State Perspective on TMDLS

Gregg Good, Illinois EPA, Representing ASIWPCA

Presented at ACWI, April 3, 2002.

For this Special Topic Panel Discussion on Total Maximum Daily Load
Implementation, I was asked to give the "State Perspective on TMDLs."
While representing the Association of State and Interstate Water
Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA) at the Advisory Committee on
Water Information (ACWI) conference, I took off that hat, and put on my
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA), Surface Water
Section Manager hat. In summary, what I briefly talked about surrounded
five major areas:

-   What Illinois EPA's approach is to conduct TMDL studies throughout
    the state;

-   What our priorities are; or where TMDLs are being done in Illinois;

-   What some of our TMDL challenges are;

-   What some of our TMDL monitoring implications are; and

-   What some of our TMDL monitoring opportunities are.

[What is Illinois' TMDL Approach?]{.underline}

Since we haven't yet been sued in Illinois, our approach has had much
more flexibility than for those states that are under court order to get
their TMDLs completed in an expeditious fashion. Our approach can best
be described as fairly slow and deliberate. Our TMDL studies are
proceeding on a "science-driven" basis, so they are taking some time to
complete. We hope that this slower, science-driven process will result
in real TMDLs that make a real difference once they have been
implemented. To date, the environmental organization constituency in
Illinois has agreed with this process, as they too want meaningful
TMDLs. Hence, we have not been sued. In addition, mid-western states
tend to have more data than perhaps southern and western states where
TMDL lawsuits seem to have begun and are quite prevalent.

Approximately 10-15 new TMDL studies are initiated on an annual basis.
They are each contracted out to environmental consultants and other
institutions to complete, as Illinois EPA has not been able to garner
the necessary in-house expertise and multiple staff needed to complete
the studies on our approved schedule. This is an expensive way to
conduct TMDLs, but necessary in Illinois. To date, only existing and
readily available information on the stream segments and inland lakes
undergoing TMDLs have been utilized. However, for future TMDLs,
additional data collection will in most cases be incorporated as a
standard procedure to "beef-up" the database used to assess the
waterbody and subsequently allocate loads.

[Where are Illinois' TMDL Priorities and Where are They Being
Done?]{.underline}

Illinois' 1998 303(d) list includes 739 waterbodies located within 338
watersheds. TMDLs are primarily being done in two different areas:

-   *Point source effluent-dominated streams in northeastern Illinois.*
    The city of Chicago (Cook County) and surrounding collar counties is
    of course the largest metropolitan area in Illinois. With many
    people come many wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore,
    municipal and industrial effluents, and urban runoff/storm sewers,
    are the most frequently listed potential sources of impairment. The
    most frequently listed potential causes of impairment include
    organic enrichment/dissolved oxygen depletions, siltation and
    nutrients.

-   *Nonpoint source impacted waterbodies in central and southern
    Illinois.* Central and southern Illinois is dominated by
    agricultural row-crop production because of its relatively flat land
    and world-class soils. Surface and subsurface mining continues to be
    a major industry, primarily in southern Illinois. Along with
    extensive hydrological modifications that occurred over many
    decades, these are the most prevalent potential sources of
    impairment. Similar to the northeastern Illinois area, the most
    frequently listed potential causes of impairment include organic
    enrichment/dissolved oxygen depletions, siltation and nutrients.

The greatest concerns in conducting TMDL studies in these primary areas
are the end points towards which we are shooting. Like most states,
Illinois has a 5.0 mg/L dissolved oxygen standard. While this standard
continues to be used and is widely accepted, it perhaps does not fully
take into account nutrient impacts and diurnal fluctuations. One of
Illinois' priorities is to take a hard look at revising this standard
for the goal of better defining aquatic life use impacts due to nutrient
enrichment-caused low dissolved oxygen. Secondly, Illinois does not have
siltation and nutrient-related water quality standards for the majority
of it's waters; however, a 0.05 mg/L standard does exist for inland
lakes but is often exceeded primarily because of fertile agricultural
watersheds and large watershed area to surface area ratios. Defining
TMDL end points for identified pollutants with non-existent or
inadequate standards is, at best, difficult. These standards need to be
developed to account for eutrophication effects on aquatic life,
recreation, and public water supply uses. Eutrophication-based standards
will be a much tougher nut to crack than toxicity-based standards, much
like the regulation of nonpoint sources of pollution is a tougher nut to
deal with than point sources.

[What are Illinois' Major TMDL Challenges?]{.underline}

The major challenges that Monitoring and TMDL staff face in Illinois can
best be put into four categories:

-   *Lots of Impaired Waters.* As previously mentioned, Illinois' 1998
    303(d) list includes 739 waterbodies located within 338 watersheds.
    That is a lot of impaired waters! This means lots of data are needed
    to justify the 305(b) assessments and 303(d) listings, and lots of
    staff and money are needed to contract out and administer TMDL
    contracts.

-   *Inadequate Data.* Illinois has one of the largest and most
    comprehensive monitoring programs in the country. These programs
    were developed and are primarily implemented to make Section 305(b)
    assessments. Subsequently, in 1998, states were required to use
    their 305(b) assessments, and existing and readily available
    information, to develop 303(d) impaired water lists. While this was
    a great idea in theory, the data sets behind most 305(b) assessments
    are typically not grandiose enough to adequately defend 303(d)
    listings in a court of law.

