Duration: 10/01/2008 to 09/30/2013

Administrative Advisor(s):

NIFA Reps:

Non-Technical Summary

Statement of Issues and Justification

The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the cornerstone of surface water quality protection in the United States. (The Act does not deal directly with ground water or water quantity issues.) The statute employs a variety of regulatory and nonregulatory tools to sharply reduce direct pollutant discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff. These tools are employed to achieve the broader goal of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters so that they can support "the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water."

For many years following the passage of CWA in 1972, EPA, states, and Indian tribes focused mainly on the chemical aspects of the "integrity" goal. During the last decade, however, more attention has been given to physical and biological integrity. Also, in the early decades of the Act's implementation, efforts focused on regulating discharges from traditional "point source" facilities, such as municipal sewage plants and industrial facilities, with little attention paid to runoff from streets, construction sites, farms, and other "wet-weather" sources.

Starting in the late 1980s, efforts to address polluted runoff have increased significantly. For "nonpoint" runoff, voluntary programs, including cost-sharing with landowners have been used as the key tools. For "wet weather point sources" like urban storm sewer systems and construction sites, a regulatory approach is being employed.

Evolution of CWA programs over the last decade has also included something of a shift from a program-by-program, source-by-source, and pollutant-by-pollutant approach to more holistic watershed-based strategies. Under the watershed approach equal emphasis is placed on protecting healthy waters and restoring impaired ones. A full array of issues are addressed, not just those subject to CWA regulatory authority. Involvement of stakeholder groups in the development and implementation of strategies for achieving and maintaining state water quality and other environmental goals is another hallmark of this approach (EPA, 2003).

The CWA Section 303(d) fact sheet (EPA, 2006) showed a total number of impaired waters reported as 38,698. The leading causes of these impairment were pathogens (13.37%), mercury (13.30%), sediment (10.61%), metals (other than mercury 9.92%), nutrients (8.77%), oxygen depletion (7.01%), pH (5.41%), biological integrity (4.35%), and temperature (4.31%), (EPA, 2006). Because of the immensity of the stream miles, lakes and estuaries involved and the jurisdictional differences within the impaired watersheds, tools are needed to better understand the causes and potential processes that can be used to restore and protect these water bodies. Combining remote sensing, monitoring, geographical information systems, and numerical simulation has been shown to be an effective and economic solution to these issues (R. Muñoz-Carpena et al., 2006).

What is a Total Maximum Daily Load (KDHE, 2008)? Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) are quantitative objectives and strategies needed to achieve water quality standards. The water quality standards constitute the goals of water quality adequate to fully support designated uses of streams, lakes, and wetlands. The process of developing TMDLs determines:

1. The pollutants causing water quality impairments,

2. The degree of deviation away from applicable water quality standards,

3. The levels of pollution reduction or pollutant loading needed to attain achievement of water quality standards,

4. Corrective actions, including load allocations, to be implemented among point and nonpoint sources in the watershed affecting the water quality limited water body,

5. The monitoring and evaluation strategies needed to assess the impact of corrective actions in achieving TMDLs and water quality standards, and

6. Provisions for future revision of TMDLs based on those evaluations.

Because of committee members expertise in agriculture, agricultural economics, water quality monitoring and modeling, agricultural pollution control, and the TMDL planning process, we are in a unique position to evaluate tools being used for TMDL development to insure that they are based on sound science and are used in a sound manner. Similarly, there is a need to develop new tools that are based on the best science available to insure that required water quality improvements are obtained with minimum hardship to the American agricultural community and taxpayers. Many of this projects members are involved with the USDA CSREES National Water Program in their region or have other USDA or EPA funded grants that will help enhance this project. The U. S. Geological Survey, in a recent landmark study of the Mississippi basin, demonstrated that that certain watershed areas (e.g., headwater streams, wetlands, riparian zones and reservoirs) function as sinks and retain or remove contaminants before they reach a receiving water body  markedly reducing the delivery of agricultural and rural sources (Alexander et al., 2008). Decision makers and landowners need tools that can target best management practices (BMPs); e.g., intensive source controls or stream reach ecosystem restoration) to sub-watersheds that lack sinks. In watersheds with important sinks, tools are required that provide guidance to protect or restore critical areas. Most States have some form of a nonpoint source management plan that discusses pollution reduction policies for that State to meet TMDL requirements. This project will develop tools that will guide the use of these policies such that stakeholders can understand what practices are available and why they should implement practices to reduce nonpoint pollution sources.

