Analysis of TMDL Implementation Rates in
EPA Region 5
FINAL REPORT
December 1, 2009
Watershed Branch (4503T)
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Document # EPA841-R-09-005
-------
Notices and Acknowledgements
As a product of the TMDL Program Results Analysis Project, the EPA Office of Water funded the
development of this document in part through contract # EP-C-08-004 with Tetra Tech, Inc., whose
Cleveland, Ohio office gathered the project data and compiled this report. The collaboration of TMDL
program leaders and staff within the six EPA Region 5 states ~ Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota,
Ohio, and Wisconsin ~ was essential to the success of this project. Publication does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency or of any
other organization represented in this document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does
not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document should be cited as:
USEPA. 2009. Analysis of TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5: Final Report. Document
#EPA841-R-005. Office of Water, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC. 44 pp.
This document and related resources can be found online at:
http://www.epa.sov/owow/tmdl/results/
-------
Executive Summary
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program has
accounted for the listing of over 44,000 impaired waters nationwide and the development of over
40,000 TMDLs since the program's creation. Case-specific accounts of implementation are
widespread, but the actual rate of implementing TMDLs nationally or regionally has remained virtually
unknown because full census and tracking of every implemented practice would be an overwhelming if
not impossible task. To gain insights on implementation, EPA's TMDL Program Results Analysis
Project conducted a sample-based analysis of TMDL implementation rates and characteristics in the six
EPA Region 5 states (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH and WI).
A probabilistic sample was drawn from all TMDLs established through FY2007. Sampled TMDLs
were allocated proportionally to states based on each state's total TMDL production. Regional but not
specific state-level statistics were the goal of the study. Subpopulations of interest contrasted older
(through FY2003) versus newer (FY2004 - FY2007) TMDLs, and nonpoint-source (NPS)-only
TMDLs versus point source (PS)-only and mixed (PS/NPS) TMDLs. The project team extracted
information on each of the 138 sample TMDLs and their proposed NPS and PS controls from EPA data
systems in advance of working with each state to verify implementation rates and patterns across the
Region.
This assessment demonstrated that, within a +/- 10% margin of error at 90% C.I., an estimated 80.3% of
Region 5 TMDLs were at least partially implemented. Full implementation was uncommon. No
implementation was observed in approximately 20% of the sample, but the diffuse nature of control
practices typical of many TMDLs made complete verification of every practice difficult. Among
Subpopulations, implementation rates did not differ significantly between older or newer TMDLs, but
the mixed TMDLs implementation rate exceeded the NPS-only rate by 16.1%. Implementation plans
existed for 79.6% of TMDLs, and NPS-only TMDLs showed more plans than the mixed TMDL
subpopulation. TMDLs generated as part of large watershed, multi-TMDL efforts comprised 13.2%
more of the newer TMDLs subpopulation than the older TMDLs subpopulation.
Post-analysis steps included exploring GIS data on the watershed traits of each sampled TMDL for
other possible associations with patterns of implementation, and evaluation of possible
subcategorization of the 'partially implemented' samples to provide more detailed information.
Analysis of predominant land cover in the samples' watersheds did not reveal significant differences
among implementation rates associated with urbanized, heavily agricultural, lightly agricultural, and
rural non-agricultural watersheds. Efforts to further subcategorize samples that were initially classified
as partially implemented were partially successful but substantially limited data and by the difficulty of
consistently comparing widely variable TMDLs.
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5 Project Report
Table of Contents
Notices and Acknowledgements ii
Executive Summary iii
Table of Contents iv
List of Tables v
List of Figures v
1 Introduction 1
2 Technical Approach 2
2.1 Subtask A: Project work plan and establishment of data collection protocols 2
2.1.1 Approved Sources of Information 4
2.1.2 Data Recording 4
2.1.3 Description of Source Interactions 5
2.1.4 Quality Assurance Procedures 7
2.2 Subtask B: Collect and Compile Field Data 7
2.3 Subtask C: Organize findings and develop report 8
3 State Summaries 9
3.1 Illinois TMDL Summary 9
3.1.1 Point Source Implementation 9
3.1.2 Nonpoint Source Implementation 10
3.1.3 Information Sources 10
3.2 Indiana TMDL Summary 11
3.2.1 Point Source Implementation 12
3.2.2 Nonpoint Source Implementation 13
3.2.3 Information Sources 13
3.3 Michigan TMDL Summary 14
3.3.1 Point Source Implementation 14
3.3.2 Nonpoint Source Implementation 15
3.3.3 Information Sources 16
3.4 Minnesota TMDL Summary 16
3.4.2 Point Source Implementation 19
3.4.2 Nonpoint Source Implementation 19
3.4.3 Information Sources 19
3.5 Ohio TMDL Summary 20
3.5.1 Point Source Implementation 20
3.5.2 Nonpoint Source Implementation 22
3.5.3 Information Sources 23
3.6 Wisconsin TMDL Summary 24
3.6.1 Point Source Implementation 25
3.6.2 Nonpoint Source Implementation 25
3.6.3 Sources of Implementation Information 26
4 Results and Observations 27
4.1 Data Updates 27
IV
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5 Project Report
4.2 Project Results Summary 27
4.3 Observations 32
4.3.1 Study Results 32
4.3.2 Study Design 33
4.3.3 Gaps in Appropriate Information 34
4.4 Additional Analysis of Partially Implemented TMDLs 34
Appendix 1: Definitions of Key Terms 37
Appendix 2: Additional Analysis of Partially Implemented TMDLs 39
Tables
Table 2-1. Data elements included in each TMDL analysis form 3
Table 3-1. Summary of Illinois TMDLs 9
Table 3-2. Summary of online sources of implementation data 11
Table 3-3. List of state and local contacts 11
Table 3-4. Summary of Indiana TMDLs 12
Table 3-5. Summary of online sources of implementation data 13
Table 3-6. List of state and local contacts 14
Table 3-7. Summary of Michigan TMDLs 14
Table 3-8. Summary of online sources of implementation data 16
Table 3-9. List of state and local contacts 16
Table 3-10. Summary of Minnesota TMDLs 18
Table 3-11. Summary of online sources of implementation data 20
Table 3-12. List of state and local contacts 20
Table 3-13. Summary of Ohio TMDLs 21
Table 3-14. Summary of online sources of implementation data 23
Table 3-15. List of state and local contacts 24
Table 3-16. Summary of Wisconsin TMDLs 25
Table 3-17. Summary of online sources of implementation data 26
Figures
Figure 3-1. Structural relationship of the database for analyzing TMDL implementation rates in EPA
Region 5 5
Figure 4-1. Comparison of estimated percent of partially to fully implemented sample TMDLs among
sample population and subpopulations 27
Figure 4-2. Estimated percent of TMDLs in sampled subpopulations that have an implementation plan . 28
Figure 4-3. Frequency of partially to fully implemented TMDL samples associated with watershed or
multi-TMDLs 29
Figure 4-4. Percent of TMDL samples partly/fully implemented, reaggregated by predominant land cover
in watershed 30
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5 Project Report
VI
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5 Project Report
1 INTRODUCTION
The Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program has accounted for the current listing of more than
44,000 impaired waters nationwide and the development of more than 40,000 TMDLs since the
Program's inception. However, the rate of implementing TMDLs - putting into practice the onsite
pollution controls called for in the TMDL ~ long remained virtually undocumented. The TMDL Program
was criticized in a 2007 program review by the Office of Inspector General for not being able to estimate
the rate of implementing TMDLs in any way. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
subsequently committed to explore sample-based methods for estimating implementation rates, and
specifically to conduct a TMDL implementation sampling pilot study in the six north-central states of
EPA Region 5. The purpose of the study was to conduct an analysis of Regional TMDL implementation
rates and characteristics as represented in a probabilistic sample of Region 5 TMDLs. The basic TMDL
activities of interest in this analysis included:
Partial to full progress in planning, funding and installing Best Management Practices (BMPs)
that address the Load Allocation of a given TMDL, through Section 319 (or, to the extent
available, other) projects;
Partial to full progress in incorporating the Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) of a given TMDL in
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) (or other) permits;
Identification of each sample TMDL as part of a single-TMDL versus multiple-TMDL
development effort; and
Partial to full progress in developing an Implementation Plan.
The project analyzed a sample of approved TMDLs within Region 5 to estimate implementation status at
the Regional level within a +/- 10 percent margin of error at 90 percent confidence. The list of TMDLs
was extracted from the National TMDL Tracking System (NTTS) in April 2008 and contained a Region 5
statistical universe of 2,228 TMDLs approved through FY2007. Subpopulations of interest also enabled
the comparison of older and newer TMDLs (through FY2003 and FY2004 to 2007), and nonpoint-only
and point source related (point-only and mixed) TMDLs. The study was not designed to obtain state-
level statistically valid results. Based on the subpopulations, desired accuracy, and desired statement
parameters, the estimated minimum sample size was 126. Additional samples (15) were added to
compensate for expected non-response or other data issues, yielding a sample selection of 141 TMDLs.
Three TMDLs were subsequently deleted from the study as unsuitable samples, and the final study
therefore included 138 TMDLs. These samples were proportionally allocated among Region 5 states; the
single-state totals thus range from 10 to 42 TMDL samples.
EPA determined the desired accuracy and outputs of the project, developed the project design, selected
the sample, and prepared preliminary data about each sample. EPA also contracted with Tetra Tech, Inc.
(Tetra Tech) to provide support for several project subtasks. Tetra Tech's scope of effort was limited to
developing data collection protocols, collecting the data regarding implementation, and organizing the
data into a database. This report summarizes the approach and results of the Tetra Tech subtasks. Section
2 summarizes the technical approach, Section 3 describes the data collection effort for each state, and
Section 4 presents the results and observations. Definitions of key terms as they relate to this project are
provided in Section 5.
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5 Project Report
2 TECHNICAL APPROACH
The technical approach for each of the following three project subtasks was carried out by the Tetra Tech
project team:
Subtask A: Project Work Plan and Establishment of Data Collection Protocols
Subtask B: Collect and Compile Field Data
Subtask C: Organize Findings and Develop Report
2.1 SUBTASK A: PROJECT WORK PLAN AND ESTABLISHMENT OF DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOLS
This subtask focused on developing the project work plan, establishing the data collection protocols, and
identifying quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures for the consistent, efficient and timely
collection of the information identified in the statement of work (SOW). The data elements to be collected
were documented in the SOW and serve to fill the following general data needs:
Identifying basic TMDL information (e.g., waterbody, pollutant, state)
Identifying point and nonpoint source implementation activities outlined in the TMDL (or
Implementation Plan)
Determining the status of permitting and BMP implementation activities outlined in the TMDL
(or Implementation Plan)
Documenting additional NPDES facilities, Section 319 projects or other nonpoint source projects
not included in the TMDL documents
A number of sources of information were used to collect the necessary data, including: the TMDL reports
and decision documents; TMDL implementation plans; online web pages and databases; permit and grant
documentation; and state TMDL, permitting and nonpoint source personnel. The data collection protocols
identified the sources of information relevant to each data element and the priority order for their review.
For example, the available TMDL-related reports were reviewed first for any relevant information prior to
searching other information sources such as online databases. State personnel were not contacted until
after analyzing the readily available reports and other sources of information and identifying the data gaps
that required additional inquiry. This was done to eliminate any unnecessary burden on state personnel
and to make the most efficient use of their time.
The data collection protocols also relied on the development of a standardized Excel spreadsheet and
Access database to compile and organize the information. The spreadsheet was used to document the
available data as they were collected. The data were then inserted into the database to standardize data
storage and facilitate data querying.
For each TMDL, five categories of data were recorded in the spreadsheet:
Basic sample reference information
Preliminary TMDL-level information
Within-TMDL information (additional data not included in TMDL document)
Summary TMDL implementation data
Contact information
Table 2-1 lists these five categories and the associated data elements needed for each. The process for
obtaining and recording information for the data elements is explained in the following sections.
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5
Project Report
Table 2-1. Data elements included in each TMDL analysis form
Basic TMDL Reference Information
TMDL State
TMDL Sample*
Waterbody Name
TMDL ID
Pollutant Description
TMDL Type
TMDL Fiscal Year
Preliminary TMDL-Level Information
General Categories of PS
Total WLA
WLA Units
NPDES Facility Names
NPDES Facility IDs
NPDES Facility Type
Individual WLAs for each NPDES ID
Individual WLA Units
Status of incorporating WLAs into NPDES Permits
Issuance/Reissuance Date
General Categories of NPS
Total LA
319 Project Names
Year of Funding
Funding
Status of BMP Implementation
Source of BMP Implementation
TMDL Implementation Plan Status
What Date Did TMDL Implementation Begin?
Status of BMP Implementation
Status of BMP Planning
WLA Allocation Details
Other Project Names
Sponsoring Sources
Funding
Status of Project Implementation
WLA Allocation Details
Status of Project Planning
Included in TMDL Report or Post-TMDL
LA Allocation Details
LA Units
319 Project IDs
TMDL Implementation Status
Source of Funding Information
Status of BMP Planning
BMP Planning Source
Is Segment-Pollutant Combination Part of Multi-
TMDL/Watershed TMDL Analysis?
Total # of TMDLs Finalized in TMDL Document
Within-TMDL Information (Additional Data Not Included In TMDL Document)
NPDES Facility Names
NPDES Facility IDs
NPDES Facility Type
Issuance/Reissuance Date
Status of WLA Implementation
319 Project Name
319 Project IDs
Funding
Funding Source
Project Implementation Source
Status of Project Planning
Other Project Names
Status of BMP Planning
Project Name
Sponsoring Sources or Permit Number
Funding
Status of Project/Permit Implementation
Status of BMP Planning
Evidence of Water Quality Improvements, and Source
Data Mining Contact(s)
Status of BMP Implementation
Data Mining/Compilation Issues
Project Planning Source
Sponsoring Sources
TMDL Implementation Summary Details
Overall TMDL Implementation Status
PS-Related Implementation Status
NPS-Related Implementation Status
Overall TMDL Implementation Status Up Through FY
2003
Overall TMDL Implementation Status from FY 2004
Through FY 2007
Evidence Sources
TMDL Implementation Plan Completed?