-   *Inadequate Standards.* As briefly mentioned above, some of our
    water quality standards are inadequate (e.g., dissolved oxygen), in
    some cases unrealistic (e.g., 0.05 mg/L lake phosphorus standard for
    large reservoirs in largely agricultural watersheds), and some don't
    even exist (e.g., phosphorus standard for streams). Lacking a suite
    of updated, realistic, and new standards, states across the country
    have used surrogate indicators (e.g., sediment classification
    systems, biological indices, fish contaminant values utilized to
    determine consumption advisories that are not water quality
    standards) in the 305(b) process to determine use impairments, and
    potential causes and sources of impairment. Again, while this is the
    best states have to offer in some cases, lacking promulgated water
    quality standards makes it difficult to defend 303(d) listings in a
    court of law.

-   *Withstanding Scrutiny; Defending our Assessments and Lists.* Having
    lots of impaired waters, inadequate data, and inadequate standards,
    states are having difficult times withstanding the scrutiny
    environmental and regulated entities are placing on 305(b)
    assessments and subsequent 303(d) listings. Pre-1998 when the first
    303(d) lists came out, few entities questioned state collection,
    transportation, laboratory, assessment and listing methodologies;
    and quality assurance/quality control was presumed to be fully
    entrenched within the collection and analysis processes. This is not
    the case today. Questions from numerous entities are asking the
    specifics about the "who, what, when, where, and why's" of state
    monitoring and assessment programs. The workload associated with
    defending 305(b) assessments and 303(d) lists have increased 10-fold
    in the last five years.

[What are the Monitoring Implications Brought About by
TMDLs?]{.underline}

To withstand the level of scrutiny placed on state monitoring programs,
the goals of state monitoring programs are changing from a "305(b) goal"
to a "303(d) goal." Simply put, more and more state resources are being
put into the collection of more data on fewer resources (i.e., rather
than some data on many resources), so that defensible 303(d) listings
can be made. With this slow, methodical shift to a TMDL monitoring
program goal, something will "have to give." The question is, "what
gives?"

States have numerous priorities on their plates: small, medium and large
rivers; inland lakes; interstate waters; great lakes; coastal zones;
public water supply/source water protection; facility surveys;
biocriteria development; nutrient standards development; fish
contaminant monitoring; fecal coliform and *e-coli* monitoring; use
attainability analyses; comprehensive statewide monitoring; hypoxia
issues; pesticides; volunteer monitoring; quality assurance/quality
control; and many others. To either a local, state, regional, or
national organization, all of the above examples are "priorities." The
question again is, "which priority gives" in order to expand TMDL
monitoring programs within states so that 305(b) assessments and 303(d)
lists can be adequately defended?

[What are the Monitoring Opportunities Brought About by
TMDLs?]{.underline}

Despite the TMDL challenges and monitoring implications described above,
the TMDL program has created great opportunities for state monitoring
programs.

First and foremost, deficiencies in state monitoring programs across the
country have now been realized. Unlike implementation work, "monitoring"
has never been seen as "sexy." Therefore, state monitoring program
funding has lagged behind implementation funding. Fortunately, the TMDL
program has raised the lack of state monitoring to the forefront. A
couple of years ago, USEPA Section 106 grants were substantially
increased to strengthen state monitoring programs, thereby allowing for
increased data collection and strengthening of standards programs.

Enhancements to state quality assurance/quality control programs are
being realized. In Illinois, a full-time Quality Assurance Officer is
now in place. Insuring that standard operating procedures are in place
for the collection, transportation and analysis of chemical and
biological samples is of the utmost importance if states are to defend
their 305(b) assessments and 303(d) lists.

States are now doing a better job than ever of documenting how they make
impaired water decisions. In Illinois, text, flow-charts, maps, and
tables are used more extensively than ever to better document, and show
how use support impairments, and potential causes/sources of those
impairments, are identified. This is imperative for a better public
understanding of the 305(b) and 303(d) processes.

The TMDL program has brought about a necessary component that has often
overlooked in the 305(b) and 303(d) process -- public input. Public
input into these processes are now being actively sought. While perhaps
initially painful, better products, and better working relationships,
will undoubtedly arise.

Many state monitoring programs have been in existence for nearly three
decades. Because of this, monitoring programs were being conducted on an
annual basis "on auto-pilot." Without much thought given to the goals,
objectives, monitoring frequency, methods utilized, and parameters
sampled, monitoring programs could often be described as "entrenched."
The TMDL program has required us to take a much harder look at those
things that are often taken for granted. Are our goals changing? Am I
collecting the right information? Am I getting enough data to make a
call? Much like the National Academy of Sciences external review of
USGS's National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program, Illinois is
looking to having external review and subsequent recommendations to
strengthen their monitoring programs.

Finally, the TMDL program has brought about new opportunities to build
relationships with new partners. Illinois has initiated a cooperative
project with USGS to conduct continuous monitoring at eight sites
throughout the state. This data will be used to revised its current
dissolved oxygen standard as well create new nutrient standards for
streams. Five Illinois Universities will be contracted with this summer
to develop a new internship program for the purpose of assisting our
Illinois Department of Natural Resources collect fish community data
that supports our 305(b) assessment process. The Agency is now looking
to quality assure data collection programs of non-Agency entities within
the state so that data can be used for 305(b) assessment, 303(d) listing
and TMDL development programs. Most notably, the Agency has entered into
a Quality Assurance Project Plan agreement with the Metropolitan Water
Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, who collect a tremendous amount
of data on the Chicago Waterway system throughout the course of the
year.

M:plandocs/good/acwipresentation.doc