Protocol For Developing Sediment TMDLs

United States Office of Water
Environmental 4503 F EPA 841-B-99-004

Protection Agency Washington DC 20460 October 1999
Protocol for Developing

Sediment TMDLs
First Edition
Acknowledgments
The Protocol for Developing Sediment TMDLs was prepared under the direction of Donald Brady and Chris Zabawa
of EPA’s Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, and Mimi
Dannel, Office of Science and Technology, Standards and Applied Science Division. The document was developed
under EPA Contract 68-C7-0018. Th Protocol for Developing Sediment TMDLs was written by EPA’s Sediment
Protocol TMDL Team, led by David W. Smith of EPA Region 9, with assistance from John Craig of Tetra Tech, Inc.,
in Fairfax, Virginia. The authors gratefully acknowledge the many comments of reviewers from within EPA and stat
environmental agencies, as well as the detailed reviews conducted by Lee MacDonald of Colorado State University and
Thomas Lisle of USDA Forest Service, Redwood Sciences Laboratory.
This report should be cited as:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Protocol for Developing Sediment TMDLs. EPA 841-B-99-004.
Office of Water (4503F), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C. 132 pp.
To obtain a copy of the Protocol for Developing Sediment TMDLs/EPA 841-B-99-004 (1999) free of charge,
contact:
National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP)

Phone: 513-489-8190
Fax: 513-489-8695
This EPA report is available on the Internet at:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/techsupp.html
Protocol for Developing Sediment TMDLs
First Edition: October 1999
Watershed Branch
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
Office of Water
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Foreword
Although many pollution sources have implemented the required levels of pollution control technology, there are still
waters in the nation that do not meet the Clean Water Act goal of “fishable, swimmable.” Section 303(d) of the act
addresses these waters that are not “fishable, swimmable” by requiring states, territories, and authorized tribes to
identify and list impaired waters every two years and to develop total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for pollutants in
these waters, with oversight from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. TMDLs establish the allowable pollutant
loadings, thereby providing the basis for states to establish water quality-based controls.
Historically, wasteload allocations have been developed for particular point sources discharging to a particular
waterbody to set effluent limitations in the point source’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
discharge permit. This approach has produced significant improvements in water quality by establishing point sourc
controls for many chemical pollutants. But water quality impairments continue to exist in the nation’s waters. Some
point sources need more controls, and many nonpoint source impacts (from agriculture, forestry, development activities,
urban runoff, and so forth) are causing or contributing to impairments in water quality. To address the combined,
cumulative impacts of both point and nonpoint sources, EPA has adopted a watershed approach, of which TMDLs ar
a part. This approach provides a means to integrate governmental programs and improve decision making by both
government and private parties. It enables a broad view of water resources that reflects the interrelationship of surfac
water, groundwater, chemical pollutants and nonchemical stressors, water quantity, and land management.
The Protocol for Developing Sediment TMDLs is a technical guidance document prepared to help state, interstate,
territorial, tribal, local, and federal agency staff involved in TMDL development, as well as watershed stakeholders and
private consultants. Comments and suggestions from readers are encouraged and will be used to help improve th
available guidance as EPA continues to build experience and understanding of TMDLs and watershed management.
Robert H. Wayland III, Director

Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
Office of Water
US Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
First Edition: October 1999 iii

Preface
EPA has developed several protocols as programmatic and technical support guidance documents for those involved in
TMDL development. These guidance documents have been developed by an interdisciplinary team and provide an
overall framework for completing the technical and programmatic steps in the TMDL development process. Th
Protocol for Developing Sediment TMDLs is one of the three TMDL technical guidance documents prepared to date.
The process presented here will assist with the development of rational, science-based assessments and decisions and
ideally will lead to the assemblage of an understandable and justifiable sediment TMDL. It is important to note that
this guidance document presents a suggested approach, but not the only approach to TMDL development.
This document provides guidance to states, territories, and authorized tribes exercising their responsibility under section
303(d) of the Clean Water Act for the development of sediment TMDLs. The protocol is designed as programmatic
and technical support guidance to those involved in TMDL development. The protocol does not, however, substitut
for section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act or EPA’s regulations; nor is it a regulation itself. It cannot impose legally
binding requirements on EPA, states, territories, authorized tribes, or the regulated community, and it might not apply
to a particular situation based on the circumstances. EPA and state, territorial, and tribal decision makers retain th
discretion to adopt approaches on a case-by-case basis that differ from this protocol where appropriate. EPA may
change this protocol in the future.
iv First Edition: October 1999

Contents
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
Introduction and Purpose of This Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
General Principles of Sediment Water Quality Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
Problem Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
Identification of Water Quality Indicators and Target Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
Source Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
Linkage Between Water Quality Targets and Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
Follow-up Monitoring and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1
Assembling the TMDL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1
Appendix: Case Studies

Deep Creek, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix-1
Redwood Creek, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix-9
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References-1
Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acronyms-1
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glossary-1
First Edition: October 1999 v

Figures
1-1 General elements of the water quality-based approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4
1-2 General components of TMDL development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5
2-1 Sediment TMDL logical sequenc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
2-2 Factors influencing the level of detail for the TMDL analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
4-1 Factors for determining indicators and endpoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
4-2 Guidelines for selecting indicators based on waterbody type and several designated uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-14
5-1 Sedimentation process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
Tables
2-1 Utility of watershed assessment frameworks and methods for sediment TMDL analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13
3-1 Examples of sediment impacts on designated or existing use categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
3-2 Advantages and disadvantages of different TMDL watershed analysis scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
3-3 Approaches for incorporating margins of safety into sediment TMDLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7
4-1 Examples of multiple indicators for TMDL targets and similar studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4
4-2 Examples of appropriate single-indicator sediment TMDLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4
4-3 Advantages and disadvantages of water column sediment indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7
4-4 Advantages and disadvantages of streambed sediment indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8
4-5 Advantages and disadvantages of other channel condition indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10
4-6 Advantages and disadvantages of biological assessment indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11
4-7 Examples of in-stream and hillslope targets, allocations, and implementation measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-13
4-8 Advantages and disadvantages of riparian and hillslope indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-13
4-9 Considerations in selecting indicator(s) for large watersheds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-15
4-10 Sensitivity of indicators to designated uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-16
4-11 Sensitivity of indicators to sediment sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-17
4-12 Comparison of sediment-related indicators for TMDL development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-18
4-13 Utility of sediment-related indicators for different environmental settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-19
4-14 Methods for expressing numeric targets for TMDLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-23
4-15 Methods for comparing existing and target conditions for numeric targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-24
5-1 Advantages and disadvantages of sediment source grouping methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4
5-2 Advantages and disadvantages of source sensitivity estimation methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10
5-3 Erosion process model comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10
5-4 Advantages and disadvantages of hillslope source models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11
5-5 Advantages and disadvantages of hillslope and in-stream process models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-12
5-6 Advantages and disadvantages of direct measurement methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-13
5-7 Advantages and disadvantages of rating curves and statistical extrapolation methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15
vi First Edition: October 1999

3URWRFROIRU'HYHORSLQJ6HGLPHQW70'/V
,QWURGXFWLRQDQG3XUSRVHRI7KLV3URWRFRO
Objective:This Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) about the health of their watersheds, States have clearer
protocol was developed to provide EPA regions, states, direction and greater consistency as they identify
territories, and tribes with an organizational framework impaired waters and set priorities, and new tools are
for establishing TMDLs for sediment. The used to make sure that TMDL implementation occurs.
recommendations and methods proposed in this protocol The text box on page 1-2 summarizes these proposed
focus on sediment as the pollutant; this protocol does changes.
not address other contaminants that can be associated
with sediment. The process presented here will assist EPA’s regional offices are responsible for approving or
with development of rational, science-based assessments disapproving state, territorial, or tribal section 303(d)
and decisions and ideally will lead to the establishment lists and TMDLs, and for establishing lists and TMDLs
of an understandable and justifiable TMDL. in cases of disapproval. Public participation is to be
provided for by states and tribes (or EPA regional
Audience: The protocols are designed as tools for state offices, in the case of disapproval) when they establish
and tribal TMDL staff, EPA regional TMDL staff, lists or TMDLs.
watershed stakeholders, and other agencies and private
consultants involved in TMDL development. In accordance with the priority ranking, states,
territories, and authorized tribes are to establish TMDLs
29(59,(: that will meet water quality standards for each listed
water, considering seasonal variations and a margin of
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act provides that safety that accounts for uncertainty. States, territories,
states, territories, and authorized tribes are to list waters and authorized tribes are to submit their lists and
for which technology-based limits alone do not ensure
attainment of water quality standards. Beginning in
1992, states, territories and authorized tribes were to $70'/LVWKHVXPRIWKHLQGLYLGXDOZDVWHORDGDOORFDWLRQVIRUSRLQW
submit their lists to the EPA every two years. Beginning VRXUFHVDQGORDGDOORFDWLRQVIRUQRQSRLQWVRXUFHVDQGQDWXUDO
in 1994, lists were due to EPA on April 1 of each even EDFNJURXQG&)5ZLWKDPDUJLQRIVDIHW\&:$6HFWLRQ
GF7KH70'/FDQEHJHQHULFDOO\GHVFULEHGE\WKH
numbered year. States, territories, and authorized tribes
IROORZLQJHTXDWLRQ
are to set priority rankings for the listed waters, taking
into account the severity of the pollution and the 70'/ /& 3:/$ 3/$026
intended uses of the waters.
ZKHUH /& ORDGLQJFDSDFLW\DRUWKHJUHDWHVWORDGLQJD
ZDWHUERG\FDQUHFHLYHZLWKRXWYLRODWLQJZDWHU
EPA’s regulations for implementing section 303(d) are
TXDOLW\VWDQGDUGV
codified in the Water Quality Planning and Management :/$ ZDVWHORDGDOORFDWLRQRUWKHSRUWLRQRIWKH
Regulations at 40 CFR Part 130, specifically at 70'/DOORFDWHGWRH[LVWLQJRUIXWXUHSRLQW
sections130.2, 130.7, and 130.10. The regulations VRXUFHV
define terms used in section 303(d) and otherwise /$ ORDGDOORFDWLRQRUWKHSRUWLRQRIWKH70'/
DOORFDWHGWRH[LVWLQJRUIXWXUHQRQSRLQWVRXUFHV
interpret and expand upon the statutory requirements.
DQGQDWXUDOEDFNJURXQGDQG
The purpose of the Protocol for Developing Sediment 026 PDUJLQRIVDIHW\RUDQDFFRXQWLQJRI
TMDLs is to provide more detailed guidance on the XQFHUWDLQW\DERXWWKHUHODWLRQVKLSEHWZHHQ
TMDL development process for waterbodies impaired SROOXWDQWORDGVDQGUHFHLYLQJZDWHUTXDOLW\
due to sediments. 7KHPDUJLQRIVDIHW\FDQEHSURYLGHGLPSOLFLWO\
WKURXJKDQDO\WLFDODVVXPSWLRQVRUH[SOLFLWO\E\
UHVHUYLQJDSRUWLRQRIORDGLQJFDSDFLW\
On August 23, 1999, EPA published proposed changes
to the current TMDL rules at 40 CFR 130.2, 130.7, and D
70'/VFDQEHH[SUHVVHGLQWHUPVRIPDVVSHUWLPHWR[LFLW\RU
130.10. These changes would significantly strengthen RWKHUDSSURSULDWHPHDVXUHV
the Nation’s ability to achieve clean water goals by
ensuring that the public has more and better information
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
Summary of Proposed Regulatory Requirements for Establishing TMDLs
A TMDL must be established for all waterbody and pollutant combinations on Part 1 of the list. TMDLs are not required for waterbodies on
Part 2, 3, or 4 of the list (§ 130.31(a)).
A TMDL must be established according to the priority rankings and schedules (§ 130.31(b)).
TMDLs must be established at a level necessary to attain and maintain water quality standards, as defined by 40 CFR 131.3(I), considering
reasonably foreseeable increases in pollutant loads (§ 130.33(b)(9)).
TMDLs must include the following minimum elements (§ 130.33(b)):
1. The name and geographic location, as required by §130.27(c), of the impaired or threatened waterbody for which the TMDL is being
established and the names and geographic locations of the waterbodies upstream of the impaired waterbody that contribute significant
amounts of the pollutant for which the TMDL is being established;
2. Identification of the pollutant for which the TMDL is being established and quantification of the pollutant load that may be present in the
waterbody and still ensure attainment and maintenance of water quality standards;
3. Identification of the amount or degree by which the current pollutant load in the waterbody deviates from the pollutant load needed to
attain or maintain water quality standards;
4. Identification of the source categories, source subcategories, or individual sources of the pollutant for which the wasteload allocations
and load allocations are being established consistent with §130.2(f) and §130.2(g);
5. Wasteload allocations to each industrial and municipal point source permitted under §402 of the Clean Water Act discharging the
pollutant for which the TMDL is being established ; wasteload allocations for storm water, combined sewer overflows, abandoned mines,
combined animal feeding operations, or any other discharges subject to a general permit may be allocated to categories of sources,
subcategories of sources or individual sources; pollutant loads that do not need to be allocated to attain or maintain water quality
standards may be included within a category of sources, subcategory of sources or considered as part of background loads; and
supporting technical analyses demonstrating that wasteload allocations when implemented, will attain and maintain water quality
standards;
6. Load allocations, ranging from reasonable accurate estimates to gross allotments, to nonpoint sources of a pollutant, including
atmospheric deposition or natural background sources; if possible, a separate load allocation must be allocated to each source of natural
background or atmospheric deposition; load allocations may be allocated to categories of sources, subcategories of sources or individual
sources; pollutant loads that do not need to be allocated may be included within a category of sources, subcategory of sources or
considered as part of background loads; and supporting technical analyses demonstrating that load allocations, when implemented, will
attain and maintain water quality standards;
7. A margin of safety expressed as unallocated assimilative capacity or conservative analytical assumptions used in establishing the
TMDL; e.g., derivation of numeric targets, modeling assumptions, or effectiveness of proposed management actions which ensures
attainment and maintenance of water quality standards for the allocated pollutant;
8. Consideration of seasonal variation such that water quality standards for the allocated pollutant will be met during all seasons of the
year;
9. An allowance for future growth which accounts for reasonably foreseeable increases in pollutant loads; and
10. An implementation plan
As appropriate to the characteristics of the waterbody and pollutant, the maximum allowable pollutant load may be expressed as daily,
monthly, seasonal or annual averages in one or more of the following ways (40 CFR 130.34(b)):
C The pollutant load that can be present in the waterbody and ensure that it attains and maintains water quality standards;
C The reduction from current pollutant loads required to attain and maintain water quality standards;
C The pollutant load or reduction of pollutant load required to attain and maintain riparian, biological, channel or geomorphological
measures so that water quality standards are attained and maintained; or
C The pollutant load or reduction of pollutant load that results from modifying a characteristic of the waterbody, e.g., riparian, biological,
channel, geomorphological, or chemical characteristics, so that water quality standards are attained and maintained.
The TMDL implementation plan must include the following (§ 130.33(b)(10)):
C A description of the control actions and/or management measures which will be implemented to achieve the wasteload allocations and
load allocations, and a demonstration that the control actions and/or management measures are expected to achieve the required
pollutant loads;
C A time line, including interim milestones, for implementing the control actions and/or management measures, including when source-
specific activities will be undertaken for categories and subcategories of individual sources and a schedule for revising NPDES permits;
C A discussion of your reasonable assurances, as defined at 40 CFR §130.2(p), that wasteload allocations and load allocations will be
implemented;
C A description of the legal under which the control actions will be carried out;
C An estimate of the time required to attain and maintain water quality standards and discussion of the basis for that estimate;
C A monitoring and/or modeling plan designed to determine the effectiveness of the control actions and/or management measures and
whether allocations are being met;
C A description of measurable, incremental milestones for the pollutant for which the TMDL is being established for determining whether
the control actions and/or management measures are being implemented and whether water quality standards are being attained; and
C A description of your process for revising TMDLs if the milestones are not being met and projected progress toward attaining water
quality standards is not demonstrated.
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
TMDLs to EPA for approval and, once EPA approves C Linkage Between Water Quality Targets and
them, are to incorporate these items into their continuing Sources
planning processes. If EPA disapproves a state, C Allocations
territorial, or tribal list and/or TMDL, EPA must (within C Follow-up Monitoring and Evaluation Plan
30 days of disapproval and allowing for public C Assembling the TMDL
comment) establish the list and/or TMDL. The state,
territory, or tribe is then to incorporate EPA’s action Note that these components are not necessarily
into its continuing planning process. sequential steps, but are provided more as a guide and
framework for TMDL development. Although some of
A TMDL is a tool for implementing state water quality the submittal components (e.g., TMDL calculation and
standards. It is based on the relationship between allocations) are part of the legally required TMDL
sources of pollutants and in-stream water quality submittal and others are part of the administrative record
conditions. The TMDL establishes the allowable supporting the TMDL and providing the basis for
loadings for specific pollutants that a waterbody can TMDL review and approval, this protocol considers
receive without violating water quality standards, each component equally.
thereby providing the basis for states to establish water
quality-based pollution controls. 3UREOHP,GHQWLILFDWLRQ
For many chemical pollutants, guidance on developing The objective of problem identification is to identify for
TMDLs is readily available. For some pollutants, a listed waterbody the key factors and background
however, the development of TMDLs is complicated information that describe the nature of the impairment
because of the lack of adequate or proven tools or and the setting for the TMDL. Problem identification is
information on the fate, transport, or impact of each used to develop a plan for the remaining elements of the
pollutant within the natural system. EPA is developing TMDL process.
TMDL protocols to provide guidance on TMDL
development. The protocols represent a suggested ,GHQWLILFDWLRQRI:DWHU4XDOLW\,QGLFDWRUVDQG
approach, but not the only approach to TMDL 7DUJHW9DOXHV
development. EPA will continue to review all TMDLs
submitted by states pursuant to Section 303(d) of the
The purpose of this component is to identify numeric or
Clean Water Act and Title 40 of the CFR, section 130.7.
measurable indicators and pollutant values that can be
used to evaluate attainment of water quality standards in
The TMDL protocols focus on Step 3 (Development of
the listed waterbody. Often the numeric target value for
TMDLs) of the water quality-based approach, depicted
the TMDL pollutant will be the numeric water quality
in Figure 1-1 (USEPA, 1991a, 1999). This specific step
standard for the pollutant of concern. In some cases,
is divided into seven components common to all
however, TMDLs must be developed for pollutants that
TMDLs, and each component is designed to yield a
do not have numeric water quality standards. When
product that is an element of a TMDL analytical
numeric water quality criteria do not exist, impairment
document.
is determined on the basis of narrative water quality
criteria or identifiable degradation of designated or
&20321(1762)70'/'(9(/230(17 existing uses (e.g., impaired fishery). The narrative
standard is then interpreted and used to develop
The following components of TMDL development may indicator(s) with quantifiable target(s) to measure
be completed concurrently or iteratively depending on attainment or maintenance of the water quality
the site-specific situation (Figure 1-2). standards.
C Problem Identification
C Identification of Water Quality Indicators and
Target Values
C Source Assessment
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
)LJXUH*HQHUDOHOHPHQWVRIWKHZDWHUTXDOLW\EDVHGDSSURDFKDGDSWHGIURP86(3$D
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
)LJXUH*HQHUDOFRPSRQHQWVRI70'/GHYHORSPHQW
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
6RXUFH$VVHVVPHQW and where the environmental and economic

consequences of the TMDL are great.
During source assessment, the sources of loading for the
pollutant of concern for the waterbody are identified and $VVHPEOLQJWKH70'/
characterized by type, magnitude, and location.
In this component, the elements of a TMDL submittal
/LQNDJH%HWZHHQ:DWHU4XDOLW\7DUJHWVDQG package required by statute or regulation are clearly
6RXUFHV identified and compiled. Supplemental information is
also provided to facilitate TMDL review.
For each TMDL, a linkage between the selected
indicator(s) and target(s) and the identified sources must For each component addressed in this protocol, the
be defined. This linkage establishes the cause-and- following presentation format is used:
effect relationship between the pollutant sources and the
in-stream pollutant response and allows for an • Guidance on key questions or factors to consider.
estimation of the loading capacity. The loading capacity • Brief discussions of analytical methods.
is the maximum amount of pollutant loading (e.g., • Discussions of products to express the results of the
sediment) a waterbody can assimilate without violating analysis.
water quality standards. Seasonal variation in water • Examples of approaches.
quality must be addressed when discussing the linkages. • References on methods and additional guidance.
$OORFDWLRQV By addressing each of the TMDL components, analysts

can complete the technical aspects of TMDL
development. Although public participation is an
Based on the target/source linkage, pollutant loadings
extremely important component of TMDL development,
that will not exceed the loading capacity can be
it is largely outside the scope of this document. The
determined. These pollutant loadings are distributed or
protocols also do not discuss issues associated with
“allocated” among the significant sources of the
TMDL implementation (note the line across Figure 1-1).
pollutant. The allocations include wasteload allocations
Methods of implementation such as National Pollutant
for existing and future point sources and load allocations
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, state
for natural background and existing and future nonpoint
nonpoint source (NPS) management programs, and
sources. A margin of safety must be included in the
public participation are discussed in Guidance for Water
allocations to account for uncertainty in the analysis.
Quality-based Decisions: The TMDL Process (USEPA,
The margin of safety may be provided implicitly through
1991a, 1999) and in the August 8, 1997, memorandum
the use of conservative assumptions in the TMDL
“New Policies for Establishing and Implementing Total
development process or explicitly by setting aside a
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)” (USEPA, 1997a).
portion of the allowable loading.
5(&200(1'('5($',1*
)ROORZXS0RQLWRULQJDQG(YDOXDWLRQ
TMDL submittals often include a monitoring plan to (Note that the full list of references for this chapter is
determine whether the TMDL has resulted in attainment included at the end of the document.)
of water quality standards and to support any revisions
to the TMDL that might be required. Follow-up USEPA. 1991a. Guidance for water quality-based
monitoring is recommended for all TMDLs given the decisions: The TMDL process. EPA 440/4-91-001.
uncertainties inherent in TMDL development (USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
1991a, 1997a, 1999). Although the rigor of a monitoring DC. <http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/policy.html>
plan can be based on the confidence in the TMDL
analysis, a more rigorous monitoring plan should be USEPA. 1995a. Watershed protection: A statewide
considered for TMDLs with high degree of uncertainty approach. EPA 841-R-95-001. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
USEPA. 1995b. Watershed protection: A project focus.

EPA 841-R-95-003. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1997a. New policies for establishing and

implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC. <http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/policy.html>
USEPA 1999. Draft guidance for water quality-based

decisions: The TMDL process (second edition). EPA
841-D-99-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
<http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/proprule.html>
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
*HQHUDO3ULQFLSOHVRI6HGLPHQW:DWHU4XDOLW\$QDO\VLV
Objective: To develop a sediment TMDL, it is important to reductions in water clarity, and adversely affecting
to have a basic understanding of sediment processes in a aesthetics. Aquatic habitat impairment by sediments can
watershed and how excessive or insufficient sediment also interfere with fishing.
can affect water quality and designated uses of water.
This section provides background information on 6(',0(176285&(6$1'75$163257
sediment impacts on designated uses, sediment sources
and transport, and potential control strategies. Naiman Sediment is created by the weathering of host rock and
and Bilby (1998) and Waters (1995) offer general delivered to stream channels through various erosional
information discussing sediment water quality. processes, including sheetwash, gully and rill erosion,
wind, landslides, dry ravel, and human excavation. In
,03$&762)6(',0(17621'(6,*1$7('86(6 addition, sediments are often produced as a result of
stream channel and bank erosion and channel
Unlike many chemical pollutants, sediment is a vital disturbance. Movement of eroded sediments downslope
natural component of waterbodies and the uses they from their points of origin into stream channels and
support. However, sediments can impair designated through stream systems is influenced by multiple
uses in many ways, including those discussed here. interacting factors. Eroded sediments are often trapped
on hillslopes and stored in and alongside stream
$TXDWLFOLIHDQGILVKHULHV channels. Sediment analyses conducted for TMDLs
often account for the influence of these sediment storage
Excessive sediments deposited on stream and lake and transport mechanisms on the magnitude, timing, and
bottoms can choke spawning gravels (reducing survival location of sediment-related impairment of designated
and growth rates), impair fish food sources, fill in uses. For more information on sediment sources and
rearing pools (reducing cover from prey and thermal transport processes, see Reid and Dunne (1996).
refugia), and reduce habitat complexity in stream
channels. Excessive suspended sediments can make it In some settings, land management changes cause
more difficult for fish to find prey and at high levels can changes in runoff even if they do not result in increased
cause direct physical harm, such as clogged gills. In upslope erosion. Where this occurs, channel erosion or
some waters, hydrologic modifications (e.g., dams) can sediment deposition may increase. It might be
cause sediment deficits that result in stream channel appropriate to develop sediment TMDLs to address this
scour and destruction of habitat structure. For more type of situation.
information, see Waters (1995).
Because erosion is a natural process and some
'ULQNLQJZDWHUVXSSO\ sedimentation is needed to maintain healthy stream
systems, it is often necessary to evaluate the degree to
Sediments can cause taste and odor problems, block which sediment discharge in a particular watershed
water supply intakes, foul treatment systems, and fill exceeds natural rates or patterns. This analysis can be
reservoirs. Although most treatment systems can complicated because sedimentation processes in many
remove most turbidity, very high sediment levels systems are highly variable from year to year. This type
sometimes require that water supply intakes be shut of analysis is particularly important in settings that are
down until turbidity clears or system maintenance (e.g., vulnerable to high natural sediment production rates and
backflushing) is performed. are particularly sensitive to land disturbance (e.g., the
Pacific Northwest and many areas of the desert
5HFUHDWLRQDOXVH Southwest). Erosion rates under natural and disturbed
conditions can be compared through several approaches,
High levels of sediment can impair swimming and including comparative analysis with reference streams
boating by altering channel form, creating hazards due and literature values for similar settings.
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
6(',0(176285&(&21752/6 processes must be evaluated, and the relationship

between erosion processes and impacts must be
Several approaches are available to manage sediment- understood (Figure 2-1).
related problems, but preventing erosion in the first
place is usually the most cost-effective. A variety of
management practices have been applied effectively to Key Question TMDL Element(s)
prevent or reduce erosion from the source. Extensive
+RZGRODQGPDQDJHPHQW 6RXUFH
guidance on sediment best management practices DFWLYLWLHVDIIHFWVHGLPHQW $VVHVVPHQW$OORFDWLRQ
(BMPs) is available from the Natural Resources SURGXFWLRQ"
Conservation Service (NRCS), USDA Forest Service
\
(USFS), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
transportation departments, conservation districts, and +RZLVWKHVHGLPHQWURXWHGLQWR 6RXUFH$VVHVVPHQW
many state water quality and forest management WKHVWUHDP"
agencies. In some cases, it is possible to reduce or \
prevent delivery of eroded sediments to streams by
developing or maintaining buffer strips, vegetated +RZLVDQLQFUHDVHGVHGLPHQW 6RXUFH
ORDGURXWHGWKURXJKWKHVWUHDP $VVHVVPHQW/LQNDJH
swales, or sediment detention basins, some of which V\VWHP"
also provide collateral benefits in the form of wildlife
habitat, nutrient trapping, and stream shading. \
Sometimes sediment impacts can be managed at +RZGRHVWKHFKDQJHLQVHGLPHQW 7DUJHWV/LQNDJH
relatively high cost after sediments reach waterbodies of DIIHFWFKDQQHOVWUXFWXUHDQG
concern. Control options include channel and bank VWDELOLW\"
restoration and dredging to remove sediments from some \
types of waterbodies, although dredging can sometimes
cause more harm than benefit. +RZGRFKDQJHVLQVHGLPHQW 7DUJHWV
ORDGLQJDQGFKDQQHOPRUSKRORJ\
DIIHFWGHVLJQDWHGXVHVRI
,668(6,16(',0(17:$7(548$/,7<$1$/<6,6 FRQFHUQ"
Sediment water quality analysis is less straightforward

than analysis of many other pollutants because clean )LJXUH6HGLPHQW70'/ORJLFDOVHTXHQFH
sediment is rarely discharged intentionally to
waterbodies. (Dredge and fill operations are an
exception.) Rather, adverse sediment discharges usually The general goal of sediment TMDL analyses is to
occur as a result of changes in processes that influence protect designated uses by characterizing existing and
erosion and the capacity of watersheds to store sediment desired watershed condition, evaluating the degree of
and transport it through the system. impairment to the existing (and future) conditions, and
identifying land management and restoration actions
To evaluate potential impacts of land management needed to attain desired conditions.
activities on designated uses, the analyses must assess
the influence of land management activities on factors Although this guidance focuses on sediment as the water
such as changes in erosion processes, water discharge quality stressor of concern, analysts should consider the
amounts and timing, and channel form. This assessment combined effects of multiple pollutants on the designated
requires evaluation of the extent to which existing uses of water resources. For example, streams impaired
conditions diverge from natural conditions and how by the effects of high temperature are typically impaired
existing conditions will respond to planned land only during low flow. Assessments that consider
management activities. Ideally, the analysis will multiple pollutants might need to incorporate more
reconstruct past conditions, accurately describe present analytical work than that necessary to complete a
conditions, and identify desired future conditions. The sediment TMDL, but the additional effort would result in
condition of the water resource as it relates to erosional development of TMDLs for multiple pollutants.
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
6(',0(1770'/6 chemical processes occurring in the waterbody and its

watershed; the size of the watershed; the number of
TMDL development is pollutant- and site-specific. This sources; the data and resources available; and the types
protocol provides descriptions of the main elements of and costs of actions needed to implement the TMDL (see
TMDLs established for sediments. It also includes case Figure 2-2).
studies from past and ongoing TMDL efforts, as well as
hypothetical examples, to illustrate the major points in Standard Use
Violation Impairment
the process. The protocol emphasizes the use of
rational, science-based methods and tools for TMDL One Many
Source Sources
development. The availability of data influences the Small Large
types of methods analysts can use. Ideally, extensive Watershed Watershed
monitoring data are available to establish baseline water Basic Complex
Processes Processes
quality conditions, pollutant source loadings, and Principles Research
waterbody system dynamics. If long-term monitoring Understood Area
data are lacking, however, the analyst will have to use a Few Data More Data
combination of monitoring, analytical tools (including Few More
models), and qualitative assessments to collect Resources Resources
information, assess system processes and responses, and Increasing Level of Detail
make decisions. Although some aspects of TMDLs
must be quantified (e.g., numeric targets, loading )LJXUH)DFWRUVLQIOXHQFLQJWKHOHYHORIGHWDLOIRUWKH
capacity, and allocations), qualitative assessments are 70'/DQDO\VLV
acceptable as long as they are supported by sound
scientific justification or result from rigorous modeling
techniques. A goal of this document is to assist analysts Decisions regarding the extent of the analysis must
in using a rational TMDL development process that always be made on a site-specific basis as part of a
incorporates the required elements of a TMDL. comprehensive problem-solving approach. TMDLs are
essentially a problem-solving process to which no
References and recommended reading lists are provided “cookbook” approach can be applied. Not only will
for readers interested in obtaining more detailed analyses for different TMDLs studies vary in complexity,
background information. The protocols are written with but the degree of complexity in the methods used within
the assumption that analysts have a general background individual TMDLs might also vary substantially.
in the technical aspects of water quality management Screening-level approaches afford cost and time savings,
and are familiar with the statutory and regulatory basis can be applied by a wide range of personnel, and are
for the TMDL program. generally easier to understand than more detailed
analyses.
5DQJHRI9LDEOH6HGLPHQW70'/$SSURDFKHV
The trade-offs associated with using simple approaches
Analysts should be resourceful and creative in selecting include a potential decrease in predictive accuracy and
TMDL approaches and should learn from the results of often an inability to make predictions at fine geographic
similar analytical efforts. The degree of analysis and time scales (e.g., watershed-scale source predictions
required for each of the components of TMDL versus parcel-by-parcel predictions, and annual estimates
development can range from simple, screening-level versus seasonal estimates). When using simple
approaches based on limited data to detailed approaches, these two shortcomings should be considered
investigations that might take several months or even when determining an appropriate margin of safety.
years to complete. A variety of interrelated factors
affect the degree of analysis in each of these analytical The advantages of more detailed approaches are
elements. The factors include the type of impairment presumably an increase in predictive accuracy and greater
(e.g., violation of a numeric criterion versus designated spatial and temporal resolution. These advantages can
or existing use impairment); the physical, biological, and translate into greater stakeholder “buy-in” and smaller
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
margins of safety, which usually reduce source approaches, such as high temporal variability, are also
management costs. Detailed approaches might be present in the alternative approaches and the
necessary when the screening-level approaches have consequences of these limitations should be assessed and
been tried and have proven ineffective or when it is acknowledged. The alternative measures for sediment
especially important to “get it right the first time” (e.g., TMDLs can take several forms, including the following:
where protection of aquatic life habitat is a TMDL
issue). In addition, more detailed approaches might be C Expression of numeric targets in terms of substrate or
warranted when there is significant uncertainty channel condition, aquatic biological indicators, or
regarding whether sediment discharges are attributable hillslope indicators such as road stream crossings
to human or to natural sources and the anticipated cost with diversion potential or road culvert sizing. The
of controls is especially high. However, more detailed hillslope indicators and targets should complement
approaches are likely to cost more, require more data, in-stream indicators and targets.
and take more time to complete. C Expression of numeric targets and source allocations
in terms of time steps different from daily loadings
8VLQJ6HGLPHQW/RDGV9HUVXV$OWHUQDWLYH and as functions of other watershed processes such as
$SSURDFKHVIRU6HGLPHQW70'/V precipitation or runoff.
C Expression of allocations in terms other than loads or
The traditional approach to TMDL formulation is to load reductions (e.g., specific actions shown to be
identify the total capacity of a waterbody for loading of adequate to result in attainment of TMDL numeric
a specific pollutant while meeting water quality targets and water quality standards).
standards. This loading capacity is not to be exceeded
by the sum of pollutant loads allocated to individual This protocol discusses a range of pollutant load-based
point sources, nonpoint sources, and natural background. and alternative measures that can be used for sediment
Therefore, TMDLs have often been expressed in terms TMDLs. In general, the load-based approach to sediment
of maximum allowable mass load per unit of time. TMDL development is recommended. In cases where
However, alternative approaches to sediment TMDL this approach is used, numeric targets can be stated in
analysis might also be appropriate. In many cases, it is terms that express desired environmental conditions (e.g.,
difficult or impossible to relate sediment mass loading suspended sediment concentration or substrate size
levels todesignated or existinguse impacts or to source distribution) while the TMDL itself is expressed in mass-
contributions. These analytical connections can be based units. Where alternative approaches are used,
difficult to draw for several reasons, including the analysts should carefully document the basis for the
following: alternative method and explain why a conventional load-
based approach is not appropriate.
C Sediment yields vary radically at different spatial
and temporal scales, not only within a watershed, 6HGLPHQW70'/([DPSOHV7KDW,OOXVWUDWHWKH5DQJH
but across the country, making it difficult to derive RI$SSURSULDWH$SSURDFKHV
meaningful “average” sediment conditions.
C Sediments are a natural part of all waterbody Brief summaries of four approved and two hypothetical
environments, and it can be difficult to determine sediment TMDLs show that a range of viable methods
whether too much or too little mass loading is are appropriate for TMDL development and that
expected to occur in the future and how sediment individual TMDLs often combine relatively complex
loads compare to natural or background conditions. analysis for some elements with simple analysis for
C A significant level of uncertainty is associated with others. In addition, they illustrate several factors that can
sediment delivery, storage, and transport estimates. be important for effective TMDL development, including
(1) focusing on implementation of the TMDL, (2) using
Fortunately, it is acceptable for TMDLs to be expressed existing information and adaptive management, and (3)
through appropriate measures other than mass loads per using expert judgment. More detailed case studies are
time (40 CFR 130.2). It is important to note, however, provided in the Appendix.
that some of the limitations associated with mass load
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
6\FDPRUH&UHHN0LFKLJDQ
Development of a sediment TMDL for Sycamore Creek
Sycamore Creek is designated for the support of warm began with an assessment of the existing sediment
water fish, other indigenous aquatic life, and wildlife; loadings to the stream. Rates of average annual sediment
total body contact recreation and navigation; and as an loading from nonpoint sources were examined. Primary
industrial and agricultural water supply (USEPA, nonpoint sources of sediment within the watershed
1992a). Elevated sediment loadings from agricultural included urban runoff, streambank erosion, agricultural
land practices caused significant impacts on aquatic life fields, and septic tank systems. Site-specific monitoring
and habitats in Sycamore Creek and contributed to low data, load estimation equations, and nonpoint source
dissolved oxygen levels. Modeling results indicated that loading models were used to estimate suspended solid
sediment oxygen demand was the most significant loads from the most significant sources—agricultural
oxygen sink during drought periods. Placement of areas, eroding banks, and urban areas (USEPA, 1992a).
Sycamore Creek on the state’s 303(d) list was supported Modeling efforts established the relationship between in-
by in-stream monitoring conducted by the Michigan stream DO levels and SOD. To determine the needed
Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) that revealed load reductions, it was necessary to link SOD to
multiple violations of water quality standards at seven of suspended solid loads. In the absence of models to
eight sampling stations. reliably predict the effects of reducing suspended solids
on habitat, aquatic life, or SOD, MDNR assumed a
MDNR used a quasi-steady-state dissolved oxygen (DO) proportional response by SOD rates to reductions in
model to predict DO concentrations in the creek during suspended solids loads. Based on this assumption,
critical low-flow drought conditions (USEPA, 1992a). loading analysis results indicated that a 52 percent
Modeling revealed that sediment oxygen demand (SOD) reduction in the overall suspended solids loading was
was the most significant DO sink during critical low- necessary to restore the designated uses of the stream
flow periods and that respiration by aquatic plants (USEPA, 1992a). MDNR has not yet finalized a load
significantly contributed to the oxygen deficit at some allocation scheme for achieving the suspended solids
locations in the creek (USEPA, 1992a). MDNR reduction goals. A proposed allocation plan includes
determined that nutrients bound to suspendedsediment reducing agricultural erosion by 56 percent, streambank
particles were a major source driving the growth of erosion in organic soils by 100 percent, and loading from
aquatic plants and the subsequent elevated respiration urban runoff by 30 percent (USEPA, 1992a).
rates in aquatic plants (USEPA, 1992a). Based on these
results, MDNR believed that reducing suspended solids To determine whether the TMDL will improve conditions
loadings to the creek would increase DO concentrations, to support designated uses and maintain water quality
improve aquatic habitats, and restore the designated uses standards, MDNR is monitoring throughout three
of the stream (USEPA, 1992a). agricultural subwatersheds that drain to Sycamore Creek.
Sycamore Creek
:DWHU4XDOLW\ 70'/ :DWHU4XDOLW\

7DUJHWV $OORFDWLRQV &RQWUROV
766DQG'262' UHGXFWLRQVE\ FURSODQG%03V
UHODWLRQVKLSV VRXUFHFDWHJRU\ EDQNVWDELOL]DWLRQ
WRWDODQQXDO DVORQJWHUP
VHGLPHQWORDGV DYHUDJH
6RXUFH$QDO\VLVPRQLWRULQJGDWDUHJUHVVLRQPRGHOXUEDQORDGLQJ
PRGHO
/LQNWR,QGLFDWRUVPRGHOHGOLQNDJHRIVXVSHQGHGVHGLPHQWVDQG
VHGLPHQWR[\JHQGHPDQG
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
Data collected from this monitoring program will be (1) a 5-year mean of 27 percent depth fines by weight,
used to model storm runoff from agricultural fields, the with no single year over 29 percent; (2) a 5-year mean of
major land use in the watershed, using the Agricultural 32 percent cobble embeddedness, with no single year
Nonpoint Source Model (AGNPS). Future monitoring over 37 percent; or (3) acceptable improving trends in
data collected from these subwatersheds will be used to monitored water quality parameters that reestablish the
refine the AGNPS model (USEPA, 1992a). beneficial uses of the SFSR (USEPA, 1992b).
6RXWK)RUN6DOPRQ5LYHU,GDKR In addition to extensive amounts of monitoring data and

the BOISED model, the team also used sediment loading
The South Fork Salmon River (SFSR) supports valuable analysis procedures developed during detailed research
game fish populations of trout, char, and salmon. In on erosion and sediment delivery from roads in a
recent years, however, fish spawning in the SFSR has watershed in the Boise National Forest to evaluate
sharply declined. Monitoring data collected since the current conditions in the SFSR watershed. These
1960s show that excessive levels of fine sediments procedures were used to estimate loads originating from
entering the river adversely affect salmonid spawning roads, while all other sediment loading estimates were
and rearing habitats (USEPA, 1992b). The waters of the generated using BOISED.
SFSR were found to be impaired in a 1988 Idaho Water
Quality Report and Nonpoint Source Assessment, which The watershed was divided into units of similar
listed three stream segments of the SFSR as impaired landform, geologic, soil, and vegetative characteristics.
due to elevated fine sediment loadings from forestry Then dominant erosion processes, including surface and
activities in the basin (USEPA, 1992b). As a result of mass erosion, were evaluated for each land unit to
these findings and public support to restore the estimate the sediment yield. Where erosion and sediment
beneficial uses, the state of Idaho targeted the waterbody yield data were missing, available research data were
as a high priority for TMDL development. extrapolated to areas of similar characteristics to predict
the effects of various watershed disturbances. The model
The TMDL development process for the SFSR included estimated average annual sediment yields for undisturbed
the formation of a consensus team consisting of conditions, past activities, and proposed future activities.
members from the USFS and USEPA and state Although the model results were not regarded as highly
representatives. Based on results of the site-specific reliable in predicting absolute quantities of sediment
sediment loading model BOISED, fisheries results, and delivered to the river at a specific time, they were
professional experience in the region, the team appropriate for comparing alternative management
developed the following numeric targets for the SFSR: scenarios within the watershed.
South Fork Salmon River

ILQHVHGLPHQWVLQ RYHUDOO URDGLPSURYHPHQW
VSDZQLQJJUDYHOV ORQJWHUP SURMHFWV
FREEOH UHGXFWLRQ VOLGHUHVWRUDWLRQ
HPEHGGHGQHVV VSHFLILFORDG SURMHFWV
\UPHDQDQG UHGXFWLRQ
DQQXDOPD[LPXP HVWLPDWHVIRU
HDFKSURMHFW
6RXUFH$QDO\VLV%2,6('VHGLPHQWORDGLQJPRGHODQGURDGHURVLRQ
HVWLPDWLRQPHWKRG
/LQNWR,QGLFDWRUVEHVWSURIHVVLRQDOMXGJPHQWRIWHDP
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
The BOISED model was used in combination with best significant source area for the sediment loadings was
professional judgment and experience in the area to determined by evaluating TSS and flow data for a 1-year
develop a sediment reduction scheme to meet the period at several sampling sites around the study area.
numeric criteria developed by the consensus group. Sediment load reduction targets were determined through
Based on these results, a TMDL was established to data evaluation and the best professional judgment of a
reduce sediment inputs from anthropogenic activities by multiagency team. A detailed set of range management
25 percent (USEPA, 1992b). Because of the phased BMPs and bank stabilization actions was identified in
approach of the TMDL, an implementation and concert with landowners, the USFS, and the NRCS. The
monitoring plan was developed to establish reasonable numeric target and source analysis methods were
assurances that designated uses would be restored. By adequate to guide the development and implementation
2001, if monitoring determines that salmon spawning of a specific set of BMPs and restoration practices, and
has increased to acceptable levels, no change in the follow-up monitoring of total sediment loading (using
program will be needed. If, however, monitoring automatic samplers) and annual redd count changes was
indicates that designated uses are not being restored, planned.
additional recovery projects and methods for designated
use attainment will be considered. 8SSHU%LUFK&UHHN$ODVND
1LQHPLOH&UHHN0RQWDQD The Upper Birch Creek TMDL is an example of a

sediment TMDL involving both point and nonpoint
The Ninemile Creek TMDL illustrates the development sources that is based primarily on relatively simple
of a TMDL based on simple analytical methods to analysis of available turbidity and TSS monitoring data
determine numeric targets, sources, and allocations, for the creek and loading sources. The water quality of
while focusing available resources on identification of Upper Birch Creek is affected by discharges from active
specific source management and restoration practices. mines, bank erosion, resuspension of deposited
Sediment loading from rangeland, bank erosion, and sediments, and runoff from abandoned mine sites.
possibly upstream silvicultural activities was believed to Source water for drinking water, recreation, and aquatic
be causing impairment of trout spawning. A nonpoint life are affected by these discharges.Monitoring data for
source management project was initiated to select and suspended and bottom sediments, flow, and biological
implement sediment BMPs, and a TMDL was derived parameters were collected for more than 20 years.
based on planning work done for this project. Designated uses were believed to be affected by
Monitoring data were available for total suspended suspended sediment (turbidity) and by sediment
solids (TSS), streamflow, and redd counts per mile. The deposition, which affected stream morphology and bed
numeric targets were based on comparison of spawning structure. To develop TMDL targets and a source
redd counts above and below the impacted area and analysis based on sediment loading, the relationship
were expressed in terms of redds per mile. The most between turbidity and TSS was determined through
Ninemile Creek

UHGGVPLOH UHGXFWLRQLQ UDQJHODQG%03V
DQQXDOVHGLPHQW VWUHDPEDQN
ORDGV VWDELOL]DWLRQ
6RXUFH$QDO\VLVVHGLPHQWDQGIORZPRQLWRULQJGDWDDERYHDQGEHORZ
VWXG\DUHD
/LQNWR,QGLFDWRUV%3-DQGUHIHUHQFHVLWHFRPSDULVRQV
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
regression analysis. As a result, it was possible to of creative approaches to TMDL interpretation and
establish numeric targets and TMDL allocations in analysis where watersheds are dominated by infrequent,
terms of allowable sediment loading per day. high-magnitude runoff events and where sediment
impacts, sources, and control needs are difficult to
A careful analysis of critical flow and loading conditions characterize. Chris Creek is a steep forested watershed in
was conducted. After determining the total assimilative which hillslopes are unstable and erosion-prone. Chris
capacity, existing nonpoint source contributions were Creek provides spawning and rearing habitat for several
estimated based on comparisons of mined areas with threatened salmonid species, but habitat quality is
unmined areas. An explicit 10 percent MOS was also degraded due to excessive sedimentation of spawning
provided. It was determined that Upper Birch Creek gravels and rearing pools. Historical land use activities
could meet the turbidity standard in the absence of point and periodic extreme storms and associated sediment
source discharges; therefore, needed load reductions erosion effects are responsible for much of the current in-
would be obtained by curbing discharges from active stream sedimentation problem. Silviculture and livestock
mines. Wasteload allocations were established in the grazing are the predominant land uses in the watershed
form of maximum pounds of suspended solids per day and are believed to be contributing additional sediment to
per mine. the stream. The TMDL is being developed concurrently
with development of fish habitat protection and
Although the TMDL is focused primarily on attainment watershed-scale timber production plans by fisheries and
of the turbidity standard, channel condition and land management agencies. In addition, the TMDL is
associated spawning habitat are expected to improve addressing temperature-related habitat impairment.
dramatically as well. The follow-up monitoring plan
focuses on stream channel sediment parameters as well Extensive data are not available for Chris Creek, but
as suspended sediment indicators. In addition, the limited sampling of substrate sediment composition and
TMDL plan includes a discussion of controlactions and fish counts has been completed. More extensive land use
schedules, which assists in assessing implementation of and management information is available (e.g., road
controls. inventories, timber harvest records and plans, and
landslide mapping). Extensive analysis of fish habitat
&KULV&UHHNK\SRWKHWLFDO conditions, sediment sources, and sediment management
actions has been conducted in neighboring watersheds.
The “Chris Creek” example is a hypothetical TMDL In addition, extensive research on salmonid habitat
based on three TMDLs currently under development in requirements has been published. The analysts decided
northern California. This example illustrates a variety that multiple environmental indicators and associated
Upper Birch Creek

WRWDOVXVSHQGHG PD[LPXP766 13'(6SHUPLW
VROLGVORDGSHU ORDGSHUGD\SHU OLPLWV
GD\ PLQH36
766ORDGSHUGD\
WRWDO136
H[SOLFLW
PDUJLQRIVDIHW\
6RXUFH$QDO\VLVUHJUHVVLRQDQDO\VLVRIDPELHQWDQGGLVFKDUJHU
PRQLWRULQJGDWD
/LQNWR,QGLFDWRUVDQDO\VLVRIPRQLWRULQJGDWDUHJUHVVLRQDQDO\VLVRI
766WXUELGLW\UHODWLRQVKLS
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
targets would be needed for Chris Creek because no Field verification was conducted to assess whether these
single indicator was believed to provide a reliable basis simple “remote” estimates were reasonable and to ensure
for measuring stream response to changes in accounting of all major sediment sources. Particular
management activity and restoration actions (Reiser and attention was paid to evaluating erosion potential
Bradley, 1992; Young et al., 1991). Numeric targets for associated with road-related erosion because roads were
Chris Creek include both “core” and “secondary” believed to be one of the main erosion sources. Field
indicators. The core indicators are to provide the evaluations of road erosion hazards and estimates of
primary indicators for measuring TMDL effectiveness; erosion potential were made for a subset of roads in the
the secondary indicators are intended to complement the watersheds. The results were extrapolated for the entire
core indicators and provide additional information for watershed based on the distribution of road types
reevaluating the TMDL in the future. The core determined through air photo analysis. The erosion
indicators and associated targets were selected based on estimates from roads and other sources were summed.
how closely they fit the sediment-habitat issues of Finally, it was assumed that all eroded sediment would
concern for Chris Creek and how well they are reach the stream. This conservative assumption was
supported by research literature and local “on the adopted for three reasons:
ground” experience.
C Lack of site-specific information on sediment
Both in-stream and hillslope indicators were selected. delivery.
In-stream indicators were determined to be necessary to C Because roads are a major source and literature
be able to establish relationships between stream sediment delivery values are typically very high.
sediment levels and habitat functions. Hillslope C To include an implicit margin of safety in the source
indicators were selected to provide a means of directly loading estimate.
measuring reductions in hillslope erosion, which in-
stream indicators might not be able to identify TMDL allocations were developed in two steps. First,
effectively. The core in-stream indicators included sediment reduction needs were estimated by comparing
residual pool volume occupied by fine sediments (V*), existing values for core indicators with target values
median sediment size (D50), and invertebrate counts established by the team. Based on this comparison, the
(Lisle and Hilton, 1992; Peterson et al., 1992; Reiser and team established an overall percentage reduction target.
Bjorn, 1979). Core hillslope indicators include miles of Based largely on the team’s best professional judgment,
unimproved roads per square mile and road-related allocations were established by source category. The
landslides. Target values for each indicator were allocations considered the relative sediment contributions
selected by consensus of an expert team based on data from each source, the proximity of these sources to the
from reference watersheds, and literature reviews. stream, and the feasibility and cost of reducing erosion
Secondary indicators included width-depth ratios, from different sources. The allocation
volume of large woody debris per stream mile, and section of the TMDL was complemented by the
salmonid counts. development of a detailed set of implementation
recommendations for consideration by involved
Because Chris Creek is fairly large (200 square miles), landowners and land management agencies. Finally, a
remote analysis methods supplemented by field detailed monitoring plan was developed to track each of
verification were used to develop rough absolute and the core and secondary indicators. An adaptive
relative estimates of sediment source contributions to management schedule for reviewing project results was
Chris Creek. A screening-level analysis of sequential air established, with reviews scheduled every 5 years. In the
photo coverages was used to identify erosion features second phase of the project, the developers will consider
and channel changes over time. An initial sediment whether more detailed geomorphic analysis and stream
source inventory was conducted by stratifying the restoration planning are needed. If fish habitat quality
watershed into areas of similar geology, slope, and begins to recover in response to continuing reductions in
vegetation cover. Simple erosion estimates were sediment inputs, more intensive analysis and restoration
developed for each major source category in each might not be needed.
stratified land area using literature-based relationships.
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
“Chris Creek”
:DWHU4XDOLW\7DUJHWV 70'/ :DWHU4XDOLW\

$OORFDWLRQV &RQWUROV
PHGLDQVHGLPHQWVL]H UHGXFWLRQV IRUHVWU\%03V
9 SRROVHGLPHQW E\FDWHJRU\LQ URDG
LQGLFDWRU ORQJWHUPDQQXDO LPSURYHPHQWV
URDGUHODWHGODQGVOLGHV DYHUDJHV
URDGGHQVLW\
6RXUFH$QDO\VLVUDSLGVHGLPHQWEXGJHWPHDVXUHPHQWRIHURVLRQ
SRWHQWLDOIURPURDGV
/LQNWR,QGLFDWRUVVHWHURVLRQUHGXFWLRQQHHGSHUFHQWDJHLQ
SURSRUWLRQWRGHJUHHH[LVWLQJWDUJHWVH[FHHGWDUJHWOHYHOV
:HQGHOO&UHHNK\SRWKHWLFDO locations in the watershed during times of high,

moderate, and low flow. The sample sites were below
The “Wendell Creek” TMDL example is based on junctions with major tributaries and at the mouth of the
several watershed analysis and restoration planning creek. Numeric targets were developed by comparing
efforts conducted in the western United States that geomorphic indicator values for Wendell Creek with
incorporated relatively complex geomorphic analysis values obtained in neighboring Little Deer Creek, which
and sediment budgeting methods to develop numeric supports good fisheries and is believed to be relatively
targets, estimate source contributions, and allocate unimpaired. A sediment budget was prepared based on
loads. Wendell Creek drains a 150-square-mile several types of analyses. First, sediment rating curves
watershed in which livestock grazing is the predominant were developed for each of the sample stations and used
land use. Aquatic habitat in Wendell Creek is impaired to estimate total annual sediment loads at each station.
by high-magnitude sediment loading associated with Annual loads for each station were compared to gain an
infrequent flood events and landslides. As a result of understanding of relative contributions from each
these sedimentation and flooding events, the stream tributary and from streambank erosion. The annual load
channel has changed from a relatively deep, meandering estimates were also used to derive an initial estimate of
channel that provided plentiful spawning gravels and in-channel sediment storage between stations and net
deep rearing pools to a broad, shallow, braided channel outflow from the watershed. A sediment budget was also
with poor gravels and few pools. These changes in developed for neighboring Little Deer Creek for purposes
stream channel structure were documented through of identifying relatively natural sediment discharge
comparative analysis of sequential air photo coverages conditions. The analysts obtained a more detailed
and intensive monitoring of stream channel structure, understanding of key sediment sources by developing
including the following: independent estimates of erosion quantities from three
major sediment sources of concern identified during
C Width-depth ratios initial stream surveys. Sheet and rill erosion from
C Channel cross sections rangeland was estimated through the application of a
C Longitudinal profiles model based on the Revised Universal Soil Loss
C Meander pattern and sinuosity Equation (RUSLE). Expected future erosion from five
C Particle size distributions active landslide areas was estimated based on direct
C Pool frequency and depth measurement of slide volumes and was assumed to
C Streambank recession rates in key erosion areas eventually enter the stream system in response to high-
magnitude runoff events. Finally, erosion from road
In addition, flow measurements were taken along with surfaces was estimated by identifying drainage crossings
suspended and bedload sediment samples at five prone to failure and estimating volumes of sediment that
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
would be discharged if these crossings failed during crossings that were vulnerable to failure). In addition,
high-magnitude storms. Because land use, landslide, the team recommended several streambank stabilization
and road networks were mapped for Wendell Creek projects in the areas most affected by bank erosion.
watershed, the analysts stratified the results of the TMDL allocations were expressed in terms of average
rangeland, landslide, and road erosion estimates by annual loads from each tributary and from bank erosion
watershed and used the results as an independent check in key reaches of the main stem of Wendell Creek (based
on the tributary-based sediment budgets developed on 5-year rolling averages). In addition, key loading
through the rating curve approach. The comparison sources needing attention in each tributary were
indicated that the source estimates by watershed were identified by location, although quantitative load
accurate within a factor of 2. The in-stream targets were allocations were not established for each source location.
linked with the source analysis in two ways. First, the In addition to identifying specific bank stabilization
analysis team estimated the degree of annual sediment projects needed, the implementation plan developed
reduction needed based on a comparison of annual tons concurrent with the TMDL identified general types of
of sediment yield per acre-foot of discharge for Wendell rangeland BMPs that should be considered and
Creek and Little Deer Creek. Second, existing established a process for BMP installation through
geomorphic indicator values for Wendell Creek were cooperative efforts of landowners, NRCS, and BLM.
compared with geomorphic conditions in Little Deer Finally, a monitoring program was established to ensure
Creek. that progress is being made to implement needed BMPs
and restoration projects.
Based on the professional judgment of the team, it was
determined that reduction of sediment loads to Wendell &RQFOXVLRQV
Creek to the levels present in Little Deer Creek was
infeasible and that such reductions would not be These six case study examples illustrate that a range of
adequate to restore aquatic life uses in Wendell Creek. viable methods are available for developing sediment
Therefore, the team devised plans that called for TMDLs. In addition, they illustrate several factors that
substantial sediment source reductions to be carried out can be important for effective TMDL development,
through implementation of rangeland BMPs, including focusing on implementation, using existing
stabilization of two key landslides near the channel, and information and adaptive management, and using expert
road network upgrades (principally upgrades of stream judgment.
“Wendell Creek”