TMDL Developed as Part of Multi-TMDL or Watershed TMDL?
TMDL Implementation Within the Watershed but not on TMDL
Segment
Parallel but Unrelated Implementation
Evidence of Water Quality Improvements?
Data Mining Issues
Contacts and Sources
Contact Name
Contact E mail
Source Address
Contact Phone
Source
Reason Used
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5 Project Report
2.1.1 Approved Sources of Information
The following sources of information were used to determine the implementation status of TMDL
samples in this study. For all of these approved sources of information, a practice was considered to have
been implemented if it was described as currently active or having already occurred. However, when the
source referred to future plans to implement, even when those dates had passed, secondary verification
was required.
TMDL Documents or Web sites
Permit documents or Web sites
Section 319 Nonpoint Source documents or Web sites
Other Point Source or Nonpoint Source documents or Web sites
Point Source or Nonpoint Source project-related files
Implementation Plans
Other implementation studies, data systems or Web sites
Correspondence with State contacts
Correspondence with other project contacts
2.1.2 Data Recording
The project team determined the status of each of the data elements shown in Table 2-1 through
reviewing available documentation and speaking to the appropriate personnel. As information was
obtained for each data element, it was recorded in an Excel spreadsheet for each state. Once the state
spreadsheets were fully populated the data were migrated into an Access database.
The design of the Access database is shown in Figure 2-1. Separate tables exist for information related to
the TMDL itself, point source controls, Section 319 nonpoint source controls, other nonpoint source
controls, status of the implementation plan, overall implementation status, and contact information. The
use of a database design allowed more efficient recording of information with one-to-many relationships.
For example, one TMDL document might include 12 different point sources or two separate Section 319
projects. By using a database design the information about the TMDL itself (e.g., state, waterbody name)
can be recorded only once and linked to related tables instead of having to be duplicated for each record
of related information. The use of a database also allowed for the standardization of data entries, where
possible, through the use of "pick lists" to ensure no errors were made in recording the information. For
example, a Yes/No pick list was used to record whether the TMDL includes an Implementation Plan.
Similarly, the database required that certain data entries be of a certain type (e.g., all dates must be input
in date format). Having all of the information in a database also facilitated the eventual querying of the
data to answer the key study questions.
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5
Project Report
TMDL ID
TMDL Sample #
NPDES Facility Name
NPDES Facility ID
NPDES Facility Type
Individual WLAs For each NPDES ID
Individual WLA Units
WLA Allocation Details
Status of incorporating WLAs into NPDES Permits (WLA Imp)
Issuance/Reissuance Date
Included in TMDL Report or Post TMDL
Notes
TMDL ID
TMDL Sample #
319 Project Name
319 Project ID
Year of 319 Funding
Funding
Source oP Funding Information
Implementation BMP EPPort
Status oP BMP Implementation
Source oP BMP Implementation Information
Status oP BMP Planning
BMP Planning Source
Included in TMDL Report or Post TMDL
Notes
TVDLTD
TMDL State
TTOL Saiffe *
Waterbody Name
Pollutant Description
TMDL Type
TMDL Fiscal Year
General Categories oP PS
Total WLA
WLA Units
WLA Allocation Details
General Categories oP NPS
Total LA
LA Units
LA Allocation Details
TMDL Sample #
Overall TMDL Implementation Status
implementation Status Por Mixed TMDLs
implementation Status Por NPS Only TMDLs
Overall TMDL Implementation Status Up Through FY 2003
Overall TMDL Implementation Status Prom FY 2004 Through FY 2007
TMDL Implementation Plan Completed
TMDL Developed as Part oP Multi-TMDL or Watershed TMDL?
TMDL Implementation within the watershed but not on TMDL segmer
'arallel but unrelated implementation
Evidence oP any Water Quality Improvements
Evidence Sources
Jotes
TMDL ID
TMDL Sample #
Other Project Names
Sponsoring Sources
Funding
Source oP Funding Information
Implementation BMP EPPort
Status oP Project Implementation
Source oP Project Implementation Information
Status oP Project Planning
Project Planning Source
Included in TMDL Report or Post TMDL
Notes
TMDL ID
TMDL Sample #
TMDL Implementation Plan Status
What Date Did TMDL Implementation Begin?
TMDL Implementation Status
Total # oP TMDLs Finalized in TMDL Document
Is Segment-Pollutant Combination Part oP Multi-TMDL/Watershed TM
Notes
TMDL ID
TMDL Sample #
Contact Name
Contact Phone
Contact Email
Source
Source Address
Reason Used
Figure 2-1. Structural relationship of the database for analyzing TMDL implementation rates. Lines
connecting each table with a one and the infinity symbol imply a one-to-many relationship.
2.1.3 Description of Source Interactions
This section describes how the project team used various sources to obtain the desired information.
Initial Data Elements Obtained from TMDL Documents:
The project team reviewed the final approved TMDL Document and EPA's decision document (if
necessary) to obtain the list of NPDES facilities in the watershed. It was also determined from the final
TMDL document which of the facilities received WLAs resulted in a new permit limit compared to those
where the TMDL re-affirmed the existing permit limit.
The final TMDL document was also used to obtain a list of any Section 319 projects in the watershed.
These were cross-referenced against data from EPA's Section 319 Grants Reporting and Tracking System
(GRTS) to determine if there were any other Section 319 projects relevant to the TMDL. Data from
GRTS were obtained by querying the following Web site:
http://iaspub.epa.gov/pls/grts/f?p=110:3000:8752660467639323::NO:3000::
Determining Status of Implementation Activities Outlined in TMDL Documents:
A thorough review of each implementation activity (permitting, Section 319 projects, and other nonpoint
source projects) noted in the TMDL documents was completed to determine the status of actual
implementation. The purpose of the review was to determine the extent to which any referenced
implementation activity had actually occurred. Implementation recommendations without any specific
evidence suggesting that they had been implemented were noted for later cross-referencing with the
appropriate personnel.
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5 Project Report
Determining Status of WLA Implementation:
The project team reviewed available NPDES permits to determine if any changes resulting from the
TMDL had been incorporated into the permit. Permits for some major facilities were found online in
some states but no major or minor permits were available online in others. Finally, state personnel were
contacted to determine the status of WLA implementation. Personal contact with state personnel proved
to be the most frequent method for determining the status of WLA implementation. The team did not need
to contact any permittees directly to request that they provide an update on the status of WLA
implementation.
Determining Status of BMP Implementation for Section 319 Projects:
The project team first searched the Internet for any documentation related to Section 319 projects known
to exist in the TMDL watershed. Information in GRTS proved to be valuable for determining if projects
had occurred in a TMDL watershed, but was less valuable for determining specific information about
what projects had been implemented and where. Several states post their Section 319 annual reports
online and these were valuable sources of information regarding the status of some Section 319 projects.
When information about a Section 319 project was not available from the Internet, it was requested
directly from state staff and, in a few cases, directly from the local grant recipient. The final sources of
implementation about Section 319 projects were about equally split between online databases/reports and
contact with state personnel or grant recipients.
Several of the Section 319 source projects were not initiated in response to the TMDL because they did
not focus on the TMDL pollutant, were completed more than 3 years prior to TMDL approval, or the
practices occurred in the watershed but not upstream of the segment included in this study. The project
team used their best judgment to determine if the Section 319 projects represented TMDL
implementation, but the information to make a conclusive decision was often not available.
Determining Status of BMP Implementation for Other Nonpoint Source Projects:
The project team requested information on other nonpoint source projects from state TMDL and Section
319 staff but most of this type of information came from direct contact with local Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) and Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) personnel. In a few
cases a local watershed group was also able to provide information on non-Section 319 nonpoint source
projects.
Some of the challenges associated with the Section 319 projects also applied to the other nonpoint source
projects such as difficulty determining whether practices were installed upstream of the TMDL segment
and whether implementation occurred because of or coincident to the TMDL. As with the Section 319
projects, the team used their best judgment to determine if the other nonpoint source projects represented
TMDL implementation.
Additional NPDES Facilities, Section 319 Projects, and Other Nonpoint Source Projects:
Information on NPDES facilities, Section 319 projects, and other nonpoint source projects not listed in
the TMDL document was found in various sources, including the TMDL Implementation Plans, the
Section 319 annual reports, and on the Internet. All additional facilities and projects found using these
sources were cross referenced against those found in the TMDL Documents to avoid duplication. The
appropriate data and approved sources were recorded for each facility/project.
Type of Permit (major, minor individual):
Tetra Tech was able to determine the type of permit (i.e., major or minor) for many of the wastewater
treatment facilities from the TMDL document, the Permit Compliance System (PCS), the Integrated
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5 Project Report
Compliance Information System (ICIS), or the actual permit. The type of permit could not be determined
for quite a few permits, however, and permit type is thus sometimes left blank in the database.
Status of TMDL Implementation Plan:
The project team first checked online to determine if any Implementation Plans were available and then
followed-up with state TMDL and Section 319 staff. Local stakeholders were also contacted in several
cases to request information on the existence of Implementation Plans.
Signs of Water Quality Improvement:
This assessment's scope of work did not include the assessment of water quality data to document signs
of water quality improvement, although it was to be noted if discovered. The only such information that
was identified were references to improved water quality that were made in a Section 319 Nonpoint
Source Success Story about Governor Bond Lake in Illinois.
2.1.4 Quality Assurance Procedures
To collect and report accurate information for this project, Tetra Tech staff who conducted the work
operated under the Quality Management Plan for Tetra Tech's Fairfax Center, which is based on the
quality system requirements of ANSI/ASQC E4-1994, Specifications and Guidelines for Environmental
Data Collection and Environmental Technology Programs (ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI, 1994)
and is continually updated in accordance with comments received from EPA under other contracts. The
QMP describes quality policy and quality management organization and supports all work conducted,
including this project.
Specific additional quality assurance procedures that were identified and implemented for this project
included the following:
All data compilation efforts were performed by Tetra Tech personnel with significant TMDL
experience in EPA Region 5. In several cases the Tetra Tech personnel responsible for collecting
or reviewing the necessary information actually supported the states in the development of the
TMDL. This familiarity with each state TMDL Program, not to mention individual TMDL
projects, reduced the likelihood that data were incorrectly recorded due to a misunderstanding of
the issues or information.
Once the initial data compilation effort was completed, senior Tetra Tech personnel (not involved
with the original compilation efforts) performed a "spot check" of 10 percent of the entries for
each state for potential problems. If any problems were found within the first spot check, an
additional 10 percent of the entries were reviewed and this process was repeated until no
problems were found.
As described previously, the use of an Access database allowed for certain data elements to have
prescribed "pick lists" to minimize the potential for data entry errors.
When speaking to state personnel, if the Tetra Tech interviewer was at all uncertain that he or she
recorded the interviewees response correctly, the summarized findings were sent back to the
interviewee so that they had the opportunity to make corrections.
2.2 SUBTASK B: COLLECT AND COMPILE FIELD DATA
During Subtask B, the project team followed the protocols developed in Subtask A to obtain the necessary
information. The project team held several internal meetings to ensure a common understanding of the
project goals and technical approach to minimize discrepancies in data collection efforts, and also met
regularly during data compilation activities to ensure consistency among efforts and to immediately
identify and resolve any issues that arose. For example, during the early data collection efforts, the team
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5 Project Report
discovered watersheds where Section 319 projects had occurred before the approval of the TMDL. In
some cases the projects pre-dated the TMDL by only a year or two, but in other cases the Section 319
projects occurred as many as ten years prior to the TMDL. The project team met to discuss this issue and
agreed, as a general rule, that Section 319 projects that were completed within three years of TMDL
approval should be counted towards TMDL implementation. This was based on Tetra Tech's experience
that TMDLs within Region 5 typically take one to two years to be completed and thus the Section 319
project and the TMDL effort had a good chance of overlapping one another. It was also consistent with
the purpose of the study, which was to determine if the terms of the TMDLs are being implemented, not
whether the TMDLs prompted implementation after finalization.
To optimize data collection activities and to meet the project schedule, the project team distributed data
collection responsibilities by state. Each state lead identified the information needed from TMDLs in his
or her assigned state and was responsible for collecting and compiling the information.
In general, the project team initiated all data compilation activities by trying to obtain the necessary data
from the TMDL document, EPA decision document, and/or Implementation Plan (when available).
Information not available from these three sources was next searched for in publicly accessible federal or
state databases such as PCS, ICIS, and GRTS, as well as through general searches on the Internet.
Once each of these sources had been searched, the project team requested missing information from state
personnel. The approach for contacting the state personnel was determined through conversations with
the following TMDL coordinators in each of the six Region 5 states:
Illinois EPA (IEPA): Dean Studer
Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM): Andrew Pelloso
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ): Brenda Sayles
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA): Jeff Risberg
Ohio EPA: Trinka Mount
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WNDR): Nicole Richmond
Illinois and Indiana directed the project team to work with individual personnel with expertise in various
subject areas (e.g., NPDES permitting, Section 319 projects). Michigan and Wisconsin provided a central
point-of-contact who obtained much of the data directly. TMDL implementation data for Minnesota were
obtained from several state Web sites and through conversations with MPCA personnel. For the TMDLs
in Ohio some of the necessary information on point sources and nonpoint source implementation
activities was available from Dr. John Hoornbeek of Kent State University who had recently conducted a
similar study for EPA.
Information not available from federal or state databases or state personnel was requested from persons
responsible for the actual implementation in each watershed (subject to approval from the state TMDL
coordinators). This included SWCD personnel, NRCS personnel, and watershed coordinators.
2.3 SUBTASK C: ORGANIZE FINDINGS AND DEVELOP REPORT
Upon completion of the data collection and compilation into an organized format, the project team
prepared this project report that documents the data collection process and results.