This work will require a regional/multi-regional effort because of the national scope of the TMDL program and because differences in hydrology and pollutant sources across the country require a variety of TMDL development approaches. In addition, an interdisciplinary team of university scientists, agency personnel, and private sector representatives is required because of the complex water quality, economic, and social issues that must be addressed during TMDL development.

Related, Current and Previous Work

Objectives

1. Develop, improve and evaluate process based models and geospatial tools for watershed based planning and management.
   
2. Develop tools (standards, framework, or protocol) to link the physical modeling with the economic aspects of watershed planning and management.
   
3. Develop tools with social scientists and other project partners to help accelerate implementation of watershed planning and management through behavior change.
   
4. Facilitate usability of watershed management planning models.
   

Methods

Objective 1: Develop, improve and evaluate process based models and other approaches for watershed based planning and management. The goal of this objective is to improve the ability of models to assess the impact of agricultural practices on in-stream water quality. Needs for specific data, parameters and criteria, and computer-compatible data formats will be mutually developed. As the result of this objective, model evaluation and development and data collection responsibilities for the participating states/locations will be established. Results will be shared as the research progresses. These activities will be summarized with all project participants at the annual technical committee meeting. Task 1. Hold regional forums to assess needs of local stakeholder groups in understanding the TMDL process and our ability to furnish information that they can understand. Task 2. Hold forums for model users to share their experiences and facilitate the use of these models on regional scales. Task 3. Critical reviews of existing models in relation to the scale of the TMDL impairment and the regional differences in climate, crops grown, field practices used to grow these crops and the attitudes of the farmer and ranchers relating to the models inputs and outputs for their region. Task 4. Review, evaluate and improve how the models simulate Best Management Practices (BMPs). Task 5. Develop models and approaches that generate specific locations for BMP implementation in a watershed that meet environmental targets at the least cost. This task will include the development of ranking systems that relate the risk of pollutant delivery from source areas to the sink capacity of watersheds. Task 6. Develop relationships between BMP efficiencies and the economics of BMP implementation and maintenance. Task 7. Conduct a literature review of BMP effectiveness and models ability to simulate that effectiveness. Task 8. Expand existing models to handle the fate and transport of emerging contaminants. Task 9. Identify where the uncertainty exists in current models. Task 10. Identify which uncertainties are important to address the functionality of models and in improving their results. Task 11. Improving the understanding of model parameter and data uncertainty and incorporate this understanding in model predictions. Objective 2: Develop tools (standards, framework, or protocol) to link the physical modeling with the economic aspects of watershed planning and management. Controlling water pollution can be achieved by several alternative processes. Economics has an important, if not vital, role to play in identifying policy strategies that can enhance water quality at least cost to landowners and taxpayers. An economic framework can coordinate policy formulation among different levels of government and help to unify policies across regions. Economics also helps determine the optimal level of water quality protection that balances publics desire for improved water quality and the publics willingness to pay for improved water quality. Society does not benefit from overly stringent or costly water quality goals. Measuring the benefits of water quality protection in economic terms is difficult, since many benefits occur outside the easily observable market conditions. Even where water quality impacts on markets are observed, it can be difficult to ascertain just how water pollution affects the ability of a resource to provide economic goods and services. Nevertheless, information on costs and benefits is essential to developing socially optimal water quality protection policies (Ribaudo et al., 1999). The ultimate goal of this objective is to convey societal costs (benefits, costs, and equity) associated with current TMDL Programs (development and implementation), and societal costs associated with recommended improvements to the overall TMDL Program. Current TMDL development models are used to assess the impact of agricultural practices on in-stream physical, chemical, and to a limited extent, biological water quality. However, data limitations are reducing the efficacy of such tools. In fact, data limitations are generating significant additional costs to water quality management efforts by misdirecting resources to ineffective management alternatives. Task 1: Evaluate the costs, benefits, risks, and uncertainty associated with TMDL development modeling applications described under Objective 1. Task 2: Develop and evaluate alternative TMDL Implementation Plans for selected watersheds that involves developing crop budgets for the various eco-regions and regional bmp used in those regions. Task 3: Evaluate farm level economics of water quality protection to include simulated yield data for different crop rotations, bmp applied and the economic simulated water quality data. Task 4: Quantify ecosystem values for selected watersheds. Objective 3: Develop tools with social scientists and other project partners to help accelerate implementation of watershed planning and management through behavior change. Farm Attitudes and Preferences  Attitude is defined only as a predisposition to act and does not necessarily represent ones