Chapter 6
Critical Condition Determination for Total Maximum Daily Load Modeling
Publication: Total Maximum Daily Load Development and Implementation: Models, Methods, and Resources
Abstract
This chapter presents a review of critical condition modeling and analysis approaches and illustrates the strengths and weaknesses of available methodologies to define critical condition with a view to provide guidance for total maximum daily load (TMDL) development and implementation. Four main methods are used for determining critical conditions. The first method is applicable for constant continuous flows from point source discharge into a receiving waterbody, in which a statistically based low flow is used in combination with environmental factors such as temperature that would occur in a reasonable “worst-case” situation. The second method is applicable for variable continuous flows from nonpoint sources and/or a combination of point and nonpoint sources. The third method is applicable when the long periods of flow records in receiving waterbody are available, but other data and/or resources needed for continuous model simulation are not available. The fourth and last method titled “critical flow-storm” is in essence a risk-based approach.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this chapter.
References
ADEM (Alabama Department of Environmental Management). 2005. Total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for metals (zinc), pH and siltation in the village creek watershed, Alabama. Montgomery, AL: ADEM.
ASCE. 2017. Total maximum daily load analysis and modeling: Assessment of the practice. Prepared by TMDL Analysis and Modeling Task Committee of the Environmental and Water Resources Institute of ASCE. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Bicknell, B. R., A. S. Donigian, and T. A. Barnwell. 1985. “Modeling water quality and the effects of agricultural best management practices in the Iowa River Basin.” Water Sci. Technol. 17: 1141–1153.
Bicknell, B. R., J. C. Imhoff, J. L. Kittle Jr., and A. S. Donigian. 1996. Hydrological simulation program - FORTRAN, user's manual for release 11. Athens, GA: EPA Environmental Research Laboratory.
CEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. Santa Maria Watershed TMDL—Fecal indicator bacteria. Sacramento, CA: CEPA.
Chin, D. 2009. “Risk-based TMDLs in pathogen-impaired waters.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 135 (6): 521–527.
Culver, T. B., K. A. Neeley, S. L. Yu, H. X. Zhang, A. L. Potts, and T. R. Naperala. 2002. “Nitrate TMDL development: The muddy creek/dry river case study.” J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ. 122 (1): 5–15.
DNREC (Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control). 2005. Total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) analysis for Pocomoke River, Delaware. Dover, DE: DNREC.
Donigian, A. S., J. C. Imhoff, and B. R. Bicknell. 1983. “Predicting water quality resulting from agricultural nonpoint source pollution via simulation—HSPF.” In Agricultural management and water quality, edited by F. W. Schaller and G. W. Bailey, 200–249. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
DRBC (Delaware River Basin Commission). 1995. Implementation policies and procedures: Phase I TMDLs for toxic pollutants in Delaware River Estuary. Trenton, NJ: DRBC.
Gautam, B., M. Kasi, and W. Lin. 2006. “Determination of fecal coliform loading and its impact on river water quality for TMDL development.” In Proc., Water Environment Federation Annual Conf., Dallas, TX; Water Environment Federation; 3851–3874.
Hsu, T. H., J. Y. Lin, T. C. Lee, H. X. Zhang, and L. Y. Shaw. 2010. “A storm event-based approach to TMDL development.” Environ. Monit. Assess. 163 (1–4): 81–94.
IDEQ (Idaho Department of Environmental Quality). 2015. Lower Boise River TMDL—2015 Total phosphorus addendum. Boise, ID: IDEQ.
Kasi, M., W. Lin, R. Magel, and B. Gautam. 2007. “Risk based critical condition analysis for Red river fecal coliform TMDL development.” Proc. Water Environ. Fed. 2007 (11): 7014–7032.
Keller, A. A., Y. Zheng, and T. H. Robinson. 2004. “Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds.” J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 40 (3): 721–735.
Milly, P. C. D., J. Betancourt, M. Falkenmark, R. M. Hirsch, Z. W. Kundzewicz, D. P. Lettenmaier, et al. 2008. “Stationarity is dead: Whither water management?” Science 319 (5863): 573–574.
MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency). 2018. St. Louis river watershed total maximum daily load report. St. Paul, MN: MPCA.
Nehrke, S. M., and L. A. Roesner. 2004. “Effects of design practice for flood control and best management practices on the flow–frequency curve.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 130 (2): 131–139.
NRC (National Research Council). 2001. Assessing the TMDL approach to water quality management. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
NVDEP (Nevada Division of Environmental Protection). 2007. Carson River: Total maximum daily loads for total suspended solids and turbidity. Carson City, NV: NVDEP.
OEPA (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency). 2009. Total maximum daily loads for the Blanchard River Watershed. Logan, OH: OEPA.
OEPA. 2011. Total maximum daily loads for the salt creek watershed (Muskingum River Basin). Logan, OH: OEPA.
OEPA. 2013. Total maximum daily loads for the Ottawa River (Lima Area) watershed. Logan, OH: OEPA.
SCDHEC (South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control). 2010. Total maximum daily load document RS-05590, Big Creek Watershed—Fecal coliform bacteria. Columbia, SC: SCDHEC.
Shenk, G. W., J. Wu, and L. C. Linker. 2013. “Enhanced HSPF model structure for Chesapeake Bay watershed simulation.” J. Environ. Eng. 138 (9): 949–957.
Stiles, T. C. 2002. “Incorporating hydrology in determining TMDL endpoints and allocations.” In Proc., National TMDL Science and Policy Conf., Phoenix, AZ; Water Environment Federation (WEF).
USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 1984. Technical guidance manual for performing wasteload allocations. Book II: Streams and rivers. Rep. No. EPA-440/4-84-019. Washington, DC: USEPA.