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5
Project Report
3 STATE SUMMARIES
This section of the report provides a summary by state of the data collection effort. As specified in the
SOW, state-level results are not presented; rather, the section describes the general process used to gather
the information for each state and identifies any unique issues that were encountered.
3.1 ILLINOIS TMDL SUMMARY
Implementation efforts for a total of 18 Illinois TMDLs (eight lakes and ten streams) were assessed as
part of this study (Table 3-1). All of the 18 Illinois waterbodies were listed as impaired by nonpoint
sources of pollution. In addition, seven of the 18 TMDLs included WLAs for point sources. Two of the
Illinois TMDLs are for fecal coliform, four are for manganese, three are for nitrates, four are for
phosphorus, two are for total suspended solids, and one each are for siltation, sulfate, and total dissolved
solids. All of the 18 Illinois TMDLs were developed as part of amulti- or watershed-TMDL, and all but
one have some form of an Implementation Plan completed. Most of the TMDLs (15 of 18) were
developed after 2003.
Table 3-1. Summary of Illinois TMDLs.
TMDL Sample
Number
Sample 010
Sample 016
Sample 021
Sample 024
Sample 031
Sample 034
Sample 038
Sample 050
Sample 075
Sample 081
Sample 084
Sample 088
Sample 099
Sample 100
Sample 117
Sample 121
Sample 126
Sample 127
TMDL ID
33628
33163
31540
3836
33973
12240
10834
31659
33700
3832
33632
12250
12283
33201
12321
33564
33163
12283
Waterbody Name
Argyle Lake
N. Fk. Mauvaise Terre
Creek
Homer Lake
Governor Bond Lake
E. Fk. Kaskaskia River
Kinmundy New Lake
Big Muddy River
N. Fk. Kaskaskia River
Salt Fk. Vermilion River
Governor Bond Lake
North Fk. Cox Creek
Paris Twin West
Flat Branch
N. Fk. Vermilion River
Old Lake Hillsboro
Little Wabash River
Mauvaisse Terre Lake
Sugar Creek
Pollutant
Total Phosphorus
Manganese
Phosphorus
Total Susp. Solids
Total Susp. Solids
Manganese
Sulfate
Manganese
Nitrates
Non-Volatile
Suspended Solids
Total Diss. Solids
Phosphorus
Fecal Coliform
Nitrates
Phosphorus
Manganese
Nitrate
Fecal Coliform
TMDL Type
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Point/Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Point/Nonpoint Source
Point/Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Point/Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Point/Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Point/Nonpoint Source
TMDL Fiscal
Year
2007
2007
2006
2002
2003
2005
2004
2006
2007
2002
2007
2005
2005
2007
2005
2007
2006
2005
3.1.1 Point Source Implementation
None of the TMDLs and associated WLAs recommended revised effluent limits for the NPDES permits.
For several of the TMDLs the state determined that water quality standards could be met without
additional reductions in point source loadings; therefore, all the WLAs were set equal to the loading rates
specified by existing NPDES permits. In other cases, when the nonpoint source loads were compared to
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5 Project Report
the point source loads, the NPDES facilities were determined to represent a negligible portion of the
overall load and did not receive an explicit WLA (which equates to a WLA of zero).
Several of the Illinois TMDLs recommended that point sources begin conducting additional monitoring
so that their impact on the impaired waterbody could be belter understood. This requirement was added to
several of the permits, but for several permits it was not, apparently due to a lack of communication
between TMDL and NPDES staff. Dean Studer of the Illinois EPA provided the following information
regarding the state's efforts to integrate TMDL results into the permitting process:
"... / am in the process of developing memos and notification to IEPA permit staff so that
appropriate conditions can be included in NPDES permits where a TMDL has been
approved. Our goal is to develop the process by 12/31/2008. After which we will start
with the most currently approved TMDLs working our way back through to the older
TMDLs and indicate in memos to permit staff (and notification to the discharger) of what
should be included in the next NPDES permit for these facilities. "
3.1.2 Nonpoint Source Implementation
Clean Water Act Section 319 projects were found in 10 of the 18 Illinois TMDL watersheds. However,
several of these were not initiated in response to the TMDL because they did not focus on the TMDL
pollutant or were completed as early as ten years prior to TMDL approval. Section 319 projects that were
completed within three years prior to TMDL approval were counted towards TMDL implementation if
the practices matched the pollutant of concern. Of the 10 watersheds with completed 319 projects, six had
completed projects that were counted towards TMDL implementation. One waterbody (Governor Bond
Lake, TSS) was removed from the Section 303(d) list after the Section 319 projects successfully mitigated
the impairment. This was the only Illinois TMDL considered fully implemented.
Local SWCD personnel were also contacted to request information on implementation activities and
several of them reported that a number of practices were in place within each watershed to improve water
quality. However, it appeared that much of the implementation was occurring independent of the TMDL
through ongoing U.S. Department of Agriculture programs such as the Conservation Practices Program
(CPP), Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP).
In these situations the practices were still counted towards TMDL implementation if they addressed the
pollutant of concern and were occurring during or after approval of the TMDL. This is an important point
that is discussed in more detail in Section 5.
3.1.3 Information Sources
A summary of all the Web sites that were accessed to obtain information on the Illinois TMDLs is
provided in Table 3-2. The list of state and local contacts is provided in Table 3-3.
10
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5
Project Report
Table 3-2. Summary of online sources of implementation data.
Agency
IEPA
IEPA
IEPA
County SWCDs
US EPA
US EPA
IEPA, IDNR,
and University
of Illinois
Extension
Web Site Address
http://vwvw.eDa. state. il.us/water/watershed/reports/biannual-319/
http://vwwv.epa.state.il.us/water/tmdl/
http://vwvw.epa.state.il.us/water/conservation-2000/index.html
http://www.aiswcd.orq/Guide/links.htm
http://iaspub.epa.qov/pls/qrts/f?p=1 10:1:464227131 1943480::NO:::
http://www.epa.gov/nps/success/
http://www.watershed.uiuc.edu/qettinq involved/qroup search. cfm
Summary of Information
Obtained
Section 319 grant information
and project summaries
Information on implementation
projects, TMDL Documents
and Implementation Plans
Information on Conservation
2000 projects and Priority
Watershed Projects
SWCD programs, projects,
education, and other
implementation efforts
Section 319 Grants Reporting
and Tracking System (GRTS)-
319 project information
Additional information on 319
projects, specifically for
Governor Bond Lake
Watershed group contact
information
Table 3-3. List of state and local contacts.
Agency
IEPA
Shelby Co. SWCD
Macon Co. SWCD
Sangamon Co. SWCD
Montgomery Co. SWCD
Marion Co. SWCD
Clinton Co. SWCD
Randolph Co. SWCD
Perry Co. SWCD
Jackson Co. SWCD
Morgan Co. SWCD
Contact Person
Dean Studer
Gene Davis
Shannon Allen
Terri Nichols
CJ Liddell
Burke Davies
Annette Ambuehl
Micky Clark
Martha Stein
Michelle Sullivan
Jill Keeton
Information Obtained
NPDES permitting details and 319 project details
NPS implementation activities occurring in Shelby county
NPS implementation activities occurring in Macon county
NPS implementation activities occurring in Sangamon county
NPS implementation activities occurring in Montgomery county
NPS implementation activities occurring in Marion county
NPS implementation activities occurring in Clinton county
NPS implementation activities occurring in Randolph county
NPS implementation activities occurring in Perry county
NPS implementation activities occurring in Jackson county
NPS implementation activities occurring in Morgan county
3.2 INDIANA TMDL SUMMARY
Implementation efforts for a total of 18 Indiana TMDLs were assessed as part of this study (Table 3-4).
All of the Indiana waterbodies were listed in the National TMDL Tracking System (NTTS) as impaired
by both point and nonpoint sources. However, further evaluation showed that three TMDL segments do
not have any point sources upstream of them (Samples 037, 107, and 139). Fifteen of the Indiana TMDLs
are for pathogens/E. coll while the other three are for phosphorus. All of the Indiana TMDLs addressed
by this study were approved after 2003 and 13 of the TMDLs were approved in 2006 or 2007. All of the
Indiana TMDLs were part of a multi-TMDL or watershed TMDL document.
11
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5
Project Report
Table 3-4. Summary of Indiana TMDLs.
TMDL Sample
Number
Sample 004
Sample 019
Sample 022
Sample 030
Sample 037
Sample 039
Sample 046
Sample 047
Sample 051
Sample 057
Sample 062
Sample 074
Sample 091
Sample 107
Sample 120
Sample 122
Sample 137
Sample 139
TMDL
ID
12102
31036
30999
12102
32647
31567
11589
31567
30999
31036
11316
30999
30999
12102
30999
30999
30999
32647
Waterbody Name
White River
Jacks Defeat Creek
Wabash River Mainstem
White River
Middle Fork East Fork
Whitewater River (Upstream)
Junk Ditch And Other Tribs
Indian Creek
St. Marys River Trib
Wabash River Mainstem
Beanblossom Creek
Eel River
Wabash River
Wabash River And Tributary
Raccoon Creek-Little
Raccoon Creek
Wabash River Mainstem
Wabash River
Wabash River
West Fork East Fork
Whitewater River
Pollutant
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
Phosphorus
E. coli
Phosphorus
Phosphorus
E. coli
E. coli
TMDL Type
Point/Nonpoint
Source
Point/Nonpoint
Source
Point/Nonpoint
Source
Point/Nonpoint
Source
Nonpoint Source
Point/Nonpoint
Source
Point/Nonpoint
Source
Point/Nonpoint
Source
Point/Nonpoint
Source
Point/Nonpoint
Source
Point/Nonpoint
Source
Point/Nonpoint
Source
Point/Nonpoint
Source
Nonpoint Source
Point/Nonpoint
Source
Point/Nonpoint
Source
Point/Nonpoint
Source
Nonpoint Source
TMDL Fiscal
Year
2005
2006
2006
2005
2007
2006
2005
2006
2006
2006
2005
2006
2006
2005
2006
2006
2006
2007
3.2.1 Point Source Implementation
The Indiana TMDLs addressed point sources of pathogens and phosphorus. Point sources of pathogens
included wastewater treatment plants, municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) communities,
combined sewer overflows (CSO), and sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). Several of the pathogen TMDLs
resulted in new permit limits for wastewater treatment plants, and IDEM reported that all of these have
been implemented. Other TMDLs made allocations to CSOs and referenced that the CSO allocations
would be addressed during the preparation and implementation of Long Term Control Plans (LTCPs).
Some CSO implementation efforts were found to have already occurred, but most communities are still in
the process of preparing the LTCPs, and no implementation has occurred. Similarly, work is still
underway to eliminate existing SSOs, and Indiana MS4 communities are still in a data gathering stage.
The MS4 and SSO WLAs specified in the TMDLs have therefore not yet been incorporated into permits.
12
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5
Project Report
Point sources of phosphorus in these TMDLs also included wastewater treatment plants, MS4
communities, CSOs, and SSOs. Although phosphorus WLAs were specified in the TMDLs, the
permittees are first being asked to monitor and report phosphorus. Therefore implementation for point
sources of phosphorus has not yet occurred and these sources were categorized as "not implemented" for
the purposes of this study.
3.2.2 Nonpoint Source Implementation
There are several programs in place in Indiana that can be used to implement nonpoint source control
practices. These include Clean Water Act Section 205 and 319 programs, the Lake and River
Enhancement (LAKE) program, and the various USDA programs (e.g., CPP, CRP, EQIP).
The project team learned upon contacting IDEM for this study that it had recently completed a review of
its Section 205 and 319 grants for use in their 2007 annual report. Some of the information needed for this
project was therefore available from this review. The results indicated that there were 13 Section 319
projects that addressed TMDL segments included in this study. Most of these projects are in the planning
phase, however, and have not yet started implementation. Three of the Section 319 projects have resulted
in implementation; however the practices for two of these did not focus on the pollutant included in this
study.
The team also found that there are seven other implementation efforts going on within the TMDL
watersheds. However, similar to the Section 319 projects, most of these efforts are only in the planning
phase, and there has not yet been any implementation.
It should be noted that 13 of the 18 TMDLs being studied by this project were from 2006 and 2007,
which might explain why so many are still in the planning phase.
3.2.3
Information Sources
A summary of all the Web sites that were accessed to obtain information on the Indiana TMDLs is
provided in Table 3-5. The list of state and local contacts is provided in Table 3-6.
Table 3-5. Summary of online sources of implementation data.
Agency
IDEM
IDEM
IDEM
EPA
Web Site Address
http://vwwv.in.qov/idem/4342.htm
http://www.in.qov/idem/files/2007 nonpoint annual report final.pdf
http://www.in.qov/idem/5233.htm
http://iaspub.epa.qov/pls/qrts/f?p=1 10:1:464227131 1943480::NO:::
Information Obtained
Implementation grant information
and project summaries
Information on implementation
projects and Implementation Plans
Section 319 grant information and
project summaries
Section 319 Grants Reporting and
Tracking System (CRTS)- 319
project information
13
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5
Project Report
Table 3-6. List of state and local contacts.
Agency
IDEM
IDEM
IDEM
IDEM
IDEM
Contact Person
Staci Goodwin
Ernest Johnson
Angle Brown
Bonny Elfiritz
Linda Schmidt
Summary of Information Obtained
NPDES permitting details
319 Projects
NPS implementation activities
NPS implementation activities
NPS implementation activities
3.3 MICHIGAN TMDL SUMMARY
Implementation efforts for a total of 15 Michigan TMDLs were assessed as part of this study, and the
majority were approved prior to 2004 (Table 3-7). Only one was part of a multi-TMDL project and 11
were for pathogens or E. coll. The other four TMDLs were for sediment, mercury, and polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs).
Table 3-7. Summary of Michigan TMDLs.