behavior. For example, some farmers may have strong conservation attitudes, but are influenced more by financial stresses. Also, lack of education or information may limit farmers in the implementation of conservation practices. A producers disposition is usually a combination of attitudes on stewardship, profit, economic orientation, and government involvement. An attitude of stewardship, or belief that farmers have a moral obligation to conserve natural resources, has a positive effect on management activities that improve water quality. However, some studies have shown that economic returns are more influential. Another positive influence on the adoption of practices that improve or protect water quality is economic orientation, which is a farmer placing a high value on being his/her own boss. Nevertheless, not all attitudes have a positive effect. Many farmers have mixed opinions toward government involvement in agriculture. The majority of farmers do not support any type of regulatory pollution controls. They also feel that government is responsible for funding agricultural practices that provide public goods (i.e. clean water). In this section of the project, social scientists will capture producer attitudes and preferences associated with environmental protection and the TMDL development and implementation process. Investigators will collaborate closely with economists assessing social equity under Objective 2. Environmental Tradeoffs  At the farm level, an economically efficient solution is defined by three conditions: 1) For each input and each site, the marginal net private benefits from the use of the input on the site equal the expected marginal external damages from the use of the input; 2) A site should be brought into production as long as profits on this site are larger than the resulting expected increase in external damage; and 3) Technologies should be adopted on each site such that the incremental impact of each technology on expected social net benefits is greater than or equal to the incremental impact on expected damages (Ribaudo et al., 1999). These three efficiency conditions represent economic tradeoffs involving farm profitability and water quality. Economists will assess the economic impact of alternative TMDL implementation approaches and policy instruments (Objective 2), on individual farms. Task 1: Identify social factors that influence the adoption and maintenance of conservation practices. Task 2: Identify producer attitudes toward conservation and environmental programs developed through simulated cropping practices and best management practices. Task 3: Identify producer understanding of science supporting the simulation of conservation and environmental practices. Objective 4: Facilitate usability of watershed management planning models. Objective 4 of the regional project will be increased knowledge concerning the appropriateness of various TMDL development tools for application in agricultural watersheds. In addition, existing TMDL development tools will be enhanced and new tools may be developed as needed. This objective will improve the utility of these models used for TMDL development in agricultural watersheds and will incorporate social and economic factors into several models that do not currently include them. Another important outcome of the objective will be improved software interfaces to aid in the use of watershed assessment and TMDL development models. This objective will employ advances in information technology (1) to allow data to be entered more easily in models and (2) to aid in the interpretation of simulated results. The objective will be accomplished with GIS and the latter using expert systems and visualization techniques. The interface software will allow the models to be friendlier to the user. Another goal of this objective is the collection of data for TMDL model evaluation and for BMP effectiveness assessment. Available data, as appropriate to the research procedures described herein, will be utilized where possible. Because of the importance of model evaluation, especially for a wide range of conditions, the accomplishment of the stated objectives is not possible without additional data collection. To optimize the usefulness of data collection efforts, these activities must be coordinated among different states. County scale geospatial data (1:5,000 to 1:24,000) that depict critical hydrologic and geomorphic attributes of watershed sinks will be coupled with refined GIS hydrologic tools to extend insights into areas with limited field data. The overall outcome of this objective will be the evaluation and development of watershed models and socio-economic analysis tools that can be used for TMDL development and implementation in agricultural watersheds. The ultimate goal of these applications is to ensure that techniques used for TMDL development and implementation in agricultural watersheds are based on the best science available and proposed TMDLs and their implementation are economically and socially feasible. The ultimate beneficiaries will be the agricultural community, land users, home owners, and other stakeholders who will be impacted by the TMDL program. All stakeholders will benefit from potential water quality improvements and landowners and taxpayers will benefit from the development of TMDL implementation plans that are more economically feasible. The immediate and direct beneficiaries of the project will be agency personnel and consultants involved in TMDL development. Since the regional project provides a vehicle to prevent duplication of activities, it essentially benefits all taxpayers by effectively utilizing limited public funds. Task 1. Improve the capacity of local decision makers and landowners to target BMPs and restoration efforts to areas with the greatest potential to affect watershed export of pollutants. Target model users and how models are used to change public policy. Provide training for model users. Develop decision support systems for models. Task 2. Develop case studies from study watersheds to illustrate the capacity of watershed tools to address various challenges and opportunities in targeting BMPs and restoration efforts.