USEPA. 1986. Technical guidance manual for performing wasteload allocations, book VI: Design conditions—Chapter 1: Stream design flow for steady-state modeling. Rep. No. EPA440/4/86-014. Washington, DC: USEPA.
USEPA. 1991. Guidance for water quality-based decisions: The TMDL process. Rep. No. EPA 440/4-91-001. Washington, DC: USEPA.
USEPA. 1999a. Draft guidance for water quality-based decisions: The TMDL process. 2nd ed. Rep. No. EPA 841-D-99-001. Washington, DC: USEPA.
USEPA. 1999b. Protocol for developing nutrient TMDLs. 1st ed. Rep. No. EPA 841-B-99-007. Washington, DC: USEPA.
USEPA. 1999c. Protocol for developing sediment TMDLs. 1st ed. Rep. No. EPA 841-B-99-004. Washington, DC: USEPA.
USEPA. 2001. Protocol for developing pathogen TMDLs. 1st ed. Rep. No. EPA 841-R-00-002. Washington, DC: USEPA.
USEPA. 2006. DFLOW (a tool to estimate user selected design stream flows for low flow analysis). Washington, DC: USEPA.
USEPA. 2007a. An approach for using load–duration curves in the development of TMDLs. Rep. No. EPA 841-B-07-006. Washington, DC: USEPA.
USEPA. 2007b. Total maximum daily loads with stormwater sources: A summary of 17 TMDLs. Rep. No. EPA 841-R-07-002. Washington, DC: USEPA.
USEPA. 2008a. Nutrient and sediment TMDLs for the Southampton Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania: Modeling report. Philadelphia: EPA Region 3.
USEPA. 2008b. TMDLs to stormwater permits handbook. Draft. Washington, DC: EPA.
USEPA. 2009. TMDL program results analysis fact sheet. Rep. No. EPA 841-F-09-004. Washington, DC: USEPA.
USEPA. 2010. Chesapeake Bay TMDL document. Appendix G. Determination of critical conditions for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. Washington, DC: USEPA.
USEPA. 2011. PCB TMDL handbook. Rep. No. EPA 841-R-11-006. Washington, DC: USEPA.
USEPA. 2012. Section 319 nonpoint source program success story - Implementing management practices reduces nitrate in Virginia's Muddy Creek. Washington, DC: USEPA.
USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2007. “The national streamflow statistics program: A computer program for estimating streamflow statistics for ungaged sites.” Chap. 6 of Book 4, Hydrologic Analysis and Interpretation Section A, Statistical Analysis. USGS Techniques and Methods 4-A6. Reston, VA: USGS.
VADEQ (Virginia Department of Environmental Quality). 2000. Nitrate TMDL development for Muddy Creek/Dry River, Virginia. Richmond, VA: VADEQ.
VADEQ. 2016a. Bacteria and benthic total maximum daily load (TMDL) revision for the Beaver Creek Watershed located in Bristol City and Washington County, Virginia. Richmond, VA: VADEQ.
VADEQ. 2016b. Bacteria total maximum daily load (TMDL) development for the Mattaponi River Watershed Located in Orange, Spotsylvania, Caroline, King William, and King and Queen Counties, Virginia. Richmond, VA: VADEQ.
WADOE (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2006. Wenatchee river basin dissolved oxygen, pH, and phosphorus total maximum daily load study. Lacey, WA: WADOE.
Zhang, H. X. 2010. “Changes ahead: Water management professionals should account for climate change when working with TMDLs.” Water Environ. Technol. (February): 37–40.
Zhang, H. X. 2012. “Climate change and global water sustainability.” In Encyclopedia of sustainability science and technology, edited by R. A. Meyers, 2061–2078. Berlin: Springer.
Zhang, H. X., and G. Padmanabhan. 2019. “Critical condition modeling and analysis in TMDL development and implementation.” J. Hydrol. Eng. 24 (2): 04018061.
Zhang, H. X., and S. L. Yu. 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.
Zhang, H. X., and S. L. Yu. 2005. “Condition critical: Defining the “critical condition” for a total maximum daily load requires great care, especially when addressing nonpoint pollutants.” Water Environ. Technol. 38–42.
Zhang, H. X., and S. L. Yu. 2008. “Critical flow-storm approach to total maximum daily load (TMDL) development: an analytical conceptual model.” Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. China 2 (3): 267–273.
Zhang, H. X., S. L. Yu, and T. B. Culver. 2001. “The critical flow-storm approach for nitrate TMDL development in the Muddy Creek Watershed, Virginia.” In Proc., Water Environment Federation Annual Conf.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Total Maximum Daily Load Development and Implementation: Models, Methods, and Resources
Pages: 169 - 191
Editors: Harry X. Zhang, Ph.D., Nigel W.T. Quinn, Ph.D. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3333-4763, Deva K. Borah, Ph.D. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2107-9390, and G. Padmanabhan, Ph.D. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3209-1379
ISBN (Print): 978-0-7844-1594-8
ISBN (Online): 978-0-7844-8382-4
Copyright
© 2022 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Published online: Feb 24, 2022
Published in print: Mar 1, 2022
ASCE Technical Topics:
- Clean Water Act
- Engineering fundamentals
- Flow (fluid dynamics)
- Flow simulation
- Fluid dynamics
- Fluid mechanics
- Hydrologic engineering
- Low flow
- Mathematics
- Measurement (by type)
- Models (by type)
- Simulation models
- Statistics
- Temperature effects
- Temperature measurement
- Water and water resources
- Water discharge
- Water management
- Water policy
Authors
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.