ZLGWKGHSWKUDWLRV DYHUDJH UDQJHODQG%03V

ORQJLWXGLQDOSURILOH DQQXDOORDGV EDQNVWDELOL]DWLRQ
GHYLDWLRQ E\WULEXWDU\ VOLGHVWDELOL]DWLRQ
JHRPHWULFPHDQ \HDU URDG
SDUWLFOHVL]H DYHUDJH LPSURYHPHQWV
6RXUFH$QDO\VLVVHGLPHQWUDWLQJFXUYHVVHGLPHQWEXGJHW
586/(GLUHFWYROXPHPHDVXUHPHQW
/LQNWR,QGLFDWRUVFRPSDULVRQWRUHIHUHQFHVLWHVHGLPHQW
EXGJHWJHRPRUSKLFIDFWRUVDQGEHVWSURIHVVLRQDOMXGJPHQW
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
)RFXVLQJRQLPSOHPHQWDWLRQ methods can be used to facilitate TMDL development. In

particular, these approaches can often be used to
Projects that focus on implementation planning (and for
which TMDLs are a by-product) can often use less C Characterize existing conditions and assist in
complex TMDL methods because specific problem definition and cumulative impact analysis.
implementation actions can be identified, agreed to, and C Assist in defining acceptable levels of sediment
implemented without controversy (e.g., Ninemile Creek, loading (numeric targets).
Montana). Projects where implementation actions are C Focus the source analysis on critical locations and
unclear, controversial, or expensive benefit from more categories of sediment sources.
detailed TMDL analysis. C Highlight areas with similar conditions.
C Assist in defining cause-and-effect relationships
8VLQJH[LVWLQJLQIRUPDWLRQDQGDGDSWLYHPDQDJHPHQW among watershed processes (for target development,
source analysis, and linkage).
Each of these projects made use of existing information C Identify conflicting concerns that could limit the
and did not assume that extensive new data were effectiveness of proposed solutions.
necessary. The wide range of methods for establishing
sediment TMDLs allows screening-level analyses that Commonly used and recently developed frameworks and
provide the framework for targeting implementation methods do not always address the full range of TMDL
actions while collecting more data for any future TMDL elements or cannot always generate results precise
evaluations or revisions. enough for TMDL purposes. (See Reid [1997] analysis
of the Federal Watershed Analysis and the Washington
8VLQJH[SHUWMXGJPHQW State TFW process.) Table 2-1 provides a summary
analysis of several frameworks and methods, indicating
In many cases, sediment TMDL elements can be the TMDL elements addressed and the main advantages
completed through the use of expert interpretation of and disadvantages for TMDL application. Analysts are
available information. Since “off the shelf” models and encouraged to make use of other available sediment
methods are not usually available for sediment TMDLs, analysis frameworks and methods and completed projects
sound judgment is critical to project success. Many to reduce the time and cost associated with TMDL
projects make productive use of expert teams from development as well as to increase opportunities for
different disciplines, including fisheries biologists, integration of TMDLs with other assessment and
geologists, hydrologists, geomorphologists, engineers, sediment management programs. However, the analyst
and land management professionals. This approach should carefully consider whether and under what
works well for TMDLs in controversial settings and circumstances each approach will yield results
often benefits greatly from the inclusion of a appropriate for individual TMDL elements.
professional facilitator.
5(&200(1'('5($',1*
87,/,7<2)$/7(51$7,9(6(',0(17$1$/<6,6
)5$0(:25K6$1'0(7+2'6)2570'/ (Note that the full list of references for this chapter is
'(9(/230(17 included at the end of this document.)
Several frameworks and methods have been used by Dunne, T., and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in
agencies, landowners, and resource professionals to Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman and Co., San
evaluate sediment processes and associated impacts on Francisco, CA.
designated uses. Commonly used examples include
Federal Watershed Analysis (Regional Ecosystem Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams—Sources,
Office, 1995), Washington State’s Timber, Fish and biological effects, and control. American Fisheries
Wildlife (TFW) process (Washington Forest Practices Society Monograph 7. American Fisheries Society,
Board, 1994) and BLM’s Proper Functioning Condition Bethesda, MD.
process (USDOI-BLM, 1993/1995). Many of these
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
7DEOH8WLOLW\RIZDWHUVKHGDVVHVVPHQWIUDPHZRUNVDQGPHWKRGVIRUVHGLPHQW70'/DQDO\VLV
Useful In
Developing:
Source Analysis
Numeric Targets
Problem ID
Assembling
Monitoring
Allocation
Linkage
Framework/
Method (Source) Advantages Disadvantages
:DVKLQJWRQ6WDWH C +ROLVWLFYLHZRISDVWFXPXODWLYHHIIHFWV C 'RHVQRWHYDOXDWHIXWXUHFXPXODWLYH
7LPEHU)LVK :LOGOLIH RIZDWHUVKHGSURFHVVHV HIIHFWV
7)::DVKLQJWRQ i U i i U C 'HWDLOHGSURWRFROXVHVH[SHUWLQSXWLQ C $QDO\VLVWHFKQLTXHVQRWIXOO\WHVWHG
)RUHVW3UDFWLFHV%RDUG VWUXFWXUHGDSSURDFK C 4XDQWLWDWLYHUHVXOWVPD\QRWEHXVDEOH
C +HOSVSODQIRUHVW%03V IRU70'/HOHPHQWV
5DSLG6HGLPHQW C )OH[LEOHIUDPHZRUNIRUHYDOXDWLQJ C $VJHQHUDOPHWKRGVJXLGDQFHGRHVQRW

%XGJHWLQJ GLIIHUHQWVHGLPHQWVRXUFHVZLWK SURYLGHVSHFLILFÚHFLSHµ
5HLGDQG'XQQH GLIIHUHQWPHWKRGVDWZDWHUVKHGVFDOH C 3URYLGHVQRFOHDUOLQNDJHVWRGHVLJQDWHG
i i U U
C <LHOGVTXDQWLWDWLYHUHVXOWV RUH[LVWLQJXVHDQDO\VLVRUGHYHORSPHQW
C 5HODWLYHO\IDVWDQGLQH[SHQVLYH RIVHGLPHQWPDQDJHPHQWSUDFWLFHV
C 1RWKLJKO\GDWDLQWHQVLYH
(FRV\VWHP$QDO\VLVDW C )OH[LEOHHQRXJKWREHWDLORUHGWR C $FWXDO:$DSSURDFKHVYDU\

WKH:DWHUVKHG6FDOH VSHFLILFVHWWLQJVZDWHUVKHGLVVXHV C $TXDWLFVDQDO\VLVRIWHQFXUVRU\
5HJLRQDO(FRV\VWHP C (YDOXDWHVXSODQGDQGDTXDWLFUHVRXUFH C 'LIIHUHQWFRPSRQHQWVDUHSRRUO\
2IILFH i U U U LVVXHVDORQJZLWKHFRQRPLFFXOWXUDO V\QWKHVL]HGLQLQGLYLGXDO:$V
DQGVRFLDOLVVXHV C 2IWHQSURYLGHLQDGHTXDWHEDVLVIRU
C 0DQ\ZDWHUVKHGDVVHVVPHQWV:$V VSHFLILFVRXUFHPDQDJHPHQW
KDYHEHHQFRPSOHWHG
:DWHUVKHG+\GURORJLF C 6SHFLILFPHWKRGWRDVVHVVSK\VLFDO C 1HZPHWKRGQRW\HWZLGHO\XVHG

&RQGLWLRQDO SURFHVVHVDIIHFWLQJZDWHUTXDOLW\ C %DVLVIRUFRQQHFWLRQVEHWZHHQSURFHVV
i i i U
$VVHVVPHQW86'$ C <LHOGVTXDQWLWDWLYHHYDOXDWLRQVRI DQDO\VLVDQGUHFRYHU\SRWHQWLDODQDO\VLV
)RUHVW6HUYLFH FRQGLWLRQDQGUHFRYHU\SRWHQWLDO XQFOHDU
6WUHDP7\SLQJ+\GUR C 2UJDQL]DWLRQE\VWUHDPW\SHVSURYLGHV C 'DWDLQWHQVLYH

*HRPRUSKLF$QDO\VLV IUDPHZRUNIRUDVVHVVLQJVWUHDP C $ELOLW\WRSUHGLFWVWUHDPEHKDYLRURU
5RVJHQ U U U U EHKDYLRUXQGHUVWUHVV KDELWDWTXDOLW\EDVHGRQH[LVWLQJVWUHDP
C +HOSVDVVHVVUHFRYHU\SRWHQWLDODQG W\SHXQYDOLGDWHG
QHHGIRUUHVWRUDWLRQDFWLRQ C 'RHVQRWDGGUHVVDOOVRXUFHV
3URSHU)XQFWLRQLQJ C 5DSLGPHWKRGIRUDVVHVVLQJVWUHDP C 'RHVQRW\LHOGULJRURXVTXDQWLWDWLYH

&RQGLWLRQ86'2, FRQGLWLRQLGHQWLI\LQJQHDUE\VHGLPHQW LQSXWVIRU70'/
%/0 i U VRXUFHVDQGVHWWLQJSULRULWLHVIRU C 8QYDOLGDWHGDVSUHGLFWLYHWRRO
IXUWKHUDQDO\VLV C 2IWHQGRHVQRWYLHZHQWLUHZDWHUVKHG
C :LGHO\XVHG IRFXVHVRQDIHZUHDFKHV
U6RPHWLPHVi8VXDOO\
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
3UREOHP,GHQWLILFDWLRQ
Objective: Identify background information and definitively state the relationship between the sediment
establish a strategy for specific 303(d) listed waters that sources and the impairment.
will guide the overall TMDL development process.
Summarize the sediment-related impairment(s), KH\4XHVWLRQVWR&RQVLGHUIRU/LQNDJHRI:DWHU4XDOLW\
geographic setting and scale, pollutant sources of 7DUJHWVDQG6RXUFHV
concern, and other information needed to guide the
overall TMDL development process and provide a :KDWDUHWKHGHVLJQDWHGXVHVDQGDVVRFLDWHGLPSDLUPHQWV"
:KDWGDWDDUHUHDGLO\DYDLODEOH"
preliminary assessment of the complexity of the TMDL :KDWLVWKHJHRJUDSKLFVHWWLQJRIWKH70'/"
(what approaches are justified and where resources :KDWWHPSRUDOFRQVLGHUDWLRQVDIIHFWWKH70'/"
should be focused). :KDWDUHWKHVHGLPHQWVRXUFHVDQGKRZGRWKH\DIIHFWZDWHU
TXDOLW\"
Procedure: Inventory and collect data and information :KDWPDUJLQRIVDIHW\DQGXQFHUWDLQW\LVVXHVPXVWEH
FRQVLGHUHG":KDWOHYHORIDFFXUDF\LVQHHGHG"
needed to develop the TMDL. Information collected :KDWDUHSRWHQWLDOFRQWURORSWLRQV"
should include an identification of the degree and type :KDWLVWKHSUREOHP"
of water quality standards impairment and preliminary :KDWFKDQJHVGRHVWKHSURSRVHGUXOHVSHDNWR"
identification of sources, numeric targets, proposed
analytical methods, data needs, resources required, and
possible management and control techniques. Interview
watershed stakeholders and local, state, tribal, and The following key questions should be addressed during
federal agency staff to identify information relevant to this initial strategy-forming stage. Answering these
the waterbody and its watershed. Establish plans for questions results in defining the approach for developing
incorporating public involvement into the development the TMDL. A problem statement based on this problem
of the TMDL. Revise the problem definition as new identification analysis is an important part of the TMDL
information is obtained during TMDL development. document because it relates the TMDL to the 303(d)
listing and describes the context of the TMDL, thereby
29(59,(: making the TMDL more understandable and useful for
implementation planning.
To develop a TMDL, it is necessary to formulate a
strategy that addresses the causes and potential sources K(<48(67,21672&216,'(5)25352%/(0
of the water quality impairment and available ,'(17,),&$7,21
management options. The characterization of the causes
and sources should be an extension of the process :KDWDUHWKHGHVLJQDWHGXVHVDQGDVVRFLDWHG
originally used to place the waterbody on the 303(d) list. LPSDLUPHQWV"
Typically, the impairment that caused the listing is
related to water quality standards that are being The goal of developing and implementing a TMDL is to
violated—either pollutant concentrations that exceed attain and maintain state water quality standards. With
numeric criteria or waterbody conditions that do not that in mind, analysts should stay focused on addressing
match those specified by narrative criteria or do not the sediment-related problem interfering with the
support the designated use. Most sediment-related designated uses. Some examples of how sediment
303(d) listings are based on exceedances of narrative impairs designated or existing uses are listed in
water quality standards that state that waters should be Table 3-1. Identification of the designated uses being
free from suspended or deposited sediments at levels impaired should include answers to the following:
detrimental to designated uses, including aquatic life,
water supply, and recreation. In many cases, the C Are water quality standards for sediment expressed
problem itself will be self-evident and its identification as narrative or numeric criteria?
will be relatively straightforward. In other cases, the
complexity of the system might make it more difficult to
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
• What water quality standards violation caused the monitoring data, watershed analyses, best professional
listing? What data or qualitative analyses were used judgment, information from the public, and any previous
to support this decision? studies of the waterbody (e.g., state and federal agency
C Where in the waterbody are designated uses reports, university-sponsored studies, environmental
supported and where are they impaired? organizations). Ideally, these data will provide insight
C What are the critical conditions, in terms of flow into the nature of the impairment, potential sediment
and season of the year, during which designated sources, and the pathways by which sediments enter the
uses are not supported? waterbody. Compilation of data necessary for TMDL
C How do sediments affect the designated uses of development should begin during the problem
concern? (For example, do bottom sediments clog identification stage. These data are likely to include the
spawning gravels? Does cloudy water create a following:
swimming hazard?)
C How are quantifiable targets determined to interpret C Water quality measurements (e.g., TSS, turbidity,
narrative water quality criteria? bedload composition).
C Waterbody size and shape information (e.g.,
:KDWGDWDDUHUHDGLO\DYDLODEOH" volume, depth, area, length, channel structure,
stream type).
To the greatest extent possible, the problem C Biological information (e.g., fish, invertebrate, and
identification should be prepared based on currently riparian vegetation information).
available information, including water quality
7DEOH([DPSOHVRIVHGLPHQWLPSDFWVRQGHVLJQDWHGRUH[LVWLQJXVHFDWHJRULHV
7\SH 5HVRXUFH3UREOHP 6HGLPHQW,VVXH
$TXDWLF/LIH
)LVK $GXOWPLJUDWLRQ 3DVVDJHEDUULHUV
6SDZQLQJ &REEOHJUDYHOEXULDORUVFRXU
)U\HPHUJHQFH 7XUELGLW\VXVSHQGHGVHGLPHQW
-XYHQLOHUHDULQJ $JJUDGDWLRQVFRXU
(VFDSHPHQW &KDQJHGFKDQQHOIRUP
:LQWHUUHDULQJKDELWDW /RVVRIULSDULDQYHJHWDWLRQ
5HGXFHGRUKLGGHQIRRGVXSSO\ 5HGXFHGLQWHUVWLWLDOGLVVROYHGR[\JHQGXHWRILOOLQJRI
VXEVWUDWHZLWKILQHV
,QYHUWHEUDWHV 5HGXFHGGLYHUVLW\SRSXODWLRQGHQVLW\ )LOOLQJRIVXEVWUDWHZLWKILQHV
/RVVRIULSDULDQYHJHWDWLRQ
$PSKLELDQV /DUYDOGHYHORSPHQW )LOOLQJRIVXEVWUDWHZLWKILQHV
'ULQNLQJ:DWHU 5HGXFHGUHVHUYRLUFDSDFLW\ 6HGLPHQWGHSRVLWLRQ
3RRUWDVWHDSSHDUDQFH 7XUELGLW\
,QWDNHVFORJJHG 7RWDOVXVSHQGHGVROLGV
,PSDLUHGWUHDWPHQW $JJUDGDWLRQRUVFRXUGLVWXUEVLQWDNHV
5HFUHDWLRQ$HVWKHWLFV &ORXG\ZDWHU 7XUELGLW\
&KDQQHOPRGLILFDWLRQLPSDLUVILVKLQJVZLPPLQJ &KDQQHOPRGLILFDWLRQ
UDIWLQJ 3RROILOOLQJ
$JULFXOWXUH )RXOHGSXPSV 6XVSHQGHGVHGLPHQW
/LYHVWRFNZDWHULQJ 7XUELGLW\WRRKLJKWRGULQNZDWHU
/RVVRIUHVHUYRLUFDSDFLW\ 6HGLPHQWPDVVORDGV
,QGXVWULDO 3URFHVVZDWHU 6XVSHQGHGVHGLPHQWIRXOVHTXLSPHQW
&RROLQJZDWHU 766WRRKLJKWRWUHDWZDWHU
1DYLJDWLRQ 1DYLJDWLRQFKDQQHOFKDQJHV 6HGLPHQWGHSRVLWLRQ
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
C Waterbody flow and runoff information, including Information on related assessment and planning efforts
irrigation return flows. in the study area should also be collected. Coordinating
C Watershed land uses, land use issues, and history. TMDL development with similar efforts often reduces
C Processes of concern (e.g., surface erosion and TMDL analysis costs, increases stakeholder
runoff, bank erosion, landslide features). participation and support, and improves the outlook for
C Temperature and precipitation data. timely implementation of needed sediment control or
C Soil surveys and geologic information. restoration actions. Examples of related efforts that
C Topographic information. should be identified include the following:
C Information on local contacts.
C Past studies/surveys. C State, local, or landowner-developed watershed
management plans.
Maps of the watershed will also be invaluable. Maps C NRCS conservation plans, EQUIP projects, and
can be hard copies, such as USGS quad maps, or (if Public Law 83-566 small watershed plans.
available) electronic files for geographic information C Land management agency assessment or land use
systems (GIS). If possible, point sources, known plans (e.g., Federal Ecosystem Management Team
nonpoint sources, land uses, areas of geologic [FEMAT] watershed analyses or BLM proper
instability, and road networks should be identified on functioning condition assessments).
these maps to provide an overview of the watershed and C Nonpoint source management projects developed
to identify priority areas for sediment loading caused by with Clean Water Act (CWA) section 319 grants.
human activities. C Clean Lakes program projects developed with CWA
section 314 grants.
Photographs, both aerial and landscape, are also very C Storm water management plans and permits.
useful for evaluating sediment sources, sediment C Habitat conservation plans developed under the
deposition, and changes in geomorphic/channel features Endangered Species Act.
over time. If possible, analysts should obtain multiple C Comprehensive monitoring efforts (e.g., National
air photography sets for the watershed as far back as Water Quality Assessment [NAWQA] and
photo records are available to facilitate time-series Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
comparisons. Photographs from the ground, although [EMAP] projects).
less useful, can sometimes provide a qualitative
assessment of channel changes over time.
0LVVLQJWKH0DUN:LWK3UREOHP'HILQLWLRQ
$UHFHQWDQDO\VLVRIVHGLPHQWZDWHUTXDOLW\LVVXHVLQDZHVWHUQULYHUV\VWHPLOOXVWUDWHVWKHLPSRUWDQFHRIFDUHIXOSUREOHPGHILQLWLRQ
,QWKDWDQDO\VLVDQDVVXPSWLRQZDVPDGHWKDWWKHNH\OLPLWLQJIDFWRUSRWHQWLDOO\LPSDLULQJDQDGURPRXVILVKKDELWDWTXDOLW\ZDVWKH
DGYHUVHHIIHFWRIILQHVHGLPHQWVLQVSDZQLQJJUDYHOVRQHJJVXUYLYDODQGIU\HPHUJHQFH7KHDQDO\VWHYDOXDWHGGDWDRQPHDQ
VHGLPHQWSDUWLFOHVL]HVLQULYHUJUDYHOVLQUHODWLRQVKLSWRJUDSKVGHYHORSHGE\ILVKHULHVELRORJLVWVZKLFKUHODWHGPHDQSDUWLFOHVL]H
WRILVKIU\VXUYLYDOWRHPHUJHQFH7KHDQDO\VLVVKRZHGWKDWJLYHQWKHH[LVWLQJPHDQSDUWLFOHVL]HFRQGLWLRQVRYHUSHUFHQW
VXUYLYDOWRHPHUJHQFHZDVH[SHFWHG7KHDQDO\VLVFRQFOXGHGWKDWILVKKDELWDWZDVLQJRRGFRQGLWLRQ$GLIIHUHQWDQDO\VLVRI
VHGLPHQWFRQGLWLRQVLQWKHVDPHULYHUV\VWHPKDGGLIIHUHQWUHVXOWV7KDWDQDO\VLVIRXQGDELYDULDWHSDUWLFOHVL]HGLVWULEXWLRQZLWK
ODUJHDPRXQWVRIYHU\ILQHVDQGDQGYHU\ODUJHURFNVSUHVHQWLQWKHV\VWHP7KHKDELWDWSUREOHPIRXQGLQWKHVHFRQGDQDO\VLVZDV
QRWWRRPDQ\ILQHVHGLPHQWVEXWUDWKHULQVXIILFLHQWJUDYHOVVXLWDEOHIRUVSDZQLQJUHGGVHJJSRFNHWV%HFDXVHILVKFRXOGQRWILQG
DGHTXDWHJUDYHOVRIDSSURSULDWHVL]HVSDZQLQJVXFFHVVUDWHVZHUHYHU\ORZ7KHLQLWLDODQDO\VLVKDGPLVGHILQHGWKHSULPDU\
SUREOHPDVHJJVXUYLYDODQGIU\HPHUJHQFHPLVVLQJWKHNH\SUREOHPRIVSDZQLQJLPSDLUPHQW
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
:KDWLVWKHJHRJUDSKLFVHWWLQJRIWKH70'/" accounting for sediment transport out of the system, it

might be possible to allow larger sediment loadings and
TMDLs can be developed to address a variety of still protect designated uses of concern.
geographic scales, including specific stream reaches or
watersheds ranging from several square miles in size to Although extensive experience in sediment fate and
well over 1,000 square miles. The geographic scale of transport analysis has been gained in many parts of the
the TMDL will primarily be a function of the country, available methods are relatively time- and
impairment that prompted the waterbody listing, the resource-intensive. Analysts who are considering
type of waterbody impaired, the spatial distribution of incorporating more sophisticated analysis of sediment
use impairments, sediment source locations, and the fate and transport into a TMDL are advised to consult
scale of similar assessment and planning efforts under with a qualified hydrologist or geomorphologist. It is
way for the waterbody. beyond the scope of this protocol to fully explore
sediment transport analysis methods, but several
Where large watersheds or long stream segments have published sources provide useful guidance in the
been targeted for TMDL development, it might be selection of sediment transport analysis methods (e.g.,
appropriate to divide the watershed into smaller Gomez and Church, 1989; Reid and Dunne, 1996;
analytical units. For example, although the entire Vanoni, 1975; White et al., 1978).
Sycamore Creek, Michigan, watershed (106 mi2) was
targeted for TMDLs, one phase of the project focused Recommendations: Where the designated use
on the 37-mi2 subwatershed of greatest concern. Within impairments are located at the bottom of a watershed
this smaller subwatershed, the study area was further (e.g., in a lake, estuary, or lower main stem river), it is
stratified by source category (e.g., agricultural, urban, often more effective to address the entire watershed at
bank erosion) to apply different erosion estimation once through the use of less intensive, screening-level
methods for each source category. Sediment TMDLs assessment methods. To evaluate sediment sources
can be developed at virtually any scale that is effectively, large study areas can be stratified into
hydrologically meaningful (e.g., whole drainage units or smaller analysis units to generate sediment loading
reaches) and analytically tractable (methods are estimates and results can then be aggregated at the larger
available to develop reasonably accurate TMDLs). study unit scale (Reid and Dunne, 1996). The TMDL
for a large study unit will often need to be developed
The selection of TMDL scale may involve trade-offs using the phased approach so that follow-up monitoring
between comprehensiveness in addressing all designated can be used to assess the effectiveness of the source
use and source issues of concern and accuracy in the reductions and to evaluate the accuracy of the TMDL
analysis (Bisson et al., 1997; MacDonald, 1992). Table linkages between sediment sources and impacts. If
3-2 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of necessary, more in-depth analysis can be targeted to
developing TMDLs for larger (greater than 50 mi2) and specific “hot spots” within the watershed that have local
smaller (less than 50 mi2) watersheds. problems.
Where relatively large watersheds are selected for Where impairments occur throughout a watershed, it is
TMDL analysis, sediment transport and in-channel recommended that the analysis be conducted for smaller,
storage may become more important to the analysis as more homogenous analytical units (subwatersheds). For
compared to smaller watersheds where sediment sources example, specific impaired river reaches might require
and in-stream areas of impact are closer together. detailed TMDLs to address individual sources. If this
Analysis of sediment fate and transport is often needed subwatershed approach is chosen, care should be taken
to determine what happens to sediments once delivered to apply consistent methodologies within a basin from
to streams and rivers. For example, fate and transport one subwatershed to the next so that an additive
analysis helps to determine how quickly sediments move approach can eventually be applied to the larger basin.
through the system, how much sediment remains behind,
and under what hydrological conditions sediments are
deposited at channel locations of concern. By
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
7DEOH$GYDQWDJHVDQGGLVDGYDQWDJHVRIGLIIHUHQW70'/ZDWHUVKHGDQDO\VLVVFDOHV
/DUJH70'/6WXG\8QLWV 6PDOO70'/6WXG\8QLWV
!VTXDUHPLOHV VTXDUHPLOHV
$GYDQWDJHV $FFRXQWVIRUZDWHUVKHGSURFHVVHVWKDWRSHUDWHDW (DVLHUWRLGHQWLI\DQGDGGUHVVILQHVFDOHVRXUFHLPSDFW
ODUJHUVFDOHV UHODWLRQVKLSVDQGWRLGHQWLI\QHHGHGFRQWURODFWLRQV
0RUHOLNHO\WRDFFRXQWIRUFXPXODWLYHHIIHFWV 3RVVLEOHWRXVHPRUHDFFXUDWHGDWDLQWHQVLYHPHWKRGV
$YRLGVQHHGWRFRPSOHWHVHSDUDWHVWXGLHVIRUPXOWLSOH
WULEXWDULHV
'LVDGYDQWDJHV &RQIRXQGLQJYDULDEOHVREVFXUHFDXVHHIIHFW 0D\PLVVFDXVHHIIHFWUHODWLRQVKLSVGHWHFWDEOHRQO\DW

UHODWLRQVKLSV EURDGVFDOHFXPXODWLYHLPSDFWV
1XPHULFWDUJHWVHWWLQJLVKDUGHUIRUKHWHURJHQHRXV 0D\QHFHVVLWDWHPDQ\VHSDUDWH70'/VWXGLHVLQD
ZDWHUERG\IHDWXUHV EDVLQWRFRYHUWKHVDPHDUHD
6RXUFHHVWLPDWLRQLVPRUHGLIILFXOWEHFDXVHODQGDUHDV 0DLQSUREOHPPD\EHELJULYHU
DUHPRUHKHWHURJHQHRXV
/DJWLPHEHWZHHQVHGLPHQWGLVFKDUJHDQGLQVWUHDP
HIIHFWVLVSRWHQWLDO\ORQJHUVRHIIHFWLYHQHVVRIVRXUFH
FRQWUROVLVKDUGHUWRDVVHVV
$QDO\VLVDWFRDUVHVFDOHPLJKWFDXVH70'/WR´PLVVµ
VRXUFHLPSDFWUHODWLRQVKLSVDWILQHVFDOH
:KDWWHPSRUDOFRQVLGHUDWLRQVDIIHFW70'/ For many pollutants, TMDLs are developed for a

GHYHORSPHQW" defined “critical flow” regime (usually low flow) when
the pollutant is believed to cause the greatest impacts.
Sediment TMDLs should consider seasonal and The TMDL is then defined for this critical flow situation
interannual variations in pollutant discharges, receiving on the assumption that it will be protective during other
water flows, and designated or existing use impacts. flow regimes. The critical flow approach might be less
Like most nonpoint source pollutants, sediment loadings useful for sediment TMDLs because sediment impacts
are not continuous in magnitude or effect and are likely can occur long after the time of discharge and sediment
to increase as rainfall, runoff, and/or irrigation return delivery and transport can occur under many flow
flows increase. However, land management activities conditions. Analysts should be aware of the flow
(e.g., cultivation) occurring during dry periods set the regimes of concern for sediment TMDLs. Although
stage for erosion and sediment delivery when sediment impacts can be substantial at low flows in
precipitation or irrigation runoff occurs. The seasonal some situations (especially in some eastern and
variability of sediment discharges and associated midwestern waterbodies), sediment-related impacts are
designated or existing use impacts should be considered often associated with higher-flow events (e.g., direct
during each phase of TMDL development. effects on aquatic life, water supply intakes). Even if
high-flow impacts are insignificant, a TMDL would
Sediment impacts occur over different time scales, need to consider flows associated with the time periods
depending on the designated or existing uses of concern. in which sediment discharges of concern occur, which
Some uses (e.g., anadromous fish habitat) are much are usually relatively high flow, high runoff periods.
more sensitive during certain times than at other times High flows are considered to be the critical flows of
(e.g., during the spawning and egg emergence life concern for sediment analyses in most situations. In
stages). Other uses are more continuous and some circumstances, however, it might make sense to
consequently are sensitive to excess sediment impacts consider flows over long periods of time as the “critical”
throughout the year (e.g., drinking water or industrial flow for TMDL calculation purposes (e.g., where long-
process water intakes). Finally, some designated or term sediment loads fill reservoirs and reduce storage
existing uses suffer from cumulative effects of sediment capacity).
loading over long periods of time (e.g., reservoir storage
capacity, which affects water supply). Sediment discharges also vary substantially in their
timing, depending primarily on the sources of concern,
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
the watershed geology and landform, and the :KDWDUHWKHVHGLPHQWVRXUFHVDQGKRZGR

precipitation/runoff patterns. Some sources are WKH\DIIHFWZDWHUTXDOLW\"
vulnerable to erosion year-round (e.g., bank erosion and
continuously cultivated lands); other sources are The analyst should form an initial understanding of the
vulnerable only during and shortly after land-disturbing relative magnitude of the various sediment sources
activities (e.g., timber harvesting or construction during problem identification. This initial source
activities). In addition, watershed processes that affect identification can often be based on existing
the magnitude, duration, and locations of sediment information; however, it is highly recommended that
discharges vary greatly over longer temporal scales. For analysts walk portions of streams and visit known or
example, sediment transport mechanisms of greatest suspected erosion sites if at all possible. The initial
concern in many watersheds recur relatively frequently, source inventory will often be as simple as marking
often in conjunction with the bankfull flow event, which down on a map the locations of known erosion problem
may occur every 1 to 5 years (Wolman and Miller, areas (e.g., landslide areas, gullies, eroding road
1960). In contrast, the dominant events contributing to features, and stream reaches with eroding banks). A
elevated levels of sediment transport and deposition in qualitative assessment of the significance of hillslope
other basins may occur only in response to infrequent and in-stream sediment storage, along with changes in
catastrophic events such as landslides or channel- channel structure in response to sediment load changes,
modifying flood events, which generally recur within is also helpful.
time scales of several decades to several centuries (e.g.,
some Northern California coastal watersheds). In addition to assessing sediment sources, the initial
problem definition should begin to identify the specific
Recommendations: The temporal variability of both role that sediments play in affecting designated uses.
sediment impacts on designated or existing uses and This analysis is important because many of the
sediment discharges from different sources indicates impairments associated with sediment loadings can also
that careful consideration should be given to temporal be caused by other stressors. For example, deposition of
issues in TMDL development. Analysts should assess fine sediments in pools can be associated with decreased
whether TMDL development methods are capable of flows in addition to or instead of increased sediment
accounting for temporal variability in watershed loadings. In addition, dissolved oxygen deficits in
processes. For example, use of suspended sediment or spawning gravels, which can impair survival of eggs or
turbidity as a sole TMDL indicator might not be fry, can be associated with nutrient loading in addition
advisable for many watershed settings because these to fine sediment burial of spawning gravels. Sediments
measures are often highly variable through time and might become the focus of watershed studies simply
difficult to use for trend-monitoring purposes. In because they are often the most visible stressor.
watersheds where sediment inputs are highly variable
and intensive monitoring is infeasible, these indicators Recommendations: Inevitably, the role that sediments
might be incapable of detecting the magnitude of play in affecting some waterbody impairments can be
significant changes in sediment delivery and unable to determined only by using best professional judgment.
associate sediment discharges with designated or Monitoring data can be used to determine current levels
existing use impacts. In such settings, indicators that of sediments in streams or lakes, but a qualitative
represent waterbody response to sediment loading over judgment is sometimes the best means available to
time (e.g., substrate composition indicators or direct assess the relationship among sediments, flows, channel
measures of sediment loading from key sources) may be structure, and other factors. Analysts should use their
preferable. This protocol provides additional guidance best judgment and consult with aquatic biologists and
related to time scale issues in later chapters. other experts as appropriate.
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
:KDWPDUJLQRIVDIHW\DQGXQFHUWDLQW\LVVXHV well as the value of the resource and the anticipated cost
PXVWEHFRQVLGHUHG":KDWOHYHORIDFFXUDF\ of controls. In general, a greater MOS should be
LVQHHGHG" included when there is greater uncertainty in the
information used to develop the TMDL or when the
Considerable uncertainty is usually inherent in TMDL is for a high-value water. It might prove feasible
estimating sediment loading from nonpoint sources, as to include an MOS in more than one TMDL analytical
well as predicting stream channel and designated or step. For example, relatively conservative numeric
existing use responses. The effectiveness of targets and source estimates could be developed that, in
management measures (e.g., agricultural BMPs) in combination, create an overall MOS adequate to account
reducing loading varies depending on the location, the for uncertainty in the analysis.
severity of the problem being addressed, and other
practices being implemented. These uncertainties, Analysts should consider the level of precision needed
however, should not delay development of the TMDL in the analysis. As a practical matter, analysts might
and implementation of control measures. EPA need to make trade-offs between (1) investing in more
regulations (40 CFR 130.2(g)) state that load allocations precise analysis (presumably at higher cost) of different
for nonpoint sources are “best estimates of the loading TMDL elements and providing a smaller MOS (usually
which may range from reasonably accurate estimates to providing greater management flexibility) and
gross allotments, depending on the availability of data (2) performing less precise analysis (presumably at
and appropriate techniques for predicting the loading.” lower cost) and providing a larger MOS (presumably
USEPA (1991a, 1999) advocated the use of a phased constraining land management flexibility).
approach to TMDL development as a means of
addressing these uncertainties. Under the phased Many sediment TMDLs can be developed based on
approach, load allocations and wasteload allocations are existing, readily available data and information. Where
calculated using the best available data and information, sufficient data are not available, TMDLs may be
recognizing the need for additional monitoring data to developed based on modeling analysis or on simple
determine if the load reductions required by the TMDL “screening-level” analysis in many cases. Where little
lead to attainment of water quality standards. The information about sediment causes and effects is
approach provides for the implementation of the TMDL available, it is appropriate to account for the significant
while additional data are collected to reduce uncertainty.
7DEOH$SSURDFKHVIRULQFRUSRUDWLQJWKH026LQWR
TMDLs also address uncertainty issues by incorporating VHGLPHQW70'/V
a margin of safety (MOS) into the analysis. The MOS is 7\SHRI
a required component of a TMDL and accounts for the 026 $YDLODEOH$SSURDFKHV
uncertainty about the relationship between pollutant ([SOLFLW 6HWQXPHULFWDUJHWVDWPRUHFRQVHUYDWLYHOHYHOV
loads and the quality of the receiving waterbody (CWA WKDQDQDO\WLFDOUHVXOWVLQGLFDWHFRUUHVSRQGLQJWR
section 303(d)(1)(c)). The MOS is either implicitly VRPHTXDQWLILDEOH026HJEHORZ
accounted for by choosing conservative assumptions UHFRPPHQGHGFULWHULD
$GGDVDIHW\IDFWRUWRHURVLRQDQGRUVHGLPHQW
about loading and/or water quality response or explicitly GHOLYHU\HVWLPDWHVDQGH[SHFWHGVHGLPHQW
accounted for during the allocation of loads. Table 3-3 UHGXFWLRQVFRUUHVSRQGLQJWRVRPHTXDQWLILDEOH
lists several approaches available for incorporating an 026
MOS into sediment TMDLs. 'RQRWDOORFDWHDSRUWLRQRIDYDLODEOHVHGLPHQW
ORDGLQJFDSDFLW\UHVHUYHIRU026
During the problem identification process, the analyst ,PSOLFLW 8VHFRQVHUYDWLYHDVVXPSWLRQVLQGHULYDWLRQRI
should decide at what point in the analysis the MOS will QXPHULFWDUJHWV
8VHFRQVHUYDWLYHDVVXPSWLRQVLQHURVLRQUDWHV
be introduced. Often this decision can be made only by
ODQGUHFRYHU\UDWHVIROORZLQJGLVWXUEDQFH
using best professional judgment. The degree of VHGLPHQWGHOLYHU\WRZDWHUERGLHVDQGVHGLPHQW
uncertainty associated with the selection and WUDQVSRUWUDWHV
measurement of indicators, source estimates, and water 8VHFRQVHUYDWLYHDVVXPSWLRQVLQDQDO\VLVRI
quality response should be factored into this decision, as SURVSHFWLYHIHDVLELOLW\RIVHGLPHQWPDQDJHPHQW
SUDFWLFHVDQGUHVWRUDWLRQDFWLYLWLHV
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
uncertainty associated with TMDL analysis by designated use problems or TMDL indicators and
providing adequate margins of safety. In some cases, targets with sediment sources, TMDLs can include
providing larger margins of safety might result in hillslope targets to supplement (but not supplant) in-
allocations that are not readily achievable. Several stream targets. Hillslope targets provide a TMDL
approaches are available to address this problem. First, goal that might be easier to associate with sediment
more sophisticated analysis might be appropriate. source management.
Where additional data or information is needed to use
more complex or data-intensive methods, it might be C Use dynamic indicators and allocation approaches.
more cost-effective to gather the information and use the Sediment inputs tend to be quite variable across
more complex methods than it would be to implement time and space, and TMDL numeric targets and
more stringent allocations based on simpler analysis. allocations can be expressed in ways that recognize
Where this is the case, a first-phase TMDL can often be and incorporate the dynamics of watershed
developed to provide a basis for further analysis while processes (e.g., sediment loading targets expressed
initiating critical source control or restoration actions. as a function of flow).
Because erosion and other key physical processes that C Focus load allocations on load reductions related to
affect sediment impacts on designated or existing uses control actions. Where load allocations by source
are usually highly variable and difficult to characterize, are difficult to set but actions needed to reduce loads
a significant degree of uncertainty is likely to emerge in are well understood, TMDL implementation plans
sediment TMDL development. Several strategies are can incorporate more detail on actions to be taken
available to help address these uncertainties: that are believed adequate to attain in-stream targets
and meet overall load reduction needs.
C Use a phased approach. Clarify that initial TMDLs
are based on limited information and that TMDLs :KDWDUHSRWHQWLDOFRQWURORSWLRQV"
and implementation plans will be reviewed and
revised in the future based on monitoring results. The problem identification should begin to identify
This approach clearly acknowledges uncertainty and potential management alternatives. It is helpful to begin
creates a framework for reviewing initial TMDL thinking about key sources and the prospective
hypotheses. This strategy is also a good means of feasibility of controlling erosion from these sources.
identifying information needs. Improvements already occurring should also be
considered when identifying possible control options. In
C Use multiple numeric targets and a “weight of addition, analysts should begin to consider what options
evidence” approach. Single-indicator TMDLs are will be adequate to address sediment-related
often difficult to relate to designated or existing uses impairments. If no obvious level of sediment control
of concern or sediment sources. Multiple indicators will achieve the designated use of the waterbody, the
that, as a set, are believed to provide a richer basis appropriateness of the applicable water quality standards
for interpreting water quality goals and linking goals should be evaluated.
to source controls can be used in the TMDL. A
“weight of evidence” approach would be used to If sediment source controls and/or restoration will be
interpret them; that is, evaluations would look at the able to address the impairment, the problem statement
indicators as a group and would not consider should identify and stress the opportunity to take
exceedance of one target as proof that a TMDL is advantage of other watershed protection efforts.
not working. If the weight of evidence approach is Opportunities include coordinating with various local,
taken, analysts are advised to clarify at the outset state, tribal, territorial, and federal agencies along with
how the responsible agency intends to evaluate private landowners and stakeholder groups to avoid
TMDL effectiveness as measured by multiple duplicative or contradictory efforts. Other stakeholders
indicators. should also be encouraged to become involved with
development of the TMDL to contribute to the process
C Use hillslope targets to supplement in-stream and to ensure that their concerns are addressed.
targets. Because it is difficult to associate
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
:KDWLVWKHSUREOHP" considerations will affect all subsequent stages of

TMDL development for sediments.
A summary problem statement should be drafted to help • Identify and document all ongoing watershed
frame the rest of the TMDL analysis and to help explain restoration or volunteer monitoring efforts in the
the purpose and analytical approach for developing the watershed.
TMDL to interested parties. The problem statement • Identify any characteristics or future uses of the
might need to be revised during development of the watershed or waterbody that might affect the TMDL
TMDL to account for new information. Including the analysis.
problem statement with the TMDL submission helps
clarify the TMDL’s scope and setting for readers who
are not familiar with the study area. 5(&200(1'('5($',1*
:KDWFKDQJHVGRHVWKHSURSRVHGUXOHVSHDNWR" (Note that the full list of references for this chapter is
included at the end of the document.)
On August 23, 1999, EPA published proposed rules that
specify that approvable TMDLs must include at a USEPA. TMDL Case Study Series.
minimum ten elements. Within the problem <http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/tmdl/case.html>. U.S.
identification step, an approvable TMDL will need to Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
include the name and geographic location of the
impaired or threatened waterbody for which the TMDL USEPA. 1991a. Guidance for water quality-based
is being established. The TMDL will also need to list decisions: The TMDL process. EPA 440/4-91-001.
the names and geographic locations of the waterbodies U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
upstream of the impaired waterbody that contribute DC. <http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/policy.html>
significant amounts of the pollutant for which the
TMDL is being established. USEPA. 1995a. Watershed protection: A statewide
approach. EPA 841-R-95-001. U.S. Environmental
5(&200(1'$7,216)25352%/(0 Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
,'(17,),&$7,21
USEPA. 1995b. Watershed protection: A project focus.
• Identify events leading to the 303(d) listing and the EPA 841-R-95-003. U.S. Environmental Protection
data to support the listing. Include any data or Agency, Washington, DC.
anecdotal information that supports qualitative
approaches to develop the TMDL. USEPA. 1996. TMDL development cost estimates: Case
• Identify the specific role sediment plays in affecting studies of 14 TMDLs. EPA-R-96-001. U.S.
designated or existing uses, usually through Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
qualitative judgment and consultation with experts.
• Contact agency staff responsible for the waterbody USEPA 1999. Draft guidance for water quality-based
listing and collect any information they have decisions: The TMDL process (second edition). EPA
available. 841-D-99-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
• Prepare a flowchart or schematic detailing the Washington, DC.
processes that might affect impairment of the <http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/proprule.html>
waterbody.
• Conduct an inventory of available information on Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams—Sources,
point or nonpoint sources using information biological effects, and control. American Fisheries
available from state or local agencies or databases. Society Monograph 7. American Fisheries Society,
• Identify the geographic scale of impairments. Bethesda, MD.
• Identify temporal/seasonal issues affecting things
such as discharge rates, receiving water flows, and
designated or existing use impacts. Temporal
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
,GHQWLILFDWLRQRI:DWHU4XDOLW\,QGLFDWRUVDQG7DUJHW9DOXHV
Objective: Identify numeric or measurable indicators This chapter provides background on water quality
and target values that can be used to evaluate the TMDL standards, lists a variety of factors that should be
and the restoration of water quality in the listed addressed in choosing a TMDL indicator, provides
waterbody. recommendations for setting target values under
different circumstances, and explains how to compare
Procedure: Select one or more indicators that are existing and target conditions for each indicator. In
appropriate to the waterbody and local conditions. Key addition, this chapter identifies target values for the
factors to consider include both scientific and technical indicator(s) that can be used to track progress toward the
validity, as well as practical issues such as cost and restoration of designated uses. Figure 4-1 outlines an
available data. Identify target values for the indicator(s) approach for linking a water’s impairment (e.g.,
that represent achievement of water quality standards nonattainment of designated use) to a TMDL.
and are linked (through acceptable technical analysis) to
the reason for waterbody listing. K(<48(67,21672&216,'(5)25
,'(17,),&$7,212):$7(548$/,7<,1',&$7256
29(59,(: $1'7$5*(79$/8(6
To develop a TMDL, it is necessary to establish :KDWZDWHUTXDOLW\VWDQGDUGVDSSO\WRWKH
quantitative measures that can be used to establish the ZDWHUERG\"
relationship between pollutant sources and their impact
on water quality. Such quantitative measures are called
Section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33
indicators in this document. Examples of indicators for
U.S.C. 1314(a)(1), requires EPA to publish and
a sediment TMDL include maximum turbidity or
periodically update ambient water quality criteria. These
suspended sediment concentrations, geometric mean
criteria are to “. . . accurately reflect the latest scientific
size of substrate particles, percentage of pool volume
knowledge . . . on the kind and extent of all identifiable
occupied by fine sediments (Lisle and Hilton, 1992),
effects on health and welfare including, but not limited
numbers of spawning fish, and percentage of eroding
to, plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife, plant life . . . which
streambanks. Once an indicator has been selected, a
may be expected from the presence of pollutants in any
target value for that indicator that distinguishes between
body of water . . . .” Water quality criteria developed
the impaired and unimpaired state of the waterbody
under section 304(a) are based solely on data and
(e.g., no more than 15 percent fine sediment < 0.85 mm,
scientific judgments on the relationship between
no more than 1000 tons/year sediment yield on average)
pollutant concentrations and environmental and human
must be established. Although such discrete impaired or
health effects. These recommended criteria provide
unimpaired cutoffs do not exist in natural systems,
guidance for states and tribes in adopting water quality
quantifiable goals are a necessary component of
standards under section 303(c) of the CWA. States and
TMDLs.
authorized tribes are responsible for setting water
quality standards to protect the physical, biological, and
KH\4XHVWLRQVWR&RQVLGHUIRU,GHQWLILFDWLRQRI:DWHU
4XDOLW\,QGLFDWRUVDQG7DUJHW9DOXHV chemical integrity of their waters. The three components
of water quality standards include
:KDWZDWHUTXDOLW\VWDQGDUGVDSSOLHVWRWKHZDWHUERG\"
:KDWIDFWRUVDIIHFWLQGLFDWRUVHOHFWLRQ" C Designated uses (such as drinking water supply,
:KDWZDWHUTXDOLW\PHDVXUHVFRXOGEHXVHGDVLQGLFDWRUV" aquatic life protection, public recreation).
:KDWDUHDSSURSULDWHWDUJHWYDOXHVIRUWKHFKRVHQ
LQGLFDWRUV"
C Narrative and numeric criteria designed to protect
+RZGRWKHH[LVWLQJYDOXHVFRPSDUHWRWKHWDUJHWYDOXH" the uses.
C An antidegradation policy.
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
Waterbody
)LJXUH)DFWRUVIRUGHWHUPLQLQJLQGLFDWRUVDQGHQGSRLQWV
For some waters, the indicators and target values needed are waterbody-specific interpretations of standards. For
for TMDL development are already specified as numeric example, a TMDL that addresses a narrative standard
standards in state water quality standards. An example prohibiting bottom deposits at levels that impair cold
would be a state standard that specifies that turbidity in water fish reproduction might include numeric channel
a river designated for warm water aquatic life support bottom indicators such as median particle size.
must not exceed 50 nephelometric turbidity units
(NTU). However, water quality standards vary :KDWIDFWRUVDIIHFWLQGLFDWRUVHOHFWLRQ"
considerably from state to state and tribe to tribe and
often only narrative standards exist for sediment. In A variety of factors will affect the selection of
these situations, development of the TMDL will require appropriate TMDL indicators. These factors include
the identification of one or more appropriate indicators scientific and technical validity, as well as those
and associated target levels. associated with practical management considerations.
The importance of these factors will vary for each
Where numeric targets are established for indicators waterbody, depending, for instance, on the time and
representative of narrative standards, the targets resources available to develop the TMDL, the
themselves are not water quality standards; rather, they
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
availability of existing data, and the designated or The choice of an indicator that is understandable to the
existing uses of the waterbody. Final selection of the public is also desirable. Finally, the indicator should be
indicator is based on site-specific requirements. useful for addressing other pollutants of concern in the
analysis. For TMDLs that address pollutants in addition
6FLHQWLILFRUWHFKQLFDOYDOLGLW\FRQVLGHUDWLRQV to sediments, some indicators discriminate impacts from
the other pollutants as well as from sediment (e.g.,
Indicators should be logically related to applicable water biological indicators).
quality standards and sensitive to the applicable
designated uses. Indicators will vary depending on 1XPEHURILQGLFDWRUVQHHGHGIRUVHGLPHQW70'/V
waterbody type. Indicators should also be sensitive to
geographic and temporal issues; they should be placed The watershed processes that cause adverse sediment
or located where impacts occur. The indicators should impacts are rarely simple. These processes often vary
also be sensitive to when impacts occur. For example, if substantially over time and space, affect designated uses
water quality is impaired during certain times of the year in more than one way (e.g., fish spawning and rearing
(e.g., drinking water intake fouling during snowmelt life stages), and are frequently difficult to relate to
runoff), the indicator should be chosen accordingly (e.g., specific sediment sources. It is often appropriate to
turbidity during high flows). Indicators should be view sediment TMDLs as an iterative approach in which
sensitive to the temporal variability of sediment assessment tools, planning decisions, and sediment
processes and other driving processes active in the management actions are each evaluated over time to
watershed. The inherent temporal variability associated ensure that they are reasonably accurate and successful
with sediment impacts promotes indicators such as in addressing sediment concerns. In many watersheds,
macroinvertebrates or channel conditions, which more than one indicator and associated numeric target
integrate over longer periods of time. might be appropriate to account for process complexity
and the potential lack of certainty regarding the
An indicator should also be helpful in linking pollutant effectiveness of an individual indicator. Table 4-1 lists
sources to indicator response (e.g., suspended sediment examples of sediment TMDLs or similar projects that
data used as an indicator and as a component of used multiple indicators.
sediment budget development for source analysis). It
should also be technically robust; that is, the indicator A single indicator might be appropriate in some settings.
should be measurable and quantifiable, and For example, where drinking water source degradation
measurements of the indicator should be reproducible. is the problem, it might be appropriate to establish a
single turbidity or suspended solids threshold above
3UDFWLFDOFRQVLGHUDWLRQV which a water treatment plant must shut down or change
treatment strategies. It might be possible to link the
Data collection should be as economical as possible turbidity or suspended sediment indicator to source
while still meeting monitoring objectives. analysis and allocation elements that would establish
Indicators that can be suitably monitored using cost- straightforward BMP expectations. With adequate
effective means should be considered. Indicators should monitoring and review over time, this simple approach
also be feasible to measure, given the capabilities of could prove effective in protecting drinking water
monitoring personnel and the accessibility of the quality. Where the key concern is excessive filling of a
monitoring site at the times when monitoring needs to be reservoir, it might be appropriate to establish an annual
done. Monitoring should introduce as little stress as average mass loading target above which reservoir life
possible on the designated uses of concern. Since span would be shortened more than stakeholders could
comparability with previously collected information is accept. Table 4-2 lists several sediment TMDLs that
important, it is helpful to select an indicator that is used single indicators.
consistent with already-available data and for which
information concerning reference and natural
background conditions is available.
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
7DEOH([DPSOHVRIPXOWLSOHLQGLFDWRUVIRU70'/WDUJHWVDQGVLPLODUVWXGLHV
:DWHUERG\ ,QGLFDWRUV6HOHFWHG 5DWLRQDOHIRU6HOHFWLRQ
'HHS&UHHN0770'/ 3HUFHQWILQHVHGLPHQWPP 0HDVXUHVVDQGLQVSDZQLQJJUDYHOV
DOVRDGGUHVVHVWHPSHUDWXUH
DQGIORZ 1XPEHURIWURXW 'LUHFWPHDVXUHRIGHVLJQDWHGRUH[LVWLQJXVH
7RWDOVXVSHQGHGVROLGV766ORDGFRPSDUHGWRWKDWRI 0HDVXUHVGLUHFW766LPSDFWRQILVK