Measurement of Progress and Results

Outputs

• Refereed journal articles, monographs, experiment station publication and other publications on the applicability of the evaluated models for TMDL development and implementation for the test watersheds and similar watershed conditions.
• Refereed journal articles and other publications on the economic and social feasibility of TMDL implementation for the test watersheds and similar watersheds.
• Refereed journal articles and other publications on methods to link physical and chemical models to in-stream ecological impairments.
• Development of improved model interfaces to facilitate creation of required model input and interpretation of model output.
• A series of workshops and a concluding conference on TMDL development and implementation in agricultural watersheds.

Outcomes or Projected Impacts

• An important outcome of the regional project will be increased knowledge concerning the appropriateness of various TMDL development tools for application in agricultural watersheds. In addition, existing TMDL development tools will be enhanced and some new tools may be developed as needed. This outcome will improve the utility of current models used for TMDL development in agricultural watersheds and will incorporate biotic, economic, and social factors into several models that do not currently include them. Another important outcome of the projects is improved software interfaces to aid in the use of watershed assessment and TMDL development models. This outcome will employ advances in information technology (1) to allow data to be entered more easily in models and (2) to aid in the interpretation of simulated results. The former outcome will be accomplished with GIS and the latter using expert systems and visualization techniques. The interface software will allow the models to be friendlier to the user. Another outcome of the project is the collection of data for TMDL model evaluation and for BMP effectiveness assessment. Available data, as appropriate to the research procedures described herein, will be utilized where possible. Because of the importance of model evaluation, especially for a wide range of conditions, the accomplishment of the stated objectives is not possible without additional data collection. The overall outcome of the project will be the evaluation and development of watershed models, economic, and social analysis tools that can be used for TMDL development and implementation in agricultural watersheds. The ultimate goal of these applications is to ensure that techniques used for TMDL development and implementation in agricultural watersheds are based on the best science available and proposed TMDLs and their implementation are economically and socially feasible. The ultimate beneficiaries will be the agricultural community, land users, home owners and other stakeholders who will be impacted by the TMDL program. All stakeholders will benefit from potential water quality improvements and landowners and taxpayers will benefit from the development of TMDL implementation plans that are more economically feasible. The immediate and direct beneficiaries of the project will be agency personnel and consultants involved in TMDL development. Since the regional project provides a vehicle to prevent duplication of activities, it essentially benefits all taxpayers by effectively utilizing limited public funds.

Milestones

(2008): First project meeting will be held at Kansas State University in Manhattan, Kansas. The purpose of this meeting will be to assign duties to committee members to be completed during the tenure of the project. This meeting will identify both economist and social scientist that might be interested in joining the committee. Plan for regional stakeholder and modeler forums will be discussed.

