Abstract

The margin of safety (MOS) accounts for uncertainties in the total maximum daily load (TMDL) development process and the variabilities involved in simulating systems, providing a complete description of the degree of protection for a waterbody. Despite numerous discussions on the estimation and incorporation of MOS in TMDLs, there are few post-TMDL studies about the MOS selection process, and there are limited guidelines for selecting MOS values. In this study, natural language processing was employed to review MOS values of TMDLs approved between 2002 and 2016. Reasons such as type of impairment, waterbody types, and designated waterbody given by TMDL developers for chosen MOS values uses were explored. MOS values across states and United States Environmental Protection Agency regions were also analyzed and compared. The results suggested the MOS value of 10% of the estimated load capacity of a waterbody is the most used value across the states and territories of the United States and that 84% of the explicit MOS values selected were not based on any uncertainty estimation method. In addition, the waterbody type and the designated water-use category appear to be correlated with MOS values, and lakes and designated use for aquatic life protection generally had larger MOS values.

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

Data Availability Statement

Some or all data, models, or code used during the study were provided by a third party. All approved TMDLs. Direct requests for these materials may be made to the provider at https://ofmpub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_index.home. Some or all data, models, or code generated or used during the study are available from the corresponding author by request. Sampled data from attains and extracted MOS values from sampled data.