TMDL Sample
Number
Sample 002
Sample 012
Sample 017
Sample 035
Sample 043
Sample 044
Sample 045
Sample 048
Sample 087
Sample 096
Sample 106
Sample 108
Sample 112
Sample 113
Sample 133
TMDL
ID
3843
12239
3847
3838
4156
3841
3844
4271
12277
3658
3842
32213
4270
9499
3840
Waterbody Name
Kawkawlin River
River Raisin
Saline River
Coldwater River
Pratville Drain & Lime
Lake
Hammell Creek
Lenawee County Drain
No.70
Wagner-Pink Drain
Unnamed Tributary To
Grand River
Galien River
Huron River
Albrow Creek
Shiawassee River
Grand River And Portage
River
Deer Creek
Pollutant
PCBs
E. coli
E. coli
Sediment
E. coli
Mercury
E. coli
E. coli
Sediment
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
TMDL Type
Nonpoint Source
Point/Nonpoint Source
Point Source
Nonpoint Source
Point/Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Point/Nonpoint Source
Point/Nonpoint Source
Point/Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Point/Nonpoint Source
Point/Nonpoint Source
TMDL
Fiscal Year
2002
2005
2003
2001
2003
2002
2002
2003
2005
2002
2001
2007
2003
2003
2002
3.3.1 Point Source Implementation
Point sources of pathogens addressed in these TMDLs included a confined animal feeding operation
(CAFO), wastewater treatment plants, construction activities, and industrial stormwater. In Michigan
waterbodies are listed for E. coll impairments, and WLAs are set to E. coll standards. However, NPDES
permits in Michigan are for fecal coliform with an assumption that a fecal coliform limit of 200
counts/100 mL will result in E. coll standards being met. All of the WLAs for wastewater treatment
facilities have been incorporated into the required permits. Additionally, all of the industrial and
construction permits have the required fecal coliform limits. The only CAFO involved with one of the
14
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5 Project Report
Michigan TMDLs is not permitted to discharge, and implementation was therefore considered to have
occurred.
One of the sediment TMDLs allocated to three different MS4 communities and Michigan DEQ indicated
that all three communities are meeting their WLAs (which the TMDL specified would be expressed as
TSS limits and/or flow volume limitations).
3.3.2 Nonpoint Source Implementation
Nonpoint sources for the Michigan TMDLs include agricultural runoff, non-permitted urban runoff, muck
farming land uses, road crossings, abandoned mine discharge, pet and wildlife feces, septic systems,
atmospheric deposition, and degraded riparian areas.
Sixteen Section 319 projects were found for the Michigan TMDLs included in the study, and most of
these were initiated in response to the TMDL and resulted in implementation. For example, within the
Huron River watershed several Section 319 projects were used to eliminate illicit sewer connections by
rerouting sanitary leads to sanitary sewers.
Fourteen other nonpoint source implementation projects were found for the Michigan TMDLs included in
this study. These included several Clean Michigan Initiative Clean Water Fund projects as well as
projects funded by municipalities to address failing septic systems or sewer improvement projects. Three
of these projects resulted in full implementation as described below:
Sample 106 is an E. coll TMDL for Geddes Pond along the Huron River. Four Section 319
projects have resulted in the installation of various practices to implement this TMDL. One
project implemented an Illicit Discharge Elimination Plan to detect and correct non-storm water
discharges, including bacteria. As part of this project, more than 100 manholes, waterways and
outfalls were sampled, eight subwatersheds were investigated, and video inspections were
performed in two subwatersheds. The other projects re-routed sanitary leads to sanitary sewers. It
is estimated that as a result of this project, a minimum of 141,000 thousand gallons of sanitary
wastewater were removed from the storm sewer network annually. The City of Ann Arbor and
the University of Michigan also hold stormwater permits that outline specific requirements for
controlling their discharge of E. coli to Geddes Pond in accordance with the TMDL.
Sample 045 is an E. coli TMDL for Lenawee County Drain No. 70. The only source of E. coli to
this drain was found to be an unsewered subdivision in Palmyra Township. The township passed
a resolution, dated January 23, 2002, to design and construct a regional treatment plant with
neighboring Madison Township. The plant was built, the subdivision was connected to a sanitary
sewer system, and the newly constructed WWTP discharges to the Raisin River, removing the
source of pollution to Lenawee County Drain No. 70.
Sample 043 is an E. coli TMDL for Prattville Drain and Lime Lake. There is one CAFO located
upstream of the impaired segment that was considered a significant source of the E. coli; MDEQ
reports that it has been addressed through a revised permit. An unsewered area of the City of
Prattville was the other significant source of E. coli and it was connected to sanitary sewers since
the TMDL was completed.
15
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5
Project Report
3.3.3
Information Sources
A summary of all the Web sites that were accessed to obtain information on the Michigan TMDLs is
provided in Table 3-8. The list of state and local contacts is provided in Table 3-9. Christine Alexander of
MDEQ provided much of the information required for the Michigan TMDLs by following up with other
MDEQ personnel regarding NPDES permits and nonpoint source projects.
Table 3-8. Summary of online sources of implementation data.
Agency
MDEQ
MDEQ
MDEQ
MDEQ
MDEQ
MDEQ
MDEQ
MDEQ
MDEQ
River Raisin
Watershed
Council
(RRWC)
Web Site Address
http://www.michiaan.aov/dea/0,1607,7-135-
3313 3682 3714 31581-104272-.00.html
http://www.michiaan.aov/documents/dea/ess-nps-wmp-
coldwater-partl 210565 7.pdf
http://www.michiaan.aov/dea/0, 1607, 7-1 35-3308 3323-75185-
.OO.html
http://www.michiaan.aov/dea/0,1607,7-135-
3313 3682 3714 31581-104363-,00.html
http://www.dea.state.mi.us/csosso
http://www.dea.state.mi.us/documents/dea-water-npdes-
bulletins-Mar 05.pdf
http://www.michiaan.aov/documents/dea/wb-npdes-bulletins-
Julv2007 202961 7.pdf
http://www.michiaan.aov/dea/0,1607,7-135-
3313 3682 3714 4012-95955-.OO.html
http://www.deq.state.mi.us/part201ss/
http://riverraisin.ora/about/manaaement plan.html
Summary of Information
Obtained
Coldwater River
Implementation Information
Coldwater River Watershed
Management Plan
Additional Implementation
Information
Upper Grand River Watershed
Management Plan
DEQ CSO and SSO Discharge
Information to determine permit
limits
Monthly Water Bulletin-Used to
obtain permit information
Stormwater Permit Information
List of Approved Watershed
Management Plans
Information on possible PCS
implementation within the
Kawkawlin River Watershed
River Raisin Watershed
Management Plan
Table 3-9. List of state and local contacts.
Agency
MDEQ
Contact Person
Christine Alexander
Information Obtained
NPDES permitting details, 319 Grant Project
Implementation Details, Additional Implementation Details
3.4 MINNESOTA TMDL SUMMARY
Implementation efforts for 27 Minnesota TMDLs were assessed as part of this study (Table 3-10). Of the
total, 21 were developed as part of Minnesota's statewide mercury TMDL. In addition to the 21 mercury
TMDLs, three of the listed segments were for fecal coliform as part of a larger southeast Minnesota
regional TMDL, two were for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) as part of a watershed TMDL, and one
was for sediment.
With respect to the mercury TMDLs, major sources of mercury to Minnesota's waters are the result of
atmospheric deposition. Implementation efforts associated with this TMDL are largely focused on
emission reductions from coal-fired power plants and mercury minimization. Because of difficulties in
16
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5 Project Report
assigning air emission point sources to individual mercury TMDLs, this review focused on point sources
associated with wastewater discharges holding NPDES permits.
17
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5
Project Report
Table 3-10. Summary of Minnesota TMDLs.
TMDL
Sample
Number
Sample 009
Sample 011
Sample 013
Sample 015
Sample 018
Sample 033
Sample 040
Sample 053
Sample 055
Sample 064
Sample 067
Sample 068
Sample 071
Sample 077
Sample 082
Sample 083
Sample 089
Sample 093
Sample 095
Sample 102
Sample 111
Sample 118
Sample 125
Sample 128
Sample 134
Sample 138
Sample 141
TMDL
ID
32413
32413
32413
2007
32413
32413
3867
32413
2007
32413
32413
3867
2007
32413
32033
12278
2007
2007
2007
3867
32413
32413
32413
2007
32413
32413
12278
Waterbody Name
Rainy River Rapid River to Baudette
River
Little Fork River - Beaver Brook to Rainy
River
Murphy Lake
Mississippi Upper St. Anthony Falls to
Lower St. Anthony Falls
Snowbank Lake
Dam Five Lake
S.F. Zumbro River Cascade Creek to
Zumbro Lake
Pit Lake
Le Homme Dieu
Benson Lake
Clearwater Lake
Rush Creek Headwaters to Straight
River
Lake Harriet
Rainy River - Iron Lake to Lac la Croix
Otter Tail River - Breckenridge Lake to
Bois de Sioux River
Long Prairie River Fish Trap Creek to
Crow Wing River
Blue Earth River - Center Creek to Elm
Creek
French Lake
Artichoke Lake
Garvin Brook- Class 1B, 2A, 3B portion
Sandy Lake
Greenwood Lake
Little Iron Lake
Mississippi River- Watab River to Sauk
River
Potato Lake
Rabbit Lake (East Portion)
Long Prairie River Turtle Creek to
Moran Creek
Pollutant
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Fecal Coliform
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Fecal Coliform
Mercury
Mercury
Sediment (TMDL
for Turbidity)
CBOD; NBOD
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Fecal Coliform
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
CBOD; NBOD
TMDL Type
Point/Nonpoint
Source
Point/Nonpoint
Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Point/Nonpoint
Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Point/Nonpoint
Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Point/Nonpoint
Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Point/Nonpoint
Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
TMDL
Fiscal
Year
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2006
2007
2007
2007
2007
2006
2007
2007
2007
2005
2007
2007
2007
2006
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2005
Further evaluation showed that many of the mercury TMDLs identified in NTTS as point/nonpoint source
TMDLs actually do not have NPDES permits on the listed segments. In addition, one of the non-mercury
TMDLs listed as nonpoint source only has an NPDES discharge to the segment. The end result is that
only six of the TMDLs are affected by both point and nonpoint sources, while the remaining 21 are
nonpoint source only. All of the Minnesota TMDLs addressed by this study were written after 2003. Five
18
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5 Project Report
of the TMDLs were from reports approved in 2005 and 2006. The 21 mercury TMDLs and one of the
non-mercury TMDLs were approved in 2007.
3.4.1 Point Source Implementation
Point sources of pathogens for the Minnesota TMDLs included NPDES facilities, MS4 communities, and
CAFOs. WLAs for NPDES facilities were established at existing permit levels. Minnesota has deemed
that CAFOs are not permitted to discharge. WLAs for these facilities were set equal to zero. Minnesota
MS4 communities are required to meet WLAs under their permit and the WLAs are established as load
limits. Each MS4 community is required to review the adequacy of its Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Program (SWPPP). Modification of the SWPPP is required if it is not meeting the WLA. Full
implementation for point sources of bacteria in these TMDLs is occurring.
Point sources in the mercury TMDLs included NPDES facilities (point source emissions are discussed in
the preceding section). It is unknown whether implementation has occurred for these facilities.
3.4.2 Nonpoint Source Implementation
The Minnesota TMDLs reviewed for implementation addressed nonpoint sources of sediment, oxygen
demanding material, pathogens, and mercury. There are several programs in place in Minnesota that are
used to address nonpoint sources. Included are the programs funded by Section 319, programs
administered by NRCS, and programs supported by the Minnesota Clean Water Legacy Act (CWLA).
Many of these programs also require local support, either through matching funds or in-kind services.
In addition to the MPCA, the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BW&SR) also plays a lead
role in supporting nonpoint source TMDL implementation across the state. Both agencies post annual
reports on their Web sites, providing detailed descriptions and summarizing the current status of state-
funded projects. These reports served as the major source of information for this project.
There are 12 Section 319 projects that address the non-mercury TMDL segments. A number of these
projects covered multiple segments because the TMDLs were developed across an entire watershed or
region. Several Section 319 projects were also extensions of efforts initiated prior to completion of the
TMDL. For these projects, the pre-TMDL effort generally included the planning phase. This enabled
post-TMDL work to focus on actual implementation. Each of the projects is targeted specifically towards
pollutant reductions for the TMDL parameters and all six of the non-mercury TMDLs were considered
partially implemented.
There are six funded CWLA projects that address the non-mercury TMDL segments. Funding levels for
these projects are generally larger than the Section 319 projects. In addition to financial support through
BW&SR, some project funding also comes through other state agencies (e.g., the Minnesota Department
of Agriculture, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources) and from local match requirements. As
with the Section 319 work, these projects typically cover multiple segments to address TMDLs that were
developed across an entire watershed or region.
3.4.3 Information Sources
MPCA and BW&SR reports available from their Web sites provided data on each project, as well as a
summary of current status. Web sites that were accessed are provided in Table 3-11. Once all of the
available implementation data was obtained from the TMDL documents, Implementation Plans,
supplemental reports, and online sources, Minnesota's TMDL Coordinator was contacted to review the
information (Table 3-12).
19
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5
Project Report
Table 3-11. Summary of online sources of implementation data.
Agency
MPCA
MPCA
MBW&SR
County SWCD
Web Site Address
http://vwwv.Dca.state.mn. us/Dublications/wa-iw5-02c.pdf
http://vwwv.pca.state.mn.us/publications/wq-iw8-01c.pdf
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/wq-iw9-02c.pdf
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/wq-iw1-19.pdf
http://www. pea. state, mn. us/water/cwp-31 9. html#reports
http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/CWL/restoration/07R6 8R03 Wilken.pdf
http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/CWL/restoration/07R16 b.pdf
http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/CWL/restoration/07R14.pdf
http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/CWL/restoration/07R118 8R1 8R33.pdf
http://www.mn.nrcs.usda.qov/partnerships/todd/cwp.htm
Information Obtained
TMDL Implementation
Plans
31 9 & Clean Water
Partnership Annual
Reports
Implementation Project
Fact Sheets
SWCD Plans
Table 3-12. List of state and local contacts.
