DOCSLIB.ORG

Total Maximum Daily Loads for Fecal Coliform

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Total Maximum Daily Loads for Fecal Coliform Total Maximum Daily Load for Fecal Coliform - Upper Broad River Basin TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS FOR FECAL COLIFORM FOR Turkey Creek, Meng Creek, Browns Creek, Gregorys Creek, Dry Fork, Sandy River, Elizabeth Lake, Little River, Winnsboro Branch, Jackson Creek, and Mill Creek watersheds and the lower portion of the Upper Broad River, South Carolina HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE: 03050106 (B-086, B-136, B-064, B-243, B-155, B-335, B-046, B-074, B-075, B-110, B-316, B-280, B-337, B-145, B-350, B-123, B-077, B-102, B-338) September 2005 SCDHEC Technical Report Number: 028-05 Total Maximum Daily Load for Fecal Coliform - Upper Broad River Basin In compliance with the provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C §1251 et.seq., as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, P.L. 400-4, the U.S Environmental Protection Agency is hereby establishing a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Fecal Coliform for Turkey Creek, Meng Creek, Browns Creek, Gregorys Creek, Dry Fork, Sandy River, Elizabeth Lake, Little River, Winnsboro Branch, Jackson Creek, Mill Creek, and the lower portion of the Upper Broad River in the Broad River Basin. Subsequent actions must be consistent with this TMDL. James D. Giattina, Director Date Water Management Division Total Maximum Daily Load for Fecal Coliform - Upper Broad River Basin TRN: 028-05 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... iv ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS..........................................................................v SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background....................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Watershed Description...................................................................................... 1-5 SECTION 2 WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT ..................................................... 2-1 2.1 Water Quality Standards................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Assessment of Existing Water Quality Data..................................................... 2-1 2.3 Establishing the Water Quality Target.............................................................. 2-6 SECTION 3 POLLUTANT SOURCE ASSESSMENT ............................................. 3-1 3.1 Point Source Discharges ................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Continuous Point Sources..................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems ........................................... 3-6 3.2 Nonpoint Sources.............................................................................................. 3-9 3.2.1 Wildlife ................................................................................................. 3-9 3.2.2 Agricultural Activities and Domesticated Animals ............................ 3-10 3.2.3 Failing Onsite Wastewater Disposal Systems and Illicit Discharges . 3-16 3.2.4 Domestic Pets......................................................................................3-17 3.3 Summary of Fecal Coliform Sources and WQM Stations on Impaired Streams3-18 3.3.1 Ross Branch and Turkey Creek .......................................................... 3-18 3.3.2 Meng Creek and Tributary, Browns Creek, Gregorys Creek and Broad River.................................................................................................... 3-20 3.3.3 Dry Fork and Sandy River .................................................................. 3-22 3.3.4 Elizabeth Lake at Spillway, Crane Creek, Smith Branch, and Broad River.................................................................................................... 3-23 3.3.5 Little River.......................................................................................... 3-25 3.3.6 Winnsboro Branch, Winnsboro Branch below Outfall, Jackson Creek, and Mill Creek .................................................................................... 3-26 SECTION 4 TECHNICAL APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY........................ 4-1 4.1 Using Load Duration Curves to Develop TMDLs............................................ 4-1 4.2 Explanation of Steps used to Perform TMDL Calculations ............................. 4-1 SECTION 5 TMDL CALCULATIONS ...................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Results of TMDL Calculations ......................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Critical Conditions and Estimated Loading...................................................... 5-1 5.3 Waste Load Allocation ..................................................................................... 5-5 i FINAL September 2005 Total Maximum Daily Load for Fecal Coliform - Upper Broad River Basin TRN: 028-05 5.4 Load Allocation................................................................................................ 5-7 5.5 Seasonal Variability.......................................................................................... 5-7 5.6 Margin of Safety ............................................................................................... 5-7 5.7 TMDL Calculations.......................................................................................... 5-8 SECTION 6 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION................................................................... 6-1 SECTION 7 REFERENCES......................................................................................... 