References

Ahmadisharaf, E., A. C. René, X. Z. Harry, M. H. Mohamed, and M. M. Yusuf. 2019. “Calibration and validation of watershed models and advances in uncertainty analysis in TMDL studies.” J. Hydrol. Eng. 24 (7): 03119001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001794.
Arnold, J. G., et al. 2012. “SWAT: Model use, calibration, and validation.” Trans. ASABE 55 (4): 1491–1508. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.42256.
ASCE. 2017. Total maximum daily load analysis and modeling: Assessment of the practice. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Beven, K. 2007. Environmental modelling: An uncertain future? Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Beven, K., and A. Binley. 1992. “The future of distributed models: Model calibration and uncertainty prediction.” Hydrol. Processes 6 (3): 279–298. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.3360060305.
Bird, S., E. Klein, and L. Edward. 2009. Natural language processing with Python. Newton, MA: O’Reilly Media.
Camacho, R. A., L. M. James, W. McAnally, J. Díaz-Ramirez, H. Rodriguez, P. Sucsy, and S. Zhang. 2015. “A comparison of Bayesian methods for uncertainty analysis in hydraulic and hydrodynamic modeling.” JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 51 (5): 1372–1393. https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12319.
Chaudhary, A., and M. H. Mohamed. 2017. “Bayesian Monte Carlo and maximum likelihood approach for uncertainty estimation and risk management: Application to lake oxygen recovery model.” Water Res. 108 (Jan): 301–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.11.012.
Chen, D., A. D. Randy, Y. Shen, and J. Lu. 2012. “A Bayesian approach for calculating variable total maximum daily loads and uncertainty assessment.” Sci. Total Environ. 430 (Jul): 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.04.042.
Chowdhury, G. G. 2003. “Natural language processing.” Ann. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol. 37 (1): 51–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.1440370103.
Dilks, D. W., and L. F. Paul. 2004. “Improved consideration of the margin of safety in total maximum daily load development.” J. Environ. Eng. 130 (6): 690–694. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2004)130:6(690).
Donigian, A. S., Jr., B. R. Bicknell, and J. C. Imhoff. 1995. “Hydrological simulation program—FORTRAN (HSPF).” In Vol. 12 of Computer models of watershed hydrology, edited by V. P. Singh, 395–442. Highlands Ranch, CO: Water Resources Publications.
Douglas-Mankin, K. R., R. Srinivasan, and J. G. Arnold. 2010. “Soil and water assessment tool (SWAT) model: Current developments and applications.” Trans. ASABE 53 (5): 1423–1431. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.34915.
Foody, G. M. 2009. “Sample size determination for image classification accuracy assessment and comparison.” Int. J. Remote Sens. 30 (20): 5273–5291. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160903130937.
Freedman, P. L., M. L. Wendy, W. D. David, W. T. Kent, and W. B. Gerald. 2002. “Navigating the TMDL process: Evaluation and improvements.” Proc. Water Environ. Fed. 2002 (8): 518–532. https://doi.org/10.2175/193864702785072010.
Haggard, P., S. Clark, and J. Kalogeras. 2002. “Voluntary action and conscious awareness.” Nat. Neurosci. 5 (4): 382. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn827.
Hantush, M. M. 2009. Estimation of TMDLs and margin of safety under conditions of uncertainty. Kansas, MO: World Environmental and Water Resources Congress.
IEPA (Illinois Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. Illinois integrated water quality report and section 303 (d) list of 2012 Volume I: Surface water. Springfield, IL: IEPA.
Jia, Y., and T. B. Culver. 2008. “Uncertainty analysis for watershed modeling using generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation with multiple calibration measures.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 134 (2): 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2008)134:2(97).
Kirschenman, T. L., and S. Hameed. 2000. “A regulatory guide to sequencing batch reactors.” In Proc., 2nd Int. Symp. on Sequencing Batch Reactor Technology. Des Moines, IA: Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources.
Kruskal, W. H., and W. A. Wallis. 1952. “Use of ranks in one-criterion analysis of variance.” J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 47 (260): 583–621. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1952.10483441.
Langseth, D. E., and N. Brown. 2010. “Risk-based margins of safety for phosphorus TMDLs in lakes.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 137 (3): 276–283. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000097.
Mailhot, A., and J. P. Villeneuve. 2003. “Mean-value second-order uncertainty analysis method: Application to water quality modelling.” Adv. Water Resour. 26 (5): 491–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1708(03)00006-X.
Mallya, G., M. Hantush, and R. S. Govindaraju. 2018. “Composite measures of watershed health from a water quality perspective.” J. Environ. Manage. 214 (May): 104–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.02.049.
Martin, J. L., H. K. Robert, and Engineer Research and Development Center Vicksburg MS Environmental Lab. 2000. Total maximum daily loads (TMDLs): A perspective. Fort Belvoir, VA: Ft. Belvoir Defense Technical Information Center.
Matott, L. S., E. B. Justin, and S. T. Purucker. 2009. “Evaluating uncertainty in integrated environmental models: A review of concepts and tools.” Water Resour. Res. 45 (6): W06421. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007301.
ME EPA (Maine Department of Environmental Protection). 2001. East Pond Somerset and Kennebec Counties total maximum daily (annual) load. Augusta, ME: ME EPA.
Mishra, A., E. Ahmadisharaf, B. L. Benham, D. L. Gallagher, K. H. Reckhow, and E. P. Smith. 2019. “Two-phase Monte Carlo simulation for partitioning the effects of epistemic and aleatory uncertainty in TMDL modeling.” J. Hydrol. Eng. 24 (1): 04018058. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001731.
Mishra, A., E. Ahmadisharaf, B. L. Benham, M. L. Wolfe, S. C. Leman, D. L. Gallagher, K. H. Reckhow, and E. P. Smith. 2018. “Generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation and Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation to prioritize TMDL pollutant allocations.” J. Hydrol. Eng. 23 (12): 05018025. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001720.
Mitsova-Boneva, D., and X. Wang. 2007. “Exploring the variability in suspended sediment yield using BASINS-HSPF and probabilistic modeling: Implications for land use planning.” J. Environ. Inf. 9 (1): 26–40. https://doi.org/10.3808/jei.200700085.
Muleta, M. K. 2012. A formal, Bayesian approach for uncertainty analysis of a watershed model. Reston, VA: ASCE.
NRC (National Research Council). 2001. Assessing the TMDL approach to water quality management. Washington, DC: NRC.
ODEQ (Oklahoma department of environmental quality). 2014. 2014 bacterial and turbidity total maximum daily loads for Oklahoma streams in the lower Arkansas river area (OK220100, OK220200, OK220600). Oklahoma City: ODEQ.