UHIHUHQFHVWUHDP
6ORSHRIGLVFKDUJHYV766UHJUHVVLRQ '\QDPLF766PHDVXUHFRQVLGHUVIORZYDULDWLRQ
3HUFHQWRINH\UHDFKZLWKHURVLYHEDQNV 0HDVXUHRINH\VHGLPHQWVRXUFH
,QFUHDVHGFKDQQHOOHQJWK 0HDVXUHRIUHVWRUHGFKDQQHOIRUP
0LQLPXPIORZ 0HDVXUHRIIORZUHODWHGFRQFHUQ
7HPSHUDWXUH 'LUHFWPHDVXUHRINH\ILVKVWUHVVRU
6RXWK)RUN6DOPRQ5LYHU,' &REEOHHPEHGGHGQHVV 6SDZQLQJKDELWDWPHDVXUH
70'/
3HUFHQWILQHVHGLPHQWLQJUDYHOV 6SDZQLQJKDELWDWPHDVXUH
3KRWRSRLQWFRPSDULVRQV 6KRZVHGLPHQWIHDWXUHFKDQJHV
3LWWVILHOG/DNH,/1RQSRLQW 7RQVRIVHGLPHQWSHUDFUHIWGLVFKDUJHWRODNH '\QDPLFPHDVXUHRIVHGLPHQWLQSXWVDQG%03
6RXUFH&OHDQ/DNHV6WXG\ HIIHFWLYHQHVV
6HFFKLGLVNGHSWKV 0HDVXUHODNHFODULW\
&RQFHQWUDWLRQRIWRWDODQGYRODWLOHVXVSHQGHGVROLGV 0HDVXUHVWRWDODQGRUJDQLFVHGLPHQWFRQFHQWUDWLRQ
<DJHU&UHHN&$'UDIW70'/ &RUH,QGLFDWRUV
3HUFHQWILQHVHGLPHQWVPP C 0HDVXUHVILQHVLQVSDZQLQJJUDYHOV
C *HRPHWULFPHDQSDUWLFOHVL]H' C 0HDVXUHRIVSDZQLQJJUDYHOFRQGLWLRQ
6HFRQGDU\,QGLFDWRUV
C 3HUFHQWILQHVHGLPHQWVPP C 0HDVXUHVVDQGLQVSDZQLQJJUDYHOV
C 5HVLGXDOSRROYROXPHRFFXSLHGE\ILQHVHGLPHQWV C 0HDVXUHVTXDOLW\RISRROVXVHGIRUUHDULQJDQG
9 UHIXJHIURPSUHGDWRUV
C :LGWKGHSWKUDWLRV C 0HDVXUHVFKDQQHOUHFRYHU\
C 0DFURLQYHUWHEUDWHLQGH[ C 6HQVLWLYHPHDVXUHRIKDELWDWTXDOLW\
C 0LOHVRIXQLPSURYHGURDGVSHUPL C +LOOVORSHLQGLFDWRURINH\VRXUFH
C 9ROXPHRIODUJHZRRG\GHEULVSHUPLOH C 0HDVXUHVNH\IDFWRULQIOXHQFLQJVWUHDPFRPSOH[LW\
DQGSRROTXDOLW\
7DEOH([DPSOHVRIDSSURSULDWHVLQJOHLQGLFDWRUVHGLPHQW70'/V
:DWHUERG\ ,QGLFDWRU6HOHFWHG 5DWLRQDOHIRU6HOHFWLRQ
1LQHPLOH&UHHN07 1XPEHURIWURXWUHGGVSHUPLOH 'LUHFWPHDVXUHRITXDOLW\RIWURXWKDELWDW
/HPRQ&UHHN$. 7XUELGLW\XQGHUORZIORZDQGKLJKIORZFRQGLWLRQV 'LUHFWLQWHUSUHWDWLRQRIVWDWHZDWHUTXDOLW\VWDQGDUGV
+XPEROGW5LYHU19 7RWDOVXVSHQGHGVHGLPHQWFRQFHQWUDWLRQV 'LUHFWLQWHUSUHWDWLRQRIVWDWHZDWHUTXDOLW\VWDQGDUGV
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
:KDWZDWHUTXDOLW\PHDVXUHVFRXOGEHXVHGDV streambeds, which is also associated with aquatic life

LQGLFDWRUV" impairment (Waters, 1995). In addition, high levels of
turbidity or suspended sediment are associated with
This section provides summaries of information on five other use impacts, including contamination of drinking
general categories of potentially useful TMDL water and industrial process water. Turbidity can also
indicators. Each summary defines the indicator, reviews directly affect aquatic species health. For example,
its advantages and disadvantages, and makes turbidity in midwestern smallmouth bass streams can
recommendations for use of the indicator. Following cause young fry to be displaced away from key feeding
the individual discussions of sediment indicator areas due to loss of visual orientation.
categories, several tables are presented that compare the
suitability of different indicators for TMDL 6HWWLQJV:KHUH:DWHU&ROXPQ
development. ,QGLFDWRUV$UH$SSURSULDWH
C :KHUHWKHVWDWHKDVQXPHULFVWDQGDUGVIRU766RUWXUELGLW\
:DWHUFROXPQVHGLPHQWLQGLFDWRUV C :KHUHVXVSHQGHGVROLGVDUHWKHSULQFLSDOFRQFHUQHJ
GULQNLQJZDWHULQGXVWULDOVXSSO\RUUHFUHDWLRQ
Two direct indicators and one indirect indicator of C :KHUHWRWDOVHGLPHQWORDGLQJLVDSULQFLSDOFRQFHUQHJ
sediment load in waterbodies have been used effectively UHVHUYRLURUHVWXDU\VLWXDWLRQVRUZKHUHVHGLPHQWHVWLPDWLRQ
in watershed analysis and TMDL development— PHWKRGVEDVHGRQVXVSHQGHGDQGEHGORDGVHGLPHQWDQDO\VLV
DUHXVHG
suspended sediment, bedload sediment, and turbidity.
C :KHUHH[LVWLQJGDWDIRUWKHVHLQGLFDWRUVDUHDYDLODEOHDQGGDWD
Suspended sediment refers to the fraction of sediment IRURWKHUFDQGLGDWHLQGLFDWRUVDUHUHODWLYHO\GLIILFXOWWRREWDLQ
load suspended in the water column. Bedload sediment HJDVVXUURJDWHIRUFRQFHUQRYHUILQHVHGLPHQWLQVWUHDP
refers to the portion of sediment load transported VXEVWUDWH
downstream by sliding, rolling, or bounding along the C 7RKHOSGLVWLQJXLVKWKHUHODWLYHLPSRUWDQFHRIVHGLPHQW
GLVFKDUJHLQGLIIHUHQWVWUHDPUHDFKHVHJLQ6\FDPRUH
channel bottom. In most cases, sediment particles
&UHHN0LFKLJDQ70'/
smaller than 0.1 mm in diameter are transported as C :KHUHDQLQGLFDWRURIVHGLPHQWZDWHUTXDOLW\XSVWUHDPDQG
suspended load and sediment particles larger than 1 mm GRZQVWUHDPRIDSURMHFWDUHDHJDFRQVWUXFWLRQDUHDLV
are transported as bedload. Particles between 0.1 and 1 QHHGHG
mm can be transported either as suspended load or as C :KHQIORZGDWDDUHDOVRDYDLODEOHVLQFHVHGLPHQWLQGLFDWRUV
DUHJHQHUDOO\IORZGHSHQGHQW
bedload, depending on hydraulic conditions.
Turbidity is a measure of the amount of light that is

scattered or absorbed by a fluid, and it is used as a Turbidity or suspended sediment indicators may be used
measure of cloudiness in water. Turbidity is usually in several ways in TMDL targets. For example, some
associated with suspended sediment, but it can also be researchers have noted that some salmonids are
caused by the presence of organic matter. Because adversely affected by highly turbid flows that persist for
turbidity is easier to measure than suspended sediment, long periods of time. These researchers have proposed
many studies develop the correlation between TSS and the use of an indicator based on the level of turbidity or
turbidity for sediment load estimation purposes and suspended sediment associated with adverse fish
measure turbidity as the primary indicator. However, impacts and the duration of flows above that
analysts should not assume a particular TSS-turbidity turbidity/suspended sediment level. It might also prove
correlation without evaluating the local relationship useful to set turbidity or suspended sediment targets as a
between these variables based, if possible, on multiyear function of flow because turbidity would be expected to
data sets. In addition, as controls are installed, the TSS- increase naturally in response to rainfall-runoff events.
turbidity correlation might change. Early research on tributaries to South Fork Eel River,
California, indicates that when adjusted for flow,
Suspended sediment and turbidity are associated with turbidity levels in a relatively undisturbed reference
aquatic life use degradation in many settings. High stream were significantly lower than turbidity levels in a
levels of suspended sediment can directly affect aquatic highly disturbed nearby stream.
species health. Suspended sediment has been widely
used as an indicator of sediment accumulation in
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
A variation on the use of suspended sediment Recommendations: Water column sediment indicators
concentrations as a direct TMDL indicator is the use of will be appropriate in many TMDL settings, especially
dynamic functions relating suspended sediment loads or when a numeric water quality standard for TSS or
concentrations to waterbody flow. This approach was turbidity has been established, or where sediment data
used in the Deep Creek, Montana, TMDL, in which a will be used as part of the source evaluation method.
target was set based on the slope of the regression curve These indicators should be useful in settings where
identified by plotting flow against total suspended drinking water, other consumptive uses, and/or
sediment load. This approach acknowledges the fact recreation are the key designated use issues. In addition,
that sediment loading often varies substantially as a TSS and turbidity might be appropriate indicators in
function of flow (or other driving factors) and better warm water river and reservoir settings encountered in
reflects system dynamics than static indicators. much of the Midwest and South. Where cold water
However, two sediment curves with the same slope aquatic habitat concerns prevail, these indicators might
could have significantly different intercepts or curve be useful as secondary indicators to complement
forms. Where such functional relationships are used in streambed and geomorphic indicators, to monitor short-
TMDLs, they should be derived based on site-specific or term sediment impacts associated with specific areas,
comparable reference data. and to estimate sediment yields. Bedload estimates
would be most useful as components of total sediment
Suspended and bedload sedimentation are often yield estimation methods, and in settings where stream
evaluated as a component of sediment mass loading channel changes are associated with bedload sediment
studies (e.g., Rosgen, 1996; USDOI-BLM, 1993/1995). processes.
Source analysis methods based on suspended and
bedload sediment estimation are discussed in Chapter 5. Where TMDLs are developed for lakes or reservoirs,
Although bedload analysis is important to sediment water clarity measures are recommended. Because state
mass load studies, bedload sediment has some water quality standards generally do not set numeric
disadvantages as a TMDL indicator. Bedload transport standards for clarity indicators, analysts will need to set
rates are difficult to measure, are highly variable in targets for clarity as measured by Secchi disks based on
space and time, and might not clearly relate to historical information or comparison to appropriate
designated use impacts in particular settings reference sites.
(MacDonald et al., 1991). Also, bedload as a proportion
of total sediment load varies substantially in different If a water column sediment indicator is needed, analysts
settings (Rosgen, 1996). Significant experience has should consider evaluating the relationship between TSS
been gained over the past few years, both in monitoring and turbidity with the hope that a close correlation exists
bedload and in evaluating the accuracy of bedload and that turbidity can be used as a cheaper surrogate
transport equations (see Reid and Dunne, 1996). Table indicator for TSS. It is usually best to base an analysis
4-3 summarizes advantages and disadvantages of of TSS-turbidity correlation on multiyear data since
various water column sediment indicators. substantial year-to-year variation can occur.
Measures of water clarity are in some ways the converse 6WUHDPEHGVHGLPHQWLQGLFDWRUV

of sediment or turbidity indicators. Water clarity is
often measured as the A variety of indicators that measure different physical
water depth at which a attributes of waterbodies are available. Because so
Secchi disk or other 70'/V8VLQJ:DWHU&ROXPQ much focus is placed on the adverse effects of sediment
reflecting material 6HGLPHQW,QGLFDWRUV aggradation or degradation of streambeds and the
becomes invisible from associated use impacts on aquatic life, streambed
/HPRQ&UHHN$.
the surface. This 'HHS&UHHN07 sediment indicators are assessed separately from other
indicator is widely used 6\FDPRUH&UHHN0, stream channel indicators.
to measure lake or +XPEROGW5LYHU19
reservoir clarity.
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
7DEOH$GYDQWDJHVDQGGLVDGYDQWDJHVRIZDWHUFROXPQVHGLPHQWLQGLFDWRUV
$GYDQWDJHV 'LVDGYDQWDJHV
C ,QWXLWLYHDSSHDOWRWKHSXEOLFSHRSOHFDQVHHWKHHIIHFWLQPDQ\ C 'LIILFXOW\LQDVVRFLDWLQJFKDQJHVLQ766WXUELGLW\ZLWKVSHFLILF
FLUFXPVWDQFHV PDQDJHPHQWDFWLYLWLHV
C 6XVSHQGHGVHGLPHQWWXUELGLW\LPSDFWVDUHSULPDULO\UHVSRQVLEOHIRU C /DUJHH[SHFWHGYDULDWLRQLQWLPHDQGVSDFHDVIXQFWLRQRI
PDQ\GHVLJQDWHGXVHLPSDFWV SUHFLSLWDWLRQK\GURJUDSKDQGRWKHUIDFWRUV
C %HFDXVHVHGLPHQWLQGLFDWRUGDWDFDQDOVREHXVHGWRHVWLPDWH C &DQEHGLIILFXOWRUXQVDIHWRPHDVXUHGXULQJKLJKIORZV
VHGLPHQWORDGVHJWKURXJKXVHRIUDWLQJFXUYHPHWKRGVWKH C 'LIILFXOW\LQDVVRFLDWLQJZLWKVRPHGHVLJQDWHGRUH[LVWLQJXVHLVVXHV
LQGLFDWRUFDQVHUYH´GRXEOHGXW\µ DQGHVWDEOLVKLQJWDUJHWFRQGLWLRQVHJKDELWDWTXDOLW\
C 6XEVWDQWLDOH[SHULHQFHDVLQGLFDWRURIVHGLPHQWSUREOHPVIURPFURS C $IRFXVRQVXVSHQGHGVHGLPHQWPLJKWQRWDGGUHVVODUJHUSDUWLFOH
DJULFXOWXUHXUEDQUXQRIIDQGJUD]LQJ VL]HVWKDWPRYHDVEHGORDG
C ([WHQVLYHGDWDDUHDYDLODEOHLQVRPHZDWHUVKHGVHVSHFLDOO\IRU C %HGORDGLVGLIILFXOWWRPHDVXUHDFFXUDWHO\
VXVSHQGHGVHGLPHQW C 6WUHDPIORZRUGLVFKDUJHXVXDOO\QHHGVWREHPHDVXUHGDWWKHVDPH
WLPHIRUWKHGDWDWREHXVHIXO
C 'LIILFXOWWRGLVWLQJXLVKKXPDQFDXVHGFKDQJHV
Streambed sediment quality indicators are based on the Recommendations: Substrate indicators are only a
theory that excessive or insufficient levels of fine subset of available geomorphic indicators and are not
sediments or unnatural substrate size composition fully indicative of geomorphic conditions of streams. In
directly and indirectly impair aquatic habitat in many many cases it will be appropriate to use substrate
ways and during many key indicators in association with other stream channel
life stages. These condition/process indicators and hillslope indicators to
indicators are used most 70'/V8VLQJ6WUHDPEHG ensure that the indicators are sensitive to the entire
commonly in settings 6HGLPHQW,QGLFDWRUV range of processes affecting sediment impairment.
where cold water fisheries,
'HHS&UHHN07
anadromous fisheries, and 6RXWK)RUN6DOPRQ5LYHU,'
Geology has a strong influence on substrate size
associated habitats are of *DUFLD5LYHU&$ distribution. For example, granitic watersheds often
concern. For example, 6RXWK)RUN7ULQLW\5LYHU&$ exhibit a natural bimodal size distribution. Therefore,
excessive sediment 1HZSRUW%D\&$ analysts should consider the link between watershed
deposition can directly 6LPSVRQ7LPEHUODQGV geology and streambed particle size classes.
:DWHUVKHGV:$GUDIW
impair spawning success,
egg survival to emergence,
6HWWLQJV:KHUH6WUHDPEHG6HGLPHQW,QGLFDWRUV$UH
rearing habitat, and fish
$SSURSULDWH
escapement from streams, and it can indirectly
contribute to problems associated with water C )LQHVHGLPHQWLQJUDYHOVLVFDXVLQJSUREOHPVLQVSDZQLQJRU
temperature increases. The following is a partial list of HJJHPHUJHQFH
streambed sediment indicators, the advantages and C 6HGLPHQWDFFXPXODWLRQDURXQGFREEOHVRUJUDYHOVLVGHJUDGLQJ
disadvantages of which are summarized in Table 4-4: LQYHUWHEUDWHDQGILVKUHDULQJKDELWDW
C 6HGLPHQWDFFXPXODWLRQLQSRROVLPSDLUVKLGLQJDQGUHDULQJ
DUHDVHVSHFLDOO\ZKHUHSRROIRUPDWLRQE\ZRRG\GHEULVLVD
C Streambed particle size distribution indicators (e.g., VHFRQGDU\SURFHVV
percentage of fine sediments less than a certain C %HFDXVHRIDFFHVVRUKLJKIORZSUREOHPVRQO\OLPLWHGVDPSOLQJ
critical size, geometric mean or median particle size, LVSRVVLEOH
and the Fredle Index, another measure of central C 3UHYLRXVO\FROOHFWHGGDWDDUHDYDLODEOH
tendency of particle size distribution).
C Streambed coverage measures (e.g., embeddedness,
percent sandy or gravel bottom). Generally, substrate indicators are recommended for
C Streambed armoring or transport capacity measures TMDLs focusing on protection of gravel bed aquatic
(e.g., comparison of surface versus subsurface habitat. Specific indicators should be selected based on
particle size; Dietrich et al., 1989). a thorough understanding of the designated or existing
C Sediment supply measures (e.g., V*, percent of pool use impacts of primary concern (e.g., use pool indicators
volume occupied by fine sediment). where pool quality is a key issue). Because many riffle
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
7DEOH$GYDQWDJHVDQGGLVDGYDQWDJHVRIVWUHDPEHGVHGLPHQWLQGLFDWRUV
C 7KHUHLVDUHODWLYHO\KLJKOHYHORIH[SHULHQFH C 6RPHPHWKRGVDUHGLIILFXOWWRUHSOLFDWHHJFREEOHHPEHGGHGQHVV
XVLQJWKHPHVSHFLDOO\VWUHDPERWWRPSDUWLFOH C $SSURSULDWHWDUJHWRUGHVLUHGFRQGLWLRQVIRUFKRVHQLQGLFDWRUVPD\YDU\VXEVWDQWLDOO\
VL]HGLVWULEXWLRQLQGLFDWRUV GHSHQGLQJRQORFDOZDWHUVKHGDQGDTXDWLFOLIHFKDUDFWHULVWLFVDQGLQGLFDWRUWDUJHWYDOXHV
C ,QGLFDWRUVHIIHFWLYHO\LQWHJUDWHVHGLPHQW DUHQRWDYDLODEOHIRUPDQ\SDUWVRIWKHFRXQWU\,WLVLQDGYLVDEOHWRDSSO\WDUJHWYDOXHV
ORDGLQJDQGWUDQVSRUWHIIHFWVPDNLQJLW VHOHFWHGLQRQHSDUWRIWKHFRXQWU\WRRWKHUDUHDVZLWKRXWFDUHIXOO\FRQVLGHULQJZKHWKHUWKH
SRVVLEOHWRREWDLQXVHIXOUHVXOWVEDVHGRQ VHWWLQJVDUHFRPSDUDEOH
DQQXDOVDPSOLQJGXULQJWKHORZIORZSHULRG C 6XEVWUDWHFRPSRVLWLRQLVDOHVVLPSRUWDQWGHWHUPLQDQWRIKDELWDWTXDOLW\LQPDQ\SDUWVRIWKH
C ,QVRPHJHRORJLFVHWWLQJVVXEVWUDWHLQGLFDWRUV FRXQWU\LQFOXGLQJQDWXUDOO\VDQG\ERWWRPHGVWUHDPVORZJUDGLHQWZDUPZDWHUILVKHU\
KDYHSURYHQHIIHFWLYHLQGLVFULPLQDWLQJ VWUHDPVPRVWODNHVDQGJHRORJLHVZLWKIHZILQHV
EHWZHHQGLVWXUEHGDQGXQGLVWXUEHGKLOOVORSH C )LQHVHGLPHQWDFFXPXODWLRQPLJKWQRWEHDVFULWLFDODSUREOHPLQPDQ\FROGZDWHUVWUHDPV
DUHDVHJ.QRSS LQWKH0LGZHVWDQG(DVWLQZKLFKGLVVROYHGR[\JHQFRQGLWLRQVDUHFRQWUROOHGPRUHE\
C ,QGLFDWRUVDPSOLQJPHWKRGVDUHUHODWLYHO\ JURXQGZDWHUXSZHOOLQJWKDQE\VWUHDPZDWHULQILOWUDWLRQ:DWHUV
VLPSOHDQGGRQRWUHTXLUHVRSKLVWLFDWHG C 6RPHVXEVWUDWHLQGLFDWRUVDUHQRWHDV\WRXQGHUVWDQGRUWRH[SODLQWRWKHSXEOLF
HTXLSPHQW 7KHIROORZLQJGLVGYDQWDJHVDUHFRPPRQSLWIDOOVWKDWFDQEHDYRLGHG
C ,QGLFDWRUVDOORZIRUGLUHFWHPSLULFDO C 1RWDOOVXEVWUDWHLQGLFDWRUVDUHGLVFULPLQDWLQJRIDOOFROGZDWHUDTXDWLFKDELWDWLPSDLUPHQW
DVVRFLDWLRQRIVSHFLILFLQGLFDWRUVZLWKVSHFLILF LVVXHV)RUH[DPSOHULIIOHVXEVWUDWHFRPSRVLWLRQLQGLFDWRUVPLJKWQRWEHHIIHFWLYHSODQQLQJ
FROGZDWHUILVKOLIHVWDJHLVVXHVHJ LQGLFDWRUVLQVHWWLQJVZKHUHRWKHUOLPLWLQJIDFWRUVHJSRROILOOLQJE\ILQHVHGLPHQWSUHYDLO
VHGLPHQWLQULIIOHVDVDPHDVXUHRIVSDZQLQJ C )RFXVLQJRQDVSHFLILFVL]HRIILQHVHGLPHQWHJVHGLPHQWPPFDQUHVXOWLQ
JUDYHOTXDOLW\DQGVHGLPHQWLQSRROVDVD IDLOXUHWRGHWHFWSUREOHPVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKRWKHUVHGLPHQWVL]HV
PHDVXUHRIUHDULQJKDELWDWTXDOLW\ C 1RWDOOGDWDIRUDQLQGLYLGXDOLQGLFDWRUDUHFRPSDUDEOHEHFDXVHGLIIHUHQWVDPSOLQJPHWKRGV
C 3DUWLFOHVL]HLVUHODWHGWRPDFURLQYHUWHEUDWH DUHFRPPRQO\XVHGWRFKDUDFWHUL]HSDUWLFOHVL]HGLVWULEXWLRQHJYROXPHWULFYV
SURGXFWLYLW\ JUDYLPHWULFPHDVXUHPHQWZHWYVGU\ZHLJKWVRUYROXPHVVXUIDFHSDUWLFOHVL]HYV
VXEVWUDWHFRUHSDUWLFOHVL]HDQGVDPSOLQJZLWKVKRYHOVYVVDPSOLQJZLWK0F1HLOFRUHV
sediment indicators are closely related statistical dominated streams (MacDonald et al., 1991). Finally,
measures that can be evaluated without additional embeddedness is not a primary tool in most sediment
sampling, it is recommended that multiple statistical studies, in part because of its high spatial variability.
indicators of desirable particle size distribution be used
(e.g., percent fines less than 0.85 mm, less than 2 mm, Pool indicators (e.g., V*) are useful in many settings
less than 6.4 mm, and/or geometric mean particle size). both as direct measures of problems associated with
Selection of multiple particle sizes for analysis is pool habitat degradation and possibly as more general
particularly warranted in watersheds where the size indicators of excessive sediment loading in streams
distribution of sediments expected to erode as a result of (Lisle and Hilton, 1992). Several methods are
future land management activities is not known promising for TMDL development, although caution is
(Peterson et al., 1992). When monitoring and evaluating advised in applying general “rule of thumb” values in
results based on analysis of these indicators, it is setting pool indicator targets. (For example, setting a
important to track and report raw data to facilitate V* target of 50 percent for all locations might be
different statistical methods for substrate analysis. inappropriate.) Although it has not been widely used
until recently, the V* method holds substantial promise
Embeddedness indicators have been applied in Idaho as a TMDL indicator because it is not flow-dependent
and Montana, particularly in watersheds dominated by and it facilitates comparison between streams of
sedimentation associated with decomposed granitic soils different sizes (Lisle and Hilton, 1992).
and where overwintering habitat quality is a primary
concern. Embeddedness indicators should be used with Although there are few TMDL examples where stream
caution in other areas, and care should be taken to use bottom sediment indicators were used, their extensive
quantitative measures of embeddedness to avoid errors use in fishery protection projects suggests they will be
associated with qualitative embeddedness measurement appropriate in many settings. Whatever method is
techniques (MacDonald et al., 1991). For example, selected, the same sampling techniques should be used if
embeddedness may be an inappropriate indicator in results are to be compared over time and space.
steep or very low gradient streams, or in silt- or clay-
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
2WKHUFKDQQHOFRQGLWLRQLQGLFDWRUV are complex and poorly understood in many settings, it

is usually prudent to use several indicators to obtain a
Other channel indicators can also support TMDL more thorough representation of geomorphic conditions.
development because they help evaluate changes in Focusing on just one or two channel characteristics
channel shape and structure that might be associated might not provide the degree of discrimination needed
with changes in key sedimentation and hydrologic for the indicator to be useful as an assessment and
processes. These indicators monitoring tool. In addition, analysts should avoid
can be effective for TMDL drawing premature conclusions concerning watershed
70'/V8VLQJ2WKHU
development because they &KDQQHO,QGLFDWRUV
process interactions and associated problems based
can be linked to key solely on application of stream classification
designated uses (e.g., cold 'HHS&UHHN07 methodologies (Kondolf, 1995; Miller and Ritter, 1996).
water habitat) and to land *DUFLD5LYHU&$GUDIW In-stream or channel indicators do not provide an
management activities (e.g., adequate substitute for hillslope sediment source
livestock grazing along analysis (Reid and Dunne, 1996). However, the
streambanks). By measuring key elements of stream converse is also true: hillslope indicators do not provide
structure, these indicators provide a mechanism for an adequate substitute for in-stream measures. Hillslope
understanding the relative importance of physical and in-stream indicators should be used to complement
process interactions that occur within streams, and for each other in most settings.
more thoughtfully planning goals for stream
management and actions to attain goals (Reid and %LRORJLFDODQGKDELWDWLQGLFDWRUV
Dunne, 1996; Rosgen, 1996). The advantages and
disadvantages of channel condition indicators are Biological metrics often provide discriminating
summarized in Table 4-5. Channel condition indicators indicators for sediment TMDLs associated with
that might be appropriate for TMDL projects include impairment of the aquatic habitat use. Because the
presence, diversity, and productivity of aquatic
C Pool/riffle ratios organisms of concern can be used to infer the habitat
C Cross sections suitability characteristics, biological indicators can
C Width/depth ratios complement physical and chemical indicators in many
C Sinuosity TMDLs. Biological indicators can be used to detect the
C Gradient effects of changes in key habitat characteristics (e.g.,
C Entrenchment aggradation, degradation, changes in channel diversity)
C Thalweg profiles on aquatic species.
C Channel scour
C Bank stability (measurement of which considers Although it is possible to use bacteria and plant-related
vegetative cover and erosion features present) indicators of aquatic habitat quality, this discussion
C Pool measures (e.g., residual pool volume, percent focuses on invertebrate- and fish-related indicators
pools, and average residual pool depth). because they are most likely to be of use in establishing
sediment TMDLs. Two general types of biological
Recommendations: Channel condition indicators can assessment tools are available. First, a wide variety of
effectively complement other sediment-related approaches focus on quantitative analysis of species
indicators in many TMDL projects. Settings where numbers, diversity, and productivity. For more detailed
these indicators would be particularly relevant include guidance on biological indicator options and the
streams with cold-water habitat degradation issues, selection of specific indicators, see USEPA (1989) and
drinking water intake issues, flow alteration due to Platts et al. (1983). Second, several more qualitative or
dams, irrigation water conveyance or extensive water quasi-quantitative methods have been developed that
diversions, and/or substantial in-stream restoration integrate assessment of biological indicators with
potential. physical indicators (chiefly channel condition factors)
and chemical indicators (e.g., temperature range) to
Analysts should use these indicators carefully. Because yield composite habitat quality indicators. These
interrelationships among channel condition indicators methods include habitat typing (California Department
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
7DEOH$GYDQWDJHVDQGGLVDGYDQWDJHVRIRWKHUFKDQQHOFRQGLWLRQLQGLFDWRUV
C ,QWXLWLYHDSSHDOWRWKHSXEOLFSHRSOHFDQVHHWKHHIIHFWLQPDQ\ C 'LIILFXOW\LQDVVRFLDWLQJFKDQJHVLQ766WXUELGLW\ZLWKVSHFLILF
FLUFXPVWDQFHV PDQDJHPHQWDFWLYLWLHV
C 6XVSHQGHGVHGLPHQWWXUELGLW\LPSDFWVDUHSULPDULO\UHVSRQVLEOHIRU C /DUJHH[SHFWHGYDULDWLRQLQWLPHDQGVSDFHDVIXQFWLRQRI
PDQ\GHVLJQDWHGXVHLPSDFWV SUHFLSLWDWLRQK\GURJUDSKDQGRWKHUIDFWRUV
C %HFDXVHVHGLPHQWLQGLFDWRUGDWDFDQDOVREHXVHGWRHVWLPDWH C &DQEHGLIILFXOWRUXQVDIHWRPHDVXUHGXULQJKLJKIORZV
VHGLPHQWORDGVHJWKURXJKXVHRIUDWLQJFXUYHPHWKRGVWKH C 'LIILFXOW\LQDVVRFLDWLQJZLWKVRPHGHVLJQDWHGRUH[LVWLQJXVHLVVXHV
LQGLFDWRUFDQVHUYH´GRXEOHGXW\µ DQGHVWDEOLVKLQJWDUJHWFRQGLWLRQVHJKDELWDWTXDOLW\
C 6XEVWDQWLDOH[SHULHQFHDVLQGLFDWRURIVHGLPHQWSUREOHPVIURPFURS C $IRFXVRQVXVSHQGHGVHGLPHQWPLJKWQRWDGGUHVVODUJHUSDUWLFOH
DJULFXOWXUHXUEDQUXQRIIDQGJUD]LQJ VL]HVWKDWPRYHDVEHGORDG
C ([WHQVLYHGDWDDUHDYDLODEOHLQVRPHZDWHUVKHGVHVSHFLDOO\IRU C %HGORDGLVGLIILFXOWWRPHDVXUHDFFXUDWHO\
VXVSHQGHGVHGLPHQW C 6WUHDPIORZRUGLVFKDUJHXVXDOO\QHHGVWREHPHDVXUHGDWWKHVDPH
WLPHIRUWKHGDWDWREHXVHIXO
C 'LIILFXOWWRGLVWLQJXLVKKXPDQFDXVHGFKDQJHV
of Fish and Game, 1994), assessment of proper might make them preferable to fish indicators. They are
functioning condition (USDOI-BLM, 1993/1995), and relatively abundant in many settings, are good
assessment of channel stability (Ohlander, 1991). Other representatives of overall aquatic habitat condition, and
methods of this type are reviewed in Dissmeyer (1994). are relatively sensitive to changes in sedimentation. The
Table 4-6 summarizes advantages and disadvantages of chief disadvantages of invertebrates include the
biological indicators for TMDL development. relatively high level of expertise needed to analyze
samples, the difficulty in collecting reliable samples, the
Recommendations: Biological indicators should be need to measure them at the same time of year as the
considered for inclusion in sediment TMDL projects in flow, and the difficulty of setting target conditions. In
many settings. For example, fish indicators often
complement other TMDL indicators. However, because 6HWWLQJV:KHUH%LRORJLFDO,QGLFDWRUV$UH$SSURSULDWHIRU
numbers of fish are often influenced by factors beyond 70'/'HYHORSPHQW
sediment-related impacts, analysts should use caution in
selecting a fish-related indicator as the sole TMDL C $TXDWLFKDELWDWXVHVDUHNH\FRQFHUQV
C 6XIILFLHQWLQIRUPDWLRQLVNQRZQDERXWOLIHKLVWRULHVDQGXVHRI
indicator. In many settings, it is possible to design fish- KDELWDW
related indicators to help control for confounding C 4XDQWLWDWLYHPHWKRGVKDYHEHHQORFDOO\WHVWHGDQGYDOLGDWHG
variables beyond sediment impacts. For example, the C )LHOGSHUVRQQHODUHWUDLQHGLQWKHVHPHWKRGVDQGDYDLODEOHIRU
indicator of trout redd counts per stream mile was IROORZXSPRQLWRULQJ
applied in the Ninemile Creek, Montana, TMDL by C &DXVHHIIHFWUHODWLRQVKLSVEHWZHHQVHGLPHQWVRXUFHVDQGLQ
VWUHDPKDELWDWLPSDFWVDUHSRRUO\XQGHUVWRRG
establishing target levels based on conditions in a
neighboring, good-quality stream.
addition, the temporal and spatial variability of
Invertebrate indicators have several characteristics that invertebrate populations can be very high. In temperate
areas there is a strong seasonal variation in benthic
macroinvertebrate biomass, diversity, and composition,
70'/V:KHUH7RR/LWWOH6HGLPHQW,V3UHVHQW and this variation must be considered when evaluating
,QVRPHVHWWLQJVVXFKDVWKH7ULQLW\5LYHULQ&DOLIRUQLDILVKKDELWDW
the use of invertebrates as indicators (Rosenberg and
LPSDLUPHQWLVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKGLPLQLVKHGVHGLPHQWVXSSO\DQG Resh, 1993). Additionally, benthic macroinvertebrate
DOWHUHGK\GURORJLFUHJLPHVGXHWRPDLQVWHPGDPFRQVWUXFWLRQ,Q populations are often very sensitive to changes in
WKLVW\SHRIVHWWLQJVHGLPHQWVXSSO\VKRUWDJHVPLJKWUHVXOWLQ substrate or other habitat characteristics, and this can
FKDQQHOERWWRPVFRXUDQGHURVLRQRIVSDZQLQJJUDYHOV)RU70'/V make it very hard to compare samples from different
LQVFRXUVHWWLQJVDGLIIHUHQWVHWRIJHRPRUSKLFDQGELRORJLFDO
LQGLFDWRUVPLJKWEHQHHGHGWRDVVHVVWKHGHJUHHRIKDELWDWLPSDFW
streams or waterbodies. Local validation of invertebrate
DQGSURVSHFWLYHVROXWLRQVHJPDQDJHPHQWRIGDPUHOHDVHVDQG monitoring methods is necessary to develop meaningful
JUDYHOUHSOHQLVKPHQW target conditions over time or to compare conditions in
reference streams and the study area. Analysts should
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
7DEOH$GYDQWDJHVDQGGLVDGYDQWDJHVRIELRORJLFDODVVHVVPHQWLQGLFDWRUV
C $UHRIWHQVHQVLWLYHWRWKHDGGLWLYHHIIHFWVRIPXOWLSOH C 4XDOLWDWLYHPHWKRGVPLJKWQRW\LHOGUHVXOWVWKDWFDQEHUHOLDEO\XVHGIRU70'/
FKDQJHVLQK\GURORJLFDQGHURVLRQSURFHVVHVDFWLYHLQ QXPHULFWDUJHWV
DZDWHUVKHGLQFOXGLQJWKHHIIHFWVRIVHGLPHQW C 2IWHQGLIILFXOWWRUHSOLFDWHUHVXOWVRITXDOLWDWLYHDVVHVVPHQWPHWKRGV
GLVFKDUJHVIURPPXOWLSOHVRXUFHVRYHUWLPH C 1RWYHU\XVHIXOIRUGLVWLQJXLVKLQJEHWZHHQVWUHVVRUVRIFRQFHUQHJVHGLPHQWV
C &DQUHIOHFWWKHUHFRYHU\RIDTXDWLFKDELWDWVIURPSDVW QXWULHQWVWHPSHUDWXUH
ODQGGLVWXUEDQFHVDQGDVVRFLDWHGVHGLPHQWLQSXWVDQG C 6RPHPHWKRGVDUHGLIILFXOWWRXVHDQGRUTXDQWLI\HJILVKDUHGLIILFXOWWRFRXQW
FDQDFFRXQWIRUWKHHIIHFWVRIVHGLPHQWVVWRUHGLQ DFFXUDWHO\
ZDWHUERG\FKDQQHOVDIWHUGLVFKDUJH C ,QPDQ\VHWWLQJVVRIHZILVKDUHSUHVHQWWKDWILVKUHODWHGLQGLFDWRUVFDQQRWEH
C &DQEHHIIHFWLYHHYHQLIPRQLWRUHGUDUHO\HJ UHOLDEO\XVHG
DQQXDOO\RUGXULQJNH\OLIHVWDJHSHULRGVRQO\ C )LVKLQGLFDWRUVDUHYHU\VHQVLWLYHWRFRQIRXQGLQJLQIOXHQFHVHJHIIHFWVRIILVKLQJ
C 3URYLGHGLUHFWPHDVXUHVRIWKHGHVLJQDWHGRUH[LVWLQJ ZLWKLQWKHZDWHUVKHGRULQWKHRFHDQLQWKHFDVHRIDQDGURPRXVILVKKDELWDW
XVHVRIFRQFHUQLQPDQ\SURMHFWVDQGFRQVHTXHQWO\ VWUHVVRUVRWKHUWKDQVHGLPHQW>WHPSHUDWXUH@
KDYHVLJQLILFDQWSXEOLFDSSHDOHVSHFLDOO\ILVKFRXQWV C %HFDXVHPDQ\ILVKSRSXODWLRQVKDYHEHHQVHYHUHO\DIIHFWHGIRUVXEVWDQWLDOSHULRGV
RIWLPHLWLVGLIILFXOWWRVHWDSSURSULDWHWDUJHWFRQGLWLRQVIRUILVKFRXQWV
not assume that invertebrate indicators are always good designated or existing use protection; however, they
indicators of salmonid habitat conditions. Although should be used to complement in-stream indicators and
evaluations of invertebrate and fish measurements in not as substitutes for in-stream indicators. Riparian and
eastern streams have found good correlations, some hillslope indicators would not suffice as lone TMDL
researchers in the Pacific Northwest have expressed numeric targets because
concern that invertebrate measurements provide poor they do not provide a 70'/V8VLQJ5LSDULDQ
indicators of western salmonid habitat quality. direct interpretation of +LOOVORSH,QGLFDWRUV
water quality standards,
'HHS&UHHN07EDQNVWDELOLW\
Qualitative and quasi-quantitative indicators (e.g., which focus on in-stream 5HGZRRG&UHHN&$
Ohlander, 1991; USDOI-BLM, 1993/1995) can greatly uses. See the Redwood 6RXWK)RUN7ULQLW\5LYHU&$
assist in defining sediment problems and near-stream Creek TMDL case study 6DQ'LHJR&UHHN&$
sources. However, they might not prove viable as for an example
TMDL indicators because results are often imprecise, application of both in-
difficult to replicate, difficult to compare with target stream and hillslope indicators.
levels, and not fully validated as designated use
assessment methods. Analysts should use caution in Riparian or upslope indicators represent a wide range of
applying such methods to derive TMDL numeric targets influences on stream sediment quality:
for these reasons.
C Riparian buffer width sizes and riparian vegetation
5LSDULDQKLOOVORSHLQGLFDWRUV character.
C Amount of large woody debris present (e.g., number
Not all TMDL indicators must focus on the waterbody. or volume of wood pieces per mile).
In many cases, it is difficult to analyze the relationship C Disturbance indices such as Equivalent Roaded
between upslope sources of sediment and in-stream Acreage (USDA Forest Service, 1988).
impacts of sediment discharges. The hillslope-in-stream C Erosion hazard indices.
connection is particularly difficult to evaluate in many C Percent impervious land within zone adjacent to a
western coastal watersheds. Often these are highly waterbody.
erosive, steep watersheds that are subject to extreme C Landslide area.
variations in sediment-producing runoff events and in
which anadromous fisheries are the principal concern. Depending on the context in which they are included in
a TMDL, riparian and hillslope indicators suitable for
Riparian and hillslope indicators provide additional TMDL numeric targets might not include actions,
indicators of environmental conditions associated with BMPs, land management policies, or projects to be
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
implemented to address riparian or hillslope sediment &RPSDULVRQVRILQGLFDWRUFDQGLGDWHV

issues. Such actions, practices, and projects do not
identify desired conditions; rather, they identify means Although selection of indicators is necessarily a site-
to accomplishing environmental objectives. In some specific decision, Figure 4-2 offers some guidance on
cases, the use of hillslope indicators will be related to selecting indicators that might be most appropriate for
BMPs, such as when the hillslope indicator is related to different types of waterbodies and different designated
road crossing culvert sizes. It might be feasible in uses.
limited circumstances to include such actions, practices,
and projects as part of the allocation process designed to In general, the larger the TMDL study area, the more
identify methods for attaining needed changes in likely it will be that indicators will need to be monitored
sediment processes. To help clarify the differences and target conditions established in multiple locations.
between hillslope targets, allocations, and This is particularly true in settings where indicators
implementation measures, Table 4-7 provides two measured toward the bottom of the watershed are
example applications. Advantages and disadvantages of incapable of detecting key designated use changes in
riparian and hillslope indicators are summarized in critical areas (e.g., upstream spawning areas) or of
Table 4-8. establishing linkage with the source analysis and control
elements of the TMDL. Therefore, in larger study units
(e.g., > 50 mi2), the selection of indicators may be
6HWWLQJV:KHUH5LSDULDQ+LOOVORSH influenced by the availability of future resources for
,QGLFDWRUV$UH$SSURSULDWH monitoring. Table 4-9 provides insights into addressing
indicator selection issues in large watersheds.
C %DQNHURVLRQLVDNH\VHGLPHQWVRXUFH
C *UD]LQJUHFUHDWLRQRUZDWHUVLGHGHYHORSPHQWDUHNH\LVVXHV
C :RRG\GHEULVLVUHVSRQVLEOHIRUFKDQQHOGLYHUVLW\DQGSRRO Tables 4-10 through 4-13 provide additional summary
IRUPDWLRQ comparisons of the candidate indicators. Table 4-10
C 8SVORSHLQVWUHDPOLQNDJHVDUHGLIILFXOWWRHYDOXDWH reviews the sensitivity of indicators to key designated or
C ([WHQVLYHSULRUPRQLWRULQJRIWKHVHLQGLFDWRUVKDVEHHQ existing uses. Table 4-11 reviews the sensitivity of
FRQGXFWHG indicators to primary sediment source management
C 5LSDULDQDUHDODQGPDQDJHPHQWRSWLRQVDUHOLNHO\WREHNH\
FRPSRQHQWVRIWKH70'/LPSOHPHQWDWLRQSODQV activities. Table 4-12 compares candidate indicators
with respect to several key indicator evaluation criteria.
In addition to the indicator’s sensitivity to designated
uses and sediment sources, key criteria include
Recommendations: Upslope and riparian indicators can practicality (relative ease of using the indicator), cost to
prove useful in many TMDLs, especially in settings collect and interpret information, track record (degree of
where in-stream or stream channel indicators are productive experience using this indicator), public
particularly difficult to associate with sediment sources. understanding, and knowledge of reference conditions
Inclusion of hillslope and riparian indicators in the suite (whether reference condition values are available from
of indicators is recommended because they highlight comparable studies or literature sources). Table 4-13
sediment problems before they happen and because considers the relative utility of available indicators with
there is often a long lag time between hillslope respect to hydrologic, geomorphic, geologic,
disturbance and downstream sediment impacts. topographic, and soil considerations. Indicator selection
Although this class of indicators can often be effective requires careful consideration of the unique mix of
in improving stream condition, they can be difficult to issues, opportunities, and characteristics present in each
apply in settings where establishing target conditions is watershed. Analysts are encouraged to use this
problematic. information as the starting point in an iterative process
and to consult key references and local experts in the
final selection of indicators.
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
7DEOH([DPSOHVRILQVWUHDPDQGKLOOVORSHWDUJHWVDOORFDWLRQVDQGLPSOHPHQWDWLRQPHDVXUHV
,QGLFDWRUV7DUJHWV $OORFDWLRQV ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ0HDVXUHV
,QVWUHDP /DQGRZQHU /DQGRZQHU
0HGLDQSDUWLFOHVL]H!PP 5HGXFHHURVLRQSURQHURDGPLOHDJHE\ C 1RQHZURDGV
ILQHVPP PLOHV C 5HWLUHPLOHVRIH[LVWLQJURDG
+LOOVORSH /DQGRZQHU /DQGRZQHU

$WWDLQPLOHVURDGVZLWKHURVLRQ 5HGXFHHURVLRQSURQHURDGPLOHDJHE\ C 5HWLUHPLOHVRIH[LVWLQJURDG
SRWHQWLDOSHUPLVWXG\DUHD PLOHV C 5HWURILWVWUHDPFURVVLQJV
,QVWUHDP 5HGXFHOHQJWKRIHURGLQJEDQNVE\ 7ULEXWDU\VWUHDPDQGEDQNUHVWRUDWLRQSURMHFW

9 7ULEXWDU\ 7ULEXWDU\QHZULSDULDQSODQWLQJVDQG
!UHGGVSHUPLOH 7ULEXWDU\ LQVWDOODWLRQRIVWRFNZDWHULQJWDQNV
7ULEXWDU\ 7ULEXWDU\QHZULSDULDQIHQFLQJ
+LOOVORSH
$WWDLQDFWLYHO\HURGLQJ
VWUHDPEDQNV
of the methods for setting target values require an

:KDWDUHDSSURSULDWHWDUJHWYDOXHVIRUWKH interpretation of what constitutes impaired versus
FKRVHQLQGLFDWRUV" unimpaired conditions. In many cases this
determination is subjective (e.g., what level of fish
For each numeric indicator used in a TMDL, a desired habitat quality or water clarity is equated to “full
or target condition needs to be established to provide support” of designated uses?). Regardless of the
measurable goals and a clear linkage to water quality method used to establish the indicator values, it is
standards attainment. Target values for some indicators important to solicit input from as many stakeholders as
might already have been established through state water possible, including the public and regulatory agencies.
quality standards (e.g., for turbidity). This is usually not Stakeholder input is an important component of the
the case for indicators used in sediment TMDL Watershed Approach (USEPA, 1996b), and it can be
development. There are a variety of additional particularly useful for interpreting narrative standards.
mechanisms to determine appropriate target values. All For example, in a stream designated for support of a
7DEOH$GYDQWDJHVDQGGLVDGYDQWDJHVRIULSDULDQDQGKLOOVORSHLQGLFDWRUV
C 'LUHFWO\DGGUHVVNH\VRXUFHVRIFRQFHUQHJVWUHDPEDQNVURDGVRU C 4XDQWLWDWLYHLQGLFDWRUVRIWKLVW\SHHJZRRG\GHEULVDQG
WLPEHUKDUYHVWDUHDV EDQNVWDELOLW\KDYHQRWEHHQZLGHO\GHPRQVWUDWHGRUDSSOLHG
C $GGUHVVNH\PLWLJDWLQJIDFWRUVWKDWPD\OLPLWVHGLPHQWGHOLYHU\WRVWUHDPV C 6HWWLQJGHVLUHGFRQGLWLRQVIRUWKHVHLQGLFDWRUVZRXOGEH
HJULSDULDQEXIIHUV GLIILFXOWEHFDXVHVRPHDUHQRWZLGHO\XVHGDVTXDQWLWDWLYH
C )DFLOLWDWHJRDOVHWWLQJIRUODUJHZRRG\GHEULVUHFUXLWPHQWDNH\IDFWRULQWKH LQGLFDWRUV
PDLQWHQDQFHRIKHDOWK\VWUHDPFRQGLWLRQVLQPDQ\ZDWHUVKHGW\SHV C 7KHOLQNDJHRIXSVORSHDQGULSDULDQLQGLFDWRUVWRLQVWUHDP
C %XLOGFRQQHFWLRQVZLWKVRXUFHDQDO\VLVZKLFKDUHFULWLFDOWR70'/ GHVLJQDWHGRUH[LVWLQJXVHFRQGLWLRQVKDVQRWEHHQFOHDUO\
GHYHORSPHQW HVWDEOLVKHGLQPRVWRIWKHFRXQWU\HJGLVWXUEDQFH
C 5HODWLYHO\HDV\WRXQGHUVWDQGDQGPHDVXUHHJEXIIHUZLGWK LQGLFDWRUV
C +HOSDGGUHVVGLIILFXOW\RIOLQNLQJVRXUFHVWRLQVWUHDPLPSDFWVE\SURYLGLQJ C 6RPHRIWKHVHLQGLFDWRUVHJEDQNVWDELOLW\DQGZRRG\
LQWHUPHGLDWHLQGLFDWRUV GHEULVDUHUHODWLYHO\GLIILFXOWDQGWLPHFRQVXPLQJWRPHDVXUH
C 8VXDOO\GRQRWKDYHWREHPHDVXUHGPRUHWKDQDQQXDOO\WR\LHOGXVHIXO DOWKRXJKWKH\PLJKWQRWQHHGWREHPHDVXUHGRIWHQ
LQIRUPDWLRQ
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
6HGLPHQW
,PSDLUHG
:DWHUERG\
/DNHRU5HVHUYRLU 5LYHURU6WUHDP
0RVW 0RVW
6HQVLWLYH 6HQVLWLYH
'HVLJQDWHG 'HVLJQDWHG
8VH 8VH
$TXDWLF/LIH 5HFUHDWLRQ :DWHU6XSSO\ $TXDWLF/LIH 5HFUHDWLRQ :DWHU6XSSO\

%LRORJLFDO 7XUELGLW\VXVSHQGHG 7XUELGLW\VXVSHQGHG %LRORJLFDO 7XUELGLW\VXVSHQGHG 7XUELGLW\VXVSHQGHG
6XEVWUDWHFRPSRVLWLRQ VHGLPHQW VHGLPHQW 7XUELGLW\VXVSHQGHG VROLGV VROLGV
&KDQQHOVWUXFWXUH 6HFFKLGHSWK &KDQQHOVWUXFWXUH VHGLPHQW &KDQQHOVWUXFWXUH %RWWRPGHSRVLWGHSWK
,QWHUVWLWLDOGLVVROYHG %RWWRPGHSRVLWGHSWK 6HFFKLGHSWK 6XEVWUDWHFRPSRVLWLRQ
R[\JHQ %RWWRPGHSRVLWGHSWK
)LJXUH*XLGHOLQHVIRUVHOHFWLQJLQGLFDWRUVEDVHGRQZDWHUERG\W\SHDQGVHYHUDOGHVLJQDWHGXVHV
cold water fishery, a biological indicator aimed at 9DULDELOLW\RIFRQGLWLRQVLQWKHZDWHUVKHG

assessing the health and diversity of the fish population
could be refined into a quantitative target based on The larger the study area for the TMDL and the more
stakeholder consensus as to what constitutes a heterogeneous the waterbody characteristics in the
sufficiently viable fishery. watershed, the more important it will be to consider
establishing multiple target conditions for the TMDL. It
might be useful to stratify the targets based on spatial
)DFWRUVIRUHVWDEOLVKLQJWDUJHWFRQGLWLRQV distinctions (e.g., key habitat areas vs. nonhabitat areas,
main stems vs. tributaries, or aggrading vs. degrading
'HJUHHRIH[SHULHQFHDSSO\LQJWKHLQGLFDWRUVLQWKHDUHD reaches). Similarly, it might be necessary to account for
RULQVLPLODUVHWWLQJV seasonal and interannual variations in setting target
conditions.
Where local experience has been gained in applying
sediment indicators, it is often possible to identify target 0DUJLQRIVDIHW\FRQVLGHUDWLRQV
conditions through analysis of historical conditions or
reference stream conditions in relatively high quality Determination of the margin of safety in the
parts of the watershed. Where less local or directly establishment of target conditions should consider
analogous experience is available, it is appropriate to provisions for monitoring and adaptive management.
establish more conservative targets. Factors that should be considered in defining the margin
of safety include the expected accuracy or reliability of
the indicator for the local designated use and the degree
to which designated uses are rare or valuable.
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
7DEOH&RQVLGHUDWLRQVLQVHOHFWLQJLQGLFDWRUVIRUODUJHZDWHUVKHGV
3UHVHQWRU)XWXUH5HVRXUFHV$YDLODEOHWR'HYHORS70'/
5HVRXUFHV$YDLODEOH
IRU)XWXUH0RQLWRULQJ /RZ 0HGLXP +LJK
1RQH %LRORJLFDOLQGLFDWRUZLWKYHU\KLJK 6HGLPHQWRUELRORJLFDOLQGLFDWRUZLWK $OORFDWHUHVRXUFHVIRUIXWXUH
PDUJLQRIVDIHW\026 DQDO\VLVOLQNDJHWR%03VDQGKLJK PRQLWRULQJDQGGROHVVFRPSOH[
026 70'/DQDO\VLV
/RZ 6LQJOHVHGLPHQWVXEVWUDWHRU 6HGLPHQWRUVXEVWUDWHLQGLFDWRU $WOHDVWWZRLQGLFDWRUVSHU
ELRORJLFDOLQGLFDWRUZLWKKLJK026 ELRORJLFDORUXSODQGLQGLFDWRUZLWK PHGLXPH[WHQVLYHDQDO\VLVRI
DQGDQQXDOPRQLWRULQJ DQDO\VLVOLQNDJHWR%03VPRGHUDWH FRQWUROUHVWRUDWLRQHIIHFWLYHQHVV
026DQGDQQXDOPRQLWRULQJ PRGHUDWH026DQGDQQXDO
PRQLWRULQJ
0XOWLSOH´WDUJHWµSRLQWVSRVVLEOH
0HGLXP 6HGLPHQWRUVXEVWUDWHLQGLFDWRU 6HGLPHQWRUFKDQQHO $WOHDVWWZRLQGLFDWRUVSHU
ELRORJLFDORUXSODQGLQGLFDWRUZLWK LQGLFDWRUVXEVWUDWHRURWKHU PHGLXPH[WHQVLYHDQDO\VLVRI
KLJK026DQGPRUHIUHTXHQW ELRORJLFDORUXSODQGLQGLFDWRUZLWK FRQWUROUHVWRUDWLRQHIIHFWLYHQHVV
PRQLWRULQJ DQDO\VLVOLQNDJHWR%03VPRGHUDWH PRGHUDWH026DQGPRUHIUHTXHQW
026DQGPRUHIUHTXHQWPRQLWRULQJ PRQLWRULQJ
0XOWLSOH´WDUJHWµSRLQWVSRVVLEOH 0XOWLSOH´WDUJHWµSRLQWVSRVVLEOH
:DWHUVKHGPRGHODVDQDO\WLFDOWRRO
+LJK 6HGLPHQWRUVXEVWUDWHLQGLFDWRU 0XOWLSOHLQGLFDWRUVDSSURSULDWH 0XOWLSOHLQGLFDWRUVDSSURSULDWH
ELRORJLFDORUXSODQGLQGLFDWRUZLWK LQFOXGLQJFKDQQHODQGELRORJLFDO LQFOXGLQJFKDQQHODQGELRORJLFDO
KLJK026DQGIUHTXHQWPRQLWRULQJ PHWULFVLQPXOWLSOHORFDWLRQV PHWULFVLQPXOWLSOHORFDWLRQV5REXVW
0XOWLSOH´WDUJHWµSRLQWVSUREDEOH 0RGHUDWHWRORZ026DQGIUHTXHQW DQDO\VLVRIOLQNDJHWR%03V/RZ
PRQLWRULQJ0XOWLSOH´WDUJHWµSRLQWV 026DQGIUHTXHQWPRQLWRULQJ
SUREDEOH:DWHUVKHGPRGHODV 0XOWLSOH´WDUJHWµSRLQWVDSSURSULDWH
DQDO\WLFDOWRRO :DWHUVKHGPRGHODVDQDO\WLFDOWRRO
:DWHUTXDOLW\VWDQGDUGV
&RPSDULVRQWRUHIHUHQFHVLWHV
Several states have adopted numeric criteria for
suspended sediment concentrations or turbidity that can One method for establishing target values is comparison
be used as targets if the indicators are relevant to the to reference sites—waterbodies that are representative
TMDL. Usually, these standards are set as either of the characteristics of the region and subject to
absolute thresholds minimal human disturbance. Where narrative standards
(e.g., turbidity no ,QIRUPDWLRQ6RXUFHVIRU are involved, assessing environmental conditions in
greater than 25 NTU) 'HWHUPLQLQJ,QGLFDWRU receiving waters often depends on comparing observed
or relative targets 7DUJHW9DOXHV conditions to expected conditions. This comparison is
(e.g., no turbidity typically done by comparing data collected from
Water quality standards
increases greater than Reference sites impaired sites to similar data from the same sites
10 percent or 5 NTU Literature values collected before impairment and/or from one or more
above background User surveys appropriate reference sites where designated uses are in
Functional equivalents
conditions). These Best professional judgment
good condition. Conditions at the reference site (e.g.,
standards are not suspended sediment concentrations) can then be
always easy to apply interpreted as approximate targets for the indicators at
given the spatial and temporal variability of suspended the impaired site. A disadvantage to this approach is
sediment and turbidity, but they are related to designated that it might not aid in determining an impairment
use concerns and often provide a ready basis for making threshold. Reference sites may represent the completely
the required TMDL linkage to attainment of water unaffected state, a relatively unaffected state, or
quality standards. increasing degrees of existing impact.
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU

7DEOH6HQVLWLYLW\RILQGLFDWRUVWRGHVLJQDWHGXVHV
'HVLJQDWHG8VHV
'RPHVWLF:DWHU $JULFXOWXUDO:DWHU +\GURHOHFWULF &ROG:DWHU :DUP:DWHU

,QGLFDWRU 6XSSO\ 6XSSO\ 5HVHUYRLU6WRUDJH 5HFUHDWLRQ +DELWDW +DELWDW
6(',0(17
6XVSHQGHG
7XUELGLW\
&+$11(/&+$5$&7(5,67,&6
%HG0DWHULDO6L]H

*(20253+2/2*<0($685(6
:LGWK'HSWK5DWLR
&URVV6HFWLRQV
%DQN6WDELOLW\
3RRO0HDVXUHV

:22'<'(%5,6
%,2/2*,&$/,1',&$7256
,QYHUWHEUDWHV
)LVK&RXQWV

K(< 8VHKLJKO\VHQVLWLYHWRLQGLFDWRULQPRVWFDVHV
8VHFORVHO\UHODWHGDQGVRPHZKDWVHQVLWLYHLQPRVWFDVHV
8VHLQGLUHFWO\UHODWHGDQGQRWYHU\VHQVLWLYH
8VHODUJHO\XQUHODWHGWRLQGLFDWRU
6RXUFH0DF'RQDOGHWDO
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
7DEOH6HQVLWLYLW\RILQGLFDWRUVWRVHGLPHQWVRXUFHV
3RWHQWLDO6HGLPHQW6RXUFHV
&URS 6DQGDQG*UDYHO +DQGORFN

,QGLFDWRU 5RDGV 7LPEHU+DUYHVW *UD]LQJ $JULFXOWXUH 8UEDQ5XQRII &RQVWUXFWLRQ 3ODFHU0LQLQJ 0LQLQJ
6(',0(17
6XVSHQGHG
7XUELGLW\
&+$11(/&+$5$&7(5,67,&6
%HG0DWHULDO6L]H
(PEHGGHGQHVV

*(20253+2/2*<0($685(6
:LGWK'HSWK5DWLRV
&URVV6HFWLRQV
%DQN6WDELOLW\
3RRO0HDVXUHV

:22'<'(%5,6
%,2/2*,&$/,1',&$7256
,QYHUWHEUDWHV
)LVK&RXQWV

K(< 'LUHFWO\DIIHFWHGDQGKLJKO\VHQVLWLYH
8VHFORVHO\UHODWHGDQGVRPHZKDWVHQVLWLYH
8VHLQGLUHFWO\UHODWHGDQGQRWYHU\VHQVLWLYH
/DUJHO\XQDIIHFWHGDQGLQVHQVLWLYH
6RXUFH0DF'RQDOGHWDO

7DEOH&RPSDULVRQRIVHGLPHQWUHODWHGLQGLFDWRUVIRU70'/GHYHORSPHQW
KQRZOHGJHRI
3XEOLF 5HIHUHQFH
,QGLFDWRU 3UDFWLFDOLW\ &RVW 7UDFN5HFRUG 8QGHUVWDQGLQJ &RQGLWLRQV &RPPHQWV
6(',0(17
6XVSHQGHG 0/ +0 *) *) *)
7XUELGLW\ +0 0 *) * *)
&+$11(/&+$5$&7(5,67,&6
%HG0DWHULDO6L]H
(PEHGGHGQHVV + / * ) *)
+ / ) ) )3
*(20253+2/2*<0($685(6
:LGWK'HSWK5DWLR 0 /0 ) )3 *)
&URVV6HFWLRQV 0 /0 *) ) *3
%DQN6WDELOLW\ 0/ 0 ) * )3
3RRO0HDVXUHV +0 /0 * *) )
:22'<'(%5,6 0/ 0 ) * )
%,2/2*,&$/,1',&$7256
,QYHUWHEUDWHV
)LVK 0 0+ *) *) )
0 0+ *) * )
K(< + +LJK
0 0HGLXP
/ /RZ
* *RRG
) )DLU
3 3RRU
%HVWIRUILVKGHVLJQDWHGRUH[LVWLQJXVH
%HVWIRUZDWHUVXSSO\
0RQLWRULQJGLIILFXOW
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
7DEOH8WLOLW\RIVHGLPHQWUHODWHGLQGLFDWRUVIRUGLIIHUHQWHQYLURQPHQWDOVHWWLQJV
(QYLURQPHQWDO6HWWLQJ
*HRORJ\ 7RSRJUDSK\ 6RLOV
2YHU 0RUH 0RUH

Indicator *UDQLWLFV %DVDOWV 6HGLPHQWDU\ 0DULQH *ODFLDO /RZ6ORSH 6WHHS 6WHHS &OD\V 6DQG\
6(',0(17
6XVSHQGHG
7XUELGLW\
&+$11(/&+$5$&7(5,67,&6
%HG0DWHULDO6L]H
(PEHGGHGQHVV
3RRO0HDVXUHV

*(20253+2/2*<0($685(6
&KDQQHO*HRPHWU\
%DQN6WDELOLW\

:22'<'(%5,6
%,2/2*,&$/,1',&$7256
,QYHUWHEUDWHV
)LVK

K(< &OHDUO\XVHIXOH[WHQVLYHUHFRUGGHPRQVWUDWLQJVHQVLWLYLW\LQWKLVVHWWLQJ
6RPHWLPHVXVHIXOOLPLWHGRUPL[HGUHFRUGRIXVHLQWKLVVHWWLQJ
3UREDEO\QRWYHU\XVHIXOQRRUSRRUUHFRUGRIXVHLQWKLVVHWWLQJ

7DEOH8WLOLW\RIVHGLPHQWUHODWHGLQGLFDWRUVIRUGLIIHUHQWHQYLURQPHQWDOVHWWLQJVFRQWLQXHG
(QYLURQPHQWDO6HWWLQJ
+\GURORJ\ *HRPRUSKRORJ\
3HUHQQLDO ,QWHUPLWWHQW 'RPE\0DMRU 'RPE\)UHTXHQW

,QGLFDWRU )ORZ (SKHP)ORZ (YHQWV (YHQWV 6DQG\%RWWRP *UDYHO&REEOH
6(',0(17
6XVSHQGHG
7XUELGLW\
&+$11(/&+$5$&7(5,67,&6
%HG0DWHULDO6L]H
(PEHGGHGQHVV
3RRO0HDVXUHV

*(20253+2/2*<0($685(6
&KDQQHO*HRPHWU\
%DQN6WDELOLW\

:22'<'(%5,6
%,2/2*,&$/,1',&$7256
,QYHUWHEUDWHV
)LVK

K(< &OHDUO\XVHIXOH[WHQVLYHUHFRUGGHPRQVWUDWLQJVHQVLWLYLW\LQWKLVVHWWLQJ
6RPHWLPHVXVHIXOOLPLWHGRUPL[HGUHFRUGRIXVHLQWKLVVHWWLQJ
3UREDEO\QRWYHU\XVHIXOQRRUSRRUUHFRUGRIXVHLQWKLVVHWWLQJ
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
Selection of an appropriate reference site should reflect for the TMDL because of its usefulness in developing
a clear understanding of the overall system. The sediment budgets and the availability of data. Using
reference sites may be within the study watershed or in available turbidity and suspended sediment data for
nearby or even distant watersheds, and they should be Silver Creek, the relationship between turbidity and
selected based on careful comparison of key watershed suspended sediments was evaluated through regression
characteristics and processes (e.g., geology, soils, analysis. Because a close linear relationship was
topography, land use). In general, though, the most observed, the TMDL target for suspended sediment was
useful reference sites are located within the watershed, determined as a watershed-specific function of the
relatively near the point where impact is expected. turbidity.
Reference sites may be difficult to find.
%HVWSURIHVVLRQDOMXGJPHQW
8VHUVXUYH\V
It is sometimes infeasible to develop numeric targets
Several states have used user surveys to determine based on the methods described above because adequate
indicator target values, especially in lakes and information is not available or relationships between
reservoirs. This approach is especially useful when the designated uses and selected indicators are not well
designated use of the waterbody is recreational. understood. In this case, it may be feasible to develop
Waterbody users can be questioned concerning their target values based on the best professional judgment of
perceptions of water quality conditions and the quality resource professionals involved in TMDL development.
of the recreational experience. Survey results can be To ensure that these targets are defensible, analysts are
correlated with simultaneous water quality advised to
measurements to establish target values at the border
between acceptable and unacceptable conditions. For C Consult with multiple experts with local experience
example, if 50 percent of those surveyed agree that their rather than relying on a single opinion.
aesthetic enjoyment of a lake is impaired when water C Thoroughly document the thinking underlying the
clarity diminishes to less than 40 feet (measured with a target, including assumptions, related experience, or
Secchi disk), this value could represent a possible clarity other factors considered in identifying the targets.
(Secchi disk) target value. The survey approach C Remember that targets must be set at levels that are
recognizes that such an assessment of the overall water believed to result in full support of the impaired
quality of a waterbody is highly subjective and can vary designated uses (i.e., water quality “improvements”
considerably by region. might be inadequate).
C Design the TMDL as a phased TMDL that includes
/LWHUDWXUH9DOXHV a monitoring plan to assess whether the numeric
targets are appropriate for the particular situation.
Several TMDLs have included numeric targets based on
information from research studies of the relationship 0HWKRGVIRUH[SUHVVLQJQXPHULFWDUJHWV
between the selected sediment indicator(s) and the
beneficial use of concern. For example, the Garcia The dynamic interactions between the multiple
River, California, TMDL included numeric targets for watershed processes that affect sediment delivery and
fine sediments based on reviews of several research impacts in many streams may make it difficult to
publications that evaluated the fine sediment levels at establish individual target conditions. In general,
which salmonid survival began to diminish. sedimentation problem solving is more likely to succeed
if it strives to mimic the natural ranges of watershed
,QGLFDWRUUHODWLRQVKLSV process behaviors, including extreme events, which
cause adverse sediment impacts on designated uses
In some cases, information is available to identify target (Bisson et al., 1997). In many watersheds it is
conditions for indicators that are functionally related to reasonable to expect substantial spatial and temporal
the indicators selected for TMDL analysis. For variability in sediment indicators. Where this is the
example, in the Silver Creek, Arizona, demonstration case, it might be appropriate to express target conditions
TMDL, suspended sediment was the indicator of choice for the watershed to account for expected variability in
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
key watershed processes yet still provide measurable achieve this objective while ensuring that the TMDL
goals for restoration and protection of designated or approach is based on sound scientific principles.
existing uses over time.
Analysts developing targets for TMDLs for large
There may be resistance to developing “hard” targets if watershed areas should consider the potential need for
it is perceived that they will limit land management different targets for different areas or time frames. To
flexibility without having an adequately robust develop targets that address large study areas, several
analytical basis. Careful design of targets will help approaches are available:
ensure that the results are not perceived as arbitrary;
however, significant uncertainty regarding the precision C Different target values can be established for
of the targets may exist in the best of circumstances. In multiple measurement points (e.g., key habitat areas,
such circumstances, it might be appropriate to frame the mouths of several tributaries, or areas where land
numeric indicators and associated target conditions as uses change).
testable hypotheses that will be reviewed and revised as C A different target may be set at a key watershed
necessary over time. The TMDL process provides for outlet, critically vulnerable or sensitive area, or
the inclusion of adequate margins of safety to account other representative waterbody area.
for such uncertainties. If management flexibility is C A range of values can be applied in the study area.
reduced through the application of numeric targets, there
may be some incentives to conduct follow-up +RZGRWKHH[LVWLQJYDOXHVFRPSDUHWRWKH
monitoring and review to determine if targets are WDUJHWYDOXHV"
appropriate or if they should be revised based on new
information. The last step in establishing numeric targets is to
compare existing and target conditions for indicators
In addition, it might make sense to establish both interim selected for the TMDL. This key step should not be
and final numeric targets for the TMDL. The interim overlooked because it provides critical information that
targets may represent target levels believed to be can be used to evaluate whether watershed management
reasonably attainable in relatively short periods of time. and restoration actions are likely to be effective in
The final targets are set at levels at which designated attaining water quality standards. Although the
uses are protected and the actual desired condition for comparison might appear easy to make, in practice some
the resource is represented. Under no circumstances do indicators are not as amenable to comparison as others.
interim targets replace final targets set at levels The best approach to making comparisons is influenced
necessary to attain water quality standards. Using both by the types of indicators selected, the approach to
interim and final targets is particularly well suited to articulating the target condition(s) for each indicator, the
situations in which spatial and temporal scales selected for the TMDL, and
the methods used to link numeric targets to other TMDL
C It might take many years to attain final targets and elements. This section briefly reviews factors to
water quality standards because of the slow response consider in making condition comparisons and discusses
of waterbodies to land use changes. some methods for making reasonable comparisons.
C Analysts and stakeholders want clearer short-term
measures to guide near-term implementation and KH\IDFWRUVWRFRQVLGHULQFRPSDULQJQXPHULF
evaluate TMDL effectiveness (i.e., are we on the WDUJHWVZLWKH[LVWLQJFRQGLWLRQV
right track?).
C The analytical basis for final target levels is weak. 9DULDELOLW\LQFRQGLWLRQVZLWKLQVWXG\DUHD
Table 4-14 summarizes several possible approaches to If existing conditions for the selected indicators vary
establishing numeric target levels for TMDLs. In substantially within the study area or at different times
general, the objective in establishing target conditions is of the year, the comparison method should be able to
to articulate the condition(s) for the TMDL indicators account for spatial or temporal differences.
that represents fully supported designated or existing
uses. Analysts should be creative in establishing ways to
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
7DEOH0HWKRGVIRUH[SUHVVLQJQXPHULFWDUJHWVIRU70'/V
0HWKRG ([DPSOH$SSOLFDWLRQ
$EVROXWHYDOXHVRU C 1RPRUHWKDQILQHVHGLPHQW!PPLQULIIOHV*DUFLD5LYHU&$
WKUHVKROGV C 1RQHWLQFUHDVHLQVHGLPHQWGLVFKDUJHDERYHEDFNJURXQG0DWWROH5LYHU&$
C 'HSWKRINH\UHIXJHDUHDQROHVVWKDQIHHWGHHS1HZSRUW%D\&$
&RQGLWLRQDOYDOXHV C 0D[LPXPLQFUHDVHGWXUELGLW\ZKHQEDFNJURXQG!178$=:46
C ORQJWHUPUHGXFWLRQLQDYHUDJHDQQXDOLQVWUHDPORDGFRPSDUHGWRYDOXH'HHS&UHHN07
)XQFWLRQDOYDOXHV C 6XVSHQGHGVHGLPHQWORDGDVIXQFWLRQRIIORZWDUJHWLVVORSHRI766IORZUHJUHVVLRQHTXDWLRQ'HHS&UHHN07
5HODWLYHYDOXHV C $YHUDJHWXUELGLW\QRJUHDWHUWKDQWKDWPHDVXUHGVLPXOWDQHRXVO\DWSDLUHGUHIHUHQFHVWUHDP&DVSDU&UHHN&$
5DQJHVRIYDOXHV C DQQXDOUHWXUQLQJVSDZQLQJFKLQRRNVDOPRQ
,QGH[YDOXHV C %LRORJLFDOLQGLFDWRULQGH[QRJUHDWHUWKDQVWDWHLQGH[RIELRORJLFDOLQWHJULW\OHYHOIRUÍXOOXVHVXSSRUWµ:DLPDQDOR
6WUHDP+,>GUDIW@
C $FUHDJHVRIDTXDWLFKDELWDWRIGLIIHUHQWW\SHVLQZLOGOLIHUHIXJH1HZSRUW%D\&$
/HYHORIDFFXUDF\QHHGHGLQWKHFRQGLWLRQFRPSDULVRQ In addition, averaging existing conditions for indicator

values across the entire study area is inappropriate in
Analysts should consider how the comparison will be many settings because this practice can obscure
used to support the TMDL. In TMDL projects where important differences in individual locations and make it
source reductions will be determined by comparing more difficult to identify source-to-in-stream impact
existing and target conditions, it might be more relationships. Table 4-15 presents a summary of
important to make relatively accurate comparisons. approaches for comparing existing and target conditions.
However, in cases where source allocations are based Note that these methods are not mutually exclusive.
partly or completely on other factors, the comparison
could be relatively rough. In cases where the analytical uncertainty precludes
direct comparisons of existing and target conditions,
7KHRUHWLFDOEDVLVIRUFKDQJHLQWKHLQGLFDWRU other approaches are more prudent. For example, a
TMDL could discuss the percentage of land area or
Analysts should understand how changes in the selected stream miles exceeding a TMDL indicator target level
indicators are expected to occur in the study area (i.e., rather than directly discussing the magnitude of the
what are the driving forces of change in the watershed exceedance. However, it is often useful to describe the
and how do these forces manifest themselves in the estimated magnitude of the problem to facilitate
selected indicators?). development of allocations.
0HWKRGVIRUFRPSDULQJH[LVWLQJDQGWDUJHW :KDWFKDQJHVGRHVWKHSURSRVHGUXOHVSHDN
FRQGLWLRQV WR"
Direct comparison of data for existing and target levels On August 23, 1999, EPA published proposed rules that
for indicators selected for the TMDL provides the most specify that approvable TMDLs must include at a
straightforward method for estimating sediment minimum ten elements. Within the water quality
reductions needed to attain water quality standards. indicators and target values step, an approvable TMDL
However, the analyst should be careful in making such will need to include the following information:
comparisons, particularly if there is a strong analytical
basis for assuming a nonlinear pattern of change over 1. Identification of the pollutant for which the
time in the indicators. Statistical analysis tools TMDL is being established and quantification of
(especially regression analysis) are particularly useful the maximum pollutant load that may be present
for comparing existing and target conditions in many in the waterbody and still ensure attainment and
settings. (See USEPA, 1997b, for additional information maintenance of water quality standards; and
on regression analysis for nonpoint source assessment.)
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
7DEOH0HWKRGVIRUFRPSDULQJH[LVWLQJDQGWDUJHWFRQGLWLRQVIRUQXPHULFWDUJHWV
0HWKRGVDQG5DWLRQDOH ([DPSOHV
'LUHFWFRPSDULVRQRIORDGV ([LVWLQJWRQV\HDUWDUJHWWRQV\HDU WRQ\HDUQHHGHGUHGXFWLRQ
%HVWZKHUHORDGHVWLPDWHVDQGWDUJHWVDUHUHOLDEOH
3HUFHQWUHGXFWLRQFRPSDULVRQV ([LVWLQJaWRQV\HDUWDUJHWaWRQV\HDU aQHHGHGUHGXFWLRQ
%HVWZKHUHDEVROXWHORDGHVWLPDWHVDUHURXJKRUQRQORDGEDVHG
LQGLFDWRUVDUHXVHG
)DFWRUFRPSDULVRQV ([LVWLQJWXUELGLW\OHYHOV178WDUJHWOHYHO178WKHUHIRUHH[LVWLQJ
%HVWZKHUHUHODWLRQVKLSEHWZHHQLQGLFDWRUVDQGVRXUFHVLVQRW OHYHOVH[FHHGWDUJHWOHYHOE\DERXWDIDFWRURI
ZHOOHVWDEOLVKHG
,QGLUHFWFRPSDULVRQV ([LVWLQJELRDVVHVVPHQWLQGH[OHYHO WDUJHW &RPSDULVRQLQGLFDWHV
%HVWZKHUHLQGLFDWRUFKDQJHVLQUHVSRQVHWRGULYLQJIRUFHVWKDW ZDWHUERG\LVVHYHUHO\LPSDLUHGEXWSURYLGHVQREDVLVIRUHVWLPDWLQJQHHGHG
DUHQRQOLQHDURUSRRUO\XQGHUVWRRG VHGLPHQWORDGUHGXFWLRQV
2. Identification of the amount or degree by which Ecoregion. EPA 910/9-87-162. U.S. Environmental
the current pollutant load in the waterbody Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
deviates from the pollutant load needed to attain
or maintain water quality standards. MacDonald, L., A.W. Smart, and R.C. Wissmar. 1991.
Monitoring guidelines to evaluate effects of forestry
5(&200(1'$7,216)25,'(17,),&$7,212) activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and
:$7(548$/,7<,1',&$7256$1'7$5*(7 Alaska. EPA 910/9-91-001. U.S. Environmental
9$/8(6 Protection Agency, Region 10, Nonpoint Source
Section, Seattle, WA.
C If available, the numeric standard established in
water quality standards should be used as the TMDL Peterson, N.P., A. Henry, and T.P. Quinn. 1992.
indicator and target value. Assessment of cumulative effects on salmonid habitat:
C Where no applicable numeric standard exists, Some suggested parameters and target condition.
establish a target value through a combination of Prepared for the Washington Department of Natural
literature values, reference waterbodies, additional Resources and The Coordinated Monitoring, Evaluation
monitoring, stakeholder input, and the narrative and Research Committee, Timber Fish and Wildlife
water quality standard. Document all assumptions Agreement. March 2.
made in establishing the target.
C The chosen indicator should be sensitive to
geographic and temporal influences.
C Consider how many indicators are needed; single
indicators are appropriate for some situations (e.g.,
turbidity threshold for drinking water source), but
some watersheds might require the use of multiple
indicators to account for complex processes or a
lack of certainty regarding individual indicator
effectiveness.
5(&200(1'('5($',1*
(Note that the full list of references for this chapter is

Chapman, D.W., and K.P. McLeod. 1987. Development

of criteria for fine sediment in the Northern Rockies
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
6RXUFH$VVHVVPHQW
Objective: Characterize the types, magnitudes, and This chapter describes different types of sources,
locations of sources of sediment loading to the identifies procedures for characterizing loadings, and
waterbody. introduces a process for tool selection for TMDL
development. The source assessment process endorsed
Procedure: Compile an inventory of all sources of in this protocol relies on many of the principles
sediment to the waterbody. Sources may be identified associated with development of sediment budgets, as
through assessment of maps, data, and reports and/or described in Reid and Dunne (1996).
field surveys. It is likely that a combination of
techniques will be needed depending on the complexity A sediment budget is an “accounting of the sources and
of the source loading and watershed delivery processes. disposition of sediment as it travels from its point of
After an inventory has been compiled, monitoring, origin to its eventual exit from a drainage basin” (Reid
statistical analysis, modeling, or a combination of and Dunne, 1996). Sediment budget analyses are useful
methods should be used to determine the relative both for the conceptualization of sediment problems and
magnitude of source loadings, focusing on the primary as a tool for estimating sediment loadings. Full-scale
and controllable sources of sediment. sediment budgeting provides an inventory of the sources
of sediment in a watershed and estimates sediment
29(59,(: production and delivery rates from each source.
Component processes are identified, and process rates
The source assessment is needed to evaluate the type, are usually evaluated independently of one another. All
magnitude, timing, and location of loading of sediment of the relevant processes are quantified, including
to a waterbody. A number of factors can be considered hillslope delivery processes (creep, mass movement),
in conducting the source assessment. These factors channel sources (e.g., bank collapse), in-channel storage,
include identifying the various types of sources (e.g., bedload and suspended sediment transport capacity, and
point, nonpoint, background), the relative location and net sediment yield from the basin (Figure 5-1). If the
magnitude of loads from the sources, the transport effects of particular land use activities on each process
mechanisms of concern (e.g., runoff vs. mass wasting), are known, the overall influence of a suite of existing or
the routing of the sediment through the waterbody, and planned land use activities can be estimated. Sediment
the time scale of loading to the waterbody (i.e., duration
and frequency of sediment loading to receiving waters). KH\4XHVWLRQVWR&RQVLGHUIRU6RXUFH$VVHVVPHQW
Of particular concern is what loading processes cause
the impairment of the waterbody of concern. The :KDWVRXUFHVFRQWULEXWHWRWKHSUREOHP"
evaluation of loading is typically performed using a +RZVKRXOGVHGLPHQWVRXUFHVEHJURXSHG"
variety of tools, including existing monitoring :KDWWHFKQLFDODQGSUDFWLFDOIDFWRUVDIIHFWVHOHFWLRQRI
PHWKRGV"
information, aerial photography analysis, simple :KDWLVWKHDSSURSULDWHVRXUFHDVVHVVPHQWPHWKRG"
calculations, spreadsheet analysis using empirical +RZGRHVWLPDWHGVRXUFHFRQWULEXWLRQVFRPSDUHZLWKQDWXUDO
methods, and a range of computer models. The RUEDFNJURXQGOHYHOV"
selection of the appropriate method for determining +RZFDQWKHVRXUFHDVVHVVPHQWEHGHVFULEHGIRU70'/
loads is based on the complexity of the problem, the VXEPLWWDO"
:KDWFKDQJHVGRHVWKHSURSRVHGUXOHVSHDNWR"
availability of resources, time constraints, the
availability of monitoring data, and the management
objectives under consideration. It is usually budgeting is particularly effective for evaluating
advantageous to select the simplest method that nonequilibrium situations, where channel loads do not
addresses the questions at hand, uses existing necessarily represent hillslope erosion rates. The time
monitoring information, and is consistent with the and resources needed to develop a full sediment budget
available resources and time constraints for completing will vary depending on the geographic scale and
the TMDL. required degree of accuracy, but it should be possible to
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
6RXUFH$VVHVVPHQW
develop rough sediment budgets

adequate for TMDL purposes (Reid H ills lo p e C hannel
Production
and Dunne, 1996).
S u rfa ce G u lly M a s s E r o s io n B a n k E r o s io n
Analysts are encouraged to E r o s io n E r o s io n
consider developing sediment

budgets because they can be used
Storage and Transport

H ills lo p e S to r a g e
to connect excess sediment load at
a point of impact to sources of
C h an n el T ran sport
sediment generation and can thus
be used to target load reductions.
The analysis of sediment transport C h a n n el S to ra g e
rates included in full sediment
budgets is particularly helpful in
Yield
evaluating how changes in stream N e t W a te r s h e d S e d im e n t Y ie ld
structure (e.g., width-depth ratios)

might respond to changes in
sediment source management or Figure 5-1. Sedimentation process
restoration activities. Sediment
budgets can usually be developed through (1) single • Construction sites
models that estimate erosion for multiple source • Roads
categories and assess in-stream processes and fate or • Urban areas
(2) a combination of different source estimation and fate • Landslide areas
analysis methods for different sources or steps in • In-stream sources (e.g., stream or lake banks)
sediment movement through the system (Reid and
Dunne, 1996). It is important to note that detailed Sedimentation can be divided into the following discrete
sediment budgets are not needed for all sediment processes:
TMDLs. For purposes of TMDL development, an
estimation of the major sources of sediment might be • Weathering and erosion (liberation of soil or rock
adequate. This estimation can be done in several ways, particles from the soil or rock matrix).
ranging in complexity and intensity from interpretation • Hillslope delivery (movement of eroded material to
of aerial photographs to on-the-ground surveys. Partial the waterbody, minus upslope storage).
sediment budgets identify sediment sources and provide • In-stream transport (movement of sediment
gross estimates of sediment delivery to waterbodies. downstream in the waterbody).
This level of detail allows prioritization of erosion • In-stream storage (long- or short-term retention of
control efforts. sediments in the stream channel).
• Discharge or yield (movement of sediments out of
K(<48(67,21672&216,'(5)256285&( the study watershed).
$66(660(17
Land use changes and disturbances that cause increased
:KDWVRXUFHVFRQWULEXWHWRWKHSUREOHP" sedimentation rates can also cause significant changes in
watershed hydrology. For example, vegetation removal
The development of a TMDL includes the identification and soil compaction can cause a variety of hydrological
of the various sediment sources causing the impairment changes, including changes in infiltration rates, runoff,
in the listed waterbody. Sediment sources typically fall and stream baseflows (Black, 1991; Spence et al., 1996).
into one of the following categories: These hydrologic changes can increase stream
vulnerability to channel and bank erosion, stress
• Agriculture fisheries during high flows, and increase stream
• Silviculture (logged or burned areas) temperatures during dry periods.
• Rangeland
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
stage of TMDL development. The appropriate selection

6DPSOH6RXUFH$VVHVVPHQW)UDPHZRUN of the various source categories will facilitate
7KLVJHQHUDOIUDPHZRUNIRUVHGLPHQWVRXUFHDVVHVVPHQWKDVSURYHQ
completion of the subsequent linkage analysis and
XVHIXOLQVHYHUDODVVHVVPHQWSURMHFWV%HDZDUHKRZHYHUWKDW allocation steps. Sources can be grouped by erosion
VSHFLILFPHWKRGVXVHGWRHVWLPDWHVRXUFHVZLOOGHSHQGRQWKH process, controllable versus uncontrollable sources,
VLWXDWLRQ ownership, subbasin, geology, or a combination of
factors. The source categories should account for the
6WHS 'HILQHWKHVXVSHFWHGVRXUFHV
6WHS *DWKHUEDFNJURXQGLQIRUPDWLRQ
relative magnitude of the loads, the potential
6WHS 6WUDWLI\WKHVWXG\DUHDLQWRDUHDVRIVLPLODUFKDUDFWHULVWLFV management options, and the capabilities of the
WRVLPSOLI\VRXUFHDVVHVVPHQWLQHDFKDUHD assessment and modeling tools under consideration.
6WHS ,QWHUSUHWH[LVWLQJLQIRUPDWLRQDQGGDWDHJVHTXHQWLDODLU The advantages and disadvantages of different source
SKRWRJUDSK\WRLGHQWLI\NH\VHGLPHQWVRXUFHDUHDVDQGLQ groupings are summarized in Table 5-1.
VRPHFDVHVWRGHYHORSLQLWLDOVRXUFHHVWLPDWHV
6WHS 'HYHORSLQLWLDOVHGLPHQWVRXUFHIORZFKDUWV
6WHS &RQGXFWILHOGZRUNWRYHULI\LQLWLDOHVWLPDWHV :KDWWHFKQLFDODQGSUDFWLFDOIDFWRUVDIIHFW
6WHS $QDO\]HGDWDWRGHYHORSRUUHYLVHVHGLPHQWVRXUFH VHOHFWLRQRIVRXUFHDVVHVVPHQWPHWKRGV"
HVWLPDWHV
6WHS &KHFNUHVXOWVIRUUHDVRQDEOHQHVVEDVHGRQFRPSDULVRQ
ZLWKVLPLODUDUHDVLIIHDVLEOH
A range of sediment source estimation methods are
6WHS 3UHVHQWORDGLQJHVWLPDWHVIRUPDMRUVRXUFHVDQGLI available to assist in TMDL development. Some
QHFHVVDU\GHVFULEHVHGLPHQWWUDQVSRUWDQGQHW\LHOGIURP methods provide estimates of sediment yield for entire
VWXG\DUHDV watersheds whereas others (e.g., the Revised Universal
$GDSWHGIURP5HLGDQG'XQQH
Soil Loss Equation, or RUSLE) provide average annual
soil loss at the field scale. However, because sediment
sources vary tremendously in character and importance,
even within individual study areas, it might be necessary
Although it is beyond the scope of this protocol to to use different methods to evaluate individual sources.
address hydrologic changes associated with land The selection of the most appropriate method or
disturbance, TMDL analysts should consider these methods depends on the unique characteristics of
effects when designing TMDLs. Refer to Reid (1996), sources in the study area, how the information will be
Dunne and Leopold (1978), Satterlund and Adams linked to other TMDL elements, and, ultimately, how
(1993), Washington Forest Practices Board (1994), and sediment controls or restoration actions will be used to
Regional Ecosystem Office (1995) for additional address the problem.
guidance.
6FLHQWLILFDQGWHFKQLFDOFRQVLGHUDWLRQV
+RZVKRXOGVHGLPHQWVRXUFHVEHJURXSHG"
Key technical factors that should be considered in the
Because sediment production is usually associated with selection of methods include the proximity of key
diffuse nonpoint sources, sediment source assessment sources to waterbodies (and critical designated use
for TMDL development is often focused on source areas), available data and information to support in-
groupings rather than individual land parcels. The stream sediment storage and transport analysis, the
grouping approach is used because a parcel-by-parcel dominant types of erosion processes and the methods
analysis is usually infeasible or extremely expensive and available for estimating hillslope storage and delivery
is not needed in all but the smallest study areas. For ratios, the timing and variability of erosion and sediment
many sediment TMDLs, load allocations will be transport processes, the attenuation of sedimentation
presented as “gross allotments,” as outlined in the rates in response to recovery from disturbance, and the
TMDL regulation. The gross allotments are considered degree of natural sedimentation. Scientific factors to
appropriate when data and techniques for predicting the consider when selecting source estimation methods
loading are limited. Most sediment analysis methods include the following.
discussed in this protocol are based on source
categories. The grouping of sediment source categories
should be carefully considered in the source assessment
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
6RXUFH$VVHVVPHQW
7DEOH$GYDQWDJHVDQGGLVDGYDQWDJHVRIVHGLPHQWVRXUFHJURXSLQJPHWKRGV
0HWKRG $GYDQWDJHV 'LVDGYDQWDJHV
%\6RXUFH&DWHJRU\ C 6XSSRUWVXVHRIGLIIHUHQWVRXUFHDVVHVVPHQW C 'LIIHUHQWDQDO\VLVPHWKRGVXVHGWR
HJURDGVVWUHDPEDQNVIRUHVWODQG PHWKRGVIRUGLIIHUHQWVRXUFHVZKLFKPLJKW HYDOXDWHLQGLYLGXDOVRXUFHW\SHVPLJKWEH
UDQJHODQG EHPRUHVHQVLWLYHWRNH\ZDWHUVKHG GLIILFXOWWRPHOGDQGFRXOGFRPSOLFDWHWKH
SURFHVVHVZKLFKDIIHFWWKDWVRXUFH DVVHVVPHQWRIXQFHUWDLQW\RIFXPXODWLYH
C 6XSSRUWV*,6EDVHGDQDO\VLVPHWKRGVWKDW DQDO\VLV
UHO\RQVWUDWLILFDWLRQRIVRXUFHDUHDVLQWRODQG C 0LJKWOHDGDQDO\VWVWRLJQRUHNH\VRXUFHV
FHOOVRIXQLTXHFKDUDFWHULVWLFV EDVHGRQHUURQHRXVSUHFRQFHSWLRQV
C 6XSSRUWVDGLIIHUHQWLDOIRFXVRIUHVRXUFHVRQ FRQFHUQLQJZKLFKVRXUFHFDWHJRULHVDUH
NH\VRXUFHV\LHOGLQJPRUHSUHFLVHHVWLPDWHV PRVWLPSRUWDQW
IRUNH\VRXUFHV C 0LJKWQRWOHDGWRHDV\DOORFDWLRQVWR
C $OORZVDOORFDWLRQE\FDWHJRU\ZKLFKPLJKW GLIIHUHQWODQGRZQHUVRUUHVSRQVLEOH
PDNHLWHDVLHUWRHYDOXDWHIHDVLELOLW\RI DJHQFLHV
FRQWUROVDQGDVVRFLDWHGDOORFDWLRQV
C 3URPRWHVVWDNHKROGHUDFFHSWDQFHKHOSV
DYRLGWKHSHUFHSWLRQRIÉODPHµ
%\6XEEDVLQRU*HRORJ\ C $OORZVXVHRIVHGLPHQWEXGJHWLQJPHWKRGV C 0LJKWEHXVHIXORQO\LQHVWLPDWLQJ

WKDWHYDOXDWHVHGLPHQWORDGLQJDQG\LHOGDVD VHGLPHQWVRXUFHFRQWULEXWLRQVIRUODUJH
IXQFWLRQRIVXVSHQGHGEHGORDGVHGLPHQWDQG DUHDVZKLFKFRXOGLPSHGHLGHQWLILFDWLRQRI
IORZE\WULEXWDU\ KLJKHVWSULRULW\VRXUFHV
C +HOSVWDUJHWFRQWUROHIIRUWVLQNH\SUREOHP C 2IWHQLQHIIHFWLYHLQDVVHVVLQJVRXUFH
DUHDVHVSHFLDOO\ZKHUHPRVWNH\VRXUFHVDUH LVVXHVZKHUHGHVLJQDWHGXVHFRQFHUQVDUH
ORFDWHGLQDIHZVXEEDVLQVRUXQVWDEOH ORFDWHGQHDUKHDGZDWHUVLQWULEXWDULHVDQG
JHRORJLHV PLJKWUHVXOWLQPLVVLQJNH\VRXUFH
C (QDEOHVVSDWLDODVVRFLDWLRQRINH\VRXUFHV SUREOHPV
ZLWKWKHPRVWYXOQHUDEOHDUHDVHJNH\ C ,IDUHDVDUHWRRODUJHWKLVPHWKRGPLJKW
KDELWDWDUHDV QRWEHFDSDEOHRIGHWHFWLQJVLJQLILFDQW
C %XLOGVVWDNHKROGHUVXSSRUWE\KHOSLQJWR VHGLPHQWIOX[FKDQJHVRUHIIHFWV
DYRLGWKHSHUFHSWLRQRIEODPH HVSHFLDOO\ZLWKLQVKRUWWLPHLQWHUYDOV
%\3DUFHO C (QDEOHVGLUHFWDOORFDWLRQVWRUHVSRQVLEOH C 3RWHQWLDOFUHDWLRQRIWKHDSSHDUDQFHRI

HJE\LQGLYLGXDOODQGRZQHURUHYHQVXEVHW ODQGRZQHUVWKHUHE\VLPSOLI\LQJWKHWDVNRI ÓRFNLQJLQµDOORFDWLRQVDQGUHPRYLQJ
RIRZQHUVKLS GHFLGLQJZKRQHHGVWRGRZKDW IOH[LELOLW\IRUODQGRZQHUVWRQHJRWLDWHWKH
C )DFLOLWDWHVXVHRIPXFKUHDGLO\DYDLODEOH PRVWFRVWHIIHFWLYHDOORFDWLRQVFKHPHV
LQIRUPDWLRQRQVRXUFHVRIWHQRUJDQL]HGE\ C /DQGRZQHUVKLSERXQGDULHVRIWHQIROORZ
ODQGRZQHULQ*,6IUDPHZRUN OHJDOERXQGDULHVZLWKRXWUHJDUGIRU
C 3URPRWHV´WUDGLQJµVROXWLRQVE\FODULI\LQJ JHRJUDSKLFGLVWLQFWLRQVEHWZHHQODQG
UHODWLYHLQSXWVIURPGLIIHUHQWRZQHUVKLSV FKDUDFWHULVWLFVWKHUHE\FRPSOLFDWLQJ
C )DFLOLWDWHVXVHRIUHJXODWRU\PHFKDQLVPV VRXUFHDVVHVVPHQWRQDZDWHUVKHGEDVLV
HJORFDOVWDWHRUIHGHUDOGLVFKDUJH C 3RWHQWLDOSHUFHSWLRQWKDWEODPHLVEHLQJ
SHUPLWVWLPEHUKDUYHVWSHUPLWVJUD]LQJ FDVWIRUVHGLPHQWDWLRQSUREOHPVZKLFK
DOORWPHQWVRU]RQLQJSURJUDPVWRHQVXUH RIWHQGLYHUWVSURGXFWLYHDWWHQWLRQIURP
WKDWQHHGHGFRQWUROVDUHLPSOHPHQWHG SUREOHPVROYLQJ
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
3UR[LPLW\RINH\VRXUFHVWRZDWHUERGLHV areas near or upstream from the waterbody area of

concern (Washington Forest Practices Board, 1994).
If bank erosion is considered a major and immediate
threat, it might be appropriate to focus more effort on (URVLRQSURFHVV
these sources and less effort on sources located farther
upslope. Alternatively, it might be appropriate to make In-stream storage and transport analysis should be
simplifying assumptions for the major sources, such as accounted for when the net sediment yield from the
assuming that most or all eroded sediment from these watershed is a TMDL indicator, the in-stream channel
sources reaches the waterbody. structure and function have been disrupted by sediment
discharges, a large volume of sediment from past
$FFXUDF\ discharges is working its way through the system, a
large proportion of total sediment in the system is stored
Accuracy is important when estimates of how much in-stream, or geomorphic analysis is needed to design
eroded sediment actually reaches waterbodies within the restoration actions. In-stream storage and transport
assessment time frames (delivery ratios)are needed. analysis is less important when the major project
Methods for estimating sediment delivery ratios include concern is long-term sediment loading (e.g., to a lake or
empirical estimates (see Reid, 1996, and Reid and estuary), indicators that do not focus on sediment
Dunne, 1996); deriving delivery ratios as a unique loading (turbidity) are used, and the project focus is
function of key factors influencing sediment discharge long-term erosion prevention (i.e., in-stream sediment
(e.g., slope and source distance from the waterbody dynamics are of lesser concern).
[Clarke and Waldo, 1986; Louisiana-Pacific
Corporation, 1996]); and extrapolation from delivery When upland sediment storage substantially reduces the
ratios developed in other watersheds with similar amount of sediment that reaches streams or changes the
characteristics. Method accuracy varies widely. Some timing of sediment delivery, it is usually important to
methods are capable of producing estimates that are select methods that account for upslope sediment
accurate to within a factor of 2 or so (Reid and Dunne, storage or estimate the sediment delivery ratio (the
1996). Several more resource-intensive estimation percentage of eroded sediment that actually reaches the
models are believed to be accurate to within 20 to 30 waterbody). Although the use of “rule of thumb”
percent following calibration and validation (e.g., HSPF sediment delivery ratios should be used with caution
and some other relatively complex models that estimate since it is based on long-term averages extrapolated
long-term annual loads). Most modeled estimates may from lake studies.
be accurate to only within 50 to 100 percent (e.g.,
monthly or daily estimates). Other methods that focus Sediment source assessment methods should be selected
on specific sources of concern (e.g., Weaver and based on a clear understanding of the dominant
Hagens[1996] road assessment method) are capable of sediment-producing processes active in the watersheds
yielding relatively accurate estimates of potential future of concern. For example, in many parts of the
erosion volumes. Simpler, screening-level methods Northwest, Southwest, and Pacific Islands, erosion
(e.g., models that apply simple default erosion rates or processes tend to be associated with occasional large
regression relationships) are believed to be capable of storm events. Sediment discharges tend to vary
yielding order-of-magnitude estimates of total sediment substantially from year to year in such settings. In
production along with estimates of relative inputs from contrast, sediment discharges of concern are associated
different sources. with more regular precipitation and flow events in most
other parts of the country. Approaches available to
0DJQLWXGHRIVRXUFHW\SH account for erosion associated with regular runoff
patterns or relatively frequent high-flow events (e.g.,
Methods should be focused on areas where designated with 1- to 3-year return periods) usually estimate
uses of concern are localized (e.g., spawning areas or sedimentation as a function of the distribution of rainfall
favored swimming areas). In these cases it might be or flow events of different magnitudes and provide
appropriate to focus the source assessment on upland cumulative erosion estimates.
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
6RXUFH$VVHVVPHQW
In watersheds dominated by very infrequent but extreme number and spatial distribution of timber harvest entries
runoff and sedimentation events, erosion is substantially and reentries planned in a watershed.
more difficult to predict. In these cases, it might be
preferable to select methods that estimate erosion %DFNJURXQGORDGLQJ
potential but do not attempt to directly estimate erosion
associated with specific future high-magnitude events Some erosion occurs in all watersheds, even those which
(see, for example, Weaver and Hagens, 1996). are completely undisturbed. Some watershed types are
Alternately, the TMDL could specify longer time steps extremely prone to periodic major sedimentation events.
for averaging sediment inputs (e.g., as rolling averages Designated uses located in such settings have often
over a 5- to 15-year period) to account for interannual adapted to naturally high sediment conditions.
variability in erosion rates.
TMDLs need to distinguish sedimentation rates
/DQGPDQDJHPHQW associated with human activities in the study watershed
from those associated with naturally occurring (and
Sedimentation rates associated with some land uses presumably uncontrollable) sediment sources. Human
(e.g., timber harvesting, construction, and some land management activities can change the magnitude,
cultivation practices) typically decline over time after locations, and timing of land erosion or runoff events as
the land disturbance occurs and the land has a chance to well as the key physical characteristics of receiving
recover. To account for potential attenuation in waters. Methods sensitive to changes in the driving
sedimentation rates in these cases, a sediment source forces that influence sedimentation (e.g., models like
assessment might need to incorporate an attenuation RUSLE, HSPF, and WRENSS) will be useful in
factor to avoid overestimating future erosion. Recovery comparing natural and anthropogenic sources if data
rates should be based on analogous local or reference about key processes are available for the TMDL study
watershed experience whenever possible. Where area and reference watersheds.
recovery rates used to estimate erosion attenuation are
based on general sources, a substantial margin of safety Methods that estimate sediment loading or yields as a
might be needed to ensure that future sediment loads are function of sediment concentration and streamflow (e.g.,
not underestimated. (See Reid, 1996; McGurk and rating curves) are less useful in evaluating how existing
Fong, 1995; and Berg et al., 1996 for further information sedimentation rates differ from natural sedimentation
and examples.) Sedimentation rates from farmland in rates. Where rating curve methods are used, careful
crop rotation can vary depending on the stage of crop comparison to reference watersheds (and the underlying
rotation. differences in land use or land characteristics) can assist
in comparing natural and human-caused sedimentation.
The likelihood and timing of future land disturbances
should be considered. Although a watershed can Direct erosion prediction methods might be able to
sometimes recover from one-time or widely disbursed assess the degree to which erosion likelihood has, as a
disturbances, the cumulative effect of multiple result of human activity, been increased (e.g., due to
disturbances may be that sedimentation rates remain road construction in a vulnerable area) or decreased
above levels of concern for decades or longer (see Berg (e.g., due to stabilization of an existing landslide
et al., 1996). feature).
A source assessment might not need to define a specific 3UDFWLFDOFRQVLGHUDWLRQV

recovery or attenuation function. An analysis could link
individual estimates of sediment yield per disturbance Practical considerations include resources available
action (e.g., discrete timber harvesting event) with compared to level of effort needed to analyze the
overall targets above which watershed sediment yield is sources, level of accuracy desired for the TMDL, and
excessive in any single period of time (Lewis and Rice, stakeholder involvement and concerns. For most
1989, 1990; Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, 1996). If TMDLs, the selection of appropriate methods for
the per entry factor and the sediment threshold are TMDL development will rely on a combination of
linked, the variable management factor would be the scientific and practical considerations.
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
Practical considerations include the following: and plan needed responses are available and are
potentially more cost-effective than full-scale sediment
C Carefully consider data and resource demands budgets. In watersheds where past sediment budgeting
associated with all methods. Methods that require has been done, analysts should clarify the scope of the
unavailable technical expertise, data, or time should work performed and take care not to assume that a
not be selected. particular type of analysis was performed.
C Assume that existing data will be adequate to
develop a reasonable first-phase source assessment. 6RXUFHDVVHVVPHQWPHWKRGV
(Plan according to the data in hand.) Relatively
crude estimates of sediment input sources might Source assessment methods vary widely with respect to
provide adequate results for many TMDLs. their applicability, ease of use, and acceptability.
C Complex source assessment tools might be most Recognizing that many source assessment methods
appropriate only where costs of controlling or exist, summaries of the methods were developed for
restoring sources are expected to be very high and several categories. In some cases, the categories contain
where refinement of source estimates might a range of models that could arguably be placed into
substantially change allocations. multiple categories. The following categories are based
C Source assessment methods should be on expected uses of these methods in estimating soil
understandable (e.g., models perceived as “black erosion, storage, and delivery in the context of TMDL
boxes” are often difficult to explain), sensitive to or development:
capable of building upon previous local source
assessment work, and logically linked to other 1. Indices (do not provide load estimates but do
TMDL elements. provide a guide for the TMDL)
- Vulnerability
:KDWLVWKHDSSURSULDWHVRXUFHDVVHVVPHQW - Future erosion
PHWKRG" 2. Erosion models
- Source loading
This section provides information on a range of - Source loading and delivery processes
potentially useful sediment source assessment methods 3. Direct estimations
that have been developed to - Sediment budget
- Rating curves
C Estimate actual or potential loading from hillslopes - Statistical extrapolation
and banks to receiving waters.
C Evaluate in-stream storage and transport of The following summaries present the key attributes of
sediment. the methods, review key advantages and disadvantages,
C Estimate the net sediment discharge (or yield) from and make general recommendations concerning the use
drainage basins. of the model type for TMDL analysis.
The degree to which individual sediment TMDLs 6RXUFHVHQVLWLYLW\DQGHURVLRQSRWHQWLDOHVWLPDWLRQ