7-1 APPENDICES Appendix A SCDHEC Fecal Coliform Data – 1990 to 2002 Appendix B Plots Comparing Precipitation and Fecal Coliform Concentrations Appendix C NPDES Permit Discharge Monitoring Report Data Appendix D Estimated Flow Exceedance Percentiles Appendix E Load Duration Curves – Estimated Loading and Critical Conditions ii FINAL September 2005 Total Maximum Daily Load for Fecal Coliform - Upper Broad River Basin TRN: 028-05 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Turkey Creek, Meng Creek, Browns Creek, Gregory Creek, Sandy Creek, Dry Fork and Broad River Watersheds....................................................... 1-2 Figure 1-2 Elizabeth Lake, Crane Creek, Smith Branch, Broad River, Little River, Winnsboro Branch, Jackson Creek, and Mill Creek Watersheds............... 1-3 Figure 1-3 Broad River Basin: 8- and 11-Digit HUCs................................................ 1-6 Figure 1-4 Land Use Map for: Turkey Creek, Meng Creek, Browns Creek, Gregory Creek, Sandy Creek, Dry Fork and Broad River Watersheds .................. 1-14 Figure 1-5 Land Use Map for: Elizabeth Lake, Crane Creek, Smith Branch, Broad River, Little River, Winnsboro Branch, Jackson Creek, and Mill Creek Watersheds................................................................................................ 1-15 Figure 2-1 Comparison of Precipitation and Fecal Coliform Concentrations in Crane Creek (B-316) ............................................................................................. 2-4 Figure 2-2 Comparison of Fecal Coliform Concentrations at B-243 and B-064 ......... 2-7 Figure 2-3 Comparison of Fecal Coliform Concentrations at B-123 and B-077 ......... 2-8 Figure 3-1 Locations of NPDES Dischargers, MS4s, and Animal Feeding Operations in Turkey Creek, Meng Creek, Browns Creek, Gregory Creek, Sandy Creek, Dry Fork and Broad River Watersheds....................................................... 3-4 Figure 3-2 Locations of NPDES Dischargers, MS4s, and Animal Feeding Operations in Elizabeth Lake, Crane Creek, Smith Branch, Broad River, Little River, Winnsboro Branch, Jackson Creek, and Mill Creek Watersheds............... 3-5 Figure 5-1 Estimated Fecal Coliform Load and Critical Conditions for Ross Branch, Station B-086 .............................................................................................. 5-3 Figure 5-2 TMDL for B-086 Ross Branch ................................................................. 5-10 Figure 5-3 TMDL for B-136 Turkey Creek ............................................................... 5-11 Figure 5-4 TMDL for B-064 Meng Creek.................................................................. 5-12 Figure 5-5 TMDL for B-243 Tributary to Meng Creek ............................................. 5-13 Figure 5-6 TMDL for B-155 Browns Creek............................................................... 5-14 Figure 5-7 TMDL for B-335 Gregorys Creek ............................................................ 5-15 Figure 5-8 TMDL for B-046 Broad River.................................................................. 5-16 Figure 5-9 TMDL for B-074 Dry Fork....................................................................... 5-17 Figure 5-10 TMDL for B-075 Sandy River.................................................................. 5-18 Figure 5-11 TMDL for B-110 Elizabeth Lake ............................................................. 5-19 Figure 5-12 TMDL for B-316 Crane Creek ................................................................. 5-20 Figure 5-13 TMDL for B-280 Smith Branch ............................................................... 5-21 Figure 5-14 TMDL for B-337 Broad River.................................................................. 5-22 iii FINAL September 2005 Total Maximum Daily Load
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Total Maximum Daily Loads for Bacteria Impaired Waters in Ohio
    Division of Surface Water October 2020 Total Maximum Daily Loads for Bacteria Impaired Waters in Ohio The Clean Water Act requires Ohio EPA to prepare a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for watersheds that do not meet water quality goals. A TMDL report, specifies how much pollution must be reduced from various sources and recommends specific actions to achieve these reductions. TMDL Overview Under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, states are required to list water bodies that do not meet water quality standards (as defined in Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3745-1) and to develop total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) to address the impairment. A TMDL is a plan to restore good health to streams or other water bodies that are not meeting water quality goals. It serves as a roadmap for measures that can be taken to improve water quality. It defines how much pollution exists and identifies sources; specifies the amount of pollution reduction needed to meet water quality goals; and recommends actions that will improve water quality in the streams. Recreation Ohio is a water-rich state, providing many opportunities for recreation in and on its waters. The overall outcome of this TMDL project is to further the Clean Water Act’s “fishable/swimmable” goal. Water quality standards that pertain to recreation use are intended to protect the health of those using surface waters for swimming, boating, wading and other types of water-related activities. Ohio EPA uses the bacterium Escherichia coli (E. coli) as an indicator for the presence of pathogenic bacteria and viruses in a water body as a result of fecal contamination.