(2009): Present and discuss preliminary evaluations of forums and how models can best meet concerns to address issues from these forums. Identify needed improvements in models and model interfaces to simulate BMPs used to reduce contaminant loading to meet TMDLs. Evaluate information needed to evaluate the socio-economic aspects of implementing these BMPs.

(2010): Present and discuss final evaluations of current models and their ability to meet TMDL goals that are socially and economically acceptable by stakeholders. Present and discuss preliminary development and testing of new and improved models and methods for TMDL development and implementation.

(2011): Present and discuss final evaluations of tested models and evaluation tools and their ability to assess TMDL issues and solutions. Begin initial planning for a 2012 TMDL conference. Form a development committee to construct a new project.

(2012): Final project meeting will include discussion and evaluation of modeling for TMDL development, and watershed based planning, management and assessment. Present all completed TMDL development publications and final committee reports.

Projected Participation

View Appendix E: Participation

Outreach Plan

The results of this project will be disseminated through the project web page, publications of participants, annual CRIS reports, and the concluding project conference on Modeling for TMDL Development, and Watershed Based Planning, Management and Assessment.

Organization/Governance

A regional technical committee will be organized upon project approval. Operational procedures to be followed will be according to those outlined in the CSREES Manual for Cooperative Regional Research. The voting members of the regional technical committee will include one representative from each cooperating agricultural experiment station or institution appointed by the director and a representative of each cooperating USDA-ARS or other government unit. The administrative advisor and the CSREES representative will be considered nonvoting members. All voting members of the technical committee will be eligible for office. The offices of the regional technical committee will be the chair, vice-chair and secretary and will serve as the executive committee. These officers for the first year will be elected at the organizational meeting for the technical committee. In subsequent years the officers will be elected annually and may succeed themselves. The chair, in consultation with the executive committee, will appoint subcommittees to facilitate the accomplishment of the various research and administrative tasks involving the cooperating institutional representatives. Such tasks may include, but are not limited to, research planning and coordination, development of specific cooperative research procedures, assimilation and analysis of data from contributing scientists, and publication of regional bulletins. The duties of the technical committee will be to coordinate work activities related to the project. The chair, in accord with the administrative advisor, will notify the technical committee of the time and place of meetings, prepare meeting agendas and preside at meetings of the technical committee and the executive committee. The chair is responsible for preparing the annual progress report and coordinating the preparation of regional reports. The vice-chair assists the chair in all functions. The secretary records the minutes and performs other duties assigned by the technical committee or the administrative advisor. Annual meetings will be held by the technical committee for the purpose of conducting business related to the project. During each annual technical committee meeting, the subcommittees will report on their progress and identified needs to the entire committee. Considerable time will be devoted to the discussion of these reports.

Literature Cited

Alexander, R., R. A. Smith, G.E. Schwarz, E.W. Boyer, J.V. Nolan, and J. W. Brakebill. 2008. Differences in Phosphorus and Nitrogen Delivery to The Gulf of Mexico from the Mississippi River Basin. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42(3), 822830.

Kansas Department of Health and Environment. 2008. The basics of TMDLs. http://www.kdheks.gov/tmdl/basic.htm.

Muñoz-Carpena, R., G. Vellidis, A. Shirmohammadi, and W. W. Wallender. 2006. Evaluation of modeling tools for TMDL development and implementation. Trans. ASABE. 49(4):961-965.

Ribaudo, M. O., R. D. Horan, and M.E. Smith. (1999). Economics of Water Quality Protection from Nonpoint Sources: Theory and Practice. Agricultural Economic Report 782. Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service: 106 pp.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Laws & Regulations: Introduction to the Clean Water Act. http://www.epa.gov/region5/water/cwa.htm.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Total Maximum Daily Load: National Section 303(d) List Fact Sheet.http://oaspub.epa.gov/waters/national_rept.control.

Attachments

Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

AL, CT, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MI, MN, MS, MT, NJ, NY, OK, PA, PR, RI, SC, TX, VA

Non Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

Mississippi State University, University of Florida, USDA-ARS/Georgia