Paul, S., P. K. Haan, M. D. Matlock, S. Mukhtar, and S. D. Pillai. 2004. “Analysis of the HSPF water quality parameter uncertainty in predicting peak in-stream fecal coliform concentrations.” Trans. ASAE 47 (1): 69. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.15872.
Pedregosa, F., G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, and V. Dubourg. 2011. “Scikit-learn: Machine learning in python.” J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12 (Oct): 2825–2830.
Power, C. B., and J. H. Jennifer. 2013. “Water quality standard setting under the clean water act: Is it nimble enough to avoid wasteful spending on the wrong goals.” W. Va. L. Rev. 116 (3): 1075.
Raviprakash, A., B. Prabu, and N. Alagumurthi. 2010. “Mean value first order second moment analysis of buckling of axially loaded thin plates with random geometrical imperfections.” Int. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2 (4): 150–162. https://doi.org/10.4314/ijest.v2i4.59283.
Reckhow, K. H. 1979. “Empirical lake models for phosphorus: Development, applications, limitation, and uncertainty.” In Perspectives on lake ecosystem modeling, 1st ed., edited by D. Scavia and A. Robertson, 193–222. Palo Alto, CA: Ann Arbor Science Publishers.
Reckhow, K. H. 2003. “On the need for uncertainty assessment in TMDL modeling and implementation.” J. Water Resour. Plan. Manage. 129 (4): 245–246. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2003)129:4(245).
Refsgaard, J. C., P. Jeroen, J. P. Van der Sluijs, J. Brown, and P. Van der Keur. 2006. “A framework for dealing with uncertainty due to model structure error.” Adv. Water Resour. 29 (11): 1586–1597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2005.11.013.
Reynoldson, T. B., R. H. Norris, H. R. Vincent, K. E. Day, and D. M. Rosenberg. 1997. “The reference condition: A comparison of multimetric and multivariate approaches to assess water-quality impairment using benthic macroinvertebrates.” J. North Am. Benthological Soc. 16 (4): 833–852. https://doi.org/10.2307/1468175.
Rhew, K. 2009. Fecal coliform TMDL for Strawberry Creek (WBID 2239). Bureau of Watershed Restoration, Watershed Planning and Coordination Section, Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection.
Riasi, M. S., A. Teklitz, W. Shuster, C. Nietch, and L. Yeghiazarian. 2018. “Reliability-based water quality assessment with load resistance factor design: Application to TMDL.” J. Hydrol. Eng. 23 (12): 04018053. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001722.
Rodriguez-Galiano, V. F., B. Ghimire, J. Rogan, M. Chica-Olmo, and J. P. Rigol-Sanchez. 2012. “An assessment of the effectiveness of a random forest classifier for land-cover classification.” ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 67 (Jan): 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2011.11.002.
Shenk, G. W., and C. L. Lewis. 2013. “Development and application of the 2010 Chesapeake Bay watershed total maximum daily load model.” JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 49 (5): 1042–1056. https://doi.org/10.1111/jawr.12109.
Shirmohammadi, A., I. Chaubey, R. D. Harmel, D. D. Bosch, R. Muñoz-Carpena, C. Dharmasri, A. Sexton, M. Arabi, M. L. Wolfe, and J. Frankenberger. 2006. “Uncertainty in TMDL models.” Trans. ASABE 49 (4): 1033–1049. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.21741.
State of Ohio EPA. 2004. Total maximum daily loads for the Upper Sandusky River watershed. Columbus, OH: Div. of Surface Water, State of Ohio EPA.
Stein, M. 1987. “Large sample properties of simulations using Latin hypercube sampling.” Technometrics 29 (2): 143–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.1987.10488205.
Thangaratinam, S., and W. E. R. Charles. 2005. “The Delphi technique.” Obstetrician Gynaecologist 7 (2): 120–125. https://doi.org/10.1576/toag.7.2.120.27071.
Thorme, M. 1999. “Clean water act section 305 (b): A potential vehicle for incorporating economics into the ‘TMDL’ and water quality standards-setting processes.” Tulane Environ. Law J. 13 (1): 71–94.
USEPA. 1991. Guidance for water quality-based decisions: The TMDL process. Washington, DC: USEPA.
USEPA. 1999. Protocol for developing nutrient TMDLs. Washington, DC: USEPA.
USEPA. 2002. Total maximum daily loads for toxic pollutants San Diego creek and Newport Bay, California. Washington, DC: USEPA.
USEPA. 2003. Longs and sandy run watershed final TMDL, Bedford County. Washington, DC: USEPA.
USEPA. 2004a. Altamont new reservoir TMDL report. Washington, DC: USEPA.
USEPA. 2004b. Phosphorus control action plan and total maximum daily (Annual Phosphorus) load report Sabattus Pond Androscoggin County, Maine. Washington, DC: USEPA.
USEPA. 2007. An approach for using load duration curves in the development of TMDLs. Washington, DC: USEPA.
USEPA. 2014. What are water quality standards? Washington, DC: USEPA.
USEPA. 2015. Nashville City reservoir and Washington County Lake atrazine and simazine total maximum daily load (TMDL). Washington, DC: USEPA.
USEPA. 2018. Assessment, TMDL tracking and implementation system (ATTAINS). Washington, DC: USEPA.
Walker, W. W. 2003. “Consideration of variability and uncertainty in phosphorus total maximum daily loads for lakes.” J. Water Resour. Planning Manage. 129 (4): 337–344. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2003)129:4(337).
Water Resources and TMDL Center and Tetra Tech, Inc. 2004. Lake Michigan Shoreline TMDL for E. coli Bacteria. Indianapolis, IN : Indiana Dept. of Environmental Management.
Xiao, N. C., H. Z. Huang, Z. Wang, Y. Liu, and X. L. Zhang. 2012. “Unified uncertainty analysis by the mean value first order saddlepoint approximation.” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 46 (6): 803–812. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-012-0794-4.
Zhang, H. X., and L. Y. Shaw. 2004. “Applying the first-order error analysis in determining the margin of safety for total maximum daily load computations.” J. Environ. Eng. 130 (6): 664–673. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2004)130:6(664).

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
Volume 25Issue 4April 2020

History

Received: Mar 23, 2019
Accepted: Sep 25, 2019
Published online: Jan 29, 2020
Published in print: Apr 1, 2020
Discussion open until: Jun 29, 2020

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL 60616-3793 (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0904-4558. Email: [email protected]
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL 60616-3793. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9084-4084. Email: [email protected]
Saurav Kumar, Ph.D., M.ASCE [email protected]
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Texas A&M AgriLife Research El Paso, 1380 A&M Circle, El Paso, TX 79927. Email: [email protected]
Lecturer, Dept. of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL 60616-3793. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7546-2870. Email: [email protected]

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Download citation

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

Cited by

View Options

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share with email

Email a colleague

Share