Agency
MPCA
Contact Person
Jeff Risberg
Summary of Information Obtained
Review of compiled TMDL implementation data
3.5 OHIO TMDL SUMMARY
Implementation efforts for a total of 42 Ohio TMDLs were assessed as part of this study (Table 3-13).
Twenty-seven of the TMDLs were listed in NTTS as point/nonpoint TMDLs, nine were listed as nonpoint
source TMDLs, and six were listed as point source TMDLs. Further investigation determined that four
TMDLs categorized as point/nonpoint source (Samples 042, 027, 58, and 123) did not include WLAs
because there are no regulated sources upstream of the impaired segments. These were therefore corrected
to be nonpoint source TMDLs. In addition, TMDL samples 36 and 54 were categorized as point source
TMDLs but include LAs. These were re-categorized as point/nonpoint TMDLs.
Twenty-four of the TMDLs were approved before 2004 and the remaining 18 were approved between
2004 and 2007. All the TMDLs were developed as part of a multi-TMDL project. Eight of the TMDLs
were written for sediment; seven for phosphorus; four for nutrients; five for nitrogen; three each for
metals, siltation and acid; two each for suspended sediment, habitat alteration and fecal coliform; and one
each for pH, aluminum, and aldrin. All four of the "nutrient" TMDLs listed in Table 3-13 were written for
phosphorus.
3.5.1 Point Source Implementation
Many of the Ohio TMDLs confirmed that water quality standards could be met without additional
reductions in point source loadings and were thus considered fully implemented. Of those TMDLs for
which one or more WLA indicated a need for reductions in loading from a point source, NPDES effluent
limits consistent with these WLAs have been adopted (primarily for total phosphorus). The only one that
was not was in the process of drafting the permit. Several TMDLs were considered as partially
implemented for point sources because the TMDL included WLAs for CSOs in addition to wastewater
treatment facilities and no implementation for the CSOs had as yet occurred.
20
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5
Project Report
Table 3-13. Summary of Ohio TMDLs.
TMDL
ID
10875
9664
4292
12248
4292
9664
4172
12248
3898
9664
4169
3894
4172
33671
3894
11014
9446
9446
10878
9664
3868
9664
3868
22900
9562-
9563
12274
12248
TMDL
Sample
Number
001
005
014
020
023
026
027
028
036
041
042
054
058
059
060
061
070
072
076
078
079
086
090
094
097
098
101
Waterbody Name
Upper Auglaize Watershed
(Flat Fork)
Duck Ck (Road Fork)
Massies Creek To Beaver
Creek
Snake Hollow
Anderson Fork (Grog Run To
Caesar Creek Lake)
Duck Ck (Road Fork)
Sandy Creek (L. Sandy Creek
To Nimishillen Creek)
Whitmore Cemetery
Trib. To S. Fk. Sugar Creek
(Rm 14.15)
Duck Ck (Greasy Run)
Brushy Fork
Sugar Creek (Headwaters To
Middle Fork Sugar Cr.)
Lake Hope
Beaver Creek (Grand Lake St.
Marys And Tributaries)
Indian Trail Creek (Sugar
Creek)
Wabash River
Middle Fork (Sugar Creek)
Brush Run (Sugar Creek)
Cuyahoga River Watershed
(Sawyer Brook)
Duck Ck (Mare Run)
Little Beaver Creek
Duck Ck (East Fk. Duck Ck
Trib Rm4.15)
Flat Fork
Car Bailey Run
Powers Brook
Culver Creek
Salem Hollow
Pollutant
Sediment
Siltation
Phosphorus
Acid
Phosphorus
Suspended Solids
Metals (Other Than
Mercury)
Acid
Nitrogen
Suspended Solids
Metals (Other Than
Mercury)
Sediment
Metals (Other Than
Mercury)
Fecal Coliform
Nitrogen
Nitrate+ nitrite and
total phosphorus
Sediment
Phosphorus
Phosphorus
Siltation
Phosphorus
Siltation
Phosphorus
Sediment
Fecal Coliform
Phosphorus
Aluminum
TMDL Type
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Point/Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Point/Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Point/Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Point/Nonpoint Source
Point/Nonpoint Source
Point/Nonpoint Source
Point/Nonpoint Source
Point/Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Point/Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
TMDL
Fiscal Year
2004
2003
2002
2005
2002
2003
2003
2005
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2007
2003
2004
2003
2003
2004
2003
2002
2003
2002
2006
2003
2005
2005
21
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5
Project Report
TMDL
ID
9562-
9563
22900
22899
10863
33671
9446
4172
22900
10630
9582
3868
10863
9446
12274
22900
TMDL
Sample
Number
103
104
109
114
116
119
123
124
129
130
131
132
135
136
140
Waterbody Name
Cuyahoga River (Tinkers
Creek To Big Creek)
Trib To Mud Fork (Rm 1.06)
Hamilton Ditch
Sandusky River Mainstem
(Downstream Tymochtee
Creek To Mouth)
Beaver Creek (Downstream
Grand Lake St. Marys Dam To
Mouth)
Brush Run (Sugar Creek)
Sandy Creek (L. Sandy Creek
To Nimishillen Creek)
Sunday Creek (West Branch At
Mouth)
Stillwater River (Upstream
Swamp Creek To Upstream
Greenville Creek)
Crosses Run
Little Miami River (North Fork
To Massies Creek)
Sandusky River (Headwaters
To Upstream Broken Sword
Creek)
East Branch Sugar Creek
W. Branch Alum Creek
Big Bailey Run
Pollutant
Phosphorus
Sediment
Sediment
Habitat Alteration
(TMDLs for total
phosphorus and
sediment)
Nitrate
Nitrogen
PH
Acid
Phosphorus
Aldrin
Phosphorus
Sediment
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Sediment
TMDL Type
Point/Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Point/Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Point/Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Point/Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Point/Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Point/Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
TMDL
Fiscal Year
2003
2006
2006
2004
2007
2003
2003
2006
2004
2003
2002
2004
2003
2005
2006
3.5.2 Nonpoint Source Implementation
Nonpoint sources included in the Ohio TMDLs included agricultural runoff, bank erosion caused by
livestock access and removal of vegetation, strip mining and deep mining, disposal of waste products,
livestock grazing, abandoned mine areas, installation of subsurface tile systems, habitat modification,
construction, and hydromodification.
Thirty-eight Section 319 projects were found that potentially could have been related to implementation
of the Ohio TMDLs. However, several of these were not initiated in response to the TMDL because they
did not focus on the TMDL pollutant, were completed many years prior to TMDL approval, or the
22
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5
Project Report
practices occurred in the watershed but not upstream of the segment included in this study. The project
team used their best judgment to determine if the Section 319 projects represented TMDL
implementation, but the information to make a conclusive decision was often not available.
A number of other nonpoint source projects were also identified as a result of this study. These included
agricultural practices implemented through USDA programs, EPA Targeted Watershed grants, and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service grants. Some of the challenges associated with the Section 319 projects also
applied to these projects such as difficulty determining whether practices were installed upstream of the
TMDL segment and whether implementation occurred because of or coincident to the TMDL. As with the
other states, projects that were completed within three years prior to TMDL approval were counted
towards TMDL implementation if the practices matched the pollutant of concern and were upstream of
the impaired segment.
3.5.3
Information Sources
A summary of all the Web sites that were accessed to obtain information on the Ohio TMDLs is provided
in Table 3-14. The list of state and local contacts is provided in Table 3-15. The project team also
obtained information about many of the TMDLs in this study from Dr. John Hoornbeek of Kent State
University who had previously conducted a similar study tracking implementation efforts in Ohio and
West Virginia.
Table 3-14. Summary of online sources of implementation data.
Agency
Ohio EPA
Ohio EPA
Ohio EPA
County
SWCDs
ODNR
USEPA
ODNR-
MRM
Web Site Address
http://vwvw.eDa. state, oh. us/dsw/nps/31 9Proaram.html
http://vwwv.eDa. state. oh. us/dsw/perrnits/permit list district.html
http://vwvw.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/tmdl/index.html
http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/sw/default/tabid/8637/default.aspx
http://www.dnr.state.oh. us/H Nav2/Water/WatershedCoordinatorProqr
am/tabid/9192/Default.aspx
http://iaspub.epa.aov/pls/arts/f?p=110:1:4642271311943480::NO
http://www.watersheddata.com/
Information Obtained
Section 319 grant
information and project
summaries
NPDES Permit Documents
Information on TMDL
Documents
Individual county
information
Watershed coordinator
information
Section 319 Grants
Reporting and Tracking
System (CRTS)- 31 9
project information
319 project summaries for
Sunday Creek, Monday
Creek and Upper Raccoon
Creek
23
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5
Project Report
Table 3-15. List of state and local contacts.
Agency
Cuyahoga River Community
Planning Organization
Darke SWCD
Delaware SWCD
Geauga SWCD
Grand Lake/Wabash
Watershed Alliance
Green SWCD
Kent State University
Malcolm Pirnie
Monday Creek Restoration
Project
ODNR
ODNR
Ohio State University
Paulding SWCD
Raccoon Creek Watershed
Sandusky River Watershed
Coalition
Sunday Creek Watershed
Group
Tinker Creek Watershed
Partner
Tuscarawas SWCD
Union SWCD
Washington SWCD
Contact Person
Charles Hambly
Greg McGlinch
Kris Bruestle
Carmella Shale
Laura Walker
Don Leeds
John Hoornbeek
Kristen Risch
Mike Steinmaus
Greg Nageotte
Jim Mizik
Richard Moore
Joni Franklin
Ben McCament
Cindy Brooks
Kaabe Shaw
Mike McNutt
Traci Haey
Terry Travatt
Mary Campbell
Information Obtained
NPS implementation activities occurring in Lower Cuyahoga
NPS implementation activities occurring in Darke county
NPS implementation activities occurring in Delaware county
NPS implementation activities occurring in Geauga county
NPS implementation activities occurring in Grand
Lake/Wabash watersheds
NPS implementation activities occurring in Green county
NPS implementation activities occurring in the watershed
understudy
NPS implementation activities occurring in Green county
NPS implementation activities occurring in Monday Creek
watershed
NPS implementation activities occurring in Upper Cuyahoga
NPS implementation activities occurring in Nobel County
NPS implementation activities occurring in Sugar Creek
watershed
NPS implementation activities occurring in Paulding
watershed
NPS implementation activities occurring in Raccoon Creek
watershed
NPS implementation activities occurring in Sandusky River
watershed
NPS implementation activities occurring in Sunday Creek
watershed
NPS implementation activities occurring in Lower Cuyahoga
NPS implementation activities occurring in Tuscarawas
county
NPS implementation activities occurring in Union county
NPS implementation activities occurring in Washington
county
3.6 WISCONSIN TMDL SUMMARY
Implementation efforts for a total of 18 Wisconsin TMDLs were assessed as part of this study (Table 3-
16). All of the Wisconsin waterbodies were impaired solely by nonpoint sources resulting in no point
source WLAs in any of the Wisconsin TMDLs. Sixteen of the Wisconsin TMDLs are for sediment and
two are for phosphorus. All of the 18 Wisconsin TMDLs were developed as part of a watershed-TMDL,
and all but four have some form of an Implementation Plan completed.
24
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5
Project Report
Table 3-16. Summary of Wisconsin TMDLs.
TMDL Sample
Number
Sample 003
Sample 007
Sample 008
Sample 029
Sample 032
Sample 049
Sample 052
Sample 056
Sample 063
Sample 065
Sample 066
Sample 069
Sample 073
Sample 080
Sample 092
Sample 105
Sample 110
Sample 115
TMDL ID
4234
12237
4234*
4257
12237
1932
4214
12237
3929
4226
4226
4257
32078
4234
3929
12237
9505
22521
Waterbody Name
Perennial Stream B
(Tm2)
Twin Grove Branch
Perennial Stream A
(Spp1)
North Branch Spring
Brook1
Dodge Branch
Squaw Lake
Jug Creek
Spring Creek
Token Creek
Welch Coulee Creek
North Creek
Spring Creek
Stillwell Creek
Perennial Stream D (B4)
Token Creek
Jockey Hollow Creek
Cedar Lake
Cochrane Ditch (Rose
Valley)
Pollutant
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Phosphorus
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Phosphorus
Sediment
TMDL Type
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source
TMDL Fiscal
Year
2003
2005
2003
2003
2005
2000
2003
2005
2002
2003
2003
2003
2007
2003
2002
2005
2003
2006
nCorinne Billings of the WDNR noted that the waterbody in Sample 029 was incorrectly named. The waterbody name
was corrected to North Branch Spring Brook.
3.6.1 Point Source Implementation
All of the Wisconsin TMDLs are nonpoint source TMDLs; therefore all point source-related
implementation status categories are marked with an "N/A". Implementation tracking efforts were
focused on nonpoint source projects.
3.6.2 Nonpoint Source Implementation
One Section 319 project was found in GRTS for the Wisconsin TMDLsthe Dodge Branch streambank
restoration project. The lack of other Section 319 projects is believed to be due to WDNR's preference for
using Section 319 funding for TMDL development, staff, and monitoring instead of implementation
efforts. The implementation projects themselves are more frequently funded through various other state
programs (e.g., Priority Watersheds and Priority Lake Program) and are typically managed by local Land
and Water Conservation Departments. Because of this, nearly all of the implementation efforts fall under
the "other nonpoint source projects" category.
Most of the nonpoint source projects were implemented through the Nonpoint Source Priority Watershed
and Priority Lake Program Grant program, other Wisconsin DNR funding sources (non-Priority
Watershed Grants), or the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture. Conservation Reserve Enhancement
Program (CREP) and EQIP were also cited several times as sources of implementation funding.