address erosion and waterbody impairment by sediment PHWKRGV
will depend on the overall approach taken in the TMDL
(e.g., the designated uses of concern, types of numeric A variety of methods are available for evaluating land
targets developed, key sources of concern, and land vulnerability, or sensitivity to erosion, sometimes as
management actions under consideration). Each type of associated with specific land management activities.
approach has its pros and cons. In general, methods that These methods do not directly yield sediment loading
more thoroughly account for both hillslope sediment estimates, but they can be used effectively to compare
production and sediment transport and fate after erosion the relative vulnerability of different areas to future
occurs are likely to prove more useful in identifying the erosion or to target field work to make empirical
sediment assimilative capacity of waterbodies than estimates of erosion potential. Some of these methods
methods that focus only on upslope source assessment. yield indices or measures of watershed conditions that
However, other methods to assess assimilative capacity might be associated with designated use condition (e.g.,
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
6RXUFH$VVHVVPHQW
Equivalent Roaded Acreage [McGurk and Fong, 1995]), management actions. Because sediment generation is
although these associations are poorly documented in usually a major impact of forestry operations, these
most parts of the country. It is possible to derive methods can provide useful information in these
methods that can provide such associations as both a settings. For example, the Equivalent Roaded Area
component of source assessment and a numeric target to (ERA) approach indexes potential impacts expected
complement in-stream targets (see Chapter 4). from each activity to that expected from roads (USDA
Forest Service, 1988). A land use history is developed
Most of these methods have been developed to address for the watershed, sensitive sites are identified, and
watersheds in which timberland management and fishery ERAs are calculated for each activity with respect to the
issues are primary concerns, although some habitat mechanism thought to be of greatest concern. Values
condition inventory methods have similar are summed and normalized by area to calculate a total
characteristics. This section briefly discusses examples ERA percentage, which is compared to an allowable
of methods that focus on sources that are often threshold identified for the watershed. If the calculated
important sediment causes. ERA value is higher than the threshold, the watershed
may be singled out for further evaluation by other
Watershed analysis techniques have been developed to means. Similar approaches have been used in other
evaluate watershed resource values, land use activity parts of the country, including Equivalent Clearcut Area
impacts on those values, and opportunities to protect and (see Berg et al., 1996). In addition, specific disturbance
restore resource values through land use management measures have been used to help characterize relative
and restoration planning (e.g., Regional Ecosystem erosion vulnerability in different subbasins within a
Office, 1995; Washington Forest Practices Board, watershed study area (e.g., Black Butte River,
1994.) Washington’s Timber, Fish and Wildlife (TFW) California, Watershed Analysis).
1994 approach entails assessments of watershed
condition according to key watershed processes with a A simple forestland erosion hazard rating system
focus on fishery resource protection. Process developed by the California Department of Forestry
assessments are converted into numeric ranking factors. (1990) evaluates the relative sensitivity of different land
Multiple ranking factors are then synthesized to yield areas to erosion as a function of soil characteristics,
relative vulnerability rankings for different parts of the geology, slope, vegetation, and rainfall ranges. This
study area, which then assist resource managers in approach produces maps of erosive hazard to guide
developing specific management and restoration planning and field assessments in forestlands.
approaches or prescriptions. Landslides and other mass wasting features are critical
sources of erosion in many parts of the country. One
The federal agency watershed analysis approach focuses mass wasting assessment model used in the Pacific
on a broader range of watershed and resource Northwest estimates sensitivity of land areas to shallow
management issues than fisheries and timberlands, and it landslides as a function of precipitation, soil
provides a general framework for quantification and characteristics, and topography (Dietrich et al., 1992,
synthesis of watershed process assessment evaluations. 1993; Montgomery and Dietrich, 1994). Based on
Unlike the TFW approach, the federal process is not a analysis of aerial photographs, geologic and landslide
decision-making process intended to lead directly to maps, and digital elevation data, needed model inputs
land management planning decisions. Both the TFW and can be developed. The model is capable of landslide
federal watershed analysis approaches provide sensitivity rating maps and measures of slide areas, and
opportunities to gather and evaluate information associated GIS coverages. This method has been used
concerning the relative significance of sedimentation in several watershed analysis projects in the Pacific
and sediment sources in a watershed, but they do not Northwest and California. Table 5-2 summarizes
necessarily yield quantitative estimates of past or future advantages and disadvantages of this category of
sediment production. methods.
Erosion vulnerability methods do not produce erosion or Assessing future erosion requires identifying key
sediment yield estimations, but instead index the erosion features based on aerial photography analysis or
potential effects, including cumulative impacts of another screening method, then making field-based
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
measurements of erosion potential of the largest future stratification and preliminary screening analysis (Reid
sediment sources while evaluating the prospects for and Dunne, 1996).
restoration or mitigation actions. Most of the settings in
which this approach has been applied are Pacific (URVLRQSURFHVVPHWKRGV
Northwest forest settings dominated by erosion
associated with logging roads and associated mass Erosion process methods generally estimate
wasting features (e.g., Redwood National Park, sedimentation through the application of sedimentation
California). It has not been extensively applied outside prediction algorithms or erosion hazard ratings for
this general setting, but it has the potential to address different land parcels. Most of these methods apply
watershed settings where other source concerns models that estimate erosion as a function of several key
predominate. Generally, these methods do not directly factors, potentially including soil characteristics,
predict when the erosion activity will occur; instead, topography, vegetation characteristics, and precipitation.
they target the assessment of key erosion features and Many available methods are based on the Revised
evaluate the feasibility of avoiding or mitigating the Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) or one of its
future erosion effect (Weaver and Hagans, 1996). The many variants as applied by many agencies for erosion
theory underlying this approach is that it is more estimation over the past decade (e.g., AGNPS,
efficient to target future erosion sources for remedial SWRRBQ). Other methods commonly apply particle
action than to evaluate past erosion locations, which are detachment and washoff equations to estimate erosion
probably not amenable to productive treatment. In (e.g., HSPF, CREAMS, ANSWERS). Erosion process
addition, the method probably works best in settings models vary substantially in the sophistication and
where a relatively small group of potential sediment technical expertise necessary to ensure proper
sources will be responsible for most future erosion (e.g., application. Table 5-3 presents a summary of the basic
road failures and mass wasting features), in contrast to differences in method sophistication.
watersheds where erosion contributions are spread
evenly across the landscape (e.g., sheet and rill erosion This discussion distinguishes between models that focus
from cultivated land). only on hillslope erosion (source loading models) and
models that account for both erosion and transport of
Recommendations: Where these methods have been sediment out of the watershed (source loading and in-
used extensively, analysts should consider exploring stream process models).
ways to use the results in TMDL development or
assessment priority setting. Creative application of 6RXUFHORDGLQJPRGHOV
these results could fit well with one or more TMDL
elements and could significantly assist in source Several commonly used methods provide estimates of
assessment. It is unlikely that any of these methods erosion from multiple sources, hillslope storage, and
provides a substitute for source measurement or sediment delivery to streams. Methods that have been
estimation through one or more of the other methods applied successfully include, but are not limited to, the
discussed in this section. Future erosion estimation has following:
not been widely applied to date, but it offers great
promise for TMDL development in many settings. The • USLE/RUSLE
method is particularly appropriate in settings where • AGNPS
• BASINS-NPSM
catastrophic sedimentation events are likely in key • WATSED
disturbed areas in association with catastrophic events • BOISED
(e.g., major storms and rain-on-snow events). The • Critical Sites Erosion Study (CSES)
method is less likely to be cost-effective in very large • WEPP
• HSPF
watersheds (due to the prohibitive costs of field work) or • SWAT
where highly disbursed erosion sources triggered by
commonplace driving forces predominate. However, it
might be feasible to use the approach in larger
watersheds if field work is targeted based on watershed
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
6RXUFH$VVHVVPHQW
7DEOH$GYDQWDJHVDQGGLVDGYDQWDJHVRIVRXUFHVHQVLWLYLW\HVWLPDWLRQPHWKRGV.
3URYLGHPHWKRGIRUDVVHVVLQJUHODWLYHVLJQLILFDQFHRIVHGLPHQW 0HDVXUHVRIYXOQHUDELOLW\DQGVHQVLWLYLW\GRQRW\LHOGGLUHFWPHDVXUHV
VRXUFHVRUVRXUFHDUHDVLQVHWWLQJVZKHUHTXDQWLWDWLYHHVWLPDWLRQRI RISDVWRUIXWXUHVHGLPHQWDWLRQIURPVSHFLILFVRXUFHVZKLFKPLJKW
SDVWRUIXWXUHVHGLPHQWVRXUFHVLVGLIILFXOWGXHWRWKHXQSUHGLFWDELOLW\ EHHDVLHVWWRXVHIRU70'/GHYHORSPHQW
RIHURVLRQWLPLQJRUPDJQLWXGHRUWKHGLIILFXOW\RIFRQGXFWLQJ 8VHRIWKHVHDSSURDFKHVIRUSUHGLFWLRQSXUSRVHVKDVQRWEHHQZHOO
DGHTXDWHILHOGZRUN HVWDEOLVKHGLQPRVWFDVHVRUKDVEHHQH[SOLFLWO\GLVFRXUDJHGHJ
3URYLGHSULRULW\VHWWLQJIUDPHZRUNIRUIXWXUHDVVHVVPHQWDQG (TXLYDOHQW5RDGHG$FUHDJH
PDQDJHPHQWSODQQLQJ 5HTXLUHVXEVWDQWLDOH[SHUWLVHWRGHYHORSFRUUHFWO\DQGVKRXOGLQFOXGH
0LJKWEHSRVVLEOHWRHVWDEOLVKWKUHVKROGVRIFRQFHUQIRUFHUWDLQ ILHOGZRUNDVSDUWRIWKHDQDO\VLVZKLFKLQFUHDVHVFRVWV
YXOQHUDELOLW\PHDVXUHVZKLFKFRXOGEHXVHGWRGHYHORSQXPHULF $FFXUDF\RIVXUURJDWHYXOQHUDELOLW\PHDVXUHVKDVQRWEHHQ
WDUJHWVDQGWRDVVHVVQHHGIRUVRXUFHFRQWUROV FRQILUPHGLQPDQ\VHWWLQJV)RUPDQ\SDUWVRIWKHFRXQWU\HJ
ZKHUHIRUHVWODQGLVVXHVDUHQRWFULWLFDOWKHVHPHWKRGVKDYHQRW
EHHQXVHGDWDOO
Many models based on methods similar to the RUSLE SWAT) simulate sediment loadings using hourly or
(Renard et al., 1997) have been used effectively to daily time steps for longer time periods. Analysts
evaluate erosion from cultivated areas in the East, should be sensitive to the different time steps used by
Southeast, and Midwest. Extensive discussion of these models and should consider how the results of single-
methods is provided in USEPA (1997c) and is not event simulations will be integrated across time,
repeated here. ensuring loadings are consistent with TMDL allocations.
Similar models such as BOISED, WATSED, R1/R4, and
Source estimation models vary substantially in analysis WRENSS have focused primarily on forested watershed
time steps. Some models (e.g., AGNPS and sediment analysis. These models segment watersheds
ANSWERS) evaluate runoff associated with single into land types and land system inventories. Each land
precipitation events, whereas others (e.g., HSPF and parcel in the watershed is allocated erosion hazard
7DEOH(URVLRQSURFHVVPRGHOFRPSDULVRQV
0RGHO7\SH([DPSOHV KH\&DSDELOLWLHVDQG/LPLWDWLRQV
6LPSOH0HWKRGV $JJUHJDWHODUJHODQGDUHDVQRW586/(
(3$6FUHHQLQJ3URFHGXUH /DUJHWLPHVWHSVHJDYHUDJHDQQXDOQRW586/(
86*65HJUHVVLRQ3URFHGXUH (VWLPDWLRQPHWKRGVEDVHGRQHPSLULFDOUHODWLRQVKLSVDQGH[SHUWMXGJPHQW
586/( 'RQRWPRGHOGHOLYHU\SURFHVVHV
:(33 *HQHUDOO\UHOLDEOHRQO\IRUUHODWLYHFRPSDULVRQVRIVRXUFHVQRWORDGHVWLPDWHV
/LPLWHGGDWDQRFDOLEUDWLRQUHTXLUHPHQWV
0LG5DQJH0RGHOV &RPSURPLVHEHWZHHQHPSLULFDODQGPHFKDQLVWLFPRGHOV
%$6,161360 5HOLDEOHIRURUGHURIPDJQLWXGHDFFXUDF\
$*136 &DQLQWHUIDFHZLWK*,6IUDPHZRUN
$16:(56 0RGHUDWHGDWDDQGFDOLEUDWLRQUHTXLUHPHQWV
55 6RPHFDSDEOHRIHYDOXDWLQJWUDQVSRUWDQGRUFRQWUROHIIHFWLYHQHVV
:$76('
%2,6('
:5(166
6:$7
'HWDLOHG0RGHOV &DQGHOLQHDWHVRXUFHVDWILQHSDUFHOVFDOHV
+63) &DQHYDOXDWHVKRUWWLPHVHTXHQFHVLQGLYLGXDOVWRUPHIIHFWV
6:00 *HQHUDOO\XVHPHFKDQLVWLFUHSUHVHQWDWLRQVRINH\ZDWHUVKHGIXQFWLRQVWRHVWLPDWHHURVLRQ
6:55%4 (VWLPDWHVJHQHUDOO\DFFXUDWHZLWKLQIDFWRURIWR
$16:(56 2IWHQZRUNEHVWLQLQWHUIDFHZLWK*,6IUDPHZRUN
6:$7 6XEVWDQWLDOGDWDDQGFDOLEUDWLRQUHTXLUHPHQWV
&5($06 8VXDOO\FDSDEOHRIHYDOXDWLQJWUDQVSRUWDQGRUSRVVLEOHFRQWUROHIIHFWLYHQHVV
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
potential and sediment delivery ratio values that allow Table 5-4 summarizes advantages and disadvantages of
generation of erosion curves for each disturbance source hillslope source models for TMDL source assessment.
on the watershed. Estimates for this information are
ideally based on field information collected for the Recommendations: Erosion process models that focus
specific purposes of the model. Absent such field data, on upland areas can yield reasonable results for TMDL
potential sources of information include erosion plot analysis. They are appealing in many cases because
studies, special-purpose studies (e.g., road and trail they can be applied without having to do extensive field
erosion assessments), soil maps, erosion hazard potential work. These models are probably most effective for
maps, Watershed Improvement Needs surveys source analyses where the models have been applied and
identifying disturbance types and sources, and fish calibrated in the past, where sediment fate and transport
habitat surveys. As part of their routine operations, land after delivery is a less critical issue, and where
management agencies typically generate these types of sedimentation is associated primarily with sheet and rill
data sets. erosion from relatively low-sloped lands. For example,
these methods typically work well in settings where
A variation on these approaches is the Critical Sites cropland erosion drains directly to reservoirs or lakes.
Erosion Study, a method that estimates the probability The broad, successful use of such models suggests that
that a site will yield more than a given sediment load if they can be made to work within many project settings.
the land is disturbed by timber harvest or road
construction (Lewis and Rice, 1989). This method was Such models should be used with caution in cases where
used in a recent large-scale watershed assessment by extreme watershed conditions predominate (e.g., very
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation to evaluate potential steep topography, landslide-dominated erosion, radically
impacts of future timberland management plans variable precipitation regimes). Other methods (e.g.,
(Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, 1996). This method R1/R4, WATSED) might be preferable in many
recognizes that erosion in many settings is not even and mountainous regions, the Pacific Northwest, and very
that the majority of measured erosion in such settings arid terrains (e.g., RUSLE). Where hillslope source
comes from a relatively small number of critical sites. In models are used, it is crucial either to calibrate and
such settings, this type of method potentially enables the subsequently validate the models to ensure reasonable
analyst to focus on the watershed land areas most likely accuracy or to conduct follow-up monitoring to check
to become major erosion sources and to obtain more the reliability of the earlier results.
accurate estimates of potential sediment discharge.
7DEOH$GYDQWDJHVDQGGLVDGYDQWDJHVRIKLOOVORSHVRXUFHPRGHOV.
:LGHO\XVHGLQPDQ\SDUWVRIWKHFRXQWU\HVSHFLDOO\WKH586/( *HQHUDOO\GRQRWDGGUHVVRUDFFRXQWIRUEDQNHURVLRQ
EDVHGDSSURDFKHV *HQHUDOO\GRQRWFOHDUO\DFFRXQWIRUKLOOVORSHVHGLPHQWVWRUDJHDQG
:HOODFFHSWHGDVDVHGLPHQWSUHGLFWLRQWRROLQPDQ\FLUFXPVWDQFHV URXWLQJ
'HWDLOHGGHIDXOWSDUDPHWHUVIRUPDQ\RIWKHNH\PRGHOLQSXWVDUH 'RZQVORSHWUDQVSRUWDQDO\VLVRIWHQGRHVQRWFRQVLGHUDFWXDO
ZLGHO\DYDLODEOHZKLFKIDFLOLWDWHVXVHRIWKHVHDSSURDFKHVZLWKRXW FRPSOH[LW\RIWUDQVSRUWSURFHVVHV
KDYLQJWRFROOHFWH[WHQVLYHGDWDLQPDQ\FLUFXPVWDQFHV $FFXUDF\TXHVWLRQDEOHIRUH[WUHPHO\VWHHSZDWHUVKHGVLQZKLFK
1HHGHGGDWDHJVRLOFRPSRVLWLRQDUHZLGHO\DYDLODEOHIRUPDQ\ VHGLPHQWDWLRQLVGRPLQDWHGE\H[WUHPHFOLPDWLFRUJHRORJLFHYHQWV
SDUWVRIWKHFRXQWU\ 'RQRWDVVLVWLQWKHDQDO\VLVRIVHGLPHQWIDWHDIWHUVHGLPHQWUHDFKHV
3URYLGHUHODWLYHO\FRDUVHRUILQHHVWLPDWHVRIHURVLRQGHSHQGLQJRQ ZDWHUERGLHVRIFRQFHUQZKLFKPD\LJQRUHNH\70'/LVVXHVRU
SURMHFWQHHGVVSDWLDOVFDOHVDQGWLPHVWHSVFKRVHQ UHTXLUHDGGLWLRQDOLQVWUHDPDQDO\VLVHVSHFLDOO\OLQNDJHDQDO\VLV
6LPSOHPHWKRGVFDQ\LHOGXVHIXOHVWLPDWHVRIWKHUHODWLYHLPSRUWDQFH *HQHUDOO\SUHGLFWDYHUDJHDQQXDORUPRQWKO\JURVVORDGLQJUDWHV
RIGLIIHUHQWVRXUFHDUHDVZKLFKPLJKWEHVXIILFLHQWIRUVRPH70'/V
,IPRUHVRSKLVWLFDWHGPRGHOVDUHXVHGLWPLJKWEHSRVVLEOHWR
HYDOXDWHWKHUHODWLYHVHQVLWLYLW\RIGLIIHUHQWPRGHOIDFWRUVLQDIIHFWLQJ
IXWXUHHURVLRQSUHGLFWLRQV%DVHGRQVXFKVHQVLWLYLW\DQDO\VLVLW
PLJKWEHSRVVLEOHWRWDUJHWFRQWUROVRUUHVWRUDWLRQDWIDFWRUVPRVW
UHVSRQVLEOHIRUHURVLRQHIIHFWV
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
6RXUFH$VVHVVPHQW
6RXUFHORDGLQJDQGGHOLYHU\SURFHVVPRGHOV infeasible. In settings dominated by occasional extreme-

magnitude sedimentation and runoff events, however, it
Source loading and in-stream process models can be might be best to assemble different source assessment
used to estimate sediment erosion from multiple source and sediment transport analysis methods for individual
categories and movement to the water’s edge (as with sources of concern and combine the results to construct
the hillslope models described above). In addition, they sediment budgets. (See Reid and Dunne [1996] for
can provide a gross accounting of sediment transport information on this approach.)
and in-stream storage to provide useful information
about net sediment yields from a watershed and 'LUHFWPHDVXUHPHQWPHWKRGV
information about in-stream sediment fate (e.g., gross
degradation or aggradation). Care should be exercised These methods differ from the preceding methods
when using the transport and storage component of these because the analysis is based on direct measurements of
models because significant uncertainty is inherent in the past erosion rates and amounts. The general strategy of
model results (e.g., erosion processes such as this approach is that information on past erosion can be
streambank erosion are not accounted for in the models). used to characterize trends, to help predict future
Models that incorporate both upland and in-stream erosion amounts, and to plan appropriate restoration and
sediment analysis components include HSPF, SWMM, prevention actions. Sediment budgets as described by
SWRRBQ, DR3M, WRENSS, and SWAT. Table 5-5 Reid and Dunne (1996) provide information on
summarizes advantages and disadvantages of the individual source measurement methods and references.
hillslope source and in-stream process models.
Reservoir studies have been widely used to measure
Recommendations: Given the relatively high cost, overall watershed sediment yields and discharge rates
expertise, and effort associated with using these models, over time. This method entails the estimation of
they are most appropriate for large-scale watershed sediment displacement of reservoir capacity over time to
projects with substantial, long-term resource support and yield a measure of total mass loading or watershed
stakeholder commitment. The level of detail and loading rates over time. For example, one study
precision these models can provide are worthwhile in calculated estimated total sedimentation rates per square
settings where prospective sediment control and mile of watershed area in Northern California coastal
restoration costs are high and stakeholders do not agree ranges based on reservoir studies (Phillip Williams
on the best ways to proceed. The ability of these Associates, 1996).
methods to provide net sediment yield estimates may
prove useful in settings where the detailed field work
needed to complete some types of sediment budgets is
7DEOH$GYDQWDJHVDQGGLVDGYDQWDJHVRIKLOOVORSHDQGLQVWUHDPSURFHVVPRGHOV
$ELOLW\WRHYDOXDWHVHGLPHQWIDWHLQVWUHDPVPDNHVLWSRVVLEOHWRPRUH 6XEVWDQWLDOO\PRUHFRPSOLFDWHGWRXVHWKDQWKHPRGHOVLQWKH
SUHFLVHO\LGHQWLI\ZKHQDQGZKHUHLQVWUHDPVHGLPHQWORDGVDUH SUHFHGLQJJURXS
H[SHFWHGWRRFFXUDQGWRHYDOXDWHGHVLJQDWHGXVHLPSDFWVDVDUHVXOW /DUJHDPRXQWVRIORFDOGDWDDUHJHQHUDOO\QHHGHGWRFDOLEUDWHDQG
+HOSIXOLQFDVHVZKHUHDVXEVWDQWLDOODJWLPHEHWZHHQWKHRQVHWRI YDOLGDWHWKHPRGHOV
HURVLRQDQGWKHWUDQVSRUWRIVHGLPHQWWRNH\DUHDVH[LVWV 5HODWLYHO\OLWWOHH[SHULHQFHH[LVWVLQWKHLUXVH
:KHQXVHGLQFRQFHUWZLWKJHRPRUSKLFDQDO\VLVPHWKRGVPRGHO +DYHQRWEHHQZLGHO\XVHGWRH[DPLQHUXUDORUZLOGODQGVHWWLQJV
UHVXOWVFDQDVVLVWLQHYDOXDWLQJKRZFKDQJHVLQVHGLPHQWDWLRQDQG 'RQRWDFFRXQWIRUFKDQJHVLQVWUHDPPRUSKRORJ\DQGVHGLPHQW
K\GURORJ\DVVRFLDWHGZLWKODQGXVHFKDQJHVDIIHFWFKDQQHOVWUXFWXUH WUDQVSRUWFDSDFLW\DVVRFLDWHGZLWKORQJWHUPFKDQJHLQHURVLRQDQG
DQGIXQFWLRQ K\GURORJLFSURFHVVHV
$VVLVWLQHYDOXDWLQJSURVSHFWLYHHIIHFWLYHQHVVRIGLIIHUHQWVRXUFH 0D\QHHGVHSDUDWHJHRPRUSKLFDQDO\VLVWRHYDOXDWHWKHQHHGWR
FRQWURORUUHVWRUDWLRQPHWKRGV PDNHIXWXUHFKDQJHVLQFKDQQHOSURILOHLQSXWVWRWKHVHPRGHOV
5HODWLYHO\ZLGHO\XVHGLQXUEDQVHWWLQJV 'LIILFXOWWRSUHGLFWWUDQVSRUWDQGVWRUDJHDFFXUDWHO\SDUWLFXODUO\LQ
*,6LQWHUIDFHVRIWHQDYDLODEOHWRIDFLOLWDWHPDQDJHPHQWRIODUJHGDWD ODUJHZDWHUVKHGV
VHWV
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
At a smaller scale, many methods are available for comparisons between source monitoring done in
directly estimating erosion from sources such as: different areas), or to validate estimates derived using
other methods (particularly sediment budgeting
• Bank erosion. methods). In general, these methods should not be
• Slope erosion from timber harvest, construction or uniformly assumed to provide reliable future erosion
other activities. estimates given the potential future variability of key
• Headcut or gully erosion. watershed processes.
• Landslides.
• Road erosion and road-related mass wasting. 5DWLQJFXUYHVDQGRWKHUVWDWLVWLFDOH[WUDSRODWLRQ
• In-stream sources, including channel scour. PHWKRGV
These methods usually entail the measurement of eroded Rating curve methods generally estimate total sediment
areas, placement of sediment traps to catch sediment loading past a measurement point as a function of three
moving downhill, and/or pins or scour chains to detect variables—streamflow, suspended sediment
the removal of sediment from stream channels over concentration, and bedload transport. Separate
time. In many cases, hillslope sediment volumes can be suspended load and bedload rating curves are developed
directly measured or inferred by measuring void spaces in many cases, and bedload rating curves are often not
or erosion around datable vegetation. Advantages and developed because of bedload sampling difficulties.
disadvantages of these methods are summarized in Functional relationships among these variables are
Table 5-6. usually estimated through regression analysis and used
to estimate average annual or seasonal sediment loading.
Recommendations: This group of methods can be very For example, in a situation where a modest number of
useful to build an overall estimate of sediment loading data points are available relating flow, TSS, and
rates (e.g., reservoir studies), to evaluate erosion sometimes bedload, it is often feasible to develop
patterns associated with specific sources (based on bank statistically reliable regression functions. Then, the
or upslope erosion estimates) or areas (based on overall sediment load can be estimated by applying
7DEOH$GYDQWDJHVDQGGLVDGYDQWDJHVRIGLUHFWPHDVXUHPHQWPHWKRGV
3URYLGHGLUHFWPHDVXUHVRIVHGLPHQWDWLRQIURPVSHFLILFVRXUFHV 'LUHFWPHDVXUHVDUHRIWHQWLPHDQGUHVRXUFHLQWHQVLYHWRGHYHORS
2YHUORQJWLPHVFDOHVFDQEHXVHGWRGHYHORSHVWLPDWHVRIORQJ 'LIILFXOWWRJHQHUDOL]HEDVHGRQGDWDFROOHFWHGEHFDXVHLWLVGLIILFXOW
WHUPHURVLRQUDWHVLQVRPHFDVHV WRGHWHUPLQHLIVDPSOLQJVLWHVDUHUHSUHVHQWDWLYHRIZDWHUVKHG
(IIHFWLYHO\FRPSOHPHQWWKHXVHRIRWKHUVRXUFHHVWLPDWLRQPHWKRGV FRQGLWLRQVDVDZKROHRURIVLPLODUVRXUFHVZLWKLQWKHZDWHUVKHG
WKDWGRQRWDGGUHVVDOOVRXUFHVRIFRQFHUQHJ6\FDPRUH&UHHN 6HGLPHQWWUDSVFDQPLVVVXEVWDQWLDODPRXQWVRIVHGLPHQWHURGHG
0,VWXG\GLUHFWO\PHDVXUHGEDQNHURVLRQWRFRPSOHPHQWPRGHOHG XSKLOOLIWKH\DUHVSDFHGWRRZLGHO\RULIVHGLPHQWPRYHVWKURXJK
HVWLPDWHVRIHURVLRQIURPDJULFXOWXUDODQGXUEDQDUHDV FKDQQHOVRUJXOOLHVWKDWSDVVEHWZHHQWUDSV
0D\EHSRVVLEOHWRGHULYHXVHIXOUHVXOWVIRUVRPHVRXUFHVE\ 0DQ\ZDWHUVKHGVRILQWHUHVWIRU70'/VHLWKHUKDYHQRUHVHUYRLUVWR
HVWDEOLVKLQJFROOHFWLRQWUDSVRUSLQVWKHQPHDVXULQJWKHUHVXOWV VWXG\RUKDYHQRQHDUE\ZDWHUVKHGVFRQWDLQLQJUHVHUYRLUVIRUXVH
DQQXDOO\RUVHDVRQDOO\LIORQJHUWLPHVWHSVDUHDFFHSWDEOHIRU70'/ LQHVWDEOLVKLQJVHGLPHQWDWLRQUDWHVEDVHGRQDQDORJRXV
GHYHORSPHQW FLUFXPVWDQFHV
5HVHUYRLUVWXGLHVFDQSURYLGHDPRUHDFFXUDWHPHDQVRIHVWLPDWLQJ 3DVWHURVLRQUDWHVDQGWRWDOORDGLQJVPLJKWSURYLGHDSRRUEDVLVIRU
WKHUHODWLYHSURSRUWLRQRIWRWDOVHGLPHQWORDGWKDWPRYHVGRZQVWUHDP HVWLPDWLQJIXWXUHUDWHVDQGORDGLQJVLINH\ZDWHUVKHGSURFHVVHVRU
DVEHGORDGDQGDVVXVSHQGHGORDG5HLG FKDUDFWHULVWLFVFKDQJHLQWKHIXWXUH
5HVHUYRLUVWXGLHVFDQSURYLGHIDLUO\UHOLDEOHORQJWHUPDYHUDJH 3DVWHURVLRQHYDOXDWLRQPLJKWPLVVVXEVWDQWLDOHURVLRQSRWHQWLDOLI
ORDGLQJUDWHVSHUXQLWDUHDRIZDWHUVKHGLQPDQ\SODFHVZKLFKFDQ PRQLWRULQJLVQRWGRQHGXULQJWLPHSHULRGVZKHQPRVWHURVLRQ
DOVRDVVLVWZLWKPRGHOYDOLGDWLRQRUHVWDEOLVKPHQWRIUHIHUHQFH RFFXUVRIWHQWKHFDVHZLWKVLWHVSHFLILFHURVLRQVWXGLHVWKDWGRQRW
FRQGLWLRQV DFFRXQWIRUWKHHIIHFWRIH[WUHPHFOLPDWLFRUUXQRIIHYHQWV
6RPHGDWDDUHEHWWHUWKDQQRGDWD
&DQDSSO\UHVXOWVWRRWKHUDQDORJRXVDUHDV
&DQXVHGDWDWRFDOLEUDWHYDOLGDWHPRGHOV
(DV\WRPHDVXUHVHGLPHQWLQDUHDVZKHUHODQGVOLGHVDUHUHVSRQVLEOH
IRUPRVWVHGLPHQW
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
6RXUFH$VVHVVPHQW
these functions to a continuous (or more frequently agencies and groups. This method is less appropriate in
monitored) flow record based on the frequency systems where sediment discharge is dominated by
distribution of flows of different magnitudes. For infrequent, large-magnitude events (e.g., mass wasting
example, a sediment budget was developed for the and flood events triggered by extreme precipitation
Trinity River, California, based on the rating curve events because the flow-TSS relationship observed at
method (USDOI-BLM, 1995). Refer to USDA lower flows might not account for these processes.
Agricultural Research Service (1975) for additional
information on using rating curves to estimate sediment Rating curve construction should be preceded by careful
yield. suspended sediment sampling covering a representative
range of storm or runoff events, if possible. Bedload
Variations on the traditional rating curve approach sampling (or an appropriate substitute method of
include the following: estimating the bedload portion of the total load) should
also be considered (see Reid and Dunne, 1996; Rosgen,
• Annual rating curves, which may facilitate analysis 1996). Analysts should validate and refine rating curves
of changes in sediment yield associated with land over time to account for changes and improvements
management changes or temporal variability made possible by additional monitoring. Finally, it
(Ketcheson, 1986). might be appropriate to complement rating curve
• Time-integrated rating curves, which ignore analysis with more detailed source assessment in the
streamflow fluctuations and integrate sediment highest-priority sediment source tributaries identified by
transport rates over time (Ketcheson, 1986). the rating curve analysis, as a later phase of the TMDL
• A sediment supply-based model that uses a project.
suspended sediment rating curve and supply
depletion function to account for load declines &RPSDULVRQVRIVRXUFHHVWLPDWLRQPHWKRGV
during individual storms or runoff seasons (Van
Sickle and Beschta, 1983). Source assessment method selection requires careful
consideration of the unique mix of issues, opportunities,
Similar methods might be available to extrapolate and characteristics present in each watershed, and it is
localized sediment loading information. For example, a inappropriate to select methods based solely on the
sedimentation load or rate estimated for one tributary cursory evaluations provided in this document. Analysts
area of a larger watershed could be used to estimate an are encouraged to use this information as a starting point
overall load or rate for the rest of the watershed if key and to consult key references and local experts for
characteristics of the smaller study unit and larger assistance in the final selection of methods.
watershed are comparable and flow data are available
for the larger watershed. Care should be taken in +RZGRHVWLPDWHGVRXUFHFRQWULEXWLRQV
extrapolating results derived for a small area to a larger FRPSDUHZLWKQDWXUDORUEDFNJURXQGOHYHOV"
watershed area, or from a short time period to a longer
time frame, to account for differences in operation of Where feasible, the source assessment should also
key watershed processes (e.g., hydrology and compare projected sediment loadings with natural or
precipitation) at larger spatial scales or within longer background levels of sediment loading. This type of
time frames. Table 5-7 summarizes advantages and comparison greatly facilitates the linkage of sediment
disadvantages of rating curves and other statistical source assessment with numeric targets. (See Chapter 6
extrapolation methods. for details on linkages.) A sediment loading comparison
provides an additional basis for determining the degree
Recommendations: Used with care, rating curves and to which sediment loadings differ from levels needed to
other extrapolation methods can provide a cost-effective support designated uses, thereby assisting in identifying
approach to source assessment, particularly in large- the needed levels of sediment reduction. In many
scale TMDL studies where tributary-by-tributary source settings it is possible to estimate natural or background
analyses are adequate. Rating curve approaches are sediment production in the study area. Such estimates
particularly appealing in areas where they have been can be developed by assessing sedimentation rates
used in the past or are commonly used by stakeholder measured in relatively undisturbed areas of the
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
7DEOH$GYDQWDJHVDQGGLVDGYDQWDJHVRIUDWLQJFXUYHVDQGVWDWLVWLFDOH[WUDSRODWLRQPHWKRGV
5DWLQJ&XUYHV 5DWLQJ&XUYHV
C :LGHO\XVHG C 'DWDVRXUFHVQHHGHGIRUUDWLQJFXUYHVIORZVXVSHQGHGVHGLPHQWDQG
C %DVHGRQORFDOO\REWDLQHGHPSLULFDOLQIRUPDWLRQ EHGORDGVHGLPHQWDUHKLJKO\YDULDEOHDQGRIWHQGLIILFXOWWRPHDVXUH
C 6XEVWDQWLDOGHJUHHRIVWDWLVWLFDOYDOLGLW\ DFFXUDWHO\
C $ELOLW\WRUHODWHVXVSHQGHGEHGORDGDQGWRWDOVHGLPHQWORDGLQJ C 6WDWLVWLFDOO\VLJQLILFDQWUHVXOWVDUHRIWHQGLIILFXOWWRREWDLQ
IUHTXHQWO\VXEGLYLGHGE\WULEXWDU\ZDWHUVKHGRIIHUVDUHDG\PHWKRG C 8QOHVVFDUHIXOVDPSOLQJGHVLJQVDUHIROORZHGLWLVHDV\WRREWDLQD
RIOLQNLQJDFRPPRQO\XVHGVHGLPHQWHQGSRLQWVXVSHQGHGVHGLPHQW VNHZHGVDPSOLQJRIVHGLPHQWDWLRQHYHQWVZKLFKFRXOGHDVLO\OHDGWR
RUWXUELGLW\DVDVXUURJDWHWRDVRXUFHHVWLPDWLRQWRRO XQGHUHVWLPDWLRQRURFFDVLRQDOO\RYHUHVWLPDWLRQRIVHGLPHQWORDGLQJ
C 6HQVLWLYHWRVSDWLDODQGWHPSRUDOYDULDELOLW\LQVHGLPHQWORDGLQJE\ C %HGORDGIDFWRULVRIWHQPLVLQWHUSUHWHG3URSRUWLRQRIVHGLPHQW
UHODWLQJORDGVWRIORZVHJ'HHS&UHHN07 WUDQVSRUWHGLQEHGORDGYDULHVZLGHO\DPRQJVWUHDPW\SHVDQGEHWZHHQ
C 5HDVRQDEO\DFFXUDWHIRUHVWLPDWLQJVRXUFHORDGVRQWULEXWDU\E\ HYHQWVZLWKLQDVWUHDP
WULEXWDU\EDVLV C 5DWLQJFXUYHDSSURDFKHVWKDWLJQRUHEHGORDGRUDVVXPHDEHGORDG
SRUWLRQRIWRWDOORDGZLWKRXWFDUHIXODQDO\VLVDUHOLNHO\WRSURGXFH
2WKHU([WUDSRODWLRQ0HWKRGV LQDFFXUDWHUHVXOWV5HLGDQG'XQQH5RVJHQ
C 6WDWLVWLFDOH[WUDSRODWLRQPHWKRGVDOORZVFUHHQLQJOHYHOVRXUFHDQDO\VHV C 5DWLQJFXUYHDSSURDFKGRHVQRWKHOSDQDO\]HNH\ZDWHUVKHG
IRUODUJHODQGDUHDVZLWKRXWKDYLQJWRLQYHVWLQGHWDLOHGDQDO\VLVRI SURFHVVHVLQIOXHQFLQJVHGLPHQWSURGXFWLRQ
HDFKODQGDUHD C 'LIILFXOWWRGHWHUPLQHUHVSHFWLYHLQIOXHQFHVRIVHGLPHQWVXSSO\DQG
C $VVLVWVLQWDUJHWLQJWKHPRVWVLJQLILFDQWVRXUFHDUHDVRIFRQFHUQIRU FKDQQHOWUDQVSRUWFDSDFLW\RQFKDQJHVLQVHGLPHQW\LHOGV
IXUWKHUDVVHVVPHQWDQGDFWLRQZLWKRXWZDLWLQJIRUWKHUHVXOWVRIOHQJWK\ C 0LJKWQRWDVVLVWLQVRXUFHDVVHVVPHQWE\VRXUFHFDWHJRU\RZQHUVKLS
GHWDLOHGDQDO\VLV WULEXWDU\VFDOHPLJKWQRWEHILQHHQRXJK
2WKHU([WUDSRODWLRQ0HWKRGV
C .H\VWDWLVWLFDODVVXPSWLRQVWKDWVKRXOGEHPHWWRGUDZUREXVW
FRQFOXVLRQVDUHQRWPHWLQPDQ\VWXGLHVHJIORZDQGGLVFKDUJH
GDWDSRLQWVDUHRIWHQQRWLQGHSHQGHQWRIHDFKRWKHU
C (DV\WRPLVVIXQGDPHQWDOGLIIHUHQFHVLQWKHFKDUDFWHULVWLFVRIVPDOO
VWXG\DUHDVDQGWKHODUJHUODQGDUHDVRUWLPHVFDOHVIRUZKLFK
H[WUDSRODWLRQVDUHGHYHORSHG:KHUHGLIIHUHQFHVDUHQRWWDNHQLQWR
DFFRXQWODUJHGLIILFXOWWRGHWHFWHUURUVPLJKWRFFXU
watershed or in comparable reference watersheds, or evaluations of in-stream sediment fate and transport
estimated based on reviews of appropriate literature and/or net sediment yield from the watershed, the
sources. (See Reid and Dunne [1996] for additional TMDL should describe these results. Ideally, the source
information.) These comparisons might not be assessment results include estimates of sediment loading
absolutely necessary for all TMDLs, particularly where in total and by source, taking into account temporal
other methods are available for clearly determining the variations in sediment delivery. Finally, if the source
degree to which existing and projected sedimentation assessment includes comparisons of projected and
conditions depart from target levels. natural or background sediment loadings, these results
should also be presented in the TMDL document.
+RZFDQWKHVRXUFHDVVHVVPHQWEHGHVFULEHG
IRU70'/VXEPLWWDO" :KDWFKDQJHVGRHVWKHSURSRVHGUXOHVSHDN
WR"
The source assessment should yield estimates of
sediment loading from different sources within the study On August 23, 1999, EPA published proposed rules that
area. These results can be expressed in terms of specify that approvable TMDLs must include at a
expected sediment loadings per unit of time. If the minimum ten elements. Within the source assessment
source assessment results are expressed in terms other step, an approvable TMDL will need to include an
than mass loads per unit of time, the TMDL should identification of the source categories, source
describe why the alternative approach is used. In subcategories, or individual sources of the pollutant for
addition, if the source assessment also includes
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
6RXUFH$VVHVVPHQW
which the wasteload allocations and load allocations are • Reid, L.M., and T. Dunne. 1996. Rapid evaluation
being established. of sediment budgets. Catena Verlag, Reiskirchen,
Germany.
5(&200(1'$7,216)256285&($66(660(17
• USEPA. 1997. Compendium of tools for watershed
• Using all available information, develop a assessment and TMDL development. EPA 841-B-
comprehensive list of the potential and actual 97-006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
sediment sources to the waterbody. Develop a plan Washington, DC.
for identifying and accounting for the load <http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/techsupp.html>
originating from the identified sources in the
watershed. • Washington Forest Practices Board. 1994. Standard
• Use GIS or maps to document the location of methodology for conducting watershed analysis
sources and the processes important for delivery to under chapter 222-22 WAC. Version 2.1,
the waterbody. November 1994. Washington Forest Practices
• Identify all government agencies and non- Board, Olympia, WA.
government organizations active in the watershed
and conduct interviews and collect information.
• Group sources into some appropriate and
manageable unit (e.g., by delivery mechanism,
location, rate) for evaluation using the available
resources and analytical tools.
• Ideally, monitoring data should be used to estimate
the magnitude of loads from various sources. In the
absence of such data, some combination of literature
values, best professional judgment, and appropriate
empirical techniques or models will be necessary.
In general, the simplest approach that provides
meaningful predictions should be used.
• Sediment source assessment methods should be
selected based on a clear understanding of the
dominant processes in the watershed.
5(&200(1'('5($',1*

• Dissmeyer, G.E. 1994. Evaluating the effectiveness

of forestry best management practices in meeting
water quality goals or standards. USFS
Miscellaneous Publication 1520. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC.
• Regional Ecosystem Office. 1995. Ecosystem

analysis at the watershed scale. Version 2.2. U.S.
Government Printing Office: Regional Ecosystem
Office, Portland, OR. 1995-689-120/21215.
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
/LQNDJH%HWZHHQ:DWHU4XDOLW\7DUJHWVDQG6RXUFHV
Objective: Define a linkage between the selected water This section provides recommendations regarding
quality targets and the identified sources to determine appropriate techniques for establishing the source-
total assimilative capacity for sediment loading or total indicator link. As with the prediction of sources, the
load reduction needed. analysis can be conducted using methods ranging from
simple to complex.
Procedure: Determine the cause-and-effect relationship
between the water quality target and the identified K(<48(67,21672&216,'(5)25/,1.$*(
sources through data analysis, best professional %(7:((1:$7(548$/,7<7$5*(76$1'
judgment, models, or previously documented 6285&(6
relationships. Use the linkage to determine what
sediment loads or conditions are acceptable to achieve :KDWLVDQDSSURSULDWHOHYHORIDQDO\VLV"
the desired level of water quality. Develop approaches
for determining an appropriate margin of safety.
Choice of an analytical tool to link the sediment loads to
the TMDL indicator(s) depends on the interaction of a
29(59,(: number of technical and practical factors. Suggestions
on how to address these factors were included in the
One of the essential components of developing a TMDL numeric targets and source analysis chapters and are not
is to establish a relationship (linkage) between the repeated here. Key factors to consider in determining
indicators and numeric targets and the estimated the appropriate level of analysis for TMDL linkages
loadings. This linkage makes it possible to determine include the following:
the capacity of the waterbody to assimilate sediment
load and still support its designated uses. Based on this C The types of indicators and source analysis tools
analysis, allowable loads or needed load reductions can used in the sediment analysis, and other watershed
be allocated among key sources. The link between in- processes that influence sedimentation dynamics in
stream uses, as evaluated through numeric targets, and the study area.
sources, as evaluated through the source analysis, can be C Physical and hydraulic characteristics of the
established by using one or more analytical tools. waterbody (e.g., lake versus stream).
Ideally, the link will be based on long-term monitoring C Geomorphic characteristics of the waterbody and
data that indicate the waterbody’s response to flow and degree to which waterbody structure is stable.
loading conditions. More often, however, the link must C Temporal representation needs. (Are seasonal
be established by using a combination of monitoring averages sufficient, or must dynamic events on a
data, statistical and analytical tools (including shorter time scale or key time periods [e.g., fish life
simulation models), and best professional judgment. It stages] be evaluated?)
is difficult to draw accurate linkages between hillslope C Spatial representation needs. (Are there significant
processes and in-stream conditions, and it will be spatial variations in the indicator and does spatial
necessary at times to base linkages on qualitative variability in the waterbody [e.g., key spawning
analysis relying on professional judgment. areas] need to be represented?)
C User requirements (including availability of
KH\4XHVWLRQVWR&RQVLGHUIRU/LQNDJHRI:DWHU4XDOLW\ resources, time constraints, and staff familiarity
7DUJHWVDQG6RXUFHV with specific analysis techniques).
:KDWLVDQDSSURSULDWHOHYHORIDQDO\VLV"
C Stakeholder interests and outreach needs.
:KDWLVDQDSSURSULDWHPHWKRGIRUOLQNDJH" C Level of accuracy needed.
:KDWLVWKHOLQNDJHDQGZKDWLVWKHUHVXOWLQJHVWLPDWHGORDGLQJ
FDSDFLW\RUQHHGHGORDGUHGXFWLRQ" Different TMDLs will need varying degrees of accuracy
in establishing linkages between sediment sources and
in-stream targets, depending on the precision in each of
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
the methods used in individual TMDL elements and the expert and literature citations, and provisions for follow-
needs of the stakeholder community. It is difficult to up monitoring.
characterize the degree of accuracy associated with
different linkage methods; however, this guidance :KDWLVDQDSSURSULDWHPHWKRGIRUOLQNDJH"
provides a rough sense of the relative accuracy each
method provides. Many approaches to linking or synthesizing the
elements of a TMDL are available. Some of these
6HWWLQJVZKHUHOLQNDJHDFFXUDF\LVPRUHLPSRUWDQW approaches were reviewed in the discussion of source
analysis approaches. This section briefly reviews a
Where relatively accurate methods are used throughout range of possible approaches and discusses examples.
the TMDL, they might lend themselves to, and assist in, For more detailed discussions of linkage principles and
establishing clear linkages. Clear linkages may be methods, see Washington Forest Practices Board (1994),
particularly important for a TMDL where finality and Regional Ecosystem Office (1995), Reid (1996), and
certainty are sought—where the TMDL is supposed to Dissmeyer (1994).
be “right” on the first try. In addition, where sediment 3RWHQWLDO/LQNDJH0HWKRGV
problems are very serious, watershed issues are 0DWKHPDWLFDOOLQNDJHV
contentious, or stakeholders disagree about sediment- 0DWKHPDWLFDO/LQNDJHV
related issues and potential solutions, more precise Linkages between 3URFHVV0RGHO/LQNDJHV
(PSLULFDO/LQNDJHV
linkages between TMDL elements might be needed for numeric targets and /LQNDJHE\,QIHUHQFH
several reasons. In many cases, TMDLs become source loadings can often ,QGH[/LQNDJHV
contentious because the financial stakes for involved be determined through
stakeholders are high. Clearer linkages can assist quantitative analysis of
stakeholders in understanding why particular sediment the TMDL elements and underlying data used to
sources and impacts need to be addressed, make the develop these elements. A variety of straightforward
TMDL more defensible if challenged, and provide a arithmetic and statistical analyses are available. Where
more rigorous basis for future monitoring design. these approaches are used, it is recommended that
analysts identify a theoretical basis for the relationship
6HWWLQJVZKHUHOLQNDJHDFFXUDF\LVOHVVLPSRUWDQW between indicators and the sources of concern. In
addition, where these relationships are not well
If each TMDL element is relatively crude, it might be understood, it might be appropriate to frame the linkages
enough to explain the theoretical linkage between as testable hypotheses to be further evaluated through
elements and not expect direct quantitative linkages. follow-up monitoring and evaluation. In most cases,
This approach could be particularly appropriate in mathematical linkages provide moderately accurate
settings where the TMDL is to be done in phases and a results.
strong commitment to adaptive management over time
exists. Moreover, stakeholder expectations are an Direct arithmetic linkages can be drawn between
important consideration here. Where watershed issues numeric target and source analysis elements in some
are not highly controversial and the stakeholder cases. For example, a linear association can be
community seems ready to take effective action, specific established between in-stream and upslope analysis (see
linkages might not need to be established in advance Silver Creek, Arizona, example in inset box). Analysts
with a high degree of precision. In this type of situation, should take care to examine the theoretical basis for
adequate linkages should be made to inform the design assuming particular functional relationships between in-
and implementation of follow-up “hypothesis-based” stream conditions and upslope sediment production
monitoring and adaptive management. Finally, precise measures. In some cases it is reasonable to assume
linkages might be less important in watersheds where linear functional relationships, whereas data
the problem is not very serious and where modest action transformations might be needed in other cases to
would be adequate. Where qualitative approaches to establish meaningful functions. (See USEPA [1997b]
linkage are used, the TMDL should document all for more information on evaluation of functional
assumptions, theories that provide the basis for linkage, relationships through regression analysis.)
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
/LQNDJHLQ6LOYHU&UHHN$=70'/6WXG\
3URFHVVPRGHOOLQNDJHV
,QDSLORW70'/DQDO\VLVIRU6LOYHU&UHHNVHGLPHQWORDGLQJUHGXFWLRQWDUJHWVZHUH Mechanistic or process models may also be

HVWLPDWHGWKURXJKWKHIROORZLQJUDWLR used to draw relatively accurate linkages
between TMDL elements in many cases. For
H[LVWLQJLQVWUHDPVHGLPHQWFRQFHQWUDWLRQ H[LVWLQJVHGLPHQWORDGLQJV
~ WDUJHWVHGLPHQWORDGLQJV

example, sediment budgeting methods that
GHVLUHGLQVWUHDPVHGLPHQWFRQFHQWUDWLRQ
estimate net sediment discharge from a
watershed could be used to identify the degree
6HGLPHQWORDGLQJUHGXFWLRQWDUJHWVZHUHWKHQGHULYHGE\VXEWUDFWLQJWDUJHWORDGLQJ of change in sedimentation processes needed
OHYHOVIURPH[LVWLQJORDGLQJOHYHOV6RXUFH/LPQR7HFK
for those processes to mimic natural
conditions. The sediment budgeting analysis
in the South Fork Salmon River, Idaho,
indicated that the river system was beginning to recover
For TMDLs in which numeric targets include functional from large historical sediment inputs, but that the river
relationships (e.g., the slope of the TSS/flow regression lacked the hydraulic energy needed to move
curve in the Deep Creek, Montana, TMDL), it might be accumulated in-stream sediments out of the system.
feasible to examine the distance between the regression This finding led analysts to design a sediment input
curve derived for the study area and the comparable reduction strategy that would reduce sediment loading to
curve calculated for a reference stream to determine how the stream, thereby enabling the river to gradually
much change is needed in sediment delivery, transport, remove excess in-stream sediments. By accounting for
or net sediment yield to attain the targets. the different components of sediment movement through
a system (erosion, upslope storage, delivery to streams,
in-stream storage, transport, and net sediment
In-stream and upslope sediment analysis linkages can discharge), these methods enable the analyst to
also be developed with more rigorous methods. Several quantitatively estimate load reduction needs and
studies have linked in-stream and upslope indicators compare the effectiveness of alternative sediment
through the use of statistical regression analysis. For management options.
example, a study in the Sierra Nevada range of
California (McGurk and Fong, 1995) found a reasonably In addition, process models that directly use sediment
robust relationship between aquatic invertebrates and indicators can often provide a framework for linkage of
equivalent roaded acreage (ERA) measures, which in-stream endpoints based on sediment measures and
helped to evaluate the utility of the ERA method and sediment source and allocation analysis. Several of the
appropriate threshold levels. more complex models discussed in the source analysis
section (e.g., HSPF, SWRRBQ, EFDC, GSTARS,
In a study of northern California coastal streams SWMM, and possibly AGNPS) might be capable of
(Knopp, 1993), a statistical link was drawn between providing this framework.
watershed disturbance, as measured by a crude sediment
budget analysis, and several in-stream sediment (PSLULFDOOLQNDJHV
indicators, including geometric mean particle size, V*,
and riffle-armor stability index, to evaluate the ability of A variety of empirical linkage approaches are possible.
in-stream metrics to discriminate between relatively For example, in projects that use suspended sediment
disturbed and undisturbed watersheds (and associated load as an target, it might be feasible to link source
historical sediment production). Other approaches are analysis, allocation, and numeric target elements by
possible and should be considered in cases where simply ensuring that the sum of expected loads from
relatively robust data sets are available and statistical significant sources does not exceed the allowable load at
analysis of these data sets can be undertaken. By a downstream compliance point, as calculated by a
examining the differences between conditions in the function of suspended sediment and flow data. This
study area and in reference sites, it should be feasible to approach would also facilitate the identification of total
estimate needed load reductions. allowable loads or total sediment load reductions
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
needed. Significant uncertainty is likely to exist in each 1989), the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Index of Biotic
component of the empirical linkages and will vary Integrity (McMahon, 1983), and various habitat typing
depending on the quality of data sets. methods (e.g., California Department of Fish and Game,
1994). In some cases, these methods provide guidance
Another empirical linkage approach is to use thresholds on determining whether existing conditions are “good
of concern for upland or in-stream indicators and an enough” or whether habitat is impaired (e.g., McMahon,
adaptive management approach to land management in 1983).
the future that links exceedance of one or more
thresholds with a management decision. For example, a These methods are most useful in linking disparate
TMDL could reference a management approach by numeric indicators to create composite rankings of
stating that if a disturbance index or substrate habitat quality. The methods also have potential for
composition indicator threshold were exceeded, specific establishing target conditions for multiple indicator
actions would be taken (e.g., cease the activity or use projects where aquatic habitat is impaired by sediments
more protective management practices) at specific times. (and potentially other stressors). These methods do not
If the case can be made that the adaptive response to directly lend themselves to estimation of total
exceeding a threshold is significantly more protective assimilative capacity, but could conceivably be used to
than the initial land use activity causing sedimentation, infer estimates of sediment reductions needed.
this approach could provide an adequately robust
framework for TMDL linkage and eventual success /LQNLQJPXOWLSOHLQGLFDWRUVRUPXOWLSOHVRXUFH
(e.g., Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, 1996). DVVHVVPHQWPHWKRGV
/LQNDJHE\LQIHUHQFH As discussed in the previous chapters, multiple

indicators and/or multiple source analysis methods
In some cases, indirect inferences of relationships could be needed to ensure that the analysis of
between TMDL elements may suffice. For example, an complicated watershed settings adequately accounts for
in-stream analysis might show that relatively modest complex in-stream sediment impacts and the complex
reductions (say, 10 to 20 percent) in sediment discharge watershed processes that drive sediment loading. It is
are needed to attain established sediment targets. If the rarely necessary to link all indicators in a seamless,
source analysis and allocation elements could be linked logical fashion. Likewise, not all indicators need to be
to show that very large reductions (e.g., 50 to 75 linked with the entire source analysis and associated
percent) in sediment inputs are expected to result from allocations. The objective should be to define adequate
planned management and restoration actions, the rough linkages to provide logical coherence to the project
comparison of the elements could be construed to infer without straining scientific credibility or burdening an
the adequacy of the overall TMDL approach. A already complicated analysis project. Several linkage
theoretical connection should be established or approaches might be adequate for this purpose.
hypothesized based on expert judgment or literature
references to support linkages made through indirect One strategy is to link like indicators with like source
inferences. Such inferred linkages are likely to be quite analysis elements (e.g., bank erosion targets linked with
crude, but they might be adequate in some situations. bank erosion measures and controls in the Deep Creek,
Montana, TMDL). A second strategy is to first
,QGH[OLQNDJHV synthesize estimates of sediment loads from different
sources that were developed with different methods
There are a variety of approaches to combining physical (e.g., through a sediment budget), then link the overall
and biological assessment tools to assist in linking sediment loading estimate with the in-stream indicators
TMDL elements. These methodologies provide a for purposes of reduction and allocation planning (e.g.,
systematic framework for conducting and synthesizing Sycamore Creek, Michigan).
biological, physical, and chemical measurements of
habitat characteristics. Examples that have been used in Another approach is to use watershed analysis methods
settings where sediment contamination is a key concern as a linkage framework (e.g., Washington’s TFW
include EPA’s Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (USEPA, approach and the federal watershed analysis
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
procedures). These methods hold substantial promise as ,QGLFDWRU 7DUJHW5HIHUHQFH ([LVWLQJ
integrating mechanisms where they are being /HYHO &RQGLWLRQ
implemented, although linkages between aquatic
resource impacts and land management patterns that ILQHVHGLPHQWPP
contribute to those impacts have rarely been established 0HGLDQSDUWLFOHVL]H PP PP
$YHUDJHSRROGHSWK P P
through rigorous methods.
$UDQJHRIYDOXHVIRUHDFKLQGLFDWRUDQGWDUJHWLVOLNHO\LQDFWXDO
:KDWLVWKHOLQNDJHDQGZKDWLVWKHUHVXOWLQJ VHWWLQJVVLQJOHYDOXHVDUHXVHGKHUHWRVLPSOLI\WKHSUHVHQWDWLRQ
HVWLPDWHGORDGLQJFDSDFLW\RUQHHGHGORDG
UHGXFWLRQ"
5HFRPPHQGDWLRQVIRU/LQNDJHRI:DWHU4XDOLW\
The linkage analysis should show how numeric targets 7DUJHWVDQG6RXUFHV
and source analysis results relate to each other and how
they combine to yield estimates of sediment assimilative C Use all available and relevant data; ideally, the
capacity or needed sediment load reductions. An linkage will be supported by monitoring data,
example linkage analysis is provided below. The allowing the analyst to associate waterbody
example illustrates how professional judgment responses with flow and loading conditions.
combined with simple arithmetic comparisons of C Selection of an appropriate technique must be made
existing and target conditions can be used to link on a site-specific basis and should consider the
numeric targets and source analysis results to estimate nature of the indicator to be evaluated, hydraulic
assimilative capacity. This estimate provides the basis characteristics of the waterbody, user requirements,
for the allocation of loads or load reduction plans to be relevant temporal and spatial representation needs,
devised in the next TMDL step. and stakeholder interests.
C When selecting a technique to establish a
In this example, the target values are based on relationship between sources and water quality
conditions at a reference site. The indicators chosen are response, usually, the simplest technique that
percent fines, geometric median particle size, and adequately addresses all relevant factors should be
average pool depth; the target values for the indicators used.
are established at the values of the reference site.
5(&200(1'('5($',1*
A sediment budget for the impaired watershed shows
that the estimated annual sediment loading is (Note that the full list of references for this chapter is
80 tons/mi2. To determine a rough estimate of the included at the end of the document.)
needed load reductions, the existing conditions can be
compared to the target conditions. The percentage of Dissmeyer, G.E. 1994. Evaluating the effectiveness of
fine sediment is 60 percent greater, the median particle forestry best management practices in meeting water
size is 30 percent smaller, and the average pool depth is quality goals or standards. USFS Miscellaneous
30 percent shallower. The average departure of existing Publication 1520. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S.
conditions from target conditions is therefore 40 percent Forest Service, Washington, DC.
((60% + 30% + 30%)/3). Based on expert interpretation
and assuming that linear comparisons are valid, one Regional Ecosystem Office. 1995. Ecosystem analysis at
approach to load reduction needs would be to specify the watershed scale. Version 2.2. U.S. Government
that existing loads should be reduced by an equivalent Printing Office: 1995-689-120/21215 Regional
percentage, or that loads should be reduced by 40 Ecosystem Office, Portland, OR.
percent to approximately 48 tons/mi2.
USEPA. 1997c. Compendium of tools for watershed
assessment and TMDL development. EPA 841-B-97-
006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
<http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/techsupp.html>
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
Washington Forest Practices Board. 1994. Standard

methodology for conducting watershed analysis under
chapter 222-22 WAC. Version 2.1, November 1994.
Washington Forest Practices Board, Olympia, WA.
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
$OORFDWLRQV
Objective: Using total assimilative capacity developed C Make efficient use of assessment and planning
in the linkage component, develop recommendations for resources and the time of participants.
the allocation of loads among the various point and C Increase the likelihood that actions needed to
nonpoint sources, while accounting for uncertainties in implement the TMDL will actually be carried out.
the analyses (MOS) and, in some cases, a reserve for C Improve the analytical basis for concluding that
future sources. allocations will be effective in meeting TMDL
targets.
Procedure: Determine the allocations based on
identification of the acceptable loading (loading
KH\4XHVWLRQVWR&RQVLGHUIRU$OORFDWLRQV
capacity), the margin of safety, and the estimated loads
from significant sources. The available load is then :KDWNH\IDFWRUVDIIHFWVHOHFWLRQRIDOORFDWLRQPHWKRGV"
allocated among the various sources. :KDWLVDQDSSURSULDWHDOORFDWLRQPHWKRG"
+RZDUHDOORFDWLRQVGHVFULEHGLQWKH70'/GRFXPHQW"
:KDWFKDQJHVGRHVWKHSURSRVHGUXOHVSHDNWR"
29(59,(:
A TMDL is legally defined as the sum of wasteload

allocations to point sources, load allocations to nonpoint Allocations should be accompanied by adequate
and natural background sources, and a margin of safety documentation to provide reasonable assurance that the
considering seasonal variation (40 CFR 130.2). changes in sediment dynamics in the watershed
Although there are many ways to express TMDLs, the (reductions, increases, or redistributions) needed to
concept of allocation is central to the TMDL process implement the TMDL allocations will be implemented
because it reinforces the importance of identifying what and will result in the attainment of water quality
sources need to be addressed to attain water quality standards. To provide the reasonable assurance needed,
standards. Therefore, sediment TMDLs should clearly the TMDL submittal usually includes an analysis
provide for allocations by source of maximum allowable showing that the sum of allocations does not exceed the
loads, needed load reductions, or, in some cases, source waterbody’s assimilative capacity for sediment as
control actions.1 identified in the linkage step. In addition, some analysis
showing the feasibility of implementing proposed
Pollutant allocations (e.g., maximum allowable loads or allocations should be provided if possible. This section
needed load reductions per unit of time) are strongly reviews key factors to consider in the allocation process
recommended where feasible. The allocations provide a and discusses several allocation approaches.
framework for identifying specific source reduction
levels. In most TMDLs, the allocation element does not K(<48(67,21672&216,'(5)25$//2&$7,216
identify specific implementation measures; rather, those
measures are identified in an implementation plan that is :KDWNH\IDFWRUVDIIHFWVHOHFWLRQRIDOORFDWLRQ
legally distinct from the TMDL. The implementation PHWKRGV"
plan is often developed concurrently with the TMDL
and sometimes as a follow-up activity. It is usually The following factors usually influence the selection of
advantageous to develop the implementation plan at the an allocation approach.
same time as the TMDL to
7\SHVRIVRXUFHVDQGPDQDJHPHQWRSWLRQV
Allocations should usually be organized along the same

