Restoring impaired waters three

State and EPA roles in TMDL development

Most states have taken the lead in developing TMDLs. The development of TMDLs is frequently contracted out to consulting firms. In some states, nonprofit statewide environmental groups or watershed organizations have taken on significant responsibility in the development of a TMDL, accepting technical assistance and sometimes funding from the state or federal agencies. For example, the Huron River Watershed Council in Michigan helped to develop a TMDL to address phosphorus problems in the Huron River.

The EPA has a legal responsibility to ensure the development of enforceable TMDLs, and the agency fulfills that responsibility by reviewing and issuing approval or disapproval of all TMDLs. The EPA has developed many TMDLs itself in response to court orders, requests from the state or inadequate state attempts.

Implementation and monitoring plans in TMDLs

TMDL implementation plans are varied and difficult to enforce. Some states have stepped up to the plate by adopting regulations requiring implementation plans, and others have developed implementation guidance. At the very least, because TMDL-required changes to NPDES permits must be made by the permit authority, the TMDL should make reference to the timing and nature of those adjustments. Even in states where implementation plans are required, such as Virginia, citizen review and pressure are still needed to ensure the plans have some value.

Monitoring plans are necessary to identify the measurements of success in the watershed and to assign responsibilities for tracking progress. If your state does not include a monitoring plan with the draft TMDL, ask how assigned pollutant allocations will be evaluated and overall improvement will be measured. Point out that until the condition of the water body improves, no additional sources can be permitted.

Implementation of TMDLs

After a TMDL is developed, implementation must begin. First steps include reducing permitted discharges and securing better control of other sources of pollution through whatever means are available. These “means” usually include a combination of best management practices (education and voluntary measures), financial assistance or cost sharing programs, and regulations. Funding programs are increasingly focused on TMDL implementation. For example, many states only fund Section 319 nonpoint source control projects in impaired watersheds.

Some state agencies require monitoring to evaluate the success of TMDL implementation. Instream monitoring can be required when NPDES permits are revised, otherwise it is likely to fall on the agency’s shoulders. If monitoring continues to show water quality problems after implementation, the agency must go back and fine-tune its TMDL. Although the national regulations do not explicitly require implementation, monitoring or revisions, without these efforts, the TMDL remains simply a paper exercise.

Current EPA policy allows removal of waters from the 303(d) list once the TMDL is developed. As discussed in Lesson 3: Identifying Impaired Waters, there is much debate about whether this is appropriate or legal, and whether water bodies should remain on the list until water quality standards have been met.