truths That Ended the 2000 TMDL Program

NAVIGATING THE TMDL PROCESS: EVALUATION AND IMPROVEMENTS

NAVIGATING THE TMDL PROCESS: EVALUATION AND IMPROVEMENTSNavigating the TMDL Process: Evaluation and Improvements is a WERF-funded research effort begun in late 2000 and is directed toward improving the TMDL process. The research will be completed in December 2002, with publication of the final report in Spring 2003. The objective of this research was to investigate issues and concerns with the TMDL program, and to develop and identify ways to improve...Author(s)Paul L. FreedmanWendy M. LarsonDavid W. DilksKent W. ThorntonGerald W. BoeseSourceProceedings of the Water Environment FederationSubjectSession 7 TMDL Development MethodologyDocument typeConference PaperPublisherWater Environment FederationPrint publication date Jan, 2002ISSN1938-6478SICI1938-6478(20020101)2002:8L.518;1-DOI10.2175/193864702785072010Volume / Issue2002 / 8Content sourceTMDLS ConferenceFirst / last page(s)518 - 532Copyright2002Word count267

EPA's TMDL Program

EPA's TMDL Program

The New Face of the Clean Water Act: A Critical Review of the EPA's Proposed TMDL Rules

The paper analyzes the EPA's proposed 'total maximum daily load' (TMDL) rules for water quality regulation. The benefits of movement to a system that drives pollutant reductions from ambient water conditions are described. The paper argues that while TMDLs are a highly desirable form of regulation, progress will be tempered by the serious scientific and technical challenges the approach presents. Also, because TMDLs target many polluters who were not previously regulated, the proposed regulations will alter the politics, economics, and law of water quality regulation. Several state TMDL programs are analyzed to illustrate these benefits and challenges. The paper gives particular attention to the role of water quality trading among point and nonpoint sources under a TMDL program.