    [Show full text]
  • (Pollutant) Load (Tmdl) Approach for Managing Eutrophication in South African Dams
    A FEASIBILITY EVALUATION OF THE TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY (POLLUTANT) LOAD (TMDL) APPROACH FOR MANAGING EUTROPHICATION IN SOUTH AFRICAN DAMS Report to the WATER RESEARCH COMMISSION by Dr WR Harding DH Environmental Consulting (Pty) Ltd WRC Report No. 2245/1/15 ISBN 978-1-4312-0673-5 April 2015 Obtainable from Water Research Commission Private Bag X03 GEZINA, 0031 [email protected] or download from www.wrc.org.za DISCLAIMER This report has been reviewed by the Water Research Commission (WRC) and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the WRC nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. © Water Research Commission Roodeplaat Dam (Gauteng, South Africa) on 28 November 2014. With 62% of South Africa’s largest dams eutrophic or hypertrophic (Matthews 2014) the need for nutrient attenuation interventions is long overdue. Catchment-based audits of nutrient generation, such as the Total Mean Daily Load (TMDL) protocol provide a means of identifying and prioritizing load reductions. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) are (i) a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards, and (ii) an allocation of that amount to the pollutant's individual sources. The TMDL protocol was developed in the USA in support of the Clean Water Act of 1972. TMDLs can be applied to any pollutant, inter alia bacterial, pathogens, suspended solids, sediments, trace metals and nutrients. The TMDL approach can be applied to both lentic and lotic waters.
    [Show full text]
  • Connecticut DEEP Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program Factsheet
    Connecticut DEEP Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program Factsheet Child Playing in Water Boats in Long Island Sound What is a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)? A TMDL is an Action Plan used to address pollution, kind of like a budget. Any waterbody that is overspending its daily budget for a substance is considered to be polluted or impaired. Any waterbody that is spending less than its daily budget for a substance has good water quality which should be protected. TMDLs provide the framework for restoring impaired waters by establishing the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive without adverse impact to fish, wildlife, recreation, or other uses. A TMDL can also be used to set a budget to protect waters with good water quality. Piece by piece To create a TMDL, the waterbody is cut into pieces known as segments. These segments are like pieces of a puzzle. Each piece is reviewed for available data and pollution levels. A budget is determined for each piece in order to restore or protect water quality. Reaching these goals allows for a waterbody to meet the planned budget. This will reduce pollution and improve water quality. Segment 1 Segment 2 Fix what is broken And protect what is not TMDLs are action plans that provide water quality targets for the waterbody and identifies sources of water pollution. As changes are made to achieve these targets in impaired waters and fixes are implemented, the result will be protection of natural resources and cleaner water. This provides better habitat for fish and safer recreation for people.