25
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5
Project Report
3.6.3 Sources of Implementation Information
A summary of all the Web sites that were accessed to obtain information on the Wisconsin TMDLs is
provided in Table 3-17. Corinne Billings of the WDNR provided most of the information on the status of
implementation for the Wisconsin TMDLs. Because of her experience as WDNR's TMDL
implementation coordinator and her close contact with the local Land and Water Conservation
Departments, Ms. Billings made contact with the individual counties to determine what, if any,
implementation had been completed for each of the TMDLs. Several other WDNR data sources were also
mined for implementation information including WDNR watershed management records, WDNR
nonpoint source grant records, and WDNR lakes and rivers grant records.
One of the Wisconsin TMDLs (Stillwell Creek- Sample 073) was developed by EPA because the
impaired waterbody is located on a federal military base. John Noble, the fisheries biologist at Fort
McCoy, was contacted, and he provided implementation information for Stillwell Creek.
Table 3-17. Summary of online sources of implementation data.
Agency
WDNR
WDNR
WDNR
County
LWCDs
EPA
Web Site Address
http://www.dnr. state. wi.us/ora/water/wrn/was/303d/EAP. html
http://vwwv.dnr.state.wi.us/Orq/caer/cfa/ef/nps/pwatershed.html
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/orq/water/wm/wqs/303d/Approved TMDLs.html
http://www.walce.org/countv sites. asp
http://iaspub.epa.qov/pls/qrts/f?p=1 10:1:464227131 1943480::NO:::
Summary of Information
Obtained
Wisconsin Environmental
Accountability Projects
Nonpoint Source Priority
Watershed and Priority Lake
Program Grant
Wisconsin Approved TMDL
Documents
LWCD programs, Land and
Water Resource Management
Plans, projects, education, and
other implementation efforts
Section 319 Grants Reporting
and Tracking System (GRTS)-
319 project information
26
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5 Project Report
4 RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS
This section of the report summarizes several observations related to the data used for this study and
presents the study results.
4.1 DATA UPDATES
The project team found the following errors in the NTTS data system during the research conducted in
support of this project:
Fifty-two TMDLs were categorized as nonpoint source only TMDLs. Three of these TMDL
segments were found to actually be point/nonpoint source TMDLs.
Seventy-eight TMDLs were categorized as point/nonpoint source TMDLs. After further
investigation, 35 of these were updated to nonpoint source only because there were no point
sources upstream of those segments and no WLAs included in the TMDLs. This error was
caused during the NTTS data entry process, when multiple-TMDL documents that addressed
nonpoint-only and point/nonpoint segments were coded only as point/nonpoint for all their
TMDLs.
Eight TMDLs were categorized as point source only TMDLs. Three of these were updated to
point/nonpoint source TMDLs because the TMDL included LAs. Four additional TMDLs were
updated to nonpoint source TMDLs after investigations determined that no point sources
discharge upstream of those segments. These four segments were Ohio TMDLs for metals, for
which the original point source was considered strip mining and deep mining but they were not
assigned any WLAs.
One Minnesota TMDL was incorrectly labeled as being approved in 2003 when it was actually
approved in 2006.
These errors affected the breakdown of the TMDL types originally anticipated by EPA as a result of the
NTTS query. Most appear attributable to NTTS data entry errors. Although correction did change the
total samples per subpopulation, the range of sample sizes across all subpopulations of interest changed
minimally (from an initial range of 52 to 86 samples to a corrected range of 50 to 88 samples.) The
following is a summary of the final "TMDL types" list entered into the Access database:
Nonpoint source only TMDLs = 88
Nonpoint source and point source TMDLs = 49
Point source only TMDLs = 1 (statistically considered part of the mixed PS/NPS subpopulation,
above)
Pre-2004 TMDLs = 51
2004 to 2007 TMDLs = 87
4.2 PROJECT RESULTS SUMMARY
The study design focused on quantifying the following seven statements concerning the full sample or
specific subpopulations of the sample. Results below are presented both as actual frequencies in the
sample and population percent estimates after sample weighting. These two forms of results are not
intended to be identical, as the former is the straight proportion of the raw sample alone, and the latter is
the estimated percent for the whole regional population of TMDLs after adjustment through statistical
27
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5
Project Report
weighting. Quantities in parentheses indicate the number of sample TMDLs for which the statement was
true (numerator) and the total number of sample TMDLs in the population or subpopulation that the
statement addresses (denominator). Estimated percentages were derived after taking into account
appropriate sample weighting factors for each subpopulation:
1. The estimated overall rate of partial to full TMDL implementation for all types and dates of
TMDLs in Region 5 is 80.3 percent (104/138 samples).
2. The estimated rate of partial to full TMDL implementation for mixed and point source
TMDLs in Region 5 is 88.8 percent (46/50 samples).
3. The estimated rate of partial to full TMDL implementation for TMDLs including only
nonpoint sources is 72.7percent (58/88 samples).
4. The estimated rate of partial to full implementation for TMDLs in Region 5 approved in
FY2003 or earlier is 76.6percent (39/51 samples).
5. The estimated rate of partial to full implementation for TMDLs in Region 5 approved
between FY2004 andFY2007is 81.0percent (65/87samples).
6. The estimated proportion of TMDLs in Region 5 with an implementation plan is 79.6
percent (117/138 samples).
7. The estimated proportion of TMDLs in Region 5 that were developed through multi-TMDL
or watershed-TMDL analysis is 95.7percent (123/138 samples).
Although full implementation of every practice related to a given TMDL was uncommon (less than 3% of
the total), over % of the sample TMDLs had been at least partially implemented. As statements 1 through
5 all address implementation rates, they allow for some comparison among subpopulations (Figure 4.1).
One apparent pattern is that older and newer TMDL subpopulations did not differ significantly in
implementation rates (76.6% and 81.0% respectively). In contrast, a 16.1% difference was observed in
the rates of implementing NFS-only TMDLs (72.7%) and mixed NPS-PS TMDLs (88.8%).
Figure 4.1. Comparison among sample population and subpopulations of estimated percent of partially to fully
implemented sample TMDLs. Note rates vary around approximately % partial to full implementation, and the
difference of 16.1% between NFS-only and mixed TMDLs.
100%
75
50
25
80.3%
88.8%
72.7% 76.6%
81. 0°/
In all sampled watersheds \ [138] |
In samples with PS/Mixed TMDLs \ [50] |
In samples with NFS-only TMDLs \ [88] |
In samples with pre-FY04 TMDLs MSCH
In samples with FY04-FY07 TMDLs \ [87] |
Size of subpopulations above [xx]
Part/Full Implementation
28
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5
Project Report
Statement 6 addressed the rates at which TMDLs in the sample were found to have a finalized
implementation plan. Again, the data allow for comparison among the sample and the four
subpopulations (Figure 4.2). The estimated overall rate observed in the regional sample was that nearly
80% of the Region's TMDLs have a completed implementation plan. Among the subpopulations, older
TMDLs with plans (98.6%) exceeded newer TMDLs with plans (76.5%). The NFS-only TMDLs with
plans (91.5%) also exceeded the mixed TMDLs with plans (66.5%).
Figure 4.2. Estimated percent of TMDLs in sampled subpopulations that have an implementation plan. Note
that 22.1% more implementation plans existed for older than newer TMDL samples, and 25% more for NFS-
only than for mixed TMDLs.
100%
75
50
25
79.6%
66.5%
91.5%
98.6%
76.50/
In all sampled watersheds \ [138] |
In samples with PS/Mixed TMDLs \ [50] |
In samples with NFS-only TMDLs \ P8] |
In samples with pre-FY04 TMDLs \ \
In samples with FY04-FY07 TMDLs \ JSTJ |
Size of subpopulations above [xx]
Implementation
Plan
Because of the growing popularity of developing large watershed TMDL studies that encompass up to
hundreds of TMDLs per study in the Region 5 states, the study also analyzed the frequency of multi-
TMDL or 'watershed TMDL' efforts and the proportion of partially to fully implemented samples that
came from multi-TMDLs. The results of the analysis to quantify statement 7 demonstrated that multi-
TMDL approaches are well established regionally and appear to be increasing in recent years. Among
subpopulations, all far exceeded three-quarters from multi-TMDL efforts. NFS-only TMDL samples
(97.7%) did exceed mixed (93.4%), but not within the margin of error. Newer TMDL samples (97.5%)
significantly exceeded older ones (84.3%) by a margin of 13.2%. Specifically as shown in Figure 4.3, the
high and increasing frequency of a multi-TMDL approach across all subpopulations existed also for that
subset of the sample that had been at least partially implemented (104 of the 138 sample TMDLs).
The project team also explored possible associations between the TMDL implementation rates observed
and potential explanatory variables, based on land use/land cover patterns in the watersheds of each
sample TMDL. Land cover data were derived from the 2001 National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) and
the watersheds for each sample TMDL were custom-delineated. Aggregation of land cover statistics by
TMDL sample watershed enabled the calculation of land cover proportions of interest, and reaggregation
29
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5
Project Report
Figure 4.3. Frequency of partially to fully implemented TMDL samples associated with watershed or multi-
TMDLs, as separate from those developed as single TMDLs on single water bodies or segments. Note the
percentage rise in this characteristic from older to more recent TMDLs is 19.1%. Figures not weighted.
100%
75
50
25
88.5%
|84.8%
93.1%
1
76.3%
95.4°/
In all sampled watersheds \ [104] |
In samples with PS/Mixed TMDLs \ [46] |
In samples with NFS-only TMDLs \ [58] |
In samples with pre-FY04 TMDLs | |
In samples with FY04-FY07 TMDLs \ [65] \
Size of subpopulations above [xx]
Watershed or
multi-TMDLs
of samples into strata characterized by the predominance of specific land cover patterns. This analysis
was conducted to gain insight on whether implementation rates might vary with widely different land use
settings, e.g., urban vs. agricultural vs. less-developed rural watersheds (Figure 4.4). Consequently, this
analysis departed from the subpopulations (older, newer, NFS-only, and mixed TMDLs) that were
addressed in the original design and identified experimentally aggregated new subpopulations. The
results obtained vary in the size (n) of the land use-related sample subpopulations, and some results
therefore are not within the same margin of error targeted for the primary results. Sample weighting
factors were not calculated for this portion of the analysis, thus percentages represent actual proportion of
sample TMDLs rather than estimated proportion of these subpopulations.
Generally, all the subpopulations examined closely paralleled the overall region-wide implementation
rate. The analysis examined several levels of agriculture-dominated (including cropland and pasture) and
cropland-dominated watersheds and found no evidence that these land cover types were associated with
implementation rates significantly different than those observed overall. Similarly, urban-dominated
watersheds did not depart from the overall pattern in regional implementation rate. A lower-intensity
agriculture category, and a 'rural' category where neither agriculture nor urban uses dominated, also
displayed no significant differences in rates.
This sampling study and analysis of TMDL implementation rates provided insights into implementation
across a six-state region, representing a scale at which no quantitative information on implementation
previously existed. The primary seven statements around which the study was designed were able to be
addressed and quantified. The findings estimate rates, quantify some associated factors, and fail to reveal
other associations we tested. It is also probable that the limited resources and thus sample size available
also limited the study findings we could verify within the targeted margin of error. The most prominent
finding of this study is the evidence that, once approved, most of this region's TMDLs are at least
30
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5
Project Report
Figure 4.4. Percent of TMDL samples partly/fully implemented, reaggregated by predominant land cover in
watershed. Some subpopulation sample sizes are too small to meet the +/- 10% margin of error, and sample
weighting was not calculated. Note implementation rates across these subpopulations are similar to the region
overall, suggesting that these land cover patterns do not explain implementation rates observed in this sample.
100%
75
50
25
78.9%
77.7%
78.9%
In all sampled watersheds
High agriculture (> 50% agr)
72.7% High cropland (>50% crop)
Moderate agriculture (25-49%)
Low agriculture (0-24%)
Rural (<5% urban, <10% agr)
Urban watersheds (>10% urban)
Size of subpopulations above
[138]
[22]
[40]
Part/Full Implementation
partially implemented. Moreover, a developed implementation plan very frequently follows the TMDL
itself in the six Region 5 states.
The findings do suggest some factors exist that may influence the rates that were observed but unable to
be tested statistically. For example, the 16.1% difference between the NFS-only and the higher, mixed
TMDLs rates may be due to the voluntary nature of NFS controls as compared to the enforceable, PS-
permitting process affecting the implementation of the mixed TMDLs. The slightly increased
implementation rate among newer vs. older TMDLs, despite the pre-2003 subpopulation's longer time for
implementation, may be related to possible improvements such as greater program capacity, funding, and
commitment to action, or to developing more implementable TMDLs. The NFS-only TMDLs high
percentage with implementation plans, in contrast to their somewhat lower implementation rates, may be
strongly correlated with 319 watershed plans. On the other hand, the finding that mixed TMDL samples
had fewer implementation plans but a greater frequency of partial implementation may be related to the
high rate of permits mandatorily implemented whether or not a plan exists. The higher percentage of
older TMDLs with completed plans than newer TMDLs may be explainable by the fact that TMDL
development, implementation, and ultimate recovery is a many-year process that is in earlier stages
among the newer sample TMDLs. Together these findings send a mixed message about the relationship
of implementation plan completion and actual implementation. Overall, greater statistical power would
have been particularly valuable to enable a more detailed examination and sub-categorization of the very
broad 'partially implemented' category.
The exploratory analysis of watershed land cover was intriguing in part because it did not reveal any
statistically significant differences among the widely different land cover settings examined. The project
team did not, however, consider this limited analysis conclusive that land cover does not contribute to
31
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5 Project Report
explaining implementation rate differences in ways that were not tested. Based on NFS-only vs. mixed
TMDL rate differences found, one might suspect that TMDLs in highly agricultural or rural watersheds
would be significantly less implemented than urban TMDLs. The similar rates across these different
watershed settings may in fact be linked to the existence of independent and very different drivers of
implementation. Agricultural watersheds may have high rates due to the extensive reach of USDA
funding for best management practices, whereas urban watersheds are likely much more influenced by
stronger regulations and point source permitting situations. Exploratory analyses with more refined
watershed land cover data, or using the data only within a corridor of much closer proximity to the
impaired water, may generate different results. Also, socio-economic factors and other geo-spatial data
may be explored as possible explanatory factors.