1 lines as the source analysis and linkage elements (e.g.,
Although some sediment TMDLs might determine a need to
increase sediment loading to address an impairment, this analysis
by source category, tributary area, land parcel, or
focuses on the more likely scenario that sediment reductions will be possibly a combination of these). Following the same
needed to address the designated use problem(s).
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
$OORFDWLRQV
approach in the allocation step usually eases the task of equitable control burdens are available. Refer to
demonstrating that the sum of allocated reductions or USEPA (1991a, 1991b, 1999) for additional guidance on
management actions offers reasonable assurance of allocation development.
success, defined in this case as eventual attainment of
numeric targets. It might not be necessary to devise 9DULDELOLW\LQORDGVDQGLPSDFWV
allocations for each source category, tributary, or land
area if action taken to address a subset of sources shows Allocations should be developed with an understanding
clear likelihood of success. of spatial and temporal variability in sediment loading
and designated use impacts. The allocations should be
Analysts should also consider how sediment sources are established at levels that ensure that designated uses are
expected to be controlled and tailor allocations protected at critical time periods and in key locations
accordingly. For example, in a case where erosion from (e.g., allowance of zero anthropogenic sediment
roads is the key source of concern, an allocation could discharge to stream reaches containing spawning
be expressed in different ways depending on how such grounds during spawning periods).
erosion is to be controlled. If the focus is on prevention
of road-related erosion through replacement of failing 0DUJLQRIVDIHW\LVVXHV
culverts, the allocation could be done in terms of total
tons of avoided sediment loading to be realized through As discussed in the introduction, the margin of safety
culvert management. Alternatively, if road-related (MOS) required in each TMDL can be addressed
erosion is to be controlled by reducing the miles of implicitly through inclusion of conservative analytical
active roads per square mile, the allocation could be assumptions or methods or explicitly through
expressed in terms of percent reductions in sediment reservation of a portion of the available loading to
loading by tributary watersheds. account for uncertainty. The explicit MOS approach is
usually addressed during the allocation phase. In cases
In another example, sediment runoff from fields under where the TMDL provides the required MOS through
multiple-stage crop rotation varies depending on which implicit analysis assumptions, the allocation section
crop is planted at any one time. TMDL allocations should indicate that this approach makes the need for an
should therefore be designed to ensure that sediment explicit reservation of loading capacity as an MOS
production associated with the maximum sediment unnecessary. Tha allocation section should also identify
production stage of the rotation does not exceed the conservative assumptions used in the analysis and
acceptable levels (Davenport, 1983). explain how they adequately account for uncertainties.
Where an explicit allocation is reserved as an MOS, the
(TXLW\LVVXHV analysis should discuss why this reservation is adequate
to account for uncertainty present in the TMDL.
Allocations entail distribution of sediment control needs
or expectations among different point and nonpoint )XWXUH*URZWK
sources. Because costs of controlling different sources
can vary substantially, the allocation analysis should Recognizing that in some watersheds there will be
consider whether the allocations create reasonably fair growth that results in increased loadings, some TMDLs
distributions of control costs. Analysts might want to may allocate a portion of the loading capacity for this
develop cost/benefit analyses of potential control actions growth. In this situation, the State will make the
to assist in fairly distributing control costs. specific allocation to a facility in the future when the
loading increases occur. Current guidance clarifies that
Typically, responsible parties are more likely to carry any reserved allocation for future growth cannot also be
out actions needed to implement TMDLs if they feel used as a margin of safety.
their share of the sediment control burden is fair.
Therefore, analysts are advised to consult with affected On August 23, 1999, EPA published proposed rules that,
stakeholders during the development of allocations. when finalized, will require that an approvable TMDL
Many methods for developing allocations that result in must include an allowance for future growth which
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
accounts for reasonably foreseeable increases in that allocations are feasible and that associated actions
pollutant loads, or otherwise state that there is no will be implemented, the more likely it will be that
capacity for growth. States, Territories, and authorized specific quantitative allocations linking sediment
Tribes will need to include future growth in their loading caps, reductions, or other source control targets
allocation strategy and carefully document their need to be associated with specific management actions.
decision-making process. The TMDL documentation In some projects, reasonable assurance that the load
should clearly explain the implications of the growth reduction will be achieved might be related to
allocation decision on new and existing point and stakeholders agreeing on the watershed’s problems and
nonpoint sources of a pollutant. It should also explain the implementation of appropriate solutions.
what other local planning processes may be affected.
Many methods can be used to document the basis for
1HHGVIRUVWDNHKROGHULQYROYHPHQWDQGSXEOLF allocations and to assess their expected feasibility.
RXWUHDFK Documentation will be most effective if it explains
(1) why the allocations, when attained, will result in
Since the reason for establishing sediment TMDLs is to sediment loads that do not exceed waterbody
set the stage for productive action, TMDL allocations assimilative capacity as identified in the linkage element
that clearly define needed load reductions are more and (2) how the allocations will be implemented.
likely to be understood and supported by stakeholders.
Documentation may be based on modeling results or
If allocations are vague and the roles of agencies, other rigorous quantitative analysis showing why a
landowners, and other stakeholders are not clear, certain allocation meshes with total allowable loads or
misunderstandings might arise later and project needed sediment reductions. However, less
effectiveness could suffer. The best ways to ensure sophisticated approaches might also work in some
stakeholders’ support for allocations are to involve them settings. For example, in a case where a sediment
in allocation development early, to fully document the loading percentage reduction target needs to be met
basis for each allocation, and to show how the through BMP implementation, the analyst could show
allocations “add up” to provide an effective overall plan. literature values regarding effectiveness found in BMP
guidance documents. Good sources of information about
,PSOHPHQWDWLRQDQGUHDVRQDEOHDVVXUDQFHLVVXHV sediment BMPs and their effectiveness include EPA’s
management measures guidance (USEPA, 1993), USDA
Feasible allocations should be supported by information Forest Service conservation handbooks (e.g., USDA
or analysis providing reasonable assurance that their Forest Service, 1988), NRCS Field Office technical
implementation will occur and that TMDL targets will guides, and state BMP handbooks (e.g., Platts, 1990). In
be met. Where point source discharges are concerned, it addition, reference could be made to results from similar
might be enough to cite the regulatory basis for point projects. If a similar project was effective, analysts
source permitting and to explain that a permit will be might have a sound basis for suggesting that the same
required. With nonpoint sources, it is sometimes control or restoration approaches would work. Where a
difficult to demonstrate that a set of management strong adaptive management component is planned for
measures or restoration projects can be developed to the project, less rigorous documentation of the expected
achieve the projected load reductions (EPA 1991a). effectiveness of the allocations could be adequate.
(EPA’s August 1997 policy memorandum [USEPA,
1997a] discusses implementation issues for waters In cases where implementation of actions associated
impaired solely or primarily by nonpoint sources.) The with allocations is expected to occur under the auspices
relationship between land management activities and of a regulatory mechanism (e.g., timber harvest plans,
sediment processes is complex and not easy to quantify grazing allotments, construction permit, or storm water
through simple measures. Therefore, creativity and permit), it might be helpful to describe how the actions
flexibility might be needed to build a record supporting are factored into the regulatory framework. Such a
the feasibility and adequacy of proposed allocations. In description would help bolster the analysis supporting
general, the greater the demand for specific assurances the allocations.
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
$OORFDWLRQV
:KDWLVDQDSSURSULDWHDOORFDWLRQPHWKRG" approach recognizes that annual or seasonal loads will

vary substantially in response to different precipitation
Many methods are available to establish effective patterns.
allocations. The first step in establishing allocations is to
determine the segments and sources that require The disadvantage is that this approach creates a
allocations to achieve water quality standards. Sources significant lag time between the implementation of
where allocations are needed might be evident based on TMDL-related sediment controls and the review of the
screening-level analyses. However, the actual effectiveness of those controls. Some TMDLs address
establishment of allocations will depend on many this disadvantage by incorporating sensitive monitoring
factors, such as decisions about whether reductions triggers as numeric targets. For example, the Newport
should be spread out across all sources or applied to a Bay/San Diego Creek TMDLs include numeric targets
few targeted sources. Each TMDL will likely have its for maintenance of wetland habitat types that are
own criteria for making these decisions (e.g., magnitude sensitive to change due to sediment loading. If the
of impact, degree of management control now in place, acreage of any particular habitat type in a key wildlife
feasibility, probability of success, costs). For sediment refuge changes more than 1 percent, the TMDL
TMDLs, analysts should consider the following options implementation plan requires the state to immediately
as a starting point for expressing allocations: review the TMDL for potential revisions. It might also
be possible to use turbidity or suspended sediment
• Maximum allowable loads targets to provide more sensitive numeric targets.
• Percentage reduction targets (Targets of this type are discussed in the numeric targets
• Performance-based actions or practices section in Chapter 4.)
However, other allocation options are available and 3HUFHQWDJHUHGXFWLRQWDUJHWV

should be explored.
As an alternative to maximum allowable loads,
0D[LPXPDOORZDEOHORDGV allocations can be expressed in terms of percentage
reductions in sediment loading allocated among sources
Specific allocation of maximum allowable mass loads to (e.g., Deep Creek, Montana). Percent reduction targets
specific source categories, tributaries, or channel types enable the analyst to account for the uncertainties and
or from specific parcels, erosion process categories (e.g., variabilities in the analysis of dynamic watershed
landslides), or distinct geologic types are the allocation settings while providing a quantitative basis for
approaches most commonly used in sediment TMDLs allocations and subsequent monitoring. The simplicity
(e.g., Garcia River, California, Simpson Timberlands, of this approach is appealing in many settings.
Washington [draft]). Specific allocations of loading However, it might be more difficult to measure
caps or other thresholds offer relatively precise targets attainment of percent reduction targets because this
and a clear basis for monitoring. Given the variability approach might require more complicated monitoring
of sediment dynamics in many systems, it might not be than that used for some other methods. For this approach
feasible or wise to set allocations in this manner because to work, estimates of baseline sediment loading
they might not reflect the expected imprecision in the conditions by source are needed to determine the
target and source analysis components of some TMDLs. appropriate percentage reductions needed. Relatively
If these targets are framed as preliminary hypotheses to simple baseline estimates might be adequate for this
be tested and adjusted if necessary over time, they might purpose.
be more defensible and will likely receive a more
positive response from stakeholders. Another approach $OORFDWLRQVEDVHGRQSHUIRUPDQFHRIDFWLRQVRU
to addressing expected variability in loadings over time SUDFWLFHV
is to set allocations for relatively long time steps (e.g.,
average annual sediment load per square mile) expressed In some cases, allocations can be expressed in terms of
as a multiyear rolling average (e.g., 10-year rolling project performance expectations (e.g., tons of
average for Redwood Creek, California, TMDL). This sedimentation avoided due to road improvements)
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
associated with specific projects or management

practices, which, as a group, “add up” to meet overall C Follow-up monitoring is included as part of the
sediment management goals (e.g., South Fork Salmon TMDL and implementation plan.
River, Idaho, and Chalk Creek, Utah [USEPA, 1996c)].
This allocation approach usually entails estimating the +RZDUHDOORFDWLRQVGHVFULEHGLQWKH70'/
erosion reduced or avoided as a result of implementing GRFXPHQW"
specific practices. Project performance expectations
offer tangible connections to specific management or Individual allocations by source should be identified,
restoration actions in specific places. This approach along with any allocation characteristics that account for
facilitates the identification of specific action based on variability in source inputs or in-stream impacts (e.g.,
allocations and the monitoring of project effectiveness. seasonal variations in allowed loads). The rationale
Its main drawback is that it is often difficult to show supporting the allocations should be described in
how the projected sum of avoided sedimentation from adequate detail to show that the allocations will result in
multiple projects adds up to reasonable assurance that attainment of water quality standards and that their
overall source reduction or in-stream targets can be implementation is feasible. Uncertainties in the analysis
attained. This approach might work best where the should also be discussed. Where implementation
expected magnitude of sediment control actions planning is done concurrently with allocation, it might
significantly exceeds the needed sediment reductions. be appropriate for the allocation section to reference the
implementation plan to further explain the intended
A related allocation approach identifies in detail the approaches for addressing sources. In most cases,
practices to be implemented to address specific sources however, the document should clearly distinguish the
of concern. Provided with the action plan is a rationale allocations from the implementation actions.
that shows why the set of identified actions is expected
to be adequate to attain the total sediment load :KDWFKDQJHVGRHVWKHSURSRVHGUXOHVSHDN
reductions needed (as identified during the linkage
WR"
phase of the TMDL). This rationale could be based on
the professional judgment of resource experts involved
On August 23, 1999, EPA published proposed rules that
in TMDL and implementation planning; modeling
specify that approvable TMDLs must include at a
results; literature and agency guidance that provide
minimum ten elements. Within the allocation step, an
estimates of BMP and restoration effectiveness in
approvable TMDL will need to include the following
sediment control; and experience with similar sediment
information:
control projects.
1. Wasteload allocations to each industrial and
Because this approach lacks the direct allocation of
municipal point source permitted under §402 of
loads or load reductions and instead shows how
the Clean Water Act discharging the pollutant
allocation of actions is adequate to attain necessary load
for which the TMDL is being established;
reductions, the approach is most appropriate under the
wasteload allocations for storm water, combined
following circumstances:
sewer overflows, abandoned mines, combined
animal feeding operations, or any other
C Stakeholders strongly support the actions to be
discharges subject to a general permit may be
taken, and there is reasonable assurance that the
allocated to categories of sources, subcategories
actions will occur (e.g., landowner and funding
of sources or individual sources; pollutant loads
commitments are in place, actions are required by
that do not need to be allocated to attain or
permits or ordinances).
maintain water quality standards may be
included within a category of sources,
C Adequate information concerning BMP or
subcategory of sources or considered as part of
restoration project effectiveness is available to
background loads; and supporting technical
support an argument that the actions will be
analyses demonstrating that wasteload
adequate to attain needed load reductions.
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
$OORFDWLRQV
allocations when implemented, will attain and and/or management measures required to
maintain water quality standards; implement the allocations contained in the
TMDL, along with a a description of the
2. Load allocations to nonpoint sources of a effectiveness of these actions and/or measures in
pollutant, including atmospheric deposition or achieving the required pollutant loads or
natural background sources. If possible, a reductions.
separate load allocation must be allocated to
each source of natural background or C Time line: a description of when activities
atmospheric deposition; load allocations may be necessary to implement the TMDL will occur. It
allocated to categories of sources, subcategories must include a schedule for revising NPDES
of sources or individual sources. Pollutant loads permits to be consistent with the TMDL. The
that do not need to be allocated may be included schedule must also include when best
within a category of sources, subcategory of management practices and/or controls will be
sources or considered as part of the background implemented for source categories,
load. Supporting technical analyses must subcategories and individual sources. Interim
demonstrate that load allocations, when milestones to judge progress are also required.
implemented, will attain and maintain water
quality standards; C Reasonable assurances: reasonable assurance
that the implementation activities will occur.
3. A margin of safety expressed as unallocated Reasonable assurance means a high degree of
assimilative capacity or conservative analytical confidence that wasteload allocations and /or
assumptions used in establishing the TMDL; load allocations in TMDLs will be implemented
e.g., derivation of numeric targets, modeling by Federal, State or local authorities and /or
assumptions, or effectiveness of proposed voluntary action. For point sources, reasonable
management actions which ensures attainment assurance means that NPDES permits (including
and maintenance of water quality standards for coverage under applicable general NPDES
the allocated pollutant; permits) will be consistent with any applicable
wasteload allocation contained in the TMDL.
4. Consideration of seasonal variation and high For nonpoint sources, reasonable assurance
and low flow conditions such that water quality means that nonpoint source controls are specific
standards for the allocated pollutant will be met to the pollutant of concern, implemented
during all design environmental conditions; according to an expeditious schedule and
supported by reliable delivery mechanisms and
5. An allowance for future growth which accounts adequate funding.
for reasonably foreseeable increases in pollutant
loads; and C Legal or regulatory controls: a description of
the legal authorities under which
6. An implementation plan, which may be implementation will occur (as defined in 40
developed for one or a group of TMDLs. CFR 130.2(p)). These authorities include, for
example, NPDES, Section 401 certification,
Minimum Elements of an Approvable Implementation Federal Land Policy and Management programs,
Plan legal requirements associated with financial
assistance agreements under the Farm Bills
Whether an implementation plan is for one TMDL or a enacted by Congress and a broad variety of
group of TMDLs, it must include at a minimum the enforceable State, Territorial, and authorized
following eight elements: Tribal laws to control nonpoint source pollution.
C Implementation actions/management measures:

a description of the implementation actions
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
C Time required to attain water quality standards: 5(&200(1'$7,216)25$//2&$7,216

an estimate of the time required to attain water
quality. The estimates of the time required to C Allocations should be accompanied by adequate
attain and maintain water quality standards must documentation to provide reasonable assurance that
be specific to the source category, subcategory the suggested changes will result in attainment of
or individual source and tied to the pollutant for water quality standards.
which the TMDL is being established. It must C It might be helpful to organize allocations along the
also be consistent with the geographic scale of same lines as source assessment and linkage (e.g.,
the TMDL, including the implementation by source category or land parcel).
actions. C Involve affected stakeholders in developing
allocations.
C Monitoring plan: a monitoring or modeling plan C Clarify whether the margin of safety is implicit or
designed to determine the effectiveness of the explicit and explain the rationale behind the
implementation actions and to help determine decision.
whether allocations are met. The monitoring or
modeling plan must be designed to describe 5(&200(1'('5($',1*
whether allocations are sufficient to attain water
quality standards and how it will be determined (Note that the full list of references for this chapter is
whether implementation actions, including included at the end of the document.)
interim milestones, are occurring as planned.
The monitoring approach must also contain an
USEPA. 1991a. Guidance for water quality-based
approach for assessing the effectiveness of best
decisions: The TMDL process. EPA 440/4-91-001.
management practices and control actions for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
nonpoint sources.
DC. <http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/policy.html>
C Milestones for attaining water quality
USEPA. 1991b. Technical support document for water
standards: a description of milestones that will
quality-based toxics control. EPA/505/2-90-001. U.S.
be used to measure progress in attaining water
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
quality standards. The milestones must reflect
the pollutant for which the TMDL is being
USEPA. 1993. Guidance specifying management
established and be consistent with the
measures for sources of nonpoint pollution in coastal
geographic scale of the TMDL, including the
waters. EPA 840-B-92-002. U.S. Environmental
implementation actions. The monitoring plan
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
must contain incremental, measurable
milestones consistent with the specific
implementation action and the time frames for
decisions: The TMDL process (second edition). EPA
implementing those actions.
Washington, DC.
C TMDL revision procedures: a description of
when TMDLs must be revised. EPA expects that
the monitoring plan would describe when failure
to meet specific milestones for implementing
actions or interim milestones for attaining water
quality standards will trigger a revision of the
TMDL.
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
$OORFDWLRQV
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
Objective: Define the monitoring and evaluation plan to Many types of monitoring activities should be
validate TMDL elements, assess the adequacy of control considered when developing the monitoring plan
actions to implement the TMDL, and provide a basis for (MacDonald et al., 1991). The types of monitoring
reviewing and revising TMDL elements or control programs and their definitions as used in this document
actions in the future. are from monitoring guidelines developed by
MacDonald et al. (1991). They include
Procedure: Identify the key questions that a monitoring
plan needs to address and evaluate monitoring options C Baseline monitoring
and the feasibility of implementing a monitoring C Implementation monitoring
program. Describe the specific monitoring plan, C Effectiveness monitoring
including timing and location of monitoring activities, C Trend monitoring
parties responsible for conducting monitoring, and C Validation monitoring
quality assurance/quality control procedures. Describe
the schedule for reviewing monitoring results to Baseline monitoring characterizes existing conditions
consider the need for TMDL or action plan revisions, and provides a basis for future comparisons. Baseline
and discuss the adaptive management approach to be monitoring should also include information on source
taken. The monitoring component of a TMDL results in controls in place in the watershed, including the types of
a description of monitoring and adaptive management controls present, where they are located, and general
plan objectives, methods, schedules, and responsible information on their past effectiveness in controlling
parties. erosion. This type of monitoring is not always
necessary for the monitoring plan. Usually, some
29(59,(: baseline data that were considered during TMDL
development already exist.
Sediment-related impacts on designated uses are often
difficult to characterize. For this reason, sediment Implementation monitoring ensures that identified
TMDLs are likely to have significant uncertainty management actions (such as specific BMPs or resource
associated with selection of numeric targets and restoration or enhancement projects) are undertaken.
estimates of source loadings and waterbody assimilative Implementation monitoring is often cited as the most
capacity. Recognizing the inherent uncertainty, EPA cost-effective of the monitoring types because it
has encouraged the development of TMDLs using provides information on whether BMPs are being
available information and data with the expectation that installed or implemented as intended. This type of
a monitoring plan will be developed and submitted with monitoring will not provide a link to in-stream water
the TMDL (USEPA, 1991a, 1999). This approach quality.
allows proceeding with source controls while additional
monitoring data are collected to provide a basis for Effectiveness monitoring is used to assess whether the
reviewing and revising the TMDL. This “adaptive source controls had the desired effect. Specific projects
management” approach enables stakeholders to move that potentially affect water quality conditions should be
forward with resource protection based on reasonably monitored to determine their immediate on-site effects.
rigorous planning and assessment.
Trend monitoring is used to assess changes in conditions
The monitoring and adaptive management plan is a over time relative to the baseline and identified target
central element of TMDLs and is highly advisable for values. Trend monitoring is critical, assuming the other
all sediment TMDLs. This chapter discusses key factors elements of the TMDL are appropriately developed. It
to be considered in developing the monitoring plan and addresses the changing conditions in the waterbody that
suggests additional sources of guidance on monitoring result from TMDL-specific activities, as well as other
plan development. land management activities over time. This is the most
critical component of the monitoring program since it
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
also documents progress toward achieving the desired K(<48(67,21672&216,'(5)25)2//2:83

water quality conditions. 021,725,1*$1'(9$/8$7,21
Validation monitoring is used to validate source analysis :KDWNH\IDFWRUVLQIOXHQFHPRQLWRULQJSODQ
and linkage methods. This type of monitoring provides
GHVLJQ"
a different data set that can be used to provide an
unbiased evaluation of the overall performance of
Many factors influence the necessary rigor of a
methods or models used in the analysis.
monitoring plan. For example, in watersheds where
limited data are available for TMDL development, a
A monitoring program includes the following elements,
more robust monitoring plan that outlines the steps to be
which should be addressed in the monitoring plan:
taken to refine problem identification or confirmation
might be necessary. In watersheds where the problem is
• The specifications for the location and timing of
better understood and source controls are in place, it
monitoring.
might be more desirable for the monitoring plan to focus
• The types of monitoring techniques to be used.
on monitoring source control implementation. Some of
• The standard operating procedures and appropriate
the key factors that influence the development of a
quality assurance protocols.
monitoring plan include the following:
• Procedures for the storage of collected information
and for internal and public access to such
• What specific TMDL elements need evaluation?
information.
• How can tracking of implementation of source
• Analytical techniques and objectives for the
controls be included in the monitoring plan?
interpretation and analysis of information gathered.
• How can stakeholder involvement and goals be
• A process for refining and modifying the monitoring
included?
design in response to changing objectives and
• How can existing monitoring activities, resources,
improved information.
and capabilities be fully utilized?
• A designated laboratory with sufficient capacity and
appropriate levels of certification.
:KDWVSHFLILF70'/HOHPHQWVQHHGHYDOXDWLRQ"
It is not possible to provide details on the factors that
TMDL problem identification, indicators and numeric
should be considered in development of monitoring
targets, source estimates, and allocations might need
plans for all environments in this document. Instead,
reevaluation to determine whether they are accurate and
this document provides a review of general monitoring
effective. The monitoring plan should define specific
considerations and factors that might help to optimize
questions to be answered about these components
data collection and interpretation in the context of
through the collection of monitoring information. The
TMDL development.
following factors/questions should be considered when
determining on which components additional or new
monitoring should be focused:
KH\4XHVWLRQVWR&RQVLGHUIRU)ROORZXS0RQLWRULQJDQG
(YDOXDWLRQ
• Are the selected indicators and numeric targets
:KDWNH\IDFWRUVLQIOXHQFHPRQLWRULQJSODQGHVLJQ" capable of detecting designated use impacts and
:KDWDUHVRPHRIWKHSRWHQWLDOPRQLWRULQJDSSURDFKHVIRU responses to control actions?
VHGLPHQW70'/V" • What is the level of confidence in the
:KDWLVLQFOXGHGLQDQDSSURSULDWHPRQLWRULQJSODQ"
characterization of baseline or background
:KDWLVDQDSSURSULDWHDGDSWLYHPDQDJHPHQWSODQLQFOXGLQJ
UHYLHZDQGUHYLVLRQVFKHGXOH" conditions?
:KDWFRQVWLWXWHVDQDGHTXDWHPRQLWRULQJSODQ" • Were the data used to establish the numeric targets
of sufficient quality to reasonably represent the
appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of
concern? Was uncertainty in the data within an
acceptable range for the type of data?
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
• Was the source assessment comprehensive or are • What stakeholder/volunteer groups are willing to
other sources suspected? Have sources been participate in monitoring efforts?
accurately estimated? • Where are likely locations for stakeholder/volunteer
• Was the linkage between sources and in-stream monitoring efforts?
impacts accurately characterized? Did the • What types of data are amenable to collection by
characterization rely heavily on screening-level stakeholders or volunteers?
analyses due to a lack of data? Would additional • How will data from stakeholders or volunteers be
data provide any significant improvements to the used in the TMDL revision?
analyses?
• Were the erosion and hydrologic processes that +RZFDQH[LVWLQJPRQLWRULQJDFWLYLWLHVUHVRXUFHV
affect sediment production or impacts on designated DQGFDSDELOLWLHVEHIXOO\XWLOL]HG"
uses accurately characterized?
• Where reference sites were used to help determine Analysts should identify existing and planned
TMDL targets and load reduction needs, were monitoring activities in an effort to address TMDL
reference site conditions accurately characterized? monitoring needs in concert with other efforts,
Would the analysis benefit from comparison to particularly where a long-term monitoring program is
additional reference sites or from additional data envisioned, the study area is large, or water quality
collected from reference sites? agency monitoring resources are limited. Staff
capabilities and training should also be considered to
+RZFDQWUDFNLQJRILPSOHPHQWDWLRQRIVRXUFH ensure that monitoring plans are feasible. Factors to
FRQWUROVEHLQFOXGHGLQWKHPRQLWRULQJSODQ" consider include the following:
It is often important to determine whether actions C What data collection efforts are ongoing in the
identified in the implementation plan were actually watershed? What kinds of data have been collected
carried out (implementation monitoring) and whether and what methods have been used?
these actions were effective in reaching the desired C What other types of programs or studies are ongoing
condition as outlined in the TMDL (effectiveness or planned in the watershed that were not identified
monitoring). in the original TMDL analysis? Will data collected
Specific questions to be considered when developing the

monitoring plan include the following: &KDUDFWHULVWLFVRI(IIHFWLYH0RQLWRULQJ3ODQ
• What types of implementation problems are C 4XDQWLILDEOHDSSURDFK5HVXOWVPXVWEHGLVFHUQLEOHRYHUWLPH

expected? Will specific landowners require special VRWKDWWKH\FDQEHFRPSDUHGWRSUHYLRXVRUUHIHUHQFH
attention (e.g., landowners not party to the TMDL) FRQGLWLRQV
C $SSURSULDWHLQVFDOHDQGDSSOLFDWLRQDQGUHOHYDQWWRGHVLJQDWHG
or technical support?
RUH[LVWLQJXVHVDQGWKH70'/PHWKRGV
• How can implementation monitoring be conducted C $GHTXDWHO\SUHFLVHUHSURGXFLEOHE\LQGHSHQGHQWLQYHVWLJDWRUV
in large watersheds? DQGFRQVLVWHQWZLWKVFLHQWLILFXQGHUVWDQGLQJRIWKHSUREOHPV
• How will the implementation monitoring results be DQGVROXWLRQV
assessed and used in revising the TMDL? C $EOHWRGLVWLQJXLVKDPRQJPDQ\GLIIHUHQWIDFWRUVVRXUFHVHJ
URDGVPDVVZDVWLQJDJULFXOWXUDOSUDFWLFHVXUEDQUXQRIILQ
• Will the implementation monitoring include any
VWUHDPKLVWRULFDOORDGV
assessment of BMP effectiveness? C 8QGHUVWDQGDEOHWRWKHSXEOLFDQGVXSSRUWHGE\VWDNHKROGHUV
C )HDVLEOHDQGFRVWHIIHFWLYH
+RZFDQVWDNHKROGHULQYROYHPHQWDQGJRDOVEH C $QWLFLSDWRU\RISRWHQWLDOIXWXUHFRQGLWLRQVDQGFOLPDWLF
LQFOXGHG" LQIOXHQFHV
C 0LQLPDOO\GLVUXSWLYHWRWKHGHVLJQDWHGXVHVGXULQJGDWD
FROOHFWLRQ
Watershed stakeholders often participate in follow-up C &RQGXFWLYHWRUHDFKLQJDQGVXVWDLQLQJFRQGLWLRQVWKDWVXSSRUW
monitoring, and their interests, in addition to TMDL WKHGHVLJQDWHGRUH[LVWLQJXVH
analysis, should be considered in devising monitoring
plans. Monitoring plans should address the following:
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
by the programs or studies be of any use in a effectiveness of different implementation

TMDL revision? Does the potential exist for approaches and the adequacy of different TMDL
pooling data collection and analysis resources? elements.
C Were the data used in the original TMDL analysis?
If not, why were the data omitted? :KDWLVLQFOXGHGLQDQDSSURSULDWHPRQLWRULQJ
C Are known volunteer monitoring groups active in SODQ"
the watershed? In the region?
The first step in developing an appropriate monitoring
In addition to the factors presented above, many other and adaptive management plan is to clearly identify the
practical considerations influence the design and goals of the monitoring program. It might be possible to
development of a monitoring plan. Practical constraints accomplish several of these monitoring goals
include problems with access to monitoring sites due to simultaneously. For example, the primary need in most
landowner restrictions, physical barriers (e.g., TMDLs will be to document progress toward achieving
topography), seasonal weather concerns, and concerns the numeric targets. During this process, the additional
about indirect impacts of monitoring on habitat. Other information collected might lead to a better
factors influencing the design of monitoring plans and understanding of the processes, suggesting a revision to
different types of monitoring of interest for TMDLs are the source analysis that would better pinpoint the
discussed in detail in MacDonald et al. (1991). sediment problem and lead to faster attainment of water
quality improvements, or it might be that a particular
:KDWDUHVRPHRIWKHSRWHQWLDOPRQLWRULQJ restoration or enhancement project did not produce the
DSSURDFKHVIRUVHGLPHQW70'/V" desired effects and some changes to it should be
undertaken.
The protocol chapters concerning numeric targets,
source analysis, and linkage discuss several analysis Other guidelines for developing a monitoring plan
approaches that could provide the basis for monitoring include the following:
parameter selection. Potential monitoring parameters
are discussed in detail in MacDonald et al. (1991), Reid • Address the relationships between the monitoring
and Dunne (1996), and other monitoring texts. plan and the TMDL’s numeric targets, source
Approaches that might prove useful for TMDL and analysis, linkages, and allocations, as well as the
implementation plan monitoring include, but are not implementation plan.
limited to, the following areas: • Articulate specific questions to be answered in the
form of monitoring hypotheses, and explain how the
C Monitoring of channel condition and bed material to monitoring program will answer those questions.
assess changes in channel structure and substrate • Explain any assumptions being made.
composition. • Discuss the likely effects of episodic events.
C Aerial photography to assess changes in channel • The design can be delineated by source type, by
structure and erosion sources. geographical area, and/or by ownership parcel.
C Suspended load, bedload, and flow data to assess • Describe the monitoring methods to be used and
changes in sediment concentrations and mass loads. provide the rationale for selection of these methods.
C Biological indicators (e.g., invertebrates, fish • Define monitoring locations and frequencies, and
populations, spawning rates, redd counts). list who will be responsible for conducting the
C Riparian and streambank indicators (e.g., woody monitoring.
debris, vegetation, erosion features). • Develop an appropriate Quality Assurance Project
C Hillslope erosion features (e.g., mass wasting Plan. Detail sampling methods, selection of sites,
features, gullies). and analysis methods consistent with accepted
C Drainage features (e.g., reservoir, settlement basin, quality assurance/quality control practices. Have
and drainage channel sediment levels). the monitoring plan peer-reviewed if possible. (For
C Calibrated models that can be used to simulate the more information, refer to USEPA, 1994a, 1994b.)
implementation of controls. This approach can
provide an interim evaluation of the potential
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
:KDWLVDQDSSURSULDWHDGDSWLYHPDQDJHPHQW :KDWFKDQJHVGRHVWKHSURSRVHGUXOHVSHDN

SODQLQFOXGLQJUHYLHZDQGUHYLVLRQVFKHGXOH" WR"
The plan should contain a section addressing the On August 23, 1999, EPA published proposed rules that
adaptive management component. This section should specify that approvable TMDLs must include at a
discuss when and how the TMDL will be reviewed. If minimum ten elements. Within the monitoring step, an
possible, the plan should describe criteria that will guide approvable TMDL will need to include a monitoring
TMDL review and revision. For example, the plan plan as part of the implementation plan. The monitoring
could identify expected levels of progress toward plan needs to determine the effectiveness of control
meeting TMDL numeric targets at the time of the initial actions and/or management measures being
review, stated in terms of interim numeric targets or implemented and whether the TMDL is working, as well
interim load reduction expectations. In addition, the as a procedure that will be followed if components of a
plan could identify “red flag” thresholds for key TMDL must be refined. The plan should clearly
indicators that would signal fundamental threats to indicate the monitoring goals and hypotheses, the
designated or existing uses and perhaps trigger a more parameters to be monitored, the locations and frequency
in-depth review of the TMDL and implementation plan of monitoring, the monitoring methods to be used, the
components. The adaptive management plan can also schedule for review and potential revision, and the
contain provisions for modifying the monitoring plan. parties responsible for implementing the plan. It must
contain incremental, measurable targets consistent with
The adaptive management component does not need to the specific implementation action and the time frames
schedule every conceivable TMDL review; it should be for implementing those actions. This information is
adequate to indicate the estimated frequency of review needed to adequately assess whether the specified
and identify a specific date for the initial review. It actions are sufficient to attain water quality standards.
would be difficult to reliably forecast how often TMDL
reviews will be needed, especially where problems The following are key factors to consider when
might take several decades (or longer) to remediate. developing a TMDL monitoring plan:
:KDWFRQVWLWXWHVDQDGHTXDWHPRQLWRULQJSODQ • Need to evaluate specific TMDL components.

IRUWKH70'/GRFXPHQW" TMDL problem identification, indicators, numeric
targets, source estimates, and allocations might need
Because monitoring and adaptive management will be reevaluation to determine whether they are accurate
key elements of most sediment TMDLs, the TMDL and effective. The monitoring plan should define
should contain a monitoring and adaptive management specific questions to be answered about these
plan (USEPA, 1991a, 1999). The plan should components through the collection of monitoring
incorporate each of the components discussed above information.
along with the rationale for the monitoring and adaptive
management approach. The plan should clearly indicate • Need to evaluate implementation actions. It is often
the monitoring goals and hypotheses, the parameters to important to determine whether actions identified in
be monitored, the locations and frequency of the implementation plan were actually carried out
monitoring, the monitoring methods to be used, the (implementation monitoring) and whether these
schedule for review and potential revision, and the actions were effective in attaining TMDL
parties responsible for implementing the plan. If it is allocations (effectiveness monitoring). Specific
infeasible to develop the monitoring plan in detail at the questions to be answered concerning
time of TMDL adoption, it might be adequate to identify implementation actions should be articulated as part
only the basic monitoring goals, the review time frame, of the monitoring plan.
and the responsible parties while committing to develop
the full monitoring plan in the near future. • Stakeholder goals for monitoring efforts.
Watershed stakeholders often participate in
follow-up monitoring, and their interests, in addition
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
to TMDL analysis, should be considered in devising USEPA. 1992. Monitoring guidance for the national
monitoring plans. estuary program. EPA 842 B-92-004. U.S.
• Existing monitoring activities, resources, and
capabilities. Analysts should identify existing and USEPA. 1996. Nonpoint source monitoring and
planned monitoring activities to address TMDL evaluation guide. Draft final, November 1996. U.S.
monitoring needs in concert with these efforts, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
particularly where a long-term monitoring program Washington, DC.
is envisioned, the study area is large, or water
quality agency monitoring resources are limited.
Staff capabilities and training should also be
considered to ensure that monitoring plans are
feasible.
• Practical constraints to monitoring. Monitoring

options can be limited by practical constraints (e.g.,
problems with access to monitoring sites and
concerns about indirect impacts of monitoring on
habitat).
5(&200(1'$7,216)25)2//2:83
021,725,1*$1'(9$/8$7,21
C Clearly identify the goals of the monitoring

program.
C Define specific questions to be answered concerning
the evaluation of individual TMDL elements.
C If possible, coordinate with other existing or
planned monitoring activities.
C Determine which type or types of monitoring (e.g.,
implementation, trend) are appropriate for
accomplishing the desired goals.
C Develop an appropriate quality assurance plan;
follow-up monitoring should be designed to yield
defensible data that can support future analysis.
5(&200(1'('5($',1*

included at the end of the document).
MacDonald, L., A.W. Smart, and R.C. Wissmar. 1991.

Monitoring guidelines to evaluate effects of forestry
activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and
Alaska. EPA 910/9-91-001. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, Nonpoint Source
Section, Seattle, WA.
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
$VVHPEOLQJWKH70'/
Objective: Clearly identify components of a TMDL 5HFRPPHQGHG0LQLPXP6XEPLWWDO,QIRUPDWLRQ
submittal to support adequate public participation and to
facilitate TMDL review and approval. The following list of elements provides a suggested
outline for TMDL submittals:
Procedure: Compile all pertinent information used to
develop the TMDL and prepare the final submittal. The 1. Submittal Letter
final submittal should be supported by documentation • Each TMDL submitted to EPA should be
for all major assumptions and analyses. accompanied by a submittal letter stating that
the submittal is a draft or final TMDL submitted
29(59,(: under section 303(d) of the CWA for EPA
review and approval.
It is important to clearly identify the “pieces” of the
TMDL submittal and to show how they fit together to 2. Problem Statement
provide a coherent planning tool that can lead to • Waterbody name and location.
attainment of water quality standards for sediment- • A map is especially useful if information
related water quality impairments. Where TMDLs are displayed indicates the area covered by the
derived from other analyses or reports, it is helpful to TMDL (e.g., watershed boundary or upper and
develop a separate document or chapter that ties lower bounds on the receiving stream segment)
together the TMDL components and shows where and the location of sources.
background information can be found. • Waterbody section 303(d) list status (including
pollutant of concern for the TMDL).
5(&200(1'$7,2165(*$5',1*&217(172) • Watershed description (e.g., the land cover/land
68%0,77$/6 use, geology/hydrology).
Section 303(d) of the CWA and EPA’s implementing 3. Applicable Water Quality Standards and Water
regulations specify that a TMDL consists of the sum of Quality Numeric Targets
wasteload allocations for future and existing point • Description of applicable water quality
sources and load allocations for future and existing standards including designated use(s) affected
nonpoint sources and natural background, considering by the pollutant of concern, numeric or narrative
seasonal variation and a margin of safety. These loads criteria, and the antidegradation policy.
are established at levels necessary to implement • If the TMDL is based on a target other than a
applicable water quality standards with seasonal and numeric water quality criteria, provide a
interannual variation and a margin of safety. Experience description of the process used to derive the
indicates, however, that information in addition to the target.
statutory and regulatory requirements is useful to ensure
adequate public participation and to facilitate EPA 4. Pollutant Assessment
review and approval. Since the state and EPA are • Source inventory with location of
partners in the TMDL development process, it is in their - Background
best interest to work together to determine how much - Point sources
supporting information is needed in the TMDL - Nonpoint sources
submittal. • Supporting documentation for the analysis of
pollutant loads from each of the sources.
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
$VVHPEOLQJWKH70'/
5. Linkage Analysis the conservative assumptions used is

• Rationale for the analytical method used to needed.
establish the cause-and-effect relationship - An explicit MOS is incorporated by setting
between the numeric target and the identified aside a portion of the TMDL as the MOS.
pollutant sources. • Critical Conditions2
• Supporting documentation for the analysis (e.g., - Critical conditions associated with flow,
basis for assumptions, strengths and weaknesses loading, beneficial use impacts, and other
in the analytical process, results from water water quality factors are considered.
quality modeling).
7. Follow-Up Monitoring Plan
6. TMDL and Allocations • Recommended component for TMDLs.
• Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)1 - Describes the additional data to be collected
- The TMDL is expressed as the sum of the to determine if load reductions in the TMDL
WLAs, the LAs, and the MOS (if an explicit lead to attainment of water quality
MOS is included). standards.
- If the TMDL is expressed in terms other
than mass per time, an explanation should 8. Public Participation2
be provided for the selection of the other • Description of public participation process used.
appropriate measure. • Summary of significant comments received and
• Wasteload Allocations (WLAs)2 the responses to those comments.
- Loads allocated to existing and future point
sources. 9. Implementation Plan
- An explanation of any WLAs based on the • Implementation plans help establish the basis for
assumption that loads from a nonpoint approval of TMDLs. They include reasonable
source will be reduced. assurances that the load allocations in the
- If no point sources are present, the WLA TMDL for nonpoint sources will be achieved.
should be explicitly expressed as zero.
• Load Allocations (LAs)2 6XSSOHPHQWDU\70'/6XEPLWWDO,QIRUPDWLRQ
- Loads allocated to existing and future
nonpoint sources. In addition to the information described above, TMDL
- Loads allocated to natural background, submittals can be improved by preparing supplemental
where it is possible to separate them from information, including a TMDL summary memorandum,
nonpoint sources. a TMDL executive summary, a TMDL technical report,
- If there are no nonpoint sources or natural and an administrative record. The effort required to
background, the LA should be explicitly develop these documents should be minimal because
expressed as zero. they are largely a repackaging of information contained
• Seasonal Variation1 in the TMDL submittal. For example, the TMDL
- Description of the method chosen to executive summary would be prepared for inclusion in
account for seasonal and interannual the TMDL technical report but would also be ideal for
variation. press releases or distribution to the public.
• Margin of Safety1
- An implicit MOS is accounted for through The TMDL summary memorandum provides an
conservative assumptions in the analysis. To overview of all the essential regulatory elements of a
justify this type of MOS, an explanation of TMDL submittal. This overview can facilitate
regulatory and legal review. The summary memo should
include the following information:
1
Required by statute. • Waterbody (name, size) and location
• Pollutant of concern
2
Required by regulation.
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
• Primary pollutant source(s) • Reports

• Applicable water quality standards - Including any EPA documents i.e., national/
• Major data/information sources regional guidance, interpretations, protocols,
• Linkage analysis and load capacity technical documents relied upon in making
• WLA, LA, MOS, critical condition, background decision.
concentrations, consideration of seasonal variation - Comments/correspondence from outside parties
• Implementation and EPA’s or state’s responses, including copies
• Reasonable assurance of public notice seeking comment, and final
• Follow-up monitoring decision document.
• Public participation • Communication
- Documentation of communication between EPA
The TMDL executive summary provides an overview of and the state or EPA and other federal agencies
the TMDL, the conclusions and implications, the regarding the TMDL.
analyses, and the background. This document is useful • Paper calculations
for public information, news releases, and public • Maps (working copies)
hearing announcements.
3XEOLF3DUWLFLSDWLRQ
The TMDL technical report provides a compilation of
the information sources, technical analyses, Public participation is a requirement of the TMDL
assumptions, and conclusions. This document provides process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August
a summary of the technical basis and rationale used in 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must
deriving the TMDL. A sample report outline might be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a
include the following sections: TMDL prior to its submission to EPA for review and
approval. In addition, with its TMDL submittal, a State,
1. Executive Summary Territory, or authorized Tribe must provide EPA with a
2. Introduction summary of all public comments received regarding the
3. TMDL Indicators and Numeric Targets TMDL and the State’s, Territory’s, or authorized Tribe’s
4. Water Quality Assessment response to those comments, indicating how the
5. Source Assessment comments were considered in the final decision.
6. Linking the Sources to the Indicators/Targets
7. Allocation EPA believes, however, that stakeholders can contribute
8. Implementation much more than their comments on a specific TMDL
9. Monitoring during the public review process. Given the
10. References opportunity, stakeholders can contribute credible, useful
data and information about an impaired or threatened
The administrative record provides the technical water body. They may also be able to raise funds for
backup, sources of information, calculations, and monitoring or to implement a specific control action
analyses used in deriving the TMDL. After-the-fact and/or management measure.
explanations or justifications of EPA’s decisions are
generally not permitted. A typical administrative record More importantly, stakeholders can offer insights about
might include the following: their community that may ensure the success of one
TMDL allocation strategy over an alternative, as well as
• Spreadsheets the success of follow-up monitoring and evaluation
• Modeling software, input/output files activities. Stakeholders possess knowledge about a
- Description of the methodology/models used, community’s priorities, how decisions are made locally,
and a description of the data used for the and how different residents of a watershed interact with
models. one another. A thorough understanding of the social,
• References political, and economic issues of a watershed is as
- List or index of all documents relied upon by critical to successful TMDL development as an
the state or EPA in making decision. understanding of the technical issues. States, Territories,
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
$VVHPEOLQJWKH70'/
and authorized Tribes can create a sense of ownership

among watershed residents and “discover@ innovative
TMDL strategies through a properly managed public
participation process.
Each State, Territory and authorized Tribe is required

to establish and maintain a continuing planning process
(CPP) as described in section 303(e) of the Clean Water
Act. A CPP contains, among other items, a description
of the process that the State, Territory or authorized
Tribe uses to identify waters needing water quality
based controls, a priority ranking of these waters, the
process for developing TMDLs, and a description of the
process used to receive public review of each TMDL.
EPA encourages States, Territories, and authorized
Tribes to use their CPP as the basis for establishing a
process for public participation, involvement, and in
many cases leadership, in TMDL establishment. On a
watershed level, the continuing planning process allows
programs to combine or leverage resources for public
outreach and involvement, monitoring and assessment,
development of management strategies, and
implementation.
5(&200(1'('5($',1*

USEPA. 1991a. Guidance for water quality-based

decisions: The TMDL process. EPA 440/4-91-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Assessment and
Watershed Protection Division, Washington, DC.
<http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/policy.html>

decisions: The TMDL process (Second Edition). EPA
Washington, DC.
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
$33(1',;&DVH6WXGLHV
Deep Creek, Montana, TMDL

