SAES-422 Multistate Research Activity Accomplishments Report
Sections
Status: Approved
Basic Information
- Project No. and Title: S1004 : Development and Evaluation of TMDL Planning and Assessment Tools and Processes (S273)
- Period Covered: 10/01/2002 to 12/01/2003
- Date of Report: 03/02/2004
- Annual Meeting Dates: 11/11/2003 to 11/13/2003
Participants
Wes Rosenthal (Texas A&M), Mike Hirschi (U. of Illinois), Chris Obropta (Rutgers University), Bill Painter (USEPA), U. Sunday Tim (Iowa State), Phil Barnes (Kansas State), Claire Baffaut (FAPRI Univ. of Missouri), Joe Taraba (Univ. of Kentucky), Gary Hawkins (U. of Georgia), Bethany Neilson (Utah State), Aisha Sexton (U. of Maryland), Ali Sadeghi (USDA/ARS, Beltsville), Monty Dozier (Texas A&M), Ali Saleh (TIAER/Tarleton State Univ.), Gene Yagow (Virginia Tech), Brian Benham (Virginia Tech), Jon Bartholic (Michigan State)
[Minutes]
Accomplishments
PROGRESS AND PRINCIPAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS FOR REPORTING PERIOD:
One meeting was held during the reporting period for the project for organizational purposes and to discuss and develop proposals to secure support to accomplish project objectives. The meeting was originally scheduled for September 18 ? 20, 2003 in Beltsville, Maryland. However, due to Hurricane Isabel, the meeting was rescheduled for November 11 ? 13, 2003 in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Meeting was held in conjunction with the 2003 ASAE TMDL conference.
The meeting began on Tuesday with a roundtable discussion on state-led activities related to TMDLs and modeling. Reports by states were given and are outlined, along with other state activities related to S-1004, in the individual objectives section.
Bill Painter of USEPA and Jane Frankenberger led a discussion of needs identified in EPA?s