4.3 OBSERVATIONS
This section of the report offers a variety of observations made by the project team in conducting this
study, including analysis of the results and several aspects of the study design and available data.
4.3.1 Study Results
The estimated overall rate of partial to full TMDL implementation was higher than expected at the onset
of the study. This is likely due to a combination of the following factors:
Very few of the TMDLs were found to be fully implemented. However, many TMDLs were
found to be partially implemented. These included TMDLs where a significant number of
practices have been installed as a result of the TMDL, but also TMDLs where there has been
some but limited implementation. For example, several segments of the Wabash River in Indiana
were included in this study with approved phosphorus TMDLs. The Wabash River drains more
than 30,000 square miles and, although some practices were found to have been implemented for
the segments of interest, the practices cover only a minimal portion of the area that eventually
will need to be addressed to fully implement the TMDL. It is therefore unlikely that the high rate
of partial implementation found in this study would presently be capable of producing a
correspondingly high rate of water quality standards attainment.
Thirty-six percent of the TMDLs in the study included WLAs and, for the most part, these WLAs
were found to have been implemented because the TMDL either confirmed existing permit limits
or the new permit limits were found to be implemented (82 percent). The estimated rate of partial
to full TMDL implementation for TMDLs including only nonpoint sources (approximately 66
percent) was closer to what was initially expected when the study started.
It appeared that a variety of implementation efforts are indeed occurring within the TMDL
watersheds that will address the pollutant of concern. These include efforts by agricultural
landowners to adopt nutrient management plans, plant filter strips, and implement reduced tillage
practices as well as efforts by communities and state and local government agencies to address
failing septic systems, CSOs, abandoned mine drainage, and other problems. However, in some
cases it was not clear if these efforts were a result of or coincident to the TMDL. The project team
used whatever data were available and its best judgment to try and make this determination but it
is certainly possible that some implementation has been attributed to the TMDL that actually
would have occurred regardless. However, as TMDLs by nature usually identify a variety of
implementation actions beyond those driven by the TMDL program or EPA resources, actions by
other stakeholders that are not directly connected to but consistent with the TMDL can be
expected.
32
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5 Project Report
The TMDL and Section 319 Programs in EPA Region 5 have placed an emphasis on
implementation efforts for at least the past ten years, as have the states within the region. The
unexpectedly high rate of implementation found in this study might, in part, reflect this emphasis
and might not reflect typical implementation rates occurring in other regions or states.
The high rate of TMDLs with Implementation Plans is consistent with Tetra Tech's experience in Region
5 and is attributed to the following factors:
Illinois EPA develops a majority of its TMDLs using contractor support and the development of a
separate Implementation Plan is a required contract deliverable.
Minnesota's Clean Water Legacy Act, through policy direction and funding incentives, has been
a driving force behind the preparation of implementation plans for all Minnesota TMDLs.
Ohio EPA typically includes detailed descriptions of implementation activities in its TMDL
documents. Many of these were considered to constitute Implementation Plans according to the
definition provided in the project SOW. Furthermore, detailed Watershed Action Plans had been
developed for four of the Ohio TMDLs.
Wisconsin implementation plans often come in the form of "Nonpoint Source Control Plans" that
are developed for Priority Watershed Projects. Typically they are for larger watersheds and
addressed the TMDL segments within this study.
The high rate of partially to fully implemented TMDLs in Region 5 that were developed through multi-
TMDL or watershed-TMDL analysis is also consistent with Tetra Tech's experience in Region 5. Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and Ohio almost exclusively develop TMDLs on a watershed basis.
4.3.2 Study Design
Having to categorize TMDL implementation into one of only four categories (not implemented, partially
implemented, fully implemented, or unknown) proved to be challenging. The majority of the TMDLs fell
into the category of partially implemented but the range of partial implementation is considered to be
fairly large. Similar future projects may want to consider additional subcategories of partial
implementation, even though a re-analysis of the 'partial' category in this study showed that
subcategories would be difficult to identify and document consistently.
Including Minnesota's State-wide mercury TMDL in this study also posed some challenges. First, the
majority of mercury in water is related to atmospheric sources, both within and outside of Minnesota.
Accordingly, emphasis in the TMDL and implementation plan is focused on mercury minimization
programs. These efforts are outside the scope of traditional water-related implementation programs, such
as Section 319. Second, because of the large number of segments included in the state-wide mercury
TMDL, the sample set was unintentionally drawn away from capturing implementation occurring for
more traditional TMDL settings. This was noted by the state TMDL Coordinator, particularly in light of
the high level of support for TMDL implementation in Minnesota that has resulted from the state's Clean
Water Legacy Act (more than $70 million in funding from FY2006 - FY2009).
To a lesser extent, the inclusion of eight segments from the Wabash River TMDL also posed some
challenges to this study. The Wabash River watershed is very large (more than 30,000 square miles) and
therefore the subwatersheds draining to each of the segments included in this study were also very large.
This size meant that there were a large number of potential point source and nonpoint source projects that
had to be evaluated. Tetra Tech was fortunate to have many of the geographic information system (GIS)
files needed to conduct this analysis because of supporting the development of the TMDL, but the
33
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5 Project Report
discrepancy in the size of the Wabash River segment watersheds compared to others in the study could
potentially skew the results.
4.3.3 Gaps in Appropriate Information
An important observation made during the collection of data for this report was that in no state was all of
the required information already compiled (let alone compiled in a central database or tracking system).
Although a great deal of the background information on the TMDL, the permits, and the nonpoint source
projects was available in central databases such as NTTS, PCS/ICIS, and GRTS, most of the detailed
information regarding implementation status had to be retrieved through personal contact with state
personnel or local stakeholders. This was true for the TMDLs where most of the implementation
information had to be obtained by the project team, but also true for the TMDLs where state personnel
took much of the lead in obtaining the information.
Additionally, in reviewing nonpoint source implementation projects, one issue surfaced that warrants
discussion relative to tracking progress. Implementation actions can involve targeted areas, targeted
programs, targeted activities, and targeted participants. Targeted areas include actions on specific parcels
of land or work involving construction of identifiable facilities. Examples include fencing, riparian
buffers, manure waste handing facilities, or off-site watering. These actions can be connected with
quantifiable measures that relate to points on a waterbody. On the other hand, targeted programs, targeted
activities, and targeted participants, while clearly instrumental to achieving environmental results, pose
some challenges in relating actions to traditional "on the ground" measures.
With this in mind, many of the implementation actions identified for some of the TMDLs involve
targeting broad programs, activities, and participants across the watershed. Work is clearly occurring.
However, tracking specific locations is difficult. Examples include the Lower Otter Tail TMDL Sediment
Reduction Section 319 project in Minnesota. The focus of this project is education work with land owners
in the watershed to promote an array of erosion control projects designed to collectively reduce sediment
loads to the Lower Otter Tail River. The project also includes efforts intended to lead to a county-wide
erosion control ordinance, as well as work to retire erosion prone land from crop production.
Similarly, Section 319 project efforts to implement the Long Prairie River TMDL in Minnesota and
reduce oxygen demanding wastes involve education and technical assistance to local landowners. This is
also the case with implementation of the southeast Minnesota bacteria TMDL. Implementation projects
include education and technical assistance to small feedlot owners, homeowners served by on-site septic
systems, and landowners targeted for improved pasture management practices. Minnesota's CWLA is
also funding wide-spread implementation efforts in each of the TMDL watersheds reviewed for this
project. Again, many of the projects are education and technical assistance efforts aimed at targeted
participants, targeted programs, and targeted activities. The philosophy is that pollutant sources are often
spread across the watershed and that solutions will require efforts that go beyond site-specific approaches.
Tracking the net result of these education activities was beyond the scope of this study; nevertheless, the
focus of the analysis was on carrying out actions called for in the TMDLs, not measuring environmental
changes subsequent to those actions.
Determining whether a nonpoint source contributor had implemented actions consistent with a TMDL
would have also been much more straightforward if such information was specifically recorded in GRTS
or a project report. Since it wasn't, the project team had to rely on trying to determine the specific
location of the practice and then compare that location to the location of the impaired waterbody. A
comparison also had to be made between the practice installed and the TMDL pollutant (e.g., a nutrient
management plan was not considered implementation of an E. coli TMDL).
34
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5 Project Report
Just knowing that a practice occurred in the watershed was insufficient to assess implementation of the
specific TMDLs included within this study because almost all of the TMDLs were developed on a
watershed basis and there were therefore other TMDL segments in the same watershed that were not a
part of the study. GIS files for practices were only available in a few cases and even detailed descriptions
of the practice locations were difficult to obtain. Information in GRTS typically lacked spatial detail and
the Section 319 annual reports were often only marginally better (e.g., "section 319 grant funding is
awarded to restore approximately 1,400 linear feet of an unnamed tributary to the Chagrin River"). The
project team therefore had to try to contact local officials familiar with the grant (which was time
consuming) or use best professional judgment to assess whether a known practice occurred upstream of
the TMDL segment. In several cases, the team was unable to find anyone knowledgeable of the location
of the referenced projects. For example, the Duck Creek (Ohio) watershed coordinator had changed
positions and his replacement did not have the necessary information on the project location.
4.4 Additional Analysis of Partially Implemented TMDLs
The TMDLs determined to be partially implemented were further explored through additional analysis.
EPA requested this additional analysis because the original study design requested categorization of
TMDL implementation into one of only four categories: Not Implemented, Partially Implemented, Fully
Implemented, or Unknown. The majority (100 out of 138) of the TMDLs fell into the Partially
Implemented category, but the range of partial implementation was considered to be fairly large (i.e.,
some TMDLs could be minimally implemented and others extensively implemented). Although
consistent subcategories of partial implementation would clearly be difficult to assign consistently due to
substantial variation among TMDLs and their data limitations, any additional insights on degree of
implementation were seen as highly desirable.
A number of potential methods for assessing the degree of partial implementation were identified,
including determining the proportion of the total number of practices identified in the TMDL
implementation plan that have been implemented, determining whether any action has occurred yet for
TMDLs that necessitated NPDES permit changes, estimating the load reduction achieved by the
implemented practices, and "scoring" each TMDL found to be partially implemented based upon factors
such as the number of 319 projects implemented, or the number of WLAs incorporated into permits.
In general, there were challenges with implementing each of the approaches, mostly due to data
limitations but also in some cases due to resource constraints. For example, although some TMDLs or
implementation plans do include a "menu" of practices, information as to whether each practice has yet
been implemented was usually lacking. Similarly, considerable effort was involved in going back to the
original TMDL documents just to create the "checklist" of implementation practices because the
information had not previously been organized in that way.
Despite the challenges some significant findings were still obtained. Nine case studies were chosen for the
implementation "menu" approach and, in eight of the nine TMDLs, at least 40 percent of the identified
practices had been implemented. For the partially implemented TMDLs that included revised WLAs for
WWTPs, 100 percent of the WLAs were found to have been established in new permit limits.
Additionally, "scoring" of the partially implemented TMDLs resulted in 76 percent of the TMDLs
receiving at least 3 points on a 6-point scale.
35
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5 Project Report
Several TMDLs were also researched in greater detail to estimate the load reductions likely to be
achieved by the documented implementation measures. Unfortunately, only 3 of the 100 partially
implemented TMDLs had sufficient information on the extent and location of controls to be able to
conduct such an analysis. For these 3 TMDLs, the already implemented controls were found to have
controlled 4 percent, 52 percent, and 86 percent of the needed load reductions (see Appendix 2 for
details).
36
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5 Project Report
APPENDIX 1:
DEFINITIONS OF KEY TERMS
TMDL: A TMDL or Total Maximum Daily Load is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant
that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards, and an allocation of that amount to the
pollutant's sources. TMDLs are calculated as the total Waste Load Allocation (WLA, allocated to point
sources) plus the total Load Allocation (LA, allocated to nonpoint sources) plus a margin of safety. For
counting purposes, a single TMDL addresses one water body segment (state-defined) and one pollutant.
One water body may have multiple pollutants and therefore multiple TMDLs.
TMDL Document: A report submitted to an EPA Region by a state that provides the detailed
calculations and plans for one or more final, approved or established TMDLs. One TMDL document does
not equal one TMDL; rather one document may address many TMDLs, e.g., in the case of a large
watershed plan affecting multiple impaired waters and/or multiple pollutants.
Implementation: a sequence of actions including new or altered pollution control practices that are
carried out to reduce pollutant loading consistent with the terms of a TMDL. Implementation actions can
include onsite installation, operation, maintenance, and adjustment of nonpoint source control practices
(Best Management Practices, BMPs) as well as issuance, reissuance or modification of PS control permits
and practices. Implementation as used in this study does not encompass planning, funding, or completion
of an implementation plan (i.e., implementation planning activities), nor changes in water body condition
(i.e., post-implementation effects).
Implementation Planning: post-TMDL activities that encompass planning or funding control practices
and/or completion of an implementation plan.
Post-Implementation Effects: changes in water body condition that are plausibly related to
implementation actions taken.
Partially Implemented: having any combination of actions listed under the implementation definition
above that are verified as having occurred or currently active.
Fully Implemented: available information indicates a TMDL that is fully implemented has had all point
or nonpoint control actions completely put into practice onsite; note: in this meaning, full implementation
of practices does not connote "fully implementing Water Quality Standards" and is completely
independent from changes in condition caused by those practices.
Not Implemented: available information indicates a TMDL that is not implemented has had none of the
TMDL's point or nonpoint control actions carried out fully or partially.
Implementation Unknown: available information does not prove or disprove the implementation status
of any of the control practices relative to a TMDL, all or in part.