Redwood Creek, California, TMDL
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
$SSHQGL[&DVH6WXGLHV
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
70'/6XPPDU\'HHS&UHHN0RQWDQD
:DWHUERG\7\SH Stream ,QWURGXFWLRQ
3ROOXWDQW Temperature, Sediment
Deep Creek, a major tributary of the Missouri River
'HVLJQDWHG8VHV Recreation, Aquatic Life, located in Townsend, Montana, provides spawning and
Agriculture rearing habitat for rainbow trout and brown trout. Deep
Creek is classified by the state of Montana as “B-1,”
6L]HRI:DWHUERG\ Main stem length: 24 miles
which is “suitable for drinking, culinary and food
6L]HRI:DWHUVKHG 87.7 square miles processing purposes, after conventional treatment;
bathing, swimming and recreation; growth and
:DWHU4XDOLW\6WDQGDUGV Narrative propagation of salmonid fishes and associated aquatic
,QGLFDWRUV Sediment load, erosive life, waterfowl and furbearers; and agricultural and
banks, channel length, industrial water supply.”
substrate fines, spawning
trout, water temperature, EPA Region 8 approved a sediment TMDL for Deep
minimum flow Creek in 1996. This TMDL illustrates a number of
important points. First, it demonstrates how the phased
$QDO\WLFDO$SSURDFK Slope of discharge vs. TSS TMDL process can be used to initiate mitigation
regression activities even when there is incomplete knowledge of
sediment sources and loading rates. Second, it provides
an example of an approved TMDL in which quantitative
estimates of assimilative capacity and specific numeric
TMDL Submittal Elements load allocations to individual sediment sources are
Loading Capacity: Set as a measurable goal of satisfied through the specification of performance
several TMDL targets, including targets, such as percent reduction of length of erosive
suspended sediment load, streambanks, which relate implicitly to load reductions.
amount of erosive banks, The TMDL is therefore a dynamic plan of action, not
substrate fines and fish counts. just a static allocation of loads. Finally, this sediment
Load Allocation: 50 percent reduction in percent TMDL might be more properly thought of as a plan for
of reach consisting of erosive addressing degraded stream geomorphology, of which
banks, reestablishment of lost sediment is only one aspect. By focusing on
channel length, reduction in fine geomorphological aspects, the TMDL is able to
sediments, increase the number simultaneously address a variety of interrelated
of female rainbow trout captured stressors, including excess sediment loading, elevated
at weir, decrease the number of
temperatures, and degradation of physical habitat.
days where maximum
temperatures exceed 73 degrees
F, target low flows in each 3UREOHP,GHQWLILFDWLRQ
reach.
A cover memo should describe the waterbody as it is
Wasteload Allocation: Zero; no point sources
identified on the state’s section 303(d) list, the pollutant
Seasonal Variation: Inherent in analysis of concern, and the priority ranking of the waterbody.
Margin of Safety: Implicit The TMDL submittal must include a description of the
point, nonpoint, and natural background sources of the
pollutant of concern, including the magnitude and
1
All information contained in this summary was obtained from Endicott and McMahon, 1996.
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU $SSHQGL[
$SSHQGL[&DVH6WXGLHV
location of the sources. The TMDL submittal should physical, and biological data led to the formation of a set
also contain a description of any important assumptions, of interlinked hypotheses explaining the poor support of
such as (1) the assumed distribution of land use in the designated uses, summarized by Endicott and McMahon
watershed; (2) population characteristics, wildlife (1996) as follows:
resources, and other relevant characteristics affecting
pollutant characterization and allocation, as applicable; . . . aquatic life in Deep Creek is impaired by
(3) present and future growth trends, if this factor was several types of habitat degradation. Degraded
taken into consideration in preparing the TMDL; and instream habitat and water quality in Deep
(4) an explanation and analytical basis for expressing Creek is the result of degradation of riparian
the TMDL through surrogate measures, if applicable. vegetation communities and dewatering. Bank
stability is poor throughout the lower reaches
Deep Creek supports the valuable Missouri resulting in bank collapse, loss of meander
River/Canyon Ferry Reservoir cold-water trout fishery. bends, stream entrenchment and high suspended
The Canyon Ferry Reservoir is one of the most heavily and deposited fine sediment. Water
fished bodies of water in Montana, and the condition of temperatures become elevated due to limited
the fishery has long been a concern of the Montana riparian shading and dewatering. Dewatering
Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks (MDFWP). may also impair migration of juvenile salmonids
Detailed studies were undertaken in connection with to the Missouri River. The combined effects of
mitigation of impacts associated with the construction of degradation on Deep Creek results in impacts on
Toston Dam on the Missouri River. Construction of the aquatic life which can be seen in the low
dam had isolated a stretch of the Missouri River production of juvenile trout and alteration in
between the dam and Canyon Ferry Reservoir, leaving communities of benthic macroinvertebrates [in
Deep Creek as one of the few spawning streams in the downstream reaches]. . . .
isolated reach. A major physical barrier to spawning
trout was remedied in 1991 by routing Montana Ditch These various types and sources of degradation are
under Deep Creek with a siphon. Despite the Montana linked because all reflect modifications to the natural
Ditch routing effort, however, concerns over habitat form of the stream channel and the stream’s riparian
quality remained. area. Thus, the set of linked causes of nonsupport are
addressed through a TMDL for sediment and stream
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) geomorphology. It is noted that in addition to the
developed an inventory of watershed land use using TMDL for sediment, TMDLs (and target values) for
aerial photographs and analyzed the condition and lack of flow and for temperature2 have also been
stability of the channel by applying a Rosgen established for Deep Creek. Although each TMDL is
geomorphological analysis. Intensive monitoring of designed to address separate concerns, all three are
flows, temperature, suspended sediment, and chemical interrelated since the impacts of both reduced flow and
water quality was conducted between 1988 and 1994 at temperature are closely linked to the impacts addressed
a variety of locations within Deep Creek. Biological in the sediment TMDL.
data include trout counts at the Montana Ditch siphon
and redd counts taken by the MDFWP. Rapid 'HVFULSWLRQRIWKH$SSOLFDEOH:DWHU4XDOLW\
Bioassessment Protocol (RBP) analyses of benthic 6WDQGDUGVDQG1XPHULF:DWHU4XDOLW\7DUJHW
macroinvertebrate communities have also been
performed in several reaches of Deep Creek. These data The TMDL submittal must include a description of the
provide the basis for development of the TMDL and are applicable state water quality standard, including the
summarized in Endicott and McMahon (1996). designated use(s) of the waterbody, the applicable
numeric or narrative water quality criterion, and the
Designated uses of Deep Creek include recreation,
support for aquatic life, and agricultural water supply,
2
but the major concern leading to the TMDL was support Montana has no absolute temperature standards, but has established
for the trout fishery. Analysis of the available chemical, standards that prevent certain excursions from natural ambient
temperature values.
$SSHQGL[ )LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
antidegradation policy. This information is necessary is uncertainty in the exact linkage between sources and
for EPA to review the load and wasteload allocations uses.
required by the regulation. A numeric water quality
target for the TMDL (a quantitative value used to Five broad categories are applicable to sediment TMDL
measure whether the applicable water quality standard is indicators: (1) water column indicators, (2) streambed
attained) must be identified. If the TMDL is based on a sediment indicators, (3) biological indicators, (4)
target other than a numeric water quality criterion, a channel condition indicators such as channel form and
description of the process used to derive the target must stability, and (5) riparian and hillslope indicators. For
be included in the submittal. Deep Creek, four different indicators and associated
target values were proposed. The indicators and targets
As is the case with many sediment TMDLs, are listed below with the applicable TMDL indicator
management of Deep Creek is framed in terms of category in parentheses.
attainment of narrative standards and designated uses,
and no numeric water quality standards are relevant to 1. Suspended sediment load (a water column sediment
the problem. How then were target values of water indicator). Obtain a measurable reduction in
quality indicators established? The Deep Creek TMDL suspended sediment load by decreasing the slope
developers (Endicott and McMahon, 1996) state “while and intercept of the regression line between
the title ‘TMDL’ implies that . . . goals are expressed in discharge and total suspended solids (TSS) by half
terms of concentrations or levels of a given pollutant, a in 4 out of 5 years or by demonstrating no
TMDL can be phrased in terms of any quantifiable goal significant difference in daily TSS load between
related to the aquatic system. For example, a TMDL Deep Creek and an unimpaired reference stream
can be defined as established decreases in eroding bank during spring runoff in 4 out of 5 years. The utility
or measured increases in trout recruitment.” This broad of using the reference reach daily TSS load
interpretation is justified in light of EPA’s guidance for approach may not be as great as that of the discharge
phased TMDLs. EPA (1991) suggests use of a phased vs. TSS relationship approach because the daily TSS
approach for TMDLs for water quality-limited load approach is more limited in terms of
waterbodies where loading estimates are based on acknowledging the variability of the system.
limited information. Further, EPA regulations (40 CFR Because Deep Creek is a dynamic system that
130.2(g)) define load allocations for nonpoint sources as experiences significant loading during wet weather
“best estimates of the loading which may range from events, the discharge vs. TSS relationship may be
reasonably accurate estimates to gross allotments . . . .” more relevant.
The phased approach requires adaptive management
where initial load allocations or mitigation strategies are 2. Substrate fines (streambed sediment indicator).
established based on best estimates and are subsequently Reduce substrate fines (<6.35 mm) in spawning
refined as responses to these actions are observed. riffles from 50 percent to 30 percent over the next 5
years.
For Deep Creek, water quality indicators were identified
and associated target values were developed based on 3. Spawning trout (biological indicator). Meet a target
problem identification using the available information of 3,000 spawning female wild trout per year
and professional judgment and with the expectation that entering Deep Creek from the Missouri River over
the targets would be revised through additional the next 10 years.
monitoring and adaptive management. The use of more
than one indicator was desirable for Deep Creek to 4. Water temperature. Reduce water temperature
account for system complexity, multiple stressors, and extremes so that temperatures do not exceed 73 EF
the lack of certainty regarding the effectiveness of each for more than 10 days per year along the length of
indicator and its numeric target values. Additionally, Deep Creek.
the use of multiple indicators allows tracking of both
source control and attainment of uses, even though there In addition to the four indicator targets noted above,
three other quantifiable goals associated with
$SSHQGL[&DVH6WXGLHV
achievement of the specified in-stream targets were banks represent the major source of stressor loading to
identified and set as the TMDL for Deep Creek. For Deep Creek and thus are the priority for the first phase
this type of TMDL, it is important to understand that the of a phased TMDL.
indicator target values are reasonable benchmarks for
measuring progress, rather than enforceable goals. /RDGLQJ&DSDFLW\/LQNLQJ:DWHU4XDOLW\DQG
3ROOXWDQW6RXUFHV
6RXUFH$VVHVVPHQW
As described in EPA guidance, a TMDL describes the
The geographic scope of the TMDL is the entire Deep loading capacity of a waterbody for a particular
Creek watershed. Within this general geographic area, pollutant. EPA regulations define loading capacity as
however, the TMDL focuses on specific critical areas the greatest amount of loading that a waterbody can
identified by a source assessment. The source receive without violating water quality standards (40
assessment for Deep Creek is based on a reach-by-reach CFR 130.2(f)). The TMDL submittal must describe the
analysis of channel condition and geomorphology. It rationale for the analytical method used to establish the
includes historical analysis of changes in stream length cause-and-effect relationship between the numeric target
and sinuosity based on the review of aerial photographs and the identified pollutant sources. In many
and the estimation of stability for each erosive bank circumstances, a critical condition must be described
based on streambank inventories of each reach of Deep and related to physical conditions in the waterbody (40
Creek. CFR 130.7(c)(1)). Supporting documentation for the
analysis must also be included, including the basis for
The analysis indicates that unstable banks are a key assumptions, strengths and weaknesses in the analytical
source of the sediment loading that results in impairment process, and results from water quality modeling, so that
of uses. A detailed, reach-by-reach analysis of channel EPA can properly review the elements of the TMDL that
morphology and bank stability identified critical areas are required by the statute and regulations.
for mitigation and established a basis for prioritizing
initial control efforts. Accordingly, the priorities The linkage analysis should establish the cause-and-
identified for remediation include the prevention of effect relationships between measurable water quality
additional loss of channel length and the stabilization of targets and identified sources. There are various ways
streambanks and riparian areas that are significant of drawing this linkage, including the use of a
sources of sediment in the most highly impacted cause/effect model to predict the result of applying
reaches. source control with respect to meeting targets,
monitoring data to associate waterbody responses to
The source assessment reflects the working hypotheses flow and loading conditions, statistical and analytical
of causes of use impairment in Deep Creek. tools, and best professional judgment. Another option is
Degradation of habitat condition in Deep Creek was to use a reference reach approach that takes conditions
originally caused by a combination of increased from a healthy stream and establishes them as targets for
watershed sediment loads, reduction in flow volume, the unhealthy stream. Using the reference reach
and some artificial channel straightening. These approach, conditions may have to be normalized or
stressors initiated a complex chain of geomorphological otherwise adjusted for the unhealthy stream, but the
events, which led to loss of meanders, shortening of the approach can be helpful in establishing sediment criteria
stream and incision into the floodplain, and erosion of as well as sediment TMDLs and in providing the linkage
streambanks. Increased bedload requires increased between source control and targets.
hydraulic energy for transport, resulting in straightening
of the stream; increasing gradient, width, and For Deep Creek, this established linkage consists
wavelength; and decreasing depth. Increasing gradient, primarily of analysis of observations (including
however, results in undermining of banks, generation of statistical analyses) and best professional judgment,
additional sediment load, and a cycle of continued although a reference reach approach was used to
degradation, which cannot be addressed through upland establish a linkage between suspended sediment load
watershed controls alone. In the short term, eroding and sediment sources. A qualitative analysis of
probable geomorphic response was determined to be the concerning the relationship between effluent limitations
most feasible and appropriate method for Deep Creek. and water quality (CWA § 303(d)(1)(C), 40 CFR
It is noted that a lack of a quantitative linkage is 130.7(c)(1)). EPA guidance explains that the MOS may
acceptable in the case of a phased TMDL that be implicit, i.e., incorporated into the TMDL through
emphasizes adaptive management, as is the case for the conservative assumptions in the analysis, or explicit, i.e.,
Deep Creek TMDL. expressed in the TMDL as loadings set aside for the
MOS. If the MOS is implicit, the conservative
$OORFDWLRQV assumptions in the analysis that account for the MOS
must be described. If the MOS is explicit, the loading
EPA regulations require that a TMDL include wasteload set aside for the MOS must be identified.
allocation (WLAs), which identify the portion of the
loading capacity allocated to existing and future point The statute and regulations require that a TMDL be
sources (40 CFR 130.2(g)). If no point sources are established with seasonal variations. The method
present or the TMDL recommends a zero WLA for point chosen for including seasonal variations in the TMDL
sources, the WLA must be listed as zero. The TMDL must be described (CWA § 303(d)(1)(C), 40 CFR
may recommend a zero WLA if the state determines, 130.7(c)(1)).
after considering all pollutant sources, that allocating
only to nonpoint sources will still result in attainment of For many TMDL, allocations consist of assigning
the applicable water quality standard. In preparing the specific, quantitative load allocations and wasteload
WLA, it is not necessary that every individual point allocations, expressed in terms of mass per time loading
source have a portion of the allocation of pollutant rates, to each source of a stressor. In some cases this
loading capacity. But it is necessary to allocate the will involve development of allocations for each
loading capacity among individual point sources as individual facility and landowner. Allocations,
necessary to meet the water quality standard. The however, are not necessarily equivalent to identifying
TMDL submittal should also discuss whether a WLA is “who is to blame.” Instead, the basic objective is to
based on an assumption that loads from a nonpoint develop recommendations for load reductions that are
source or sources will be reduced. In such cases, the distributed among the various sources while
state will need to demonstrate reasonable assurance that demonstrating that implementation of the allocations
the nonpoint source reductions will occur within a will achieve numeric targets.
reasonable time.
In the case of Deep Creek, the primary immediate
EPA regulations require that a TMDL include load threats are due to unstable banks and loss of meanders,
allocations (LAs), which identify the portion of the regardless of what processes initiated geomorphic
loading capacity allocated to existing and future disturbance in the stream. The allocation consists in
nonpoint sources and to natural background (40 CFR large part of determining which streambanks have the
130.2(h)). LAs may range from reasonably accurate greatest potential to contribute sediment loads and then
estimates to gross allotments (40 CFR 130.2(g)). Where planning stabilization for these high-priority banks.
it is possible to separate natural background from Therefore, the allocation is expressed in terms of
nonpoint sources, separate LAs should be made and relative threat rather than a known loading rate. Bank
described. If there are neither nonpoint sources nor stabilization activities for Deep Creek will consist of
natural background or the TMDL recommends a zero installing juniper revetments, planting vegetation, and
LA, an explanation must be provided. The TMDL may excluding cattle from riparian areas. One management
recommend a zero LA if the state determines, after practice implemented in 1992 that has eliminated a
considering all pollutant sources, that allocating only to major sediment source was the improvement of the
point sources will still result in attainment of the annual start-up and shut-down practices of the
applicable water quality standard. Broadwater-Missouri ditch (Endicott and McMahon,
1996). This best management practice (BMP) has
The statute and regulations require that a TMDL include significantly decreased sediment pulses from the ditch to
a margin of safety to account for any lack of knowledge
$SSHQGL[&DVH6WXGLHV
Deep Creek and provides a good example to consider for 0RQLWRULQJ3ODQIRU70'/V'HYHORSHG8QGHUWKH

similar systems. 3KDVHG$SSURDFK
The TMDLs established for Deep Creek are intended to EPA’s 1991 document, Guidance for Water Quality-
indicate the level of pollutant reduction needed to Based Decisions: The TMDL Process (EPA 440/4-91-
achieve the in-stream targets (e.g., regarding substrate 001), calls for a monitoring plan when a TMDL is
fines, spawning trout) and are related to a decrease in developed under the phased approach. The guidance
the intensity of sediment loading. The TMDLs provides that a TMDL developed under the phased
developed for Deep Creek are as follows: approach also needs to provide assurances that nonpoint
source control measures will achieve expected load
1. Percentage of eroding bank. Decrease the reductions. The phased approach is appropriate when a
percentage of eroding streambanks by 50 percent TMDL involves both point and nonpoint sources and the
over the next 10 years, with target conditions point source WLA is based on an LA for which
established by reach. nonpoint source controls need to be implemented.
Therefore, EPA’s guidance provides that a TMDL
2. Channel length. Over the next 5 years, reestablish developed under the phased approach should include a
2,275 feet of channel length in meanders (25 percent monitoring plan that describes the additional data to be
of the length of channel that has been lost to collected to determine if the load reductions required by
meander reduction and degradation since 1955). the TMDL lead to attainment of water quality standards.
3. Minimum flow. Maintain minimum flows of not less A plan for continued monitoring is a key and required
than 9 cubic feet per second (cfs) in the lower and component of any phased TMDL. The Deep Creek
upper reaches of Deep Creek and not less than 3 cfs TMDL recognizes the importance of monitoring to
in the middle reaches. guide the adaptive management process and includes
detailed proposals for monitoring in accordance with the
Although the discrepancy between the four indicator general goals specified by Endicott and McMahon
target values and the three TMDL values may be (1996):
considered slight, the differentiation helps to clarify
which indicators are more indicative of suitable fish . . . the proposed monitoring tools cover aspects
habitat and a healthy trout population (i.e., four target of water quality, channel morphology, substrate
values) and which are more indicative of source control characteristics, and aquatic biota. Monitoring
(i.e., three TMDL values). The indicator target values protocols should be applied yearly for between 5
are linked to the designated uses of the waterbody and and 10 years . . . following treatment. While not
relevant narrative provisions in the state water quality all the proposed monitoring procedures . . . need
standards and, therefore, can be used to measure success to be implemented, it is important to design a
toward meeting those standards and attaining designated monitoring protocol for each of the TMDL
uses. The TMDL values represent the sediment load targets. In addition, because landowner
reductions needed to meet target values and achieve involvement is so important to the success of
water quality standards. this [TMDL], monitoring tools that can be
implemented by landowners should be
Within the phased TMDL process, the ability to achieve considered.
numeric targets is uncertain, although the proposed
remediation efforts represent a good faith attempt to Endicott and McMahon (1996) recommend the
achieve these targets. It is fully expected that following monitoring components and techniques for
management strategies and the specific allocations analyzing and tracking progress in Deep Creek:
implied by these management strategies are likely to
change as monitoring continues. C Annual completion by landowners along Deep
Creek of the riparian monitoring questionnaire
developed by the Montana Riparian Association.
The questionnaire is designed to assess the solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be
effects of land management on riparian stream achieved; a public participation process; and recognition
conditions and troubleshoot problems like of other relevant watershed management processes. In a
excessive soil erosion. water impaired by both point and nonpoint sources,
where a point source is given a less stringent wasteload
C Monitoring total suspended sediment and discharge allocation based on an assumption that nonpoint source
through spring runoff. This monitoring will support load reductions will occur, reasonable assurance must be
the relationship between discharge and TSS and the provided for the TMDL to be approvable. This
calculation of the yearly load of suspended information is necessary for EPA to review the load and
sediment. wasteload allocations required by the regulation.
Although implementation plans are not approved by
C Continued monitoring of water temperature to assess EPA, they help establish the basis for EPA’s approval of
progress toward temperature targets, including the TMDLs.
installation of recording thermographs in the 11
reaches of Deep Creek. In a water impaired solely by nonpoint sources,
reasonable assurances are not required for a TMDL to
C Measurement of substrate sedimentation by be approvable. For such nonpoint source-only waters,
methods, including substrate core sample analysis, states are encouraged to provide reasonable assurances
Wolman pebble counts, and photo series of substrate regarding achievement of load allocations in the
at specified locations. implementation plans described in section 7, above. As
described in the August 8, 1997, memorandum, such
C Measurement of channel morphology changes at reasonable assurances should be included in state
permanent transect locations. implementation plans and “may be non-regulatory,
regulatory, or incentive-based, consistent with
C Establishment of a photographic record of fluvial applicable laws and programs.” Endicott and McMahon
and habitat changes at permanent photo points. (1996) recommend a variety of stream restoration
activities along Deep Creek that would increase bank
C Continued counts of fish at the permanent weirs at stability, decrease erosion, and increase the health of the
the Montana Ditch siphon coupled with monitoring fishery by reducing sediment stresses and improving fish
of artificial redds and the completion of a basin fish habitat to meet water quality targets. Based on existing
and fish habitat survey. data, a number of reach specific recommendations for
remediation on Deep Creek are proposed. Restoration
C Continued application of the RBPs to assess changes implementation activities include the channel
in habitat conditions and benthic macroinvertebrate modifications, installation of juniper revetments,
communities. riparian BMPs, willow plantings, widening of riparian
zone width, increases in channel length, and fencing to
,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ3ODQV5HDVRQDEOH$VVXUDQFHV exclude livestock from the stream and riparian areas.
On August 8, 1997, Bob Perciasepe issued a 5HIHUHQFHV

memorandum, “New Policies for Establishing and
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),” Endicott, C.L., and T.E. McMahon. 1996. Development
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with of a TMDL to reduce nonpoint source sediment
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations pollution in Deep Creek, Montana. Report to Montana
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or Department of Environmental Quality.
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the
memorandum asks that regions assist states in &RQWDFW%UXFH=DQGHU5HJLRQ70'/&RRUGLQDWRU8QLWHG6WDWHV
developing implementation plans that include (QYLURQPHQWDO3URWHFWLRQ$JHQF\5HJLRQWK6WUHHW6XLWH
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load 'HQYHU&2
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired ]DQGHUEUXFH#HSDJRY
$SSHQGL[&DVH6WXGLHV
70'/6XPPDU\5HGZRRG&UHHN&DOLIRUQLD
Waterbody Type: Stream park. Redwood Creek is designated for use as a cold
water fishery. The creek has historically supported large
Pollutant: Sediment
numbers of coho salmon, chinook salmon, steelhead
Designated Uses: Cold freshwater habitat; trout, and other fish species.
migration of aquatic organisms;
estuarine habitat; community, USEPA Region 9 approved the sediment TMDL for
military, or individual system Redwood Creek in December 1998. This summary is
use, including drinking water; based on information contained in Redwood Creek
maintenance of rare, threatened, Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (USEPA, 1998).
or endangered plant or animal
species; spawning, reproduction,
and/or early development TMDL Submittal Elements
Size of Waterbody: 63 miles long Loading Capacity: 1,900 tons/square mile/year
Size of Watershed: 285 square miles Load Allocation: 1,900 tons/square mile/year
Wasteload Allocation: Zero - No point sources
Water Quality Standards: Narrative
Seasonal Variation: Inherent annual and seasonal
Indicators: In-stream - percent fines, percent variation in the delivery of
riffles, pool depth, median sediment to streams
particle size diameter, large
woody debris Margin of Safety: Implicit through conservative
assumptions
Hillslope - stream crossings,
road culvert sizing, land/road fill
stability, road surfacing/
drainage, road inspection, 3UREOHP,GHQWLILFDWLRQ
maintenance, decommissioning,
road location, and timber harvest A cover memo should describe the waterbody as it is
methods. identified on the state’s section 303(d) list, the pollutant
of concern, and the priority ranking of the waterbody.
Analytical Approach: Partial sediment budget; The TMDL submittal must include a description of the
reference reach comparison point, nonpoint, and natural background sources of the
pollutant of concern, including the magnitude and
location of the sources. The TMDL submittal should
,QWURGXFWLRQ
also contain a description of any important assumptions,
such as (1) the assumed distribution of land use in the
Redwood Creek watershed is a 285-mi2 forested
watershed; (2) population characteristics, wildlife
watershed in Humboldt County in northwestern
resources, and other relevant characteristics affecting
California. Redwood Creek flows into the Pacific
pollutant characterization and allocation, as applicable;
Ocean near Orick, California. The watershed is narrow
(3) present and future growth trends, if this factor was
and elongated (65 miles in length and 4 to 7 miles wide)
taken into consideration in preparing the TMDL; and (4)
with mostly mountainous and forested terrain.
an explanation and analytical basis for expressing the
TMDL through surrogate measures, if applicable.
Elevations within the watershed range from sea level to
5,300 feet. Redwood National Park composes the lower
portion of the watershed, and timber and livestock
production are the primary land uses upstream of the
$SSHQGL[&DVH6WXGLHV
and other causes of sedimentation are adversely

affecting the migration, spawning, reproduction, and
early development of coho salmon, chinook salmon, and
steelhead trout.
Because the native fishery of Redwood Creek is largely

free of the effects of non-native aquatic species or
hatchery stocks, the creek’s ability to support fish
populations is determined primarily by habitat quality
and availability. The Redwood Creek TMDL for
sediment addresses habitat quality impacts associated
with excessive sediment, specifically pool quality,
gravel quality (for spawning and food production), and
changes in channel structure contributing to increased
temperature. Although Redwood Creek is prone to
storm-induced erosional events and the watershed has
natural geologic instability, land management activities
have accelerated the natural erosion process,
overwhelming the stream channel’s ability to efficiently
remove the excess sediment.
Specific in-stream problems in Redwood Creek include

fine sediment in spawning gravels, channel aggradation,
lack of suitable pools for rearing habitats, stream
channel instability, and physical barriers to migration.
Specific hillslope problems in the watershed include
improperly designed or maintained roads, sediment from
unstable areas, removal of riparian trees, and loss of
large woody debris.
'HVFULSWLRQRIWKH$SSOLFDEOH:DWHU4XDOLW\
6WDQGDUGVDQG1XPHULF:DWHU4XDOLW\7DUJHW
The TMDL submittal must include a description of the

applicable state water quality standards, including the
designated use(s) of the waterbody, the applicable
numeric or narrative water quality criterion, and the
antidegradation policy. This information is necessary
for EPA to review the load and wasteload allocations
required by the regulation. A numeric water quality
target for the TMDL (a quantitative value used to
measure whether the applicable water quality standard is
attained) must be identified. If the TMDL is based on a
target other than a numeric water quality criterion, a
Redwood Creek watershed was listed on California’s description of the process used to derive the target must
1992 section 303(d) list as impaired due to be included in the submittal.
sedimentation, the levels of which violated the existing
water quality objective for protecting designated uses, The state of California has established water quality
particularly the cold water fishery. Accelerated erosion objectives (WQOs) to protect designated uses. The
WQO that addresses settleable material and sediment is stream indicators and reflect the watershed erosional
as follows: conditions. They represent land management conditions
associated with erosional processes and erosion rates
• Water shall not contain substances that result in that are not excessively accelerated by human activities.
deposition of material that causes nuisance or The numeric targets were based on scientific literature,
adversely affect beneficial uses. available monitoring data for the basin, and best
professional judgment. The numeric targets interpret
• The suspended sediment load and suspended the narrative water quality standards to:
sediment discharge rate of surface water shall not be
altered in such a manner as to cause nuisance or • Describe the physical conditions of Redwood Creek
adversely affect beneficial uses. and the surrounding hillslopes that relate to the
designated use.
Because the applicable water quality standards are • Assist in estimating the creek’s capacity to receive
narrative, it was necessary to identify some measurable future sediment inputs and still support designated
parameters (indicators) to evaluate the relationship uses.
between pollutant sources and their impact on water • Compare existing and target conditions for
quality. The analysts then quantified numeric target sediment-related indicators.
values for the indicators that represent conditions that • Provide a framework for future data analysis and
meet water quality standards and support designated review of the TMDL or implementation plan.
uses. Various types of indicators are available for • Assist in evaluating the effectiveness of land
sediment, including water column, streambed/channel, management and restoration actions in adequately
biological, and hillslope indicators. reducing erosion and subsequent sediment loading
to the creek.
The numeric targets developed for the Redwood Creek
sediment TMDL inlcuded both streambed targets and 6RXUFH$VVHVVPHQW
hillslope targets (Tables 1 and 2). The in-stream
streambed numeric targets represent adequate aquatic Ten categories of sediment delivery were identified for
habitat conditions for salmonid reproductive success. the Redwood Creek watershed, eight of which were
Hillslope targets provide additional indicators of characterized as controllable, as follows:
environmental conditions associated with designated use
protection. The hillslope indicators complement in-
7DEOH,QVWUHDPQXPHULFWDUJHWVUHSUHVHQWLQJGHVLUHGFRQGLWLRQVIRU5HGZRRG&UHHN
Indicator Numeric Target
Percent fines <0.85 mm in riffle crests of fish-bearing <14%
streams
Percent fines <6.5 mm in riffle crests of fish-bearing streams <30%
Percent of stream length in riffles <25%-30% of stream reaches in riffles (reach gradient <2%)
Pool depth in main stem Redwood Creek reaches with pool- mean depth of pools at low flow >2 m
riffle morphology
Depths of pools in 3rd and 4th order tributaries with pool- mean depth of pools at low flow >1-1.5 m
riffle morphology
Median particle size diameter (d50) from riffle crest surfaces $37 mm (minimum for a reach)
$69 (mean for a reach)
Percent fines <2 mm at riffle crest surfaces in fish-bearing <10%-20%
streams
Large woody debris in any watercourse capable of Improving trend toward increased large woody debris
transporting sediment to a higher-order watercourse
$SSHQGL[&DVH6WXGLHV
7DEOH+LOOVORSHQXPHULFWDUJHWVUHSUHVHQWLQJGHVLUHGFRQGLWLRQVIRU5HGZRRG&UHHN
Indicator Numeric Target
Road stream crossings with diversion potential No crossings have diversion potential (i.e., all crossings are
reconfigured permanently to ensure that no diversion will occur).
Road culvert/crossing sizing All culverts and crossings are sized to pass the 50-year flood and
associated sediment and debris. In addition, crossings and
culverts in the snow zone are sized large enough to
accommodate flows and associated sediment and debris caused
by precipitation and snowmelt runoff.
Landing and road fill stability All landings and road fills (e.g., sidecasts) that are on slopes
>50% and could potentially deliver sediment to a watercourse are
pulled back and stabilized.
Road surfacing and drainage All roads have surfacing and drainage facilities or structures that
are appropriate to their patterns and intensity of use.
Road inspection, maintenance, and decommissioning All roads are inspected and maintained annually or
decommissioned. Decommissioned roads (roads which are
closed, abandoned, or obliterated) are hydrologically
maintenance-free.
Road location in inner gorge or unstable headwall areas Roads are not located in steep inner gorge or unstable headwall
areas except where alternative road locations are unavailable.
Use of clearcut and/or tractor yarding timber harvest Clearcut or tractor yarding harvest methods are not used in steep
methods inner gorge, unstable, or streamside areas unless a detailed
geological assessment is performed that shows there is no
potential for increased sediment delivery to watercourses as a
result of using these methods.
&RQWUROODEOH In evaluating these sources, analysts determined the

following information:
• Erosion associated with roads, skid trails, and
landings • Estimate of average annual sediment loads per
• Gully erosion square mile for the entire Redwood Creek
• Bare ground erosion associated with human watershed.
activities • Estimates of average annual sediment loads per
• Streambank erosion associated with human square mile for three “reference” tributary
activities watersheds within the Redwood Creek basin.
• Tributary landslides (road-related) • Estimates of historical sediment loading rates from
• Tributary landslides (harvest-related) each erosional process category in the watershed.
• Main stem landslides
• Debris torrents Geomorphic research and monitoring programs of the
National Park Service and the USGS provide two
8QFRQWUROODEOH general types of sediment source information for
Redwood Creek: (1) measurements of erosional
• Tributary landslides (naturally occurring) processes within the watershed and (2) records of
• Other naturally occurring mass movements (e.g., sediment transport in Redwood Creek and some
earth flows, block slides) tributaries. The measurements of erosional processes
were used to estimate the relative contributions of
different source categories to overall sediment loading,
and as the basis for allocating sediment source
reductions and the TMDL. The records of sediment

transport were used to estimate overall sediment loading The Redwood Creek sediment TMDL recognizes that
rates for the watershed and localized loading rates for inferring linkages between hillslope erosion processes
three tributaries. The overall loading rate provided the and in-stream impacts based on the methods used might
baseline against which TMDL-related sediment produce uncertain results. Because of the lack of direct
reductions were calculated. The localized tributary linkages or reliable methods for modeling those
loading rate information assisted in estimating the future linkages, these inferential methods are necessary to
loading capacity of Redwood Creek and the overall compare existing and desired conditions and to estimate
sediment discharge reductions needed to protect the level of sediment reduction needed to meet water
designated uses. A more detailed discussion of the quality standards.
source assessment, including estimated sediment loads,
is contained in USEPA (1998). Because of limited historical data, it was not feasible to
quantitatively compare historical and target conditions
/RDGLQJ&DSDFLW\/LQNLQJ:DWHU4XDOLW\DQG for in-stream indicators. A qualitative analysis of
3ROOXWDQW6RXUFHV existing conditions related to water quality targets (e.g.,
percent fines, pool depth) indicated that in-stream
As described in EPA guidance, a TMDL describes the conditions are inadequate to support a healthy habitat
loading capacity of a waterbody for a particular and that reductions in sediment loading are necessary to
pollutant. EPA regulations define loading capacity as support designated uses.
the greatest amount of loading that a waterbody can
receive without violating water quality standards (40 To quantitatively compare existing and “reference”
CFR 130.2(f)). The TMDL submittal must describe the conditions, three tributary subwatersheds within the
rationale for the analytical method used to establish the Redwood Creek watershed were identified and used as
cause-and-effect relationship between the numeric target reference watersheds. Each reference subwatershed
and the identified pollutant sources. In many represented different underlying geologies. The
circumstances, a critical condition must be described loadings from each of the reference conditions were then
and related to physical conditions in the waterbody (40 extrapolated to those areas of the entire watershed
CFR 130.7(c)(1) ). Supporting documentation for the having comparative geologies to estimate a single
analysis must also be included, including the basis for “reference watershed” loading rate for the whole
assumptions, strengths and weaknesses in the analytical Redwood Creek watershed. Comparison of the existing
process, and results from water quality modeling, so that watershed sediment loading and the “reference
EPA can properly review the elements of the TMDL that watershed” loading values indicated that a reduction of
are required by the statute and regulations. approximately 60 percent in sediment loading was
needed to achieve “reference” conditions. Therefore,
To determine the magnitude of in-stream sediment the sediment loading capacity for Redwood Creek was
problems and the associated levels of sediment source determined to be 40 percent of the historical average
reductions needed to address sediment problems, it is annual loading rate, or 1,900 tons/mi2/yr.
important to evaluate the cause-and-effect relationship
between water quality targets and sediment sources. $OORFDWLRQV
Assessment of the loading capacity of Redwood Creek
and of the necessary reductions in sediment loading EPA regulations require that a TMDL include wasteload
from sources to meet water quality standards requires allocations (WLAs), which identify the portion of the
the following two analytic methods: loading capacity allocated to existing and future point
sources (40 CFR 130.2(g)). If no point sources are
• Qualitative comparison of existing and historical present or the TMDL recommends a zero WLA for point
conditions (related to numeric targets). sources, the WLA must be listed as zero. The TMDL
• Quantitative comparison of average sediment may recommend a zero WLA if the state determines,
loading rates per square mile, in highly affected and after considering all pollutant sources, that allocating
relatively unimpaired areas of the watershed. only to nonpoint sources will still result in attainment of
$SSHQGL[&DVH6WXGLHV
the applicable water quality standard. In preparing the Allocations for the Redwood Creek sediment TMDL are
WLA, it is not necessary that every individual point based on erosion processes, which are mostly associated
source have a portion of the allocation of pollutant with land use activities. The load allocations for erosion
loading capacity. But it is necessary to allocate the processes are expressed as long-term annual average
loading capacity among individual point sources as loads per square mile for the entire watershed. The
necessary to meet the water quality standard. The TMDL is expressed as a 10-year rolling annual average,
TMDL submittal should also discuss whether a WLA is allowing for the large interannual variability in sediment
based on an assumption that loads from a nonpoint loading. The TMDL of 1,900 tons/mi2/year is equal to
source or sources will be reduced. In such cases, the the loading capacity determined in the linkage analysis.
state will need to demonstrate reasonable assurance that The individual load allocations were based on EPA’s
the nonpoint source reductions will occur within a assessment of the controllability of loadings from
reasonable time. different source categories. The controllable fraction of
total loads from each source category was estimated, and
EPA regulations require that a TMDL include load the remaining loads were summed and compared to the
allocations (LAs), which identify the portion of the TMDL. (Controllable sources of sediment were defined
loading capacity allocated to existing and future as those which are associated with human activity and
nonpoint sources and to natural background (40 CFR will respond to mitigation, altered land management, or
130.2(h)). LAs may range from reasonably accurate restoration.) The analysis indicated that the application
estimates to gross allotments (40 CFR 130.2(g)). Where of reasonable practices plus reduction by the
it is possible to separate natural background from controllable load would result in a decrease that is
nonpoint sources, separate load allocations should be adequate to meet the TMDL. There are no known point
made and described. If there are neither nonpoint sources in the Redwood Creek watershed, so the
sources nor natural background or the TMDL wasteload allocation is zero.
recommends a zero LA, an explanation must be
provided. The TMDL may recommend a zero LA if the Estimates of controllable percentages of loads were
state determines, after considering all pollutant sources, derived from field work in the watershed and in nearby
that allocating only to point sources will still result in watersheds, documented results of sediment control
attainment of the applicable water quality standard. practices within the watershed, literature references, and
professional experience.
The statute and regulations require that a TMDL include
a margin of safety to account for any lack of knowledge The Redwood Creek TMDL uses a series of
concerning the relationship between effluent limitations conservative assumptions to fully account for the margin
and water quality (CWA § 303(d)(1)(C), 40 CFR of safety. These assumptions include selection of in-
130.7(c)(1)). EPA guidance explains that the MOS may stream numeric target levels, use of hillslope targets,
be implicit, i.e., incorporated into the TMDL through proportion of bedload in total sediment load, sediment
conservative assumptions in the analysis, or explicit, i.e., storage in the main stem of Redwood Creek, comparison
expressed in the TMDL as loadings set aside for the of sediment loading from reference streams with that
MOS. If the MOS is implicit, the conservative from Redwood Creek as a whole, association of
assumptions in the analysis that account for the MOS hillslope sources with human causes, and estimation of
must be described. If the MOS is explicit, the loading loading capacity.
set aside for the MOS must be identified.
Seasonal variation is inherent in the delivery of sediment
The statute and regulations require that a TMDL be to stream systems. For this reason, the allocations in the
established with seasonal variations. The method Redwood Creek TMDL are designed to apply to the
chosen for including seasonal variations in the TMDL sources of sediment, not to the movement of sediment
must be described (CWA § 303(d)(1)(C), 40 CFR across the landscape or the delivery of sediment directly
130.7(c)(1)). to the stream channel.
0RQLWRULQJ3ODQIRU70'/V'HYHORSHG8QGHUWKH Additional indicators that should be considered for

3KDVHG$SSURDFK monitoring programs include
EPA’s 1991 document, Guidance for Water Quality- • Substrate permeability

Based Decisions: The TMDL Process (EPA 440/4-91- • Turbidity
001), calls for a monitoring plan when a TMDL is • Bed mobility measures
developed under the phased approach. The guidance
provides that a TMDL developed under the phased Hillslope monitoring should provide adequate
approach also needs to provide assurances that nonpoint information to update the sediment budget every 10 to
source control measures will achieve expected load 15 years. All monitoring plans should include detailed
reductions. The phased approach is appropriate when a descriptions of the monitoring protocols and data
TMDL involves both point and nonpoint sources and the management efforts.
point source WLA is based on an LA for which
nonpoint source controls need to be implemented. ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ3ODQV
Therefore, EPA’s guidance provides that a TMDL
developed under the phased approach should include a On August 8, 1997, Bob Perciasepe issued a
monitoring plan that describes the additional data to be memorandum, “New Policies for Establishing and
collected to determine if the load reductions required by Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”
the TMDL lead to attainment of water quality standards. which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations
The monitoring recommendations suggest an agreement established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or
between the state’s Regional Water Quality Control primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the
Board and Redwood National Park (and possibly other memorandum asks that regions assist states in
agencies) to jointly develop and implement a monitoring developing implementation plans that include
plan. It is anticipated that the monitoring plan will reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load
coordinate existing monitoring efforts within the allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired
watershed. solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be
achieved; a public participation process; and recognition
The monitoring plan will distinguish different of other relevant watershed management processes.
monitoring needs for different stream types and hillslope Although implementation plans are not approved by
locations. Priorities for monitoring tributaries and main EPA, they help establish the basis for EPA’s approval of
stem reaches with spawning/rearing habitat should TMDLs.
include
5HDVRQDEOH$VVXUDQFHV
• Pebble counts at riffle crests
• Large woody debris inventories EPA guidance calls for reasonable assurances when
• Thalweg and cross section measures TMDLs are developed for waters impaired by both point
• Suspended sediment and possible bedload sediment and nonpoint sources or for waters impaired solely by
at mouths of key tributaries nonpoint sources. In a water impaired by both point and
• Bulk sampling of substrate composition at riffle nonpoint sources, where a point source is given a less
crests at a subset of established sites stringent wasteload allocation based on an assumption
that nonpoint source load reductions will occur,
Priorities for monitoring in the larger portions of reasonable assurance must be provided for the TMDL to
Redwood Creek should include be approvable. This information is necessary for EPA to
review the load and wasteload allocations required by
• Thalweg profiles and cross sections the regulation.
• Large woody debris inventories
• Suspended and bedload suspended sediment In a water impaired solely by nonpoint sources,
reasonable assurances are not required for a TMDL to
$SSHQGL[&DVH6WXGLHV
be approvable. For such nonpoint source-only waters,

states are encouraged to provide reasonable assurances
regarding achievement of load allocations in the
implementation plans described in section 7, above. As
described in the August 8, 1997, Perciasepe
memorandum, such reasonable assurances should be
included in state implementation plans and “may be non-
regulatory, regulatory, or incentive-based, consistent
with applicable laws and programs.”
5HIHUHQFHV
USEPA. 1998. Redwood Creek Sediment Total

Maximum Daily Load. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 9, Water Division, San Francisco, CA.
&RQWDFW'DYH6PLWK5HJLRQ70'/&RRUGLQDWRU
8QLWHG6WDWHV(QYLURQPHQWDO3URWHFWLRQ$JHQF\
+DZWKRUQH6WUHHW6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$
VPLWKGDYLGZ#HSDJRY
5HIHUHQFHV
Note: This bibliography includes references cited in the Dietrich, W.E., J.W. Kirchner, H. Ikeda, and F. Iseya,
protocol and other selected references. EPA is currently 1989, Sediment supply and the development of the
developing a more extensive annotated bibliography of coarse surface layer in gravel-bedded rivers, Nature,
references concerning sediment water quality analysis v.340, no. 6230, p. 215-217.
and management, which will be made available under
separate cover. Dietrich, W.E., C.J. Wilson, D.R. Montgomery, J.
McKean, and R. Beaver. 1992. Erosion thresholds and
Berg, N.H., K.B. Roby, and B.J. McGurk. 1996. land surface morphology. Geology 20:675-79.
Cumulative watershed effects: Applicability of available
methodologies to the Sierra Nevada. In Vol. III, Dietrich, W.E., C.J. Wilson, D.R. Montgomery, and J.
Assessments, commissioned reports, and background McKean 1993. Analysis of erosion thresholds, channel
information, Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final networks, and landscape morphology using a digitized
report to Congress. University of California, Davis, terrain. Journal of Geology 101(2):259-78.
Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.
Dissmeyer, G.E. 1994. Evaluating the effectiveness of
Bisson, P.A., G.H. Reeves, R.E. Bilby, and R J. Naiman. forestry best management practices in meeting water
1997. Watershed management and Pacific salmon: quality goals or standards. U.S. Forest Service
Desired future conditions. In Pacific salmon and their Miscellaneous Publication 1520. U.S. Department of
ecosystems—Status and future options, ed. Stouder, Agriculture Forest Service, Washington, DC.
Bisson, and Naiman. Chapman and Hall, New York.
Dunne, T., and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in
Black, 1991. Watershed Hydrology. Englewood Cliffs, environmental planning. W.H. Freeman and Co., San
New Jersey Francisco, CA.
California Department of Fish and Game. 1994. Coho Endicott, C.L., and T.E. McMahon. 1996. Development
salmon habitat impacts—Qualitative assessment of a TMDL to reduce nonpoint source sediment
technique for registered professional foresters. Draft pollution in Deep Creek, Montana. Report to Montana
no. 2, November 1994. Department of Environmental Quality.
California Department of Forestry. 1990. Forest Gomez, B., and M. Church. 1989. An assessment of
practice rules, technical rule addendum No. 1. bed load sediment transport formulae for gravel bed
rivers. Water Resources Research 25(6):1161-1186.
Chapman, D.W., and K.P. McLeod. 1987. Development
of criteria for fine sediment in the Northern Rockies Ketcheson, G.L. 1986. Sediment rating equations: An
Ecoregion. EPA 910/9-87-162. U.S. Environmental evaluation for streams in the Idaho Batholith.
Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Intermountain Research Station General Technical
Report INT-213. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest
Clarke, C.D., and P.G. Waldo. 1986. Sediment yield Service, Ogden, UT.
from small and medium watersheds. In Proceedings of
the Fourth Interagency Sedimentation Conference, pp. Knopp, C. 1993. Testing indices of cold water fish
3-19 to 3-28. habitat. California North Coast Regional Water Quality
Control Board, Santa Rosa, CA.
Davenport, T.E. 1983. Soil erosion and transport
dynamics in the Blue Creek Watershed, Pike County, Kondolf, G.M. 1995. Geomorphological stream
Illinois. IEPA/WPC/83/004. Illinois Environmental classification in aquatic habitat classification: Uses and
Protection Agency. limitations. Aquatic Conservation 5:27-141.
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU 5HIHUHQFHV
5HIHUHQFHV
Lewis and Rice. 1989. Critical sites erosion study. Vol. shallow landsliding. Water Resources Research
II. Site conditions related to erosion on private 30:1153-71.
timberlands in Northern California. Report of a
cooperative investigation by the California Department Naiman, R.J., and R.E. Bilby.1998. River ecology and
of Forestry and U.S. Forest Service PSW Forest and management. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.
Range Experiment Station.
Ohlander, C.A. 1991. Water resources analysis: T-
Lewis and Rice. 1990. Estimating erosion risk on forest Walk—water quality monitoring field manual and
lands using improved methods of discriminant analysis. tables. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service,
Water Resources Research 26(8):1721-33. Region 2.
Limno-Tech, Inc. 1993. Silver Creek, AZ Peterson, N.P., A. Henry, and T.P. Quinn. 1992.
demonstration TMDL. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Assessment of cumulative effects on salmonid habitat:
Protection Agency, Region 9. Some suggested parameters and target condition.
Prepared for the Washington Department of Natural
Lisle, T., and S. Hilton. 1992. The volume of fine Resources and The Coordinated Monitoring, Evaluation
sediment in pools: An index of sediment supply in and Research Committee, Timber Fish and Wildlife
gravel-bed streams. Water Resources Bulletin Agreement. March 2.
28(2):371-383.
Phillip Williams Associates. 1996. Garcia river gravel
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation. 1996. Watershed management plan. San Francisco, CA.
analysis manual. Samoa, CA.
Platts, W. S. 1990. Managing fisheries and wildlife on
MacDonald, L. 1992. Sediment monitoring: Reality and rangelands grazed by livestock. Nevada Department of
hope. Presented at EPA/USFS Technical Workshop on Wildlife, Reno, NV.
Sediments, February 3-7, 1992, Corvallis, OR.
Platts, W.S., W.F. Megahan, and G.W. Minshall. 1983.
MacDonald, L., A.W. Smart, and R.C. Wissmar. 1991. Methods for evaluating stream, riparian, and biotic
Monitoring guidelines to evaluate effects of forestry conditions. General Technical Report INT-183. U.S.
activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ogden, UT.
Alaska. EPA 910/9-91-001. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, Nonpoint Source Regional Ecosystem Office. 1995. Ecosystem analysis
Section, Seattle, WA. at the watershed scale. Version 2.2. U.S. Government
Printing Office: 1995-689-120/21215. Regional
McGurk, B.J., and D.R. Fong. 1995. Equivalent roaded Ecosystem Office, Portland, OR.
area as a measure of cumulative effect of logging.
Environmental Management 19(4):609-621. Reid, M. 1996. Evaluating timber management effects
on land uses and values in Northwest California. Draft,
McMahon, T.E. 1983. Habitat suitability index December 3.
models: Coho salmon. FWS/OBS-82/10.49. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Reid, M. 1997. Comparative analysis of watershed
Washington, DC. analysis methods for TMDL analysis. Draft, May 1997.
Miller, J.R., and J.B. Ritter. 1996. An examination of Reid, L.M., and T. Dunne. 1996. Rapid evaluation of
the Rosgen classification of natural rivers. Catena sediment budgets. Catena Verlag, Reiskirchen,
27:295-99. Germany.
Montgomery, D.R., and W.A. Dietrich. 1994. A Reiser, D.W., and T.C. Bjornn. 1979. 1. Habitat
physically based model for the topographic control on requirements of anadromous salmonids. In Influence of
5HIHUHQFHV )LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
forest and rangeland management of anadromous fish U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
habitat in the western United States and Canada, ed. Management, Washington, DC.
W.R. Meehan. General Technical Report PNW-96. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Forest Service. USDOI-BLM. 1995. Mainstem Trinity River
Watershed analysis. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Reiser, D.W., and J.B. Bradley. 1992. Fine sediment Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC.
intrusion and salmonid habitat. In Advances in hydro-
science and engineering, Vol. 1., ed. Sam S.Y. Yang. USEPA. 1989. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use
in streams and rivers: Benthic macroinvertebrates and
Renard, K.G., G.R. Fpster, G.A. Weesies, D.K. McCool, fish. EPA/444/4-89-001. U.S. Environmental
and D.C. Yoder, coordinators. 1997. Predicting Soil Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Erosion by Water: A Guide to Conservation Planning
With the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation USEPA. 1991a. Guidance for water quality-based
(RUSLE). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture decisions: The TMDL process. EPA 440/4-91-001.
Handbook No. 703, 404 pp. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC.
Rosenburg, D.M., and V.H.Resch. 1993. Freshwater
biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates. USEPA. 1991b. Technical support document for water
Chapman & Hull, New York. quality-based toxics control. EPA/505/2-90-001. U.S.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied river morphology. Wildland
Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, CO. USEPA. 1992a. TMDL case study: Sycamore Creek,
Michigan. EPA841-F-92-012. U.S. Environmental
Satterlund D.R., and P.W. Adams, 1993. Wildland Protection Agency, Office of Water, Assessment and
Watershed Management. 2nd edition. New York. Watershed Protection Division, Washington, DC.
Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes, and R.P. USEPA. 1992b. TMDL case study: South Fork of the
Novitzki. 1996. An ecosystem approach to salmonid Salmon River, Idaho. U.S. Environmental Protection
conservation. TR-4501-96-6057. ManTech Agency, Office of Water, Assessment and Watershed
Environmental Research Services, Corp. National Protection Division, Washington, DC.
Marine Fisheries Service, Portland, OR.
USEPA. 1992c. Monitoring guidance for the National
USDA Agricultural Research Service. 1975. Present and Estuary Program. EPA 842 B-92-004. U.S.
prospective technology for predicting sediment yield Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
and sources. In Proceedings, Sediment Yield Workshop.
1972. Oxford, MS. USEPA. 1993. Guidance specifying management
measures for sources of nonpoint source pollution in
USDA Forest Service. 1988. Cumulative off-site coastal waters. EPA 840-B-92-002. U.S. Environmental
watershed effects analysis. In USDA Forest Service Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Region 5 soil and water conservation handbook. FSH
2509.22. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, USEPA. 1994a. EPA requirements for quality
San Francisco, CA. assurance project plans for environmental data
operations. EPA QA/R-5. Draft interim final, August
USDA Forest Service, PSW Region. 1996. Stream 1994. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Quality
condition inventory protocol version 3.4. Draft, June 27, Assurance Management Staff, Washington, DC.
1996.
USEPA. 1994b. Guidance for the data quality
USDOI-BLM. 1993/1995. Process for assessing objectives process. EPA QA/G-4. EPA/600/R-96/055.
proper functioning condition. TR1737-9. Revised 1995. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, Washington, DC.
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU 5HIHUHQFHV
5HIHUHQFHV
USEPA. 1995a. Watershed protection: A statewide Vanoni, V.A., ed. 1975. Sedimentation engineering.
approach. EPA 841-R-95-001. U.S. Environmental American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY.
Protection Agency, Washington DC.
Van Sickle, J., and R.L. Beschta. 1983. Supply-based
USEPA. 1995b. Watershed protection: A project focus. models of suspended sediment transport in streams.
EPA 841-R-95-003. U.S. Environmental Protection Water Resources Research 19(3):768-778.
Agency, Washington DC.
Washington Forest Practices Board. 1994. Standard
USEPA. 1996a. TMDL development cost estimates: methodology of conducting watershed analysis under
Case studies of 14 TMDLs. EPA-R-96-001. U.S. chapter 222-22 WAC. Version 2.1, November 1994.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Washington Forest Practices Board, Olympia, WA.
USEPA. 1996b. Watershed approach framework. EPA- Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams—Sources,
840-5-96-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, biological effects, and control. American Fisheries
Washington, DC. Society Monograph 7. American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, MD.
USEPA. 1996c. Chalk Creek Watershed project
implementation plan—Continuation project summary Weaver, W., and D. Hagans. 1996. Sediment
sheet, 1996. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, treatments and road restoration: Protecting and restoring
Region 8, Denver, CO. watersheds from sediment-related impacts. In Healing
the watershed—A guide to the restoration of watersheds
USEPA. 1996d. Nonpoint source monitoring and and native fish in the west. Pacific Rivers Council, Inc.
evaluation guide. Draft final, November 1996. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, White, W.R., H. Milli, and A.D. Crabbe. 1978.
Washington, D.C. Sediment transport: An appraisal of available methods.
UK Hydraulics Research Station Report 119.
USEPA. 1997a. New policies for establishing and Hydraulics Research Station, Wallingford, UK.
implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, Wolman, M.G., and J.P. Miller. 1960. Magnitude and
DC. frequency of forces in geomorphic processes. Journal
of Geology 68:54-74.
USEPA. 1997b. Linear regression for nonpoint source
pollution analysis. EPA-841-B-97-007. U.S. Young, M.K., et al. 1991. Selection of measures of
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. substrate composition to estimate survival to emergence
of salmonids and to detect changes in stream substrate.
USEPA. 1997c. Compendium of tools for watershed North American Journal of Fisheries Management
assessment and TMDL development. EPA 841-B-97- 11:339-346.
006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
USEPA 1998. Redwood Creek Sediment Total

Maximum Daily Load. US Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 9, Water Division, San Francisco, CA.
USEPA 1999. Draft Guidance for Water Quality-based

Decisions: The TMDL Process (Second Edition). EPA
Washington, DC.
5HIHUHQFHV )LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
KEY TO ACRONYMS
AGNPS Agricultural Nonpoint Source SWAT Soil Water Assessment Tool