    [Show full text]
  • Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation for Seven Segments of The
    Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation for Seven Segments of the Chattahoochee River in the Chattahoochee River Basin (PCBs in Fish Tissue) Submitted to: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 Atlanta, Georgia Submitted by: The Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division Atlanta, Georgia January 2003 Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation January 2003 Chattahoochee River (PCBs in Fish Tissue) Table of Contents Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Watershed Description.................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Impact of PCBs ............................................................................................................. 2 1.4 Water Quality Standard................................................................................................. 2 2.0 AVAILABLE MONITORING DATA..................................................................................... 5 3.0 SOURCE ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................. 6 4.0 TMDL DEVELOPMENT APPROACH ................................................................................ 7 5.0 ALLOCATION ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C Total Maximum Daily Load Discussion
    Appendix C Total Maximum Daily Load Discussion REGIONAL NIAGARA RIVER/LAKE ERIE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN (Phase 2) Total Maximum Daily Load What is a TMDL? A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still safely meet water quality standards. TMDLs are governed by the Clean Water Act (CWA) under Section 303. More specifically, the EPA regulations define a TMDL as the sum of pollutant loads from point sources (“waste load allocations”) and nonpoint sources (“load allocations”).1 Such loads shall be established at a level necessary to implement the applicable water quality standards with seasonal variations and a margin of safety. Water Quality Standard A water quality standard on the other hand is based on use. It is either a narrative standard or numeric criteria set by states that focus on uses of the waterbody. 2 A narrative standard would be swimming or fishing. Setting numeric criteria states the allowable amount, or calculation, of a pollutant in the implementing regulation.3 The use is then backed by calculations of pollutant loads which must be met in order to meet the designated use for a waterbody. Each entity that must discharge a categorized pollutant into a waterbody is able to discharge only a certain amount. This amount is known as its “allocation.” The allocation of each industry or discharger is directed by a permit. Permits are guided by the National Pollution Elimination Discharge System (NPDES). New York State has its own federally-approved program known as the State Pollution Elimination Discharge System (SPDES).
    [Show full text]
  • Total Maximum Daily Load For: Oak Creek- Headwaters to the Verde River
    Total Maximum Daily Load For: Oak Creek- Headwaters to the Verde River Parameters: Total Phosphorous and Total Nitrogen June 1999 Open File Report 09-05 NOTE: Since initial publication the contact information has been updated. For more information please contact: TMDL Unit Supervisor 602-771-4468 800-234-5677 TDD 602-771-4829 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen in the Oak Creek Basin, Arizona (Including Munds Creek) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 3033 North Central Phoenix, Arizona 85012 June, 1999 Acknowledgments Early project work and sampling completed by Julie Cox, formerly of ADEQ The computer model selection, modeling, and a report titled, AA Watershed Model for Developing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for Nutrients in Oak Creek, Arizona - May, 1999@ were completed under agreement 98-0187 by: Stephan J. Nix, Ph.D. - Team Leader Wilbert I. Odem, Ph.D. Hal Voepel of Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Northern Arizona University Flagstaff, Arizona 86011 and Daniel P. Davis, P.E. Antonio D. Deskins of Moffa and Associates, Inc. 5710 Commons Park Syracuse, New York 13214 This report is available for viewing in its entirety at the Hydrologic Support and Assessment Section, 3rd floor, ADEQ, 3033 N. Central, Phoenix, Arizona. Copies can be made available on request and for a copying fee. Appendices A and B were directly copied from the above report. ACRONYMS ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ALRIS Arizona Land Resource Information System ARCView A GIS system
    [Show full text]
  • Total Maximum Daily Load Toogoodoo Creek (Hydrologic Unit Code 030502060401) Impaired Stations 12B-34, 12B-35, 12B-45 Fecal Coliform Bacteria
    Total Maximum Daily Load Toogoodoo Creek (Hydrologic Unit Code 030502060401) Impaired Stations 12B-34, 12B-35, 12B-45 Fecal Coliform Bacteria September 2010 SCDHEC Technical Document Number: 012D-21 Prepared for: Bureau of Water Prepared by: Ann-Marie Altman i Abstract The delineated watershed surrounding impaired stations 12B-35, 12B-34, and 12B-45 (Toogoodoo Creek and Lower Toogoodoo Creek) located within Shellfish Management Area 12B in Charleston County, South Carolina consists of approximately 23.08 square miles of shellfish growing area habitat. Water quality monitoring stations 12B-34, 12B-35, and 12B-45 are listed on the 2008 303(d) list as impaired for shellfish use support due to exceeding the fecal coliform standard. All of these stations have previously been listed in 2006 while 12B-35 was also listed in 2004. Stations are listed as impaired on the basis of at least 30 monthly samples taken over a period of 3 years as required by the National Shellfish Sanitation Program. Meeting the percentage reduction or the water quality standard (WQS) at each station will effectively protect the shellfish harvesting beds in the referenced watershed for human consumption. Station 12B-45 requires a reduction of 66 % while station 12B-35 requires a reduction of 32 % and 12B- 34 requires a reduction of 30% (Table Ab-1). This TMDL document is based on 77-157 data points per each monitored station from 1994-2007 to ensure greater temporal variability. The primary land use of the watershed is forested area (35.45%) followed by wetlands/open water (34.73%). Probable sources of fecal coliform (FC) bacteria are large populations of water birds and wildlife, agricultural runoff and failing septic systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Total Maximum Daily Load) Is a Pollution Budget for a Specific Ach TMDL Contains Key Elements: Waterbody (River, Lake, Stream, Etc.)