Implementation Plan: documentation of planned specific actions and schedules for those actions to be
taken in order to reduce pollutant loading consistent with a TMDL; an implementation plan may take any
of the following forms:
exists as stand-alone document
37
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5 Project Report
exists within TMDL document
exists as permit-related document(s)
exists as 319-related document or watershed plan
38
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5
Project Report
APPENDIX 2:
ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS OF PARTIALLY IMPLEMENTED
TMDLS
The TMDLs determined to be partially implemented were further explored through additional analysis.
EPA requested this additional analysis because the original study design categorized TMDL
implementation into one of only four categories: Not Implemented, Partially Implemented, Fully
Implemented, or Unknown. The majority (100 out of 138) of the TMDLs fell into the Partially
Implemented category, but the range of partial implementation was considered to be fairly large (i.e.,
some TMDLs could be minimally implemented and others extensively implemented). General
characteristics of the partially implemented TMDLs are presented in Table A-l and Table A-2.
Table A-1. Overall Partial TMDLs Summary Table.
Overall Partial TMDL Summary
Total Number Impaired by Point Sources Only
Total Number Impaired by Nonpoint Sources Only
Total Number Impaired by both Point and Nonpoint Sources
Total Number of "Partial" TMDLs
1
57
42
100
Table A-2. Partial TMDLs by State.
Number of Partial TMDLs by State
Illinois Partial TMDLs
Indiana Partial TMDLs
Michigan Partial TMDLs
Minnesota Partial TMDLs
Ohio Partial TMDLs
Wisconsin Partial TMDLs
Total Number of "Partial" TMDLs
12
13
9
27
24
15
100
A number of potential methods of assessing the degree of partial implementation were identified,
including determining the proportion of the total number of practices identified in the TMDL
implementation plan that have been implemented, determining whether any action has occurred yet for
TMDLs that necessitated NPDES permit changes, estimating the load reduction achieved by the
implemented practices, and "scoring" each TMDL found to be partially implemented based upon factors
such as the number of 319 projects implemented, the number of WLAs incorporated into permits, etc. The
results of each analysis method are presented in the following sections.
DETERMINING THE PROPORTION OF PRACTICES IMPLEMENTED
One approach to evaluating the extent of partial implementation is to determine the proportion of the
practices identified in the TMDL or the implementation plan that have been implemented. This approach
involves listing the identified practices mentioned in the TMDL report or implementation plan and then
confirming whether or not they have been implemented. Although this approach provides a general
assessment of the extent of implementation activity, it should be noted that skewed results are possible
39
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5
Project Report
due to the variable importance of the practices. For example, one practice might address 90 percent of the
required load reduction whereas another nine practices only address the last 10 percent.
Establishing the "menu" of the implementation practices for each TMDL was a fairly intensive effort as
most of the reports did not have the information organized that way. In addition, comprehensive
information as to whether each practice has or has not yet been implemented was usually lacking.
Because of this, there were inadequate resources to apply this approach for all 100 partially implemented
TMDLs. Instead, the nine partially implemented TMDLs for Michigan were used to test this approach.
The results are shown in Table A-3 and indicate that in eight of the nine TMDLs, at least 40 percent of
the identified practices had been implemented
Table A-3. Determining the proportion of practices implemented in the nine partially
implemented Michigan TMDLs.
TMDL
ID
12239
3847
3838
12277
3658
32213
4270
9499
3840
Number of Practices:
c
o
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5 Project Report
Category 3: WLA requires permit revisions; permit revisions not yet made
There were a total of 399 WLAs included in the 100 partially implemented TMDLs and 272 of these fell
into Category 1. Of the remaining 127 WLAs, 45 fell into Category 2 and 82 fell into Category 3.
However, all of the 82 WLAs in Category 3 were for stormwater or combined sewer overflow sources for
which permit revisions are not straightforward. For example, EPA is currently in the process of finalizing
the TMDLs To Stormwater Permits Handbook which is intended to provide better information on how
TMDL WLAs should be implemented in stormwater permits. All of the WLAs for more traditional point
sources were found to have been implemented through permit changes. Most of these were for wastewater
treatment plants in Ohio that received new nutrient permit limits as a result of the TMDLs.
ESTIMATING THE PERFORMANCE OF CONTROLS
Several TMDLs were researched in greater detail to estimate the load reductions likely to be achieved by
the documented implementation measures. This was done to compare the expected load reductions to the
levels identified as needed in the TMDL reports. Comprehensive information on the extent of
implemented controls was found to be frequently lacking. As a result, only 3 of the 100 TMDLs had
sufficient information on the extent and location of controls to easily be able to estimate their
effectiveness.
Homer Lake
The Homer Lake phosphorus TMDL was developed by the Illinois EPA and approved by the U.S. EPA in
2006. The nonpoint sources contributing to phosphorus loading in the Homer Lake watershed include
sheet and rill erosion, agricultural and residential fertilizer, illicit wastewater connections, and internal
phosphorus recycling.
Implementation Efforts
Though not all of the implementation has been a direct result of the TMDL, extensive efforts have been
underway in the Homer Lake watershed before, during, and after TMDL development. Most of the
implementation work in this watershed is due to a Section 319 project awarded in 2004 and completed in
2007. This project led to the implementation of the following nonpoint source controls: 5 acres of
grassed waterways, two ponds, 4,000 feet of field border strips, 3,000 acres of conservation cropping, 34
acres of filter strips, 120 acres using deep phosphorus placement, and 4,950 acres using nutrient
management planning to calculate appropriate fertilizer application rates.
Anticipated Reductions
Information included in the Homer Lake TMDL implementation plan (Illinois EPA, 2007) was used to
estimate pre-implementation and post-implementation loads of phosphorus in the watershed. These
estimates are summarized in Table A-4 and indicate that the implementation has achieved approximately
52 percent of the needed reduction. In other words, the TMDL has been approximately half implemented.
41
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5
Project Report
Table A-4. Estimated total phosphorus load reductions resulting from Homer Lake
implementation efforts (based on data from the Homer Lake Implementation Plan [Illinois
EPA, 2007]).
Source of
Phosphorus
Row crop
agriculture
Failing septic
systems
Internal
Loading
Atmospheric
deposition
Totals
Pre-
Implementation
Load1
0.50 Ib/ac/yrto
1 .6 Ib/ac/yr on
9,890 row crop
acres =
4,945 Ib/yr to
1 4,835 Ib/yr
580 Ib/yr to
2,310 Ib/yr
40 Ib/yr
15 Ib/yr
5,580 Ib/yr to
17,200 Ib/yr
Load
Reduction
Needed1
3,462 Ib/yr to
10,385 Ib/yr
406 Ib/yr to
1,61 7 Ib/yr
28 Ib/yr
11 Ib/yr
3,906 Ib/yr to
12,040 Ib/yr
Implemented BMP
34 acres of Filter Strips
3,000 acres of
conservation tillage
5 acres of grassed
waterways
5,070 acres under
nutrient management
plans
Reported
Effectiveness
65%
76%
30%
35%
Estimated Load
Reduction That
Has Occurred
11 to33lbs/yr
1,1 40 to 3,420
Ibs/yr
1 to 2 Ibs/yr
887 to 2,662 Ibs/yr
No known implementation has occurred
No known implementation has occurred
No known implementation has occurred
2,039 Ib/yr to
6,1 17 Ibs/yr
The TMDL does not present the existing loads
presented in the Implementation Plan and were
reduction to create this table.
Argyle Lake
by individual source category. The individual source loads are
combined with the TMDL's recommendation for a 70 percent
The Argyle Lake phosphorus TMDL was developed by the Illinois EPA and approved by the U.S. EPA in
2007. The nonpoint sources contributing to phosphorus loading in the Argyle Lake watershed are listed as
agriculture, recreation, and forest.
Implementation Efforts
One Section 319 project has been completed in this watershed. A grade stabilization project was
completed in a gully draining to Argyle Lake. This implementation project was primarily focused on
stabilizing erosion in a gully and aimed to reduce sediment delivery to the lake. However, phosphorus is
typically associated with sediment runoff and this project was therefore anticipated to result in both
sediment and phosphorus load reductions.
Anticipated Reductions
Illinois EPA estimated that 153 Ibs/yr of phosphorus would be reduced from stabilizing the gully draining
to Argyle Lake. Little is known about this project so it is difficult to determine whether this is a
reasonable estimate. The TMDL identified that 178 Ibs/yr of phosphorus needed to be reduced and
therefore this TMDL appears to be 86 percent implemented.
Otter Tail River- Breckenridqe Lake to Bois de Sioux River
The Otter Tail River sediment TMDL was developed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and
approved by the U.S. EPA in 2007. Nonpoint sources of sediment loading to the Otter Tail River include
stormwater runoff, illicit connections, and agricultural inputs.
42
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5
Project Report
Implementation Efforts
One Section 319 project has been partially implemented in this segment. The objective of this project was
to reduce sedimentation in the Otter Tail River through education and cultural/structural BMPs. Four
sediment sources are targeted including wind erosion, water erosion, streambank erosion, and in-stream
erosion.
Another implementation project for the Otter Tail River has been funded with Minnesota Clean Water
Legacy Funds. Clean Water Legacy Act funds are being used in conjunction with existing state and
federal conservation programs to install conservation practices that reduce erosion, sediment, and
turbidity. Targeted activities include conservation tillage, windbreaks, buffer strips, bio-fiber rolls, jetties,
and stream barbs.
Both projects fall within the Otter Tail River watershed and are specific to this TMDL segment. BMP
areas are not provided in the details of either project.
Anticipated Reductions
The Wilkin County Local Water Management Plan (Wilkin County, 2008) estimates the Clean Water
Legacy Act projects will result in a load reduction of 2,645 tons of sediment per year. It is unclear how
these anticipated reductions were calculated.
The Otter Tail River TMDL is summarized in Table A-5. The TMDL separates the allocations into five
flow categories (low, dry, mid-range, moist, and high). Allowable loads for each flow zone were
estimated using a load duration approach, and the existing loads were estimated using the S-LOADEST
model. Load reductions are only needed during moist and high flow conditions. Based on the existing
loads and TMDL for the moist and high flow zones, the total load to be reduced is 63,254 tons/year. This
TMDL appears to therefore be approximately 4 percent implemented (2,634 tons/year divided by 63,254
tons/year).
Insufficient information is available to estimate the load reductions occurring as a result of the Section
319 projects.
Table A-5. Otter Tail River TMDL Summary.
Flow Zone
Low Flows
Dry Conditions
Mid-Range
Flows
Moist Conditions
High Flows
Existing Load
(tons/year)
No Reductions
Needed
No Reductions
Needed
No Reductions
Needed
56,940
100,740
TMDL
(tons/year)
20,477
26,134
33,069
41,647
52,779
Stormwater
WLA
(tons/year)
365
365
365
730
730
MOS
(tons/year)
6,205
4,380
2,555
5,475
5,110
LA
(tons/year)
13,870
21,535
30,295
35,405
47,085
" SCORING" OF PARTIALLY IMPLEMENTED TMDLs
Based on the results of surveying the 138 TMDLs included in this study, Tetra Tech has determined that
comprehensive information on the extent of implemented controls is frequently lacking. Although
information about the general nature of implementation is usually available (e.g., fencing was installed)
43
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5
Project Report
the specifics are usually not (e.g., 1500 linear feet of fencing were installed between river mile 3 and 4 of
Duck Creek). The lack of such information makes it difficult or impossible to quantitatively estimate the
likely effectiveness of the controls as was done for the three TMDLs described previously. Instead, only
qualitative evaluations can be performed.
To test one qualitative approach we developed a methodology to apply to the partially implemented
TMDLs included in this study (only the 79 non-mercury TMDLs were included). To try and ensure
consistency in the qualitative evaluations, a "scoring system" was developed. Each TMDL found to be
partially implemented was "scored" based upon the criteria listed in Table A-6. The scoring approach
varied depending on whether the TMDL included only nonpoint sources or both point and nonpoint
sources 1. Points were variably assigned to each type of TMDL to ensure the same maximum potential
score for each type. Each TMDL was scored based upon the information already existing in the study
database; no additional contacts were made to obtain new information for the scoring.
Table A-6. Number of points assigned to evaluate degree of partial implementation.
Criteria
Is there an active Section 319 project?
Is there an active Section 319 project that is directly tied to the TMDL?
Is there an active non-Section 319 project addressing nonpoint sources?
Is there an active non-Section 31 9 project addressing nonpoint sources that is directly tied to the TMDL?
Have some of the WLAs been incorporated into permit revisions?
Have all of the WLAs been incorporated into permit revisions?
Maximum Score
NFS
TMDLs
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
NA
NA
6
PS
Only
and
N PS/PS
TMDLs
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
The results of the scoring are summarized in Table A-7 and indicate that 24.1 percent of the TMDLs had
relatively little implementation (2 points or less), 54.5 percent had a moderate level of implementation (3
or 4 points), and 21.6 percent had an extensive level of implementation. Thus, it appears that the general
finding of the original study holds true - a large subset of the total population does indeed appear to have
experienced a meaningful level of implementation. Only a relatively small number of the TMDLs appear
to have been categorized as partially implemented due to having some, but not much, implementation.
1 Only one of the 100 partial TMDLs was listed as only having point source impairments - the bacteria TMDL for
the Saline River in Michigan (Sample #17). There are three point sources upstream of this TMDL segment, all of
which are wastewater treatment facilities. The WLAs have been incorporated into NPDES permits for each of the
three facilities and all are meeting the permitted limits. However, other sources of bacteria include illicit sewer
connections and stormwater inputs. Because these sources have not yet been addressed, this TMDL was categorized
as being partially implemented.
44
-------
TMDL Implementation Rates in EPA Region 5
Project Report
Table A-7. Summary of partial TMDLs by score.
Points
1
1.5
2
3
4
4.5
5
6
# of TMDLs
2
13
4
33
10
4
4
9
Percent
2.5%
16.5%
5.1%
41.8%
12.7%
5.1%
5.1%
1 1 .4%
Cumulative Percent
2.5%
19.0%
24.1%
65.8%
78.5%
83.5%
88.6%
100.0%
45
------- |