Pollution Model SWMM Storm Water Management Model
ANSWERS Areal Nonpoint Source Watershed SWRRBWQ Simulator for Water Resources in
Environment Response Simulation Rural Basins- Water Quality
BASINS Better Assessment Science Integrating TMDL total maximum daily load
Point and Nonpoint Sources TSS total suspended solids or sediment
BLM Bureau of Land Management USDA United States Department of
BMP best management practice Agriculture
CFR Code of Federal Regulations USDOI United States Department of the
CREAMS Chemical, Runoff, and Erosion from Interior
Agricultural Management Systems USEPA United States Environmental
CSES Critical Sites Erosion Study Protection Agency
CWA Clean Water Act USFS United States Forest Service
DR3M Multi-Event Urban Runoff Quality USGS United States Geological Survey
Model USLE universal soil loss equation
D50 diameter of 50th percentile particle V* measure of residual pool volume
found through stream substrate occupied by fine sediments
sampling WLA waste load allocation (for point
EMAP Environmental Monitoring and sources in TMDLs)
Assessment Program WQS water quality standards
ERA equivalent roaded acreage WRENSS Water Resources Evaluation of Non-
FEMAT Federal Ecosystem Management point Silvicultural Sources
Team
GIS Geographic Information System
GWLF Generalized Watershed Loading
Functions
HSPF Hydrologic Simulation Program-
Fortran
LA load allocation (for nonpoint sources
in TMDLs)
MOS margin of safety, a required TMDL
element
NAWQUA National Water Quality Assessment
project led by USGS
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
NPS nonpoint source
NRCS Natural Resource Conservation
Service
NTU nephelometric turbidity units
PL-566 Public Law 566, which established the
USDA Small Watersheds program
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RBP rapid bioassessment protocol
RUSLE revised universal soil loss equation
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU $FURQ\PV
$FURQ\PV
$FURQ\PV )LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
*/266$5<
Acute toxicity. A chemical stimulus severe enough to Aerobic. Environmental conditions characterized by the
rapidly induce an effect; in aquatic toxicity tests, an presence of dissolved oxygen; used to describe
effect observed within 96 hours or less is considered biological or chemical processes that occur in the
acute. When referring to aquatic toxicology or human presence of oxygen.
health, an acute effect is not always measured in terms
of lethality. Aggradation. The raising of the bed of a watercourse
by the deposition of sediment.
Adaptive management. Approach where source
controls are initiated while additional monitoring data Allocations. That portion of a receiving water’s loading
are collected to provide a basis for future review and capacity that is attributed to one of its existing or future
revision of the TMDL (as well as management pollution sources (nonpoint or point) or to natural
activities). background sources. (A wasteload allocation [WLA] is
that portion of the loading capacity allocated to an
Adsorption-desorption. Adsorption is the process by existing or future point source, and a load allocation
which nutrients such as inorganic phosphorous adhere to [LA] is that portion allocated to an existing or future
particles via a loose chemical bond with the surface of nonpoint source or to natural background source. Load
clay particles. Desorption is the process by which allocations are best estimates of the loading, which can
inorganic nutrients are released from the surface of range from reasonably accurate estimates to gross
particles back into solution. Adsorption differs from allotments, depending on the availability of data and
absorption in that absorption is the assimilation or appropriate techniques for predicting loading.)
incorporation of a gas, liquid, or dissolved substance
into another substance. Alluvium. Sediment deposited by flowing water, such
as in a riverbed, floodplain, or delta.
Advanced secondary treatment. Biological or
chemical treatment processes added to a secondary Ambient water quality. Natural concentration of water
treatment plant including a conventional activated quality constituents prior to mixing of either point or
sludge to increase the removal of solids and BOD. nonpoint source load of contaminants. Reference
Typical removal rates for advanced secondary plants are ambient concentration is used to indicate the
on the order of 90 percent removal of solids and BOD. concentration of a chemical that will not cause adverse
impact to human health.
Advanced waste treatment (AWT). Wastewater
treatment process that includes combinations of physical Anadromous. Migrating up rivers from the sea to breed
and chemical operation units designed to remove in fresh water.
nutrients, toxic substances, or other pollutants.
Advanced, or tertiary, treatment processes treat effluent Anaerobic. Environmental condition characterized by
from secondary treatment facilities using processes such zero oxygen levels. Describes biological and chemical
as nutrient removal (nitrification, denitrification), processes that occur in the absence of oxygen.
filtration, or carbon adsorption. Tertiary treatment plants
typically achieve about 95 percent removal of solids and Anoxic. Aquatic environmental conditions containing
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) in addition to zero or little dissolved oxygen. See also anaerobic.
removal of nutrients or other materials.
Anthropogenic. Pertains to the [environmental]
Advection. Bulk transport of the mass of discrete influence of human activities.
chemical or biological constituents by fluid flow within
a receiving water. Advection describes the mass Anti-degradation Policies. Policies that are part of
transport due to the velocity, or flow, of the waterbody. each state*s water quality standards. These policies are
designed to protect water quality and provide a method
)LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU *ORVVDU\
*ORVVDU\
of assessing activities that may impact the integrity of Benthic. Refers to material, especially sediment, at the
waterbodies. bottom of an aquatic ecosystem. It can be used to
describe the organisms that live on, or in, the bottom of
Aquatic classification system. Assigns a classification a waterbody.
to a waterbody reflecting the water quality and the
biological health (integrity). Classification is Benthic organisms. Organisms living in, or on, bottom
determined through use of biological indices (see IBI). substrates in aquatic ecosystems.
Examples of classifications include oligosaprobic
(cleanest water quality) and polysaprobic (highly Best management practices (BMPs). Methods,
polluted water). measures, or practices that are determined to be
reasonable and cost-effective means for a land owner to
Aquatic ecosystem. Complex of biotic and abiotic meet certain, generally nonpoint source, pollution
components of natural waters. The aquatic ecosystem is control needs. BMPs include structural and
an ecological unit that includes the physical nonstructural controls and operation and maintenance
characteristics (such as flow or velocity and depth), the procedures.
biological community of the water column and benthos,
and the chemical characteristics such as dissolved Bioaccumulation. The process by which a compound
solids, dissolved oxygen, and nutrients. Both living and is taken up by an aquatic organism, both from water and
nonliving components of the aquatic ecosystem interact through food.
and influence the properties and status of each
component. Bioassessment. Biological assessment; the evaluation of
an ecosystem using integrated assessments of habitat
Assimilative capacity. The amount of contaminant and biological communities in comparison to
load that can be discharged to a specific waterbody empirically defined reference conditions.
without exceeding water quality standards or criteria.
Assimilative capacity is used to define the ability of a Bioavailability. A measure of the physicochemical
waterbody to naturally absorb and use a discharged access that a toxicant has to the biological processes of
substance without impairing water quality or harming an organism. The less the bioavailability of a toxicant,
aquatic life. the less its toxic effect on an organism.
Background levels. Levels representing the chemical, Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). The amount of
physical, and biological conditions that would result oxygen per unit volume of water required to bacterially
from natural geomorphological processes such as or chemically oxidize (stabilize) the oxidizable matter in
weathering or dissolution. water. Biochemical oxygen demand measurements are
usually conducted over specific time intervals (5, 10, 20,
BASINS (Better Assessment Science Integrating 30 days). The term BOD generally refers to a standard
Point and Nonpoint Sources). A computer-run tool 5-day BOD test.
that contains an assessment and planning component
that allows users to organize and display geographic Biological criteria. Also known as biocriteria,
information for selected watersheds. It also contains a biological criteria are narrative expressions or numeric
modeling component to examine impacts of pollutant values of the biological characteristics of aquatic
loadings from point and nonpoint sources and to communities based on appropriate reference conditions.
characterize the overall condition of specific watersheds. Biological criteria serve as an index of aquatic
community health.
Bedload sediment. Portion of sediment load
transported downstream by sliding, rolling, bouncing Biomass. The amount, or weight, of a species, or group
along the channel bottom. Generally consists of particles of biological organisms, within a specific volume or area
>1 mm. of an ecosystem.
*ORVVDU\ )LUVW(GLWLRQ2FWREHU
Boundary conditions. Values or functions representing Control Act or Federal Water Pollution Control Act
the state of a system at its boundary limits. Amendments of 1972), Public Law 92-500, as amended
by Public Law 96-483 and Public Law 97-117, 33
Calcareous. Pertaining to or containing calcium U.S.C. 1251 et seq. The Clean Water Act (CWA)
carbonate. contains a number of provisions to restore and maintain
the quality of the nation’s water resources. One of these
Calibration. The process of adjusting model provisions is section 303(d), which establishes the
parameters within physically defensible ranges until the TMDL program.
resulting predictions give a best possible good fit to
observed data. Coastal Zone. Lands and waters adjacent to the coast
that exert an influence on the uses of the sea and its
Carbonaceous. Pertaining to or containing carbon ecology, or whose uses and ecology are affected by the
derived from plant and animal residues sea.
Cation exchange capacity. The sum total of Colluvium. Soil and rock debris on a hillslope that has
exchangeable cations that a soil can adsorb. Expressed been transported from its original location.
in centimoles per kilogram of soil (or of other adsorbing
material such as clay.) Completely mixed condition. A condition in which no
measurable difference in the concentration of a pollutant
Channel. A natural stream that conveys water; a ditch exists across a transect of the waterbody (e.g., the
or channel excavated for the flow of water. concentration does not vary by 5 percent).
Channel improvement. The improvement of the flow Concentration. Amount of a substance or material in a
characteristics of a channel by clearing, excavation, given unit volume of solution; usually measured in
realignment, lining, or other means in order to increase milligrams per liter (mg/L) or parts per million (ppm).
its capacity. Sometimes used to connote channel
stabilization. Concentration-based limit. A limit based on the
relative strength of a pollutant in a wastestream, usually
Channel stabilization. Erosion prevention and expressed in milligrams per liter (mg/L).
stabilization of velocity distribution in a channel using
jetties, drops, revetments, vegetation, and other Conservative substance. A substance that does not
measures. undergo any chemical or biological transformation or
degradation in a given ecosystem.
Chloride. An atom of chlorine in solution; an ion
bearing a single negative charge. Contamination. The act of polluting or making impure;
any indication of chemical, sediment, or biological
Chronic toxicity. Toxicity impact that lingers or impurities.
continues for a relatively long period of time, often
one-tenth of the life span or longer. Chronic effects Continuous discharge. A discharge that occurs without
could include mortality, reduced growth, or reduced interruption throughout the operating hours of a facility,
reproduction. except for infrequent shutdowns for maintenance,
process changes, or other similar activities.
Clean sediment. Sediment that is not contaminated by
chemical substances. Pollution caused by clean sediment Conventional pollutants. As specified under the Clean
refers to the quantity of sediment, as opposed to the Water Act, conventional contaminants include
presence of pollutant-contaminated sediment. suspended solids, coliform bacteria, high biochemical
oxygen demand, pH, and oil and grease.
Clean Water Act (CWA). The Clean Water Act
(formerly referred to as the Federal Water Pollution
*ORVVDU\
Cost-share program. A program that allocates project Diagenesis. Production of sediment fluxes as a result of
funds to pay a percentage of the cost of constructing or the flux of particulate organic carbon in the sediment
implementing a best management practice. The and its decomposition. The diagenesis reaction can be
remainder of the costs are paid by the producer. thought of as producing oxygen equivalents released by
various reduced species.
Cross-sectional area. Wet area of a waterbody normal
to the longitudinal component of the flow. Diel (“die´-el”). Involving a 24-hour period.
Critical condition. The critical condition can be Dilution. The addition of some quantity of less
thought of as the “worst case” scenario of environmental concentrated liquid (water) that results in a decrease in
conditions in the waterbody in which the loading the original concentration.
expressed in the TMDL for the pollutant of concern will
continue to meet water quality standards. Critical Direct runoff. Water that flows over the ground
conditions are the combination of environmental factors surface or through the ground directly into streams,
(e.g., flow, temperature, etc.) that results in attaining and rivers, and lakes.
maintaining the water quality criterion and has an
acceptably low frequency of occurrence. Discharge. Flow of surface water in a stream or canal
or the outflow of groundwater from a flowing artesian
Cryptosporidium. See protozoa. well, ditch, or spring. Can also apply to discharge of
liquid effluent from a facility or to chemical emissions
Decay. The gradual decrease in the amount of a given into the air through designated venting mechanisms.
substance in a given system due to various sink
processes including chemical and biological Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR). Report of
transformation, dissipation to other environmental effluent characteristics submitted by a municipal or
media, or deposition into storage areas. industrial facility that has been granted an NPDES
discharge permit.
Decomposition. Metabolic breakdown of organic
materials; the formation of by-products of Discharge permits (NPDES). A permit issued by the
decomposition releases energy and simple organic and U.S. EPA or a State regulatory agency that sets specific
inorganic compounds. (See also, Respiration.) limits on the type and amount of pollutants that a
municipality or industry can discharge to a receiving
Design stream flow. The stream flow used to conduct water; it also includes a compliance schedule for
steady-state wasteload allocation modeling. achieving those limits. It is called the NPDES because
the permit process was established under the National
Designated uses. Those uses specified in water quality Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, under
standards for each waterbody or segment whether or not provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act.
they are being attained.
Dispersion. The spreading of chemical or biological
Deterministic model. A model that does not include constituents, including pollutants, in various directions
built-in variability: same input will always equal the from a point source, at varying velocities depending on
same output. the differential in-stream flow characteristics.
Detritus. Any loose material produced directly from Dissolved oxygen (DO). The amount of oxygen that is
disintegration processes. Organic detritus consists of dissolved in water. This term also refers to a measure of
material resulting from the decomposition of dead the amount of oxygen available for biochemical activity
organic remains. in a waterbody, and is an indicator of the quality of that
water.
Dissolved oxygen sag. Longitudinal variation of Effluent limitation. Restrictions established by a state
dissolved oxygen representing the oxygen depletion and or EPA on quantities, rates, and concentrations in
recovery following a waste load discharge into a pollutant discharges.
receiving water.
Effluent plume. Delineates the extent of contamination
Diurnal. Actions or processes having a period or a in a given medium as a result of a distribution of
cycle of approximately one tidal-day or are completed effluent discharges (or spills). Usually shows the
within a 24-hour period and which recur every 24 hours. concentration gradient within the delineated areas or
plume of flow of contaminants.
Domestic wastewater. Also called sanitary wastewater,
consists of wastewater discharged from residences and Embeddedness. The degree to which fine sediments
from commercial, institutional, and similar facilities. fill the spaces (interstices) between rocks on the
substrate.
Drainage basin. A part of a land area enclosed by a
topographic divide from which direct surface runoff Empirical model. Use of statistical techniques to
from precipitation normally drains by gravity into a discern patterns or relationships underlying observed or
receiving water. Also referred to as a watershed, river measured data for large sample sets. Does not account
basin, or hydrologic unit. for physical dynamics of waterbodies.
Dry ravel. Sloughing of sediment due to loss of Endpoint. An endpoint (or indicator/target)is a
cohesion in surface materials. characteristic of an ecosystem that may be affected by
exposure to a stressor. Assessment endpoints and
Dynamic model. A mathematical formulation measurement endpoints are two distinct types of
describing and simulating the physical behavior of a endpoints commonly used by resource managers. An
system or a process and its temporal variability. assessment endpoint is the formal expression of a valued
environmental characteristic and should have societal
Dynamic simulation. Modeling of the behavior of relevance (an indicator). A measurement endpoint is the
physical, chemical, and/or biological phenomena and expression of an observed or measured response to a
their variation over time. stress or disturbance. It is a measurable environmental
characteristic that is related to the valued environmental
Ecoregion. A physical region that is defined by its characteristic chosen as the assessment endpoint. The
ecology, which includes meteorological factors, numeric criteria that are part of traditional water quality
elevation, plant and animal speciation, landscape standards are good examples of measurement endpoints
position, and soils. (targets).
Ecosystem. An interactive system that includes the Enhancement. In the context of restoration ecology,
organisms of a natural community association together any improvement of a structural or functional attribute.
with their abiotic physical, chemical, and geochemical
environment. Enteric. Of or within the gastrointestinal tract.
Effluent. Municipal sewage or industrial liquid waste Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
(untreated, partially treated, or completely treated) that (EMAP). A USEPA program to monitor and assess the
flows out of a treatment plant, septic system, pipe, etc. ecological health of major ecosystems, including surface
waters, forests, near-coastal waters, wetlands,
Effluent guidelines. Technical EPA documents that set agricultural lands, arid lands, and the Great Lakes, in an
effluent limitations for given industries and pollutants. integrated, systematic manner. Although EMAP has
been curtailed somewhat during recent years, the
program is designed to operate at regional and national
scales, for decades, and to evaluate the extent and
*ORVVDU\
condition of entire ecological resources by using a Forcing functions. External empirical formulation used
common sampling framework to sample approximately to provide input describing a number of processes.
12,500 locations in the conterminous United States. Typical forcing functions include parameters such as
temperature, point and tributary sources, solar radiation,
Epiphyte. A plant growing on another plant; more and waste loads and flow.
generally, any organism growing attached on a plant.
Fry. Young, newly hatched fish.
Estuary. Brackish-water areas influenced by the tides
where the mouth of a river meets the sea. Geochemical. Referring to chemical reactions
involving earth materials such as soil, rocks, and water.
Estuarine number. A nondimensional parameter
accounting for decay, tidal dispersion, and advection Geomorphology. The study of the evolution and
velocity; used for classification of tidal rivers and configuration of landforms.
estuarine systems.
Gradient. The rate of change of the value of one
Existing use. Use actually attained in the waterbody on quantity with respect to another; for example, the rate of
or after November 28, 1975, whether or not it is decrease of temperature with depth in a lake.
included in the water quality standards (40 CFR 131.3).
Ground water. The supply of fresh water found
Fate of pollutants. Physical, chemical, and biological beneath the earth*s surface, usually in aquifers, which
transformation in the nature and changes of the amount supply wells and springs. Because ground water is a
of a pollutant in an environmental system. major source of drinking water, there is growing concern
Transformation processes are pollutant-specific. over contamination from leaching agricultural or
Because they have comparable kinetics, different industrial pollutants and leaking underground storage
formulations for each pollutant are not required. tanks.
Feedlot. A confined area for the controlled feeding of Gully erosion. The erosion process whereby water
animals. Tends to concentrate large amounts of animal accumulates in narrow channels and, over short periods,
waste that cannot be absorbed by the soil and, hence, removes the soil form this narrow area to considerable
may be carried to nearby streams or lakes by rainfall depths, ranging from 1-2 feet to as much as 75-100 feet.
runoff.
Half-saturation constant. Nutrient concentration at
First-order kinetics. The type of relationship which the growth rate of a population of a species or
describing a dynamic reaction in which the rate of group of species is half the maximum rate.
transformation of a pollutant is proportional to the Half-saturation constants define the nutrient uptake
amount of that pollutant in the environmental system. characteristics of different phytoplankton species. Low
half-saturation constants indicate the ability of the algal
Flocculation. The process by which suspended group to thrive under nutrient-depleted conditions.
colloidal or very fine particles are assembled into larger
masses or floccules that eventually settle out of Heterotroph. An organism that uses organic carbon for
suspension. the formation of its cell tissue, e.g., is unable to
synthesize organic compounds from inorganic substrates
Fluvial geomorphology. The effect of rainfall and for food and must consume organisms or their products.
runoff on the form and pattern of riverbeds and river Bacteria are examples of heterotrophs;
channels. photosynthesizing organisms are not.
Flux. Movement and transport of mass of any water Hillslope Targets. Quantitative measure that links the
quality constituent over a given period of time. Units of upslope sources of sediment and instream impacts of
mass flux are mass per unit time. sediment discharge.
Hydrodynamic model. Mathematical formulation used Infiltration capacity. The capacity of a soil to allow
in describing fluid flow circulation, transport, and water to infiltrate into or through it during a storm.
deposition processes in receiving water.
Initial mixing zone. The region immediately
Hydrograph. A graph showing variation of in stage downstream of an outfall where effluent dilution
(depth) or discharge of water in a stream over a period processes occur. Because of the combined effects of the
of time. effluent buoyancy, ambient stratification, and current,
the prediction of initial dilution can be complex.
Hydrologic cycle. The circuit of water movement from
the atmosphere to the earth and its return to the In situ. In place; in situ measurements consist of
atmosphere through various stages or processes, such as measurements of components of processes in a full-scale
precipitation, interception, runoff, infiltration, storage, system or a field, rather than in a laboratory.
evaporation, and transpiration.
Interstitial water. Water contained in the interstices,
Hydrology. The study of the distribution, properties, which are the pore spaces or voids in soils and rocks,
and effects of water on the earth’s surface, in the soil i.e., ground water.
and underlying rocks, and in the atmosphere.0
Irrigation. Applying water or wastewater to land areas
Hydrolysis. A chemical reaction that occurs between a to supply the water and nutrient needs of plants.
substance and water resulting in the cleaving of a
molecular bond and the formation of new bonds with Irrigation return flow. Surface and subsurface water
components of the decomposed water molecule; a that leaves a field after the application of irrigation
reaction of water with a salt to create an acid or a base. water.
Hyetograph. Graph of rainfall rate during a storm Karst geology. Solution cavities and closely-spaced
event. sinkholes formed as a result of dissolution of carbonate
bedrock.
Hypolimnetic oxygen depletion rate. The
hypolimnetic oxygen depletion rate describes changing Kinetic processes. Description of the rates and modes
dissolved oxygen concentrations in the hypolimnion of changes in the transformation or degradation of a
(lowest stratum) of lakes and reservoirs. Dissolved substance in an ecosystem.
oxygen concentrations in the hypolimnion are especially
significant because of their effect on fish. Land application. Discharge of wastewater onto the
ground for treatment or reuse. (See: irrigation)
Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI). The IBI uses
measurements of the distribution and abundance or Leachate. Water that collects contaminants as it
absence of several fish species types in each waterbody trickles through wastes, pesticides, or fertilizers.
for comparison. A portion of a waterbody is compared Leaching can occur in farming areas, feedlots, and
to a similar, unimpacted waterbody in the same landfills, and can result in hazardous substances entering
ecoregion. surface water, groundwater, or soil.
Indicator. A measurable quantity that can be used to Leachate collection system. A system that gathers
evaluate the relationship between pollutant sources and leachate and pumps it to the surface for treatment.
their impact on water quality.
Light saturation. The optimal light level for algae and
Indirect discharge. A nondomestic discharge macrophyte growth and photosynthesis.
introducing pollutants to a publicly owned treatment
works. Loading, Load, Loading rate. The total amount of
material (pollutants) entering the system from one or
*ORVVDU\
multiple sources; measured as a rate in weight per unit Mass loading. The quantity of a pollutant transported to
time. a waterbody.
Load allocation (LA). The portion of a receiving Mass wasting. Downslope transport of soil and rocks
water*s loading capacity that is attributed either to one due to gravitational stress.
of its existing or future nonpoint sources of pollution or
to natural background sources. Load allocations are best Mathematical model. A system of mathematical
estimates of the loading, which can range from expressions that describe the spatial and temporal
reasonably accurate estimates to gross allotments, distribution of water quality constituents resulting from
depending on the availability of data and appropriate fluid transport and the one, or more, individual
techniques for predicting the loading. Wherever processes and interactions within some prototype
possible, natural and nonpoint source loads should be aquatic ecosystem. A mathematical water quality model
distinguished. (40 CFR 130.2(g)) is used as the basis for waste load allocation evaluations.
Loading capacity (LC). The greatest amount of Maximum depth. The greatest depth of a waterbody.
loading that a water can receive without violating water
quality standards. Mean depth. Volume of a waterbody divided by its
surface area.
Longitudinal dispersion. The spreading of chemical or
biological constituents, including pollutants, Mineralization. The transformation of organic matter
downstream from a point source at varying velocities into a mineral or an inorganic compound.
due to the differential in-stream flow characteristics.
Mitigation. Actions taken to avoid, reduce, or
Low-flow (7Q10). Low-flow (7Q10) is the 7-day compensate for the effects of environmental damage.
average low flow occurring once in 10 years; this Among the broad spectrum of possible actions are those
probability-based statistic is used in determining stream which restore, enhance, create, or replace damaged
design flow conditions and for evaluating the water ecosystems.
quality impact of effluent discharge limits.
Monitoring. Periodic or continuous surveillance or
Margin of Safety (MOS). A required component of the testing to determine the level of compliance with
TMDL that accounts for the uncertainty about the statutory requirements and/or pollutant levels in various
relationship between the pollutant loads and the quality media or in humans, plants, and animals.
of the receiving waterbody (CWA section
303(d)(1)(C)). The MOS is normally incorporated into Monte Carlo simulation. A stochastic modeling
the conservative assumptions used to develop TMDLs technique that involves the random selection of sets of
(generally within the calculations or models) and input data for use in repetitive model runs. Probability
approved by EPA either individually or in state/EPA distributions of receiving water quality concentrations
agreements. If the MOS needs to be larger than that are generated as the output of a Monte Carlo simulation.
which is allowed through the conservative assumptions,
additional MOS can be added as a separate component Narrative criteria. Nonquantitative guidelines that
of the TMDL (in this case, quantitatively, a TMDL = describe the desired water quality goals.
LC = WLA + LA + MOS).
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Mass balance. An equation that accounts for the flux of (NPDES). The national program for issuing, modifying,
mass going into a defined area and the flux of mass revoking and reissuing, terminating, monitoring, and
leaving the defined area. The flux in must equal the flux enforcing permits, and imposing and enforcing
out. pretreatment requirements, under Sections 307, 402,
318, and 405 of the Clean Water Act.
Natural waters. Flowing water within a physical Oxygen demand. Measure of the dissolved oxygen
system that has developed without human intervention, used by a system (microorganisms) in the oxidation of
in which natural processes continue to take place. organic matter. (See also Biochemical oxygen
demand.)
Nonpoint source. Pollution that is not released through
pipes but rather originates from multiple sources over a Oxygen depletion. A deficit of dissolved oxygen in a
relatively large area. Nonpoint sources can be divided water system due to oxidation of organic matter.
into source activities related to either land or water use
including failing septic tanks, improper animal-keeping Oxygen saturation. The natural or artificial reaeration
practices, forest practices, and urban and rural runoff. or oxygenation of a water system (water sample) to
bring the level of dissolved oxygen to maximum
Numeric target. A measurable value determined for capacity. Oxygen saturation is greatly influenced by
the pollutant of concern which, if achieved, is expected temperature and other water characteristics.
to result in the attainment of water quality standards in
the listed waterbody. Partition coefficient. A constant symbolizing the ratio
of the concentration of a solute in the upper of two
Numerical model. Model that approximates a solution phases in equilibrium to its concentration in the lower
of governing partial differential equations which phase. Chemicals in solution are partitioned into
describe a natural process. The approximation uses a dissolved and particulate adsorbed phase based on their
numerical discretization of the space and time corresponding sediment-to-water partitioning
components of the system or process. coefficient.
One-dimensional model (1-D). A mathematical model Pathogen. Disease-causing agent, especially

defined along one spatial coordinate of a natural water microorganisms such as bacteria, protozoa, and viruses.
system. Typically 1-D models are used to describe the
longitudinal variation of water quality constituents along Peak runoff. The highest value of the stage or
the downstream direction of a stream or river. In writing discharge attained by a flood or storm event; also
the model, it is assumed that the cross-channel (lateral) referred to as flood peak or peak discharge.
and vertical variability is relatively homogenous and
can, therefore, be averaged over those spatial Periphyton. Microscopic underwater plants and animals
coordinates. that are firmly attached to solid surfaces such as rocks,
logs, pilings, and other structures.
Organic matter. The organic fraction that includes
plant and animal residue at various stages of Permit. An authorization, license, or equivalent control
decomposition, cells and tissues of soil organisms, and document issued by EPA or an approved Federal, state,
substance synthesized by the soil population. Commonly or local agency to implement the requirements of an
determined as the amount of organic material contained environmental regulation; e.g., a permit to operate a
in a soil or water sample. wastewater treatment plant or to operate a facility that
may generate harmful emissions.
Outfall. The point where water flows from a conduit,
stream, or drain. Permit Compliance System (PCS). Computerized
management information system which contains data on
Oxidation. The chemical union of oxygen with metals NPDES permit-holding facilities. PCS keeps extensive
or organic compounds accompanied by a removal of records on more than 65,000 active water-discharge
hydrogen or another atom. It is an important factor for permits on sites located throughout the nation. PCS
soil formation and permits the release of energy from tracks permit, compliance, and enforcement status of
cellular fuels. NPDES facilities.
*ORVVDU\
Phased approach. Under the phased approach to oxygen released (oxygen method) or the amount of
TMDL development, LAs and WLAs are calculated carbon assimilated by the plant (carbon method).
using the best available data and information
recognizing the need for additional monitoring data to Primary treatment. A basic wastewater treatment
accurately characterize sources and loadings. The method that uses settling, skimming, and (usually)
phased approach is typically employed when nonpoint chlorination to remove solids, floating materials, and
sources dominate. It provides for the implementation of pathogens from wastewater. Primary treatment typically
load reduction strategies while collecting additional removes about 35 percent of biochemical oxygen
data. demand (BOD) and less than half of the metals and toxic
organic substances.
Point source. Pollutant loads discharged at a specific
location from pipes, outfalls, and conveyance channels Privately owned treatment works. Any device or
from either municipal wastewater treatment plants or system that is (a) used to treat wastes from any facility
industrial waste treatment facilities. Point sources can whose operator is not the operator of the treatment
also include pollutant loads contributed by tributaries to works and (b) not a POTW.
the main receiving water stream or river.
Protozoa. A phylum or subkingdom including all
Pollutant. Dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator single-celled animals with membrane- bound organelles;
residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, they may be aquatic or parasitic, with or without a test,
chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive solitary or colonial, sessile or free-swimming, moving
materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, by cilia, flagella, or pseudopodia.
sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal, and
agricultural waste discharged into water. (CWA Section Public comment period. The time allowed for the
502(6)). public to express its views and concerns regarding
action by EPA or states (e.g., a Federal Register notice
Pollution. Generally, the presence of matter or energy of a proposed rule-making, a public notice of a draft
whose nature, location, or quantity produces undesired permit, or a Notice of Intent to Deny).
environmental effects. Under the Clean Water Act, for
example, the term is defined as the man-made or man- Publicly owned treatment works (POTW). Any
induced alteration of the physical, biological, chemical, device or system used in the treatment (including
and radiological integrity of water. recycling and reclamation) of municipal sewage or
industrial wastes of a liquid nature that is owned by a
Pool. Portion of a stream with reduced current velocity, state or municipality. This definition includes sewers,
often with deeper water than surrounding areas ans with pipes, or other conveyances only if they convey
a smooth surface. wastewater to a POTW providing treatment.
Postaudit. A subsequent examination and verification Raw sewage. Untreated municipal sewage.
of model predictive performance following
implementation of an environmental control program. Reaction rate coefficient. A constant describing the
rate of transformation of a substance in an
Pretreatment. The treatment of wastewater to remove environmental medium characterized by a set of
or reduce contaminants prior to discharge into another physical, chemical, and biological conditions such as
treatment system or a receiving water. temperature and dissolved oxygen level.
Primary productivity. A measure of the rate at which Reaeration. The net flux of oxygen occurring from the
new organic matter is formed and accumulated through atmosphere to a body of water with a free surface.
photosynthesis and chemosynthesis activity of producer
organisms (chiefly, green plants). The rate of primary Receiving waters. Creeks, streams, rivers, lakes,
production is estimated by measuring the amount of estuaries, ground-water formations, or other bodies of
water into which surface water and/or treated or timing less predictable, in a riparian zone than in a river
untreated waste are discharged, either naturally or in floodplain.
man-made systems.
Roughness coefficient. A factor in velocity and
Redd. Nest made in gravel, consisting of a depression discharge formulas representing the effects of channel
hydraulically dug by a fish for egg deposition (and then roughness on energy losses in flowing water. Manning’s
filled) and the associated gravel mounds. "n" is a commonly used roughness coefficient.
Reference sites. Waterbodies that are representative of Rotating biological contactor (RBC). A wastewater
the characteristics of the region and subject to minimal treatment process consisting of a series of closely
human disturbance. spaced rotating circular disks of polystyrene or
polyvinyl chloride. Attached biological growth is
Reserve capacity. Pollutant loading rate set aside in promoted on the surface of the disks. The rotation of
determining stream waste load allocation accounting for the disks allows contact with the wastewater and the
uncertainty and future growth. atmosphere to enhance oxygenation.
Residence time. Length of time that a pollutant remains Runoff. That part of precipitation, snow melt, or
within a section of a stream or river. The residence time irrigation water that runs off the land into streams or
is determined by the streamflow and the volume of the other surface water. It can carry pollutants from the air
river reach or the average stream velocity and the length and land into receiving waters.
of the river reach.
Scoping modeling. A method of approximation that
Restoration. Return of an ecosystem to a close involves simple, steady-state analytical solutions for a
approximation of its presumed condition prior to rough analysis of a problem.
disturbance.
Scour. To abrade and wear away. Used to describe the
Riffle. A rocky shoal or sand bar located just below the weathering away of a terrace or diversion channel or
surface of the water. streambed. The clearing and digging action of flowing
water, especially the downward erosion by stream water
Rill erosion. An erosion process in which numerous in sweeping away mud and silt on the outside of a
small channels of only several centimeters in depth are meander or during flood events.
formed; occurs mainly on recently cultivated soils.
Secondary treatment. The second step in most
Riparian areas. Areas bordering streams, lakes, rivers, publicly owned waste treatment systems, in which
and other watercourses. These areas have high water bacteria consume the organic parts of the waste. It is
tables and support plants that require saturated soils accomplished by bringing together waste, bacteria, and
during all or part of the year. Riparian areas include oxygen in trickling filters or in the activated sludge
both wetland and upland zones. process. This treatment removes floating and settleable
solids and about 90 percent of the oxygen-demanding
Riparian vegetation. Hydrophytic vegetation growing substances and suspended solids. Disinfection is the
in the immediate vicinity of a lake or river closely final stage of secondary treatment. (See Primary
enough so that its annual evapotranspiration constitutes treatment, Tertiary treatment.)
a factor in the lake or river regime.
Sediment. Particulate organic and inorganic matter that
Riparian zone. The border or banks of a stream. accumulates in a loose, unconsolidated form on the
Although this term is sometimes used interchangeably bottom of natural waters.
with floodplain, the riparian zone is generally regarded
as relatively narrow compared to a floodplain. The Sediment delivery. Contribution of transported
duration of flooding is generally much shorter, and the sediment to a particular location or part of a landscape.
*ORVVDU\
Sediment oxygen demand (SOD). The solids Sheetwash. Also Sheet erosion. Erosion of the ground
discharged to a receiving water are partly organics, and surface by unconcentrated (i.e. not in rills) overland
upon settling to the bottom, they decompose flow.
anaerobically as well as aerobically, depending on
conditions. The oxygen consumed in aerobic Simulation. The use of mathematical models to
decomposition represents another dissolved oxygen sink approximate the observed behavior of a natural water
for the waterbody. system in response to a specific known set of input and
forcing conditions. Models that have been validated, or
Sediment production. Delivery of colluvium or verified, are then used to predict the response of a
bedrock from hillslope to stream channel. The natural water system to changes in the input or forcing
production rate is evaluated as the sum of the rates of conditions.
colluvial bank erosion and sediment transport across
channel banks. Sinuosity. The degree to which a river or stream bends.
Sediment yield. Amount of sediment passing a Slope. The degree of inclination to the horizontal.
particular point (e.g., discharge point of the basin) in a Usually expressed as a ratio, such as 1:25 or 1 on 25,
watershed per unit of time. indicating one unit vertical rise in 25 units of horizontal
distance, or in a decimal fraction (0.04); degrees (2
Sedimentation. Process of deposition of waterborne or degrees 18 minutes), or percent (4 percent).
windborne sediment or other material; also refers to the
infilling of bottom substrate in a waterbody by sediment Sorption. The adherence of ions or molecules in a gas
(siltation). or liquid to the surface of a solid particle with which
they are in contact.
Septic system. An on-site system designed to treat and
dispose of domestic sewage. A typical septic system Spatial segmentation. A numerical discretization of
consists of a tank that receives waste from a residence or the spatial component of a system into one or more
business and a system of tile lines or a pit for disposal of dimensions; forms the basis for application of numerical
the liquid effluent (sludge) that remains after simulation models.
decomposition of the solids by bacteria in the tank; must
be pumped out periodically. Stabilization pond. Large earthen basin used for the
treatment of wastewater by natural processes involving
Sewage fungus. Proliferations of bacteria and/or fungi the use of both algae and bacteria.
that may form feathery, cotton-wool-like growths in
streams and rivers that have high concentrations of Steady-state model. Mathematical model of fate and
dissolved organic compounds. transport that uses constant values of input variables to
predict constant values of receiving water quality
Sewer. A channel or conduit that carries wastewater concentrations.
and stormwater runoff from the source to a treatment
plant or receiving stream. “Sanitary” sewers carry Stoichiometric ratio. Mass-balance-based ratio for
household, industrial, and commercial waste. “Storm” nutrients, organic carbon and algae (e.g.,
sewers carry runoff from rain or snow. “Combined” nitrogen-to-carbon ratio).
sewers handle both.
STORET. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Sheet erosion. Also Sheetwash. Erosion of the ground (EPA) national water quality database for STORage and
surface by unconcentrated (i.e. not in rills) overland RETrieval (STORET). Mainframe water quality
flow. database that includes physical, chemical, and biological
data measured in waterbodies throughout the United
States.
Storm runoff. Storm water runoff, snowmelt runoff, Suspended solids or load. Organic and inorganic
and surface runoff and drainage; rainfall that does not particles (sediment) suspended in and carried by a fluid
evaporate or infiltrate the ground because of impervious (water). The suspension is governed by the upward
land surfaces or a soil infiltration rate lower than rainfall components of turbulence, currents, or colloidal
intensity, but instead flows onto adjacent land or suspension. Suspended sediment usually consists of
waterbodies or is routed into a drain or sewer system. particles <0.1 mm, although size may vary according to
current hydrological conditions. Particles between 0.1
Stratification (of waterbody). Formation of water mm and 1 mm may move as suspended or be deposited
layers each with specific physical, chemical, and (bedload).
biological characteristics. As the density of water
decreases due to surface heating, a stable situation Technology-based limitations. Industry-specified
develops with lighter water overlaying heavier and effluent limitations applied to a discharge when it will
denser water. not cause a violation of water quality standards at low
stream flows. Usually applied to discharges into large
Streamflow. Discharge that occurs in a natural channel. rivers.
Although the term “discharge” can be applied to the
flow of a canal, the word "streamflow" uniquely Technology-based standards. Effluent limitations
describes the discharge in a surface stream course. The applicable to direct and indirect sources that are
term streamflow is more general than "runoff" as developed on a category-by-category basis using
streamflow may be applied to discharge whether or not statutory factors, not including water quality effects.
it is affected by diversion or regulation.
Temperature coefficient. Rate of increase in an
Stream restoration. Various techniques used to activity or process over a 10 degree Celsius increase in
replicate the hydrological, morphological, and temperature. Also referred to as the Q10.
ecological features that have been lost in a stream due to
urbanization, farming, or other disturbance. Tertiary treatment. Advanced cleaning of wastewater
that goes beyond the secondary or biological stage,
Stressor. Any physical, chemical, or biological entity removing nutrients such as phosphorus, nitrogen, and
that can induce an adverse response. most biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended
solids.
Substrate. Refers to bottom sediment material in a
natural water system. Thalweg. Deepest part of a stream channel.
Surface area. The area of the surface of a waterbody; Three-dimensional model (3-D). Mathematical model
best measured by planimetry or the use of a geographic defined along three spatial coordinates where the water
information system. quality constituents are considered to vary over all three
spatial coordinates of length, width, and depth.
Surface runoff. Precipitation, snowmelt, or irrigation
water in excess of what can infiltrate the soil surface and Topography. The physical features of a geographic
be stored in small surface depressions; a major surface area including relative elevations and the
transporter of nonpoint source pollutants. positions of natural and man-made features.
Surface water. All water naturally open to the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). The sum of the
atmosphere (rivers, lakes, reservoirs, ponds, streams, individual wasteload allocations (WLAs) for point
impoundments, seas, estuaries, etc.) and all springs, sources, load allocations (LAs) for nonpoint sources and
wells, or other collectors directly influenced by surface natural background, plus a margin of safety (MOS).
water. TMDLs can be expressed in terms of mass per time,
toxicity, or other appropriate measures that relate to a
state’s water quality standard.
*ORVVDU\
Transit time. In nutrient cycles, the average time that a Unstratified. Indicates a vertically uniform or
substance remains in a particular form; ratio of biomass well-mixed condition in a waterbody. See also stratified.
to productivity.
Use Attainability Analysis (UAA). A structured
Transport of pollutants (in water). Transport of scientific assessment of the factors affecting the
pollutants in water involves two main processes: (1) attainment of the use which may include physical,
advection, resulting from the flow of water, and (2) chemical, and economic factors as described in section
diffusion, or transport due to turbulence in the water. 131.10(g). (40 CFR 131.3)
Tributary. A lower order stream compared to a Validation (of a model). Process of determining how
receiving waterbody. "Tributary to" indicates the largest well the mathematical model’s computer representation
stream into which the reported stream or tributary flows. describes the actual behavior of the physical process
under investigation.
Turbidity. A measure of opacity of a substance; the
degree to which light is scattered or absorbed by a fluid. Verification (of a model). Testing the accuracy and
predictive capabilities of the calibrated model on a data
Turbulent flow. A flow characterized by agitated and set independent of the data set used for calibration.
irregular, random-velocity fluctuations.
Virus. Submicroscopic pathogen consisting of a nucleic
Turbulence. A type of flow in which any particle may acid core surrounded by a protein coat. Requires a host
move in any direction with respect to any other particle in which to replicate (reproduce).
and not in a smooth or fixed path. Turbulent water is
agitated by cross current and eddies. Turbulent velocity Volatilization. Process by which chemical compounds
is that velocity above which turbulent flow will always are vaporized (evaporated) at given temperature and
exist and below which the flow may be either turbulent pressure conditions by gas transfer reactions. Volatile
or laminar. compounds have a tendency to partition into the gas
phase.
Two-dimensional model (2-D). A mathematical model
defined along two spatial coordinates where the water Wasteload allocation (WLA). The portion of a
quality constituents are considered averaged over the receiving water*s loading capacity that is allocated to
third remaining spatial coordinate. Examples of 2-D one of its existing or future point sources of pollution.
models include descriptions of the variability of water WLAs constitute a type of water quality-based effluent
quality properties along: (a) the length and width of a limitation (40 CFR 130.2(h)).
river that incorporates vertical averaging of depth, or (b)
length and depth of a river that incorporates lateral Wastewater. Usually refers to effluent from a sewage
averaging across the width of the waterbody. treatment plant. See also domestic wastewater.
Ultimate Biochemical Oxygen Demand (UBOD or Wastewater treatment. Chemical, biological, and
BODU). Long-term oxygen demand required to mechanical procedures applied to an industrial or
completely stabilize organic carbon in wastewater or municipal discharge or to any other sources of
natural waters. contaminated water in order to remove, reduce, or
neutralize contaminants.
Uncertainty factors. Factors used in the adjustment of
toxicity data to account for unknown variations. Where Water quality. The biological, chemical, and physical
toxicity is measured on only one test species, other conditions of a waterbody. It is a measure of a
species may exhibit more sensitivity to that effluent. An waterbody’s ability to support beneficial uses.
uncertainty factor would adjust measured toxicity
upward and downward to cover the sensitivity range of Water quality-based effluent limitations. Effluent
other, potentially more or less sensitive species. limitations applied to dischargers when mere
technology-based limitations would cause violations of may receive compensation. The total pollution
water quality standards. Usually WQBELs are applied reduction, however, must be the same or greater than
to discharges into small streams. what would be achieved if no trade occurred.
Water quality-based permit. A permit with an Watershed protection approach (WPA). The
effluent limit more stringent than one based on USEPA*s comprehensive approach to managing water
technology performance. Such limits may be necessary resource areas, such as river basins, watersheds, and
to protect the designated use of receiving waters (e.g., aquifers. WPA has four major features—targeting
recreation, irrigation, industry or water supply). priority problems, stakeholder involvement, integrated
solutions, and measuring success.
Water quality criteria. Levels of water quality
expected to render a body of water suitable for its Watershed-scale approach. A consideration of the
designated use, composed of numeric and narrative entire watershed, including the land mass that drains
criteria. Numeric criteria are scientifically derived into the aquatic ecosystem.
ambient concentrations developed by EPA or states for
various pollutants of concern to protect human health Watershed. A drainage area or basin in which all land
and aquatic life. Narrative criteria are statements that and water areas drain or flow toward a central collector
describe the desired water quality goal. Criteria are such as a stream, river, or lake at a lower elevation.
based on specific levels of pollutants that would make
the water harmful if used for drinking, swimming, Wetland. An area that is saturated by surface water or
farming, fish production, or industrial processes. ground water with vegetation adapted for life under
those soil conditions, as in swamps, bogs, fens, marshes,
Water quality-limited segments. Those water and estuaries.
segments which do not or are not expected to meet
applicable water quality standards even after the
application of technology-based effluent limitations
required by sections 301(b) and 306 of the Clean Water
Act (40 CFR 130.29(j)). Technology-based controls
include, but are not limited to, best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT) and secondary
treatment.
Water quality standard. Law or regulation that

consists of the beneficial designated use or uses of a
waterbody, the numeric and narrative water quality
criteria that are necessary to protect the use or uses of
that particular waterbody, and an anti-degradation
statement.
Watershed-based trading. Watershed-based trading is

an efficient, market-driven approach that encourages
innovation in meeting water quality goals, but remains
committed to enforcement and compliance
responsibilities under the Clean Water Act. It involves
trading arrangements among point source dischargers,
nonpoint sources, and indirect dischargers in which the
“buyers” purchase pollutant reductions at a lower cost
than what they would spend to achieve the reductions
themselves. Sellers provide pollutant reductions and
*ORVVDU\

Protocol For Developing Sediment TMDLs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Protocol For Developing Sediment TMDLs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Protocol For Developing Sediment TMDLs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States Office of Water

Environmental 4503 F EPA 841-B-99-004

Protocol for Developing

This report should be cited as:

National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP)

This EPA report is available on the Internet at:

Robert H. Wayland III, Director

First Edition: October 1999 iii

iv First Edition: October 1999

Introduction and Purpose of This Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

General Principles of Sediment Water Quality Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

Problem Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

Identification of Water Quality Indicators and Target Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

Source Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

Linkage Between Water Quality Targets and Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

Follow-up Monitoring and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

Assembling the TMDL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1

Appendix: Case Studies

First Edition: October 1999 v

vi First Edition: October 1999

Summary of Proposed Regulatory Requirements for Establishing TMDLs

TMDLs must include the following minimum elements (§ 130.33(b)):

The TMDL implementation plan must include the following (§ 130.33(b)(10)):

6RXUFH$VVHVVPHQW and where the environmental and economic

$OORFDWLRQV By addressing each of the TMDL components, analysts

USEPA. 1995b. Watershed protection: A project focus.

USEPA. 1997a. New policies for establishing and

USEPA 1999. Draft guidance for water quality-based

6(',0(176285&(&21752/6 processes must be evaluated, and the relationship

Sediment water quality analysis is less straightforward

6(',0(1770'/6 chemical processes occurring in the waterbody and its

:DWHU4XDOLW\ 70'/ :DWHU4XDOLW\

 766DQG'262'  UHGXFWLRQVE\  FURSODQG%03V

UHODWLRQVKLSV VRXUFHFDWHJRU\  EDQNVWDELOL]DWLRQ

6RXWK)RUN6DOPRQ5LYHU,GDKR In addition to extensive amounts of monitoring data and

South Fork Salmon River

:DWHU4XDOLW\ 70'/ :DWHU4XDOLW\

 ILQHVHGLPHQWVLQ  RYHUDOO  URDGLPSURYHPHQW

VSDZQLQJJUDYHOV ORQJWHUP SURMHFWV

 FREEOH UHGXFWLRQ  VOLGHUHVWRUDWLRQ

HPEHGGHGQHVV  VSHFLILFORDG SURMHFWV

1LQHPLOH&UHHN0RQWDQD The Upper Birch Creek TMDL is an example of a

:DWHU4XDOLW\ 70'/ :DWHU4XDOLW\

UHGGVPLOH  UHGXFWLRQLQ  UDQJHODQG%03V

Upper Birch Creek

:DWHU4XDOLW\ 70'/ :DWHU4XDOLW\

 WRWDOVXVSHQGHG  PD[LPXP766  13'(6SHUPLW

VROLGVORDGSHU ORDGSHUGD\SHU OLPLWV

:DWHU4XDOLW\7DUJHWV 70'/ :DWHU4XDOLW\

PHGLDQVHGLPHQWVL]H UHGXFWLRQV IRUHVWU\%03V

9 SRROVHGLPHQW E\FDWHJRU\LQ URDG

LQGLFDWRU ORQJWHUPDQQXDO LPSURYHPHQWV

/LQNWR,QGLFDWRUVVHWHURVLRQUHGXFWLRQQHHG SHUFHQWDJH LQ

:HQGHOO&UHHN K\SRWKHWLFDO locations in the watershed during times of high,

:DWHU4XDOLW\ 70'/ :DWHU4XDOLW\

 ZLGWKGHSWKUDWLRV  DYHUDJH UDQJHODQG%03V

)RFXVLQJRQLPSOHPHQWDWLRQ methods can be used to facilitate TMDL development. In

5DSLG6HGLPHQW C )OH[LEOHIUDPHZRUNIRUHYDOXDWLQJ C $VJHQHUDOPHWKRGVJXLGDQFHGRHVQRW

(FRV\VWHP$QDO\VLVDW C )OH[LEOHHQRXJKWREHWDLORUHGWR C $FWXDO:$DSSURDFKHVYDU\

:DWHU4XDOLW\ 70'/ :DWHU4XDOLW\

766DQG'262' UHGXFWLRQVE\ FURSODQG%03V

UHODWLRQVKLSV VRXUFHFDWHJRU\ EDQNVWDELOL]DWLRQ

6RXWK)RUN6DOPRQ5LYHU,GDKR In addition to extensive amounts of monitoring data and

:DWHU4XDOLW\ 70'/ :DWHU4XDOLW\

ILQHVHGLPHQWVLQ RYHUDOO URDGLPSURYHPHQW

VSDZQLQJJUDYHOV ORQJWHUP SURMHFWV

FREEOH UHGXFWLRQ VOLGHUHVWRUDWLRQ

HPEHGGHGQHVV VSHFLILFORDG SURMHFWV

1LQHPLOH&UHHN0RQWDQD The Upper Birch Creek TMDL is an example of a

:DWHU4XDOLW\ 70'/ :DWHU4XDOLW\

UHGGVPLOH UHGXFWLRQLQ UDQJHODQG%03V

:DWHU4XDOLW\ 70'/ :DWHU4XDOLW\

WRWDOVXVSHQGHG PD[LPXP766 13'(6SHUPLW

:DWHU4XDOLW\7DUJHWV 70'/ :DWHU4XDOLW\

PHGLDQVHGLPHQWVL]H UHGXFWLRQV IRUHVWU\%03V

9 SRROVHGLPHQW E\FDWHJRU\LQ URDG

LQGLFDWRU ORQJWHUPDQQXDO LPSURYHPHQWV

/LQNWR,QGLFDWRUVVHWHURVLRQUHGXFWLRQQHHGSHUFHQWDJHLQ

:HQGHOO&UHHNK\SRWKHWLFDO locations in the watershed during times of high,

:DWHU4XDOLW\ 70'/ :DWHU4XDOLW\

ZLGWKGHSWKUDWLRV DYHUDJH UDQJHODQG%03V

5DSLG6HGLPHQW C )OH[LEOHIUDPHZRUNIRUHYDOXDWLQJ C $VJHQHUDOPHWKRGVJXLGDQFHGRHVQRW

:DWHUVKHG+\GURORJLF C 6SHFLILFPHWKRGWRDVVHVVSK\VLFDO C 1HZPHWKRGQRW\HWZLGHO\XVHG

6WUHDP7\SLQJ+\GUR C 2UJDQL]DWLRQE\VWUHDPW\SHVSURYLGHV C 'DWDLQWHQVLYH

:KDWLVWKHJHRJUDSKLFVHWWLQJRIWKH70'/" accounting for sediment transport out of the system, it

'LVDGYDQWDJHV &RQIRXQGLQJYDULDEOHVREVFXUHFDXVHHIIHFW 0D\PLVVFDXVHHIIHFWUHODWLRQVKLSVGHWHFWDEOHRQO\DW

:KDWWHPSRUDOFRQVLGHUDWLRQVDIIHFW70'/ For many pollutants, TMDLs are developed for a

the watershed geology and landform, and the :KDWDUHWKHVHGLPHQWVRXUFHVDQGKRZGR

:KDWLVWKHSUREOHP" considerations will affect all subsequent stages of

7RWDOVXVSHQGHGVROLGV766ORDGFRPSDUHGWRWKDWRI 0HDVXUHVGLUHFW766LPSDFWRQILVK

:KDWZDWHUTXDOLW\PHDVXUHVFRXOGEHXVHGDV streambeds, which is also associated with aquatic life

+LOOVORSH /DQGRZQHU /DQGRZQHU

,QVWUHDP 5HGXFHOHQJWKRIHURGLQJEDQNVE\ 7ULEXWDU\VWUHDPDQGEDQNUHVWRUDWLRQSURMHFW

6XEVWUDWHFRPSRVLWLRQ VHGLPHQW VHGLPHQW 7XUELGLW\VXVSHQGHG VROLGV VROLGV

&KDQQHOVWUXFWXUH 6HFFKLGHSWK &KDQQHOVWUXFWXUH VHGLPHQW &KDQQHOVWUXFWXUH %RWWRPGHSRVLWGHSWK

,QWHUVWLWLDOGLVVROYHG %RWWRPGHSRVLWGHSWK 6HFFKLGHSWK 6XEVWUDWHFRPSRVLWLRQ

'RPHVWLF:DWHU $JULFXOWXUDO:DWHU +\GURHOHFWULF &ROG:DWHU :DUP:DWHU

&URS 6DQGDQG*UDYHO +DQGORFN

3HUHQQLDO ,QWHUPLWWHQW 'RPE\0DMRU 'RPE\)UHTXHQW

:22'<'(%5,6

,QDSLORW70'/DQDO\VLVIRU6LOYHU&UHHNVHGLPHQWORDGLQJUHGXFWLRQWDUJHWVZHUH Mechanistic or process models may also be

:KDWLVDQDSSURSULDWHDOORFDWLRQPHWKRG" approach recognizes that annual or seasonal loads will

also documents progress toward achieving the desired K(<48(67,21672&216,'(5)25)2//2:83

• What types of implementation problems are C 4XDQWLILDEOHDSSURDFK5HVXOWVPXVWEHGLVFHUQLEOHRYHUWLPH

:KDWLVDQDSSURSULDWHDGDSWLYHPDQDJHPHQW :KDWFKDQJHVGRHVWKHSURSRVHGUXOHVSHDN

:KDWFRQVWLWXWHVDQDGHTXDWHPRQLWRULQJSODQ • Need to evaluate specific TMDL components.