    LOUISIANA’S Total MaximumFACTS Daily Load Introduction Components TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) is a pollution budget for a specific ach TMDL contains key elements: waterbody (river, lake, stream, etc.). It is the maximum amount of a pollutant (sum of allowable pollutant loads from point and nonpoint sources) that can be Waterbody name and location releasedA into a waterbody without causing the waterbody to become impaired E Identification of the pollutant and/or violate state water quality standards. A TMDL must include point source loads (wasteload allocations), nonpoint source loads (load allocations) and a The water quality standard for the waterbody margin of safety to account for any uncertainties in the scientific methods used Amount of pollutant allowable to meet standards (pollution budget) to derive the TMDL. Such uncertainties may include modeling assumptions, statistical analysis, and a lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between Load reduction needed to meet standards effluent limitations and water quality among other things. TMDLs and associated Sources of the pollutant activities should lead to improvements in water quality. Wasteload allocation for point sources (including MS4s) The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 requires states to set water quality standards Load allocation for runoff (nonpoint sources) and other sources of pollution that are protective of the designated uses for each waterbody. Under Section 305(b) of the CWA, states must list all waterbodies being assessed. Under Section Margin of safety 303(d) of the CWA, all states must assess waterbodies against current standards Consideration of seasonal variation every 2 years and develop a list of impaired waterbodies that require TMDL development.
    [Show full text]
  • Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
    Final Sugar Creek pH TMDL February 2002 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) For pH Exceedences in Sugar Creek, GA (From Turnpike Creek to Little Ocmulgee River) Final Sugar Creek pH TMDL February 2002 In compliance with the provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C §1251 et.seq., as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, P.L. 400-4, the U.S Environmental Protection Agency is hereby establishing a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for pH for Sugar Creek. Subsequent actions must be consistent with this TMDL. Beverly H. Banister, Director Date Water Management Division ii Final Sugar Creek pH TMDL February 2002 Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Introduction 2 Watershed Characterization 2 Problem Definition 5 Applicable Standards 5 Available Monitoring Data 5 Source Identification 6 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) 7 Point Sources 7 Non-Point Sources 7 Margin of Safety 7 Seasonal Variation 8 TMDL Implementation 8 References 9 iii Final Sugar Creek pH TMDL February 2002 Figure 1- Sugar Creek Watershed iv Final Sugar Creek pH TMDL February 2002 TMDL at a Glance Basin Name/Subbasin: Ocmulgee River Basin/ Little Ocmulgee Subbasin (03070105) Waterbody of Concern: Sugar Creek (From Turnpike Creek to Little Ocmulgee River) Pollutant: pH Designated Use: Fishing Size of Waterbody: 5 Miles TMDL Target: 6.0 to 8.5 standard units Wasteload Allocation: 6.0 to 8.5 standard units Load Allocation: 6.0 to 8.5 standard units Margin of Safety: Not Applicable Executive Summary A segment of Sugar Creek (from Turnpike Creek to the Little Ocmulgee River) has been placed on the State of Georgia’s Section 303(d) list of impaired waters due to pH excursions.
    [Show full text]
  • Total Maximum Daily Load (Tmdl) Development
    Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Mercury in Spring Creek February 27, 2004 TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL) For Total Mercury in Fish Tissue Residue In Spring Creek (HUC 03150104) Including Listed Segment Etowah River Tributary (Floyd County, GA) Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Mercury in Spring Creek February 27, 2004 In compliance with the provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C §1251 et.seq., as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, P.L. 400-4, the U.S Environmental Protection Agency is hereby establishing a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Mercury for the entire segment of Spring Creek (Etowah River Tributary). Subsequent actions must be consistent with this TMDL. James D. Giattina, Director Date Water Management Division i Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Mercury in Spring Creek February 27, 2004 Table of Contents 1. Introduction.................................................................................................................1 2. Problem Definition...................................................................................................... 2 3. Applicable Water Quality Standard............................................................................ 2 4. TMDL Target.............................................................................................................. 3 5. Background ................................................................................................................. 4 5.1. Source Assessment.............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Final - Bitterroot Watershed Total Maximum Daily Loads and Water Quality Improvement Plan
    Final - Bitterroot Watershed Total Maximum Daily Loads and Water Quality Improvement Plan December 2014 Steve Bullock, Governor Tracy Stone-Manning, Director DEQ Document Number C05-TMDL-04aF Prepared by: Water Quality Planning Bureau Watershed Management Section Contributors: Water Quality Planning Bureau Watershed Management Section Mindy McCarthy, Nutrients Project Manager Christian Schmidt, Previous Nutrients Project Manager Jordan Tollefson, Project Coordinator and Temperature Project Manager Information Management and Technical Services Section Kyle Flynn, Project Modeler Mike Van Liew, Previous Modeler U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Peter Brumm, Metals Project Manager Montana Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Planning Bureau 1520 E. Sixth Avenue P.O. Box 200901 Helena, MT 59620-0901 Suggested citation: Montana DEQ and U.S. EPA Region 8. 2014. Bitterroot Watershed Total Maximum Daily Loads and Water Quality Improvement Plan. Helena, MT: Montana Dept. of Environmental Quality. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEQ would like to acknowledge multiple entities for their contributions in the development of the TMDLs contained in this document. This project was a joint effort with the Montana Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). DEQ would like to thank the EPA staff that contributed to the completion of this project. Peter Brumm was a vital member of this project, serving as the project manager for the metals TMDLs in Section 6.0 and authoring Section 2.0, the Bitterroot Watershed Project Area Description, as well as creating all maps contained in Appendix A. DEQ would also like to thank Jessica Clarke with our Monitoring and Assessment Section who conducted water quality monitoring in support of the metals and nutrients TMDLs; and Carrie Greeley, an administrative assistant, for her time and effort formatting this document.
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio's Avoidance of Total Maximum Daily Load and the Continued Relevance of the Constructive Submission Doctrine
    The Global Business Law Review Volume 8 Issue 1 Article 6 12-31-2019 Ohio's Avoidance of Total Maximum Daily Load and the Continued Relevance of the Constructive Submission Doctrine Ashley Kirk Cleveland-Marshall College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/gblr Part of the Environmental Law Commons, and the Water Law Commons How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! Recommended Citation Ashley Kirk, Ohio's Avoidance of Total Maximum Daily Load and the Continued Relevance of the Constructive Submission Doctrine, 8 Global Bus. L. Rev. 42 (2019) available at https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/gblr/vol8/iss1/6 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Global Business Law Review by an authorized editor of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. OHIO’S AVOIDANCE OF TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD AND THE CONTINUED RELEVANCE OF THE CONSTRUCTIVE SUBMISSION DOCTRINE Ashley Kirk ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................... 42 II. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................ 48 A. National Framework to Regulate Water Quality ........................................................... 49 B. Why are Total Maximum Daily Loads controversial? ..................................................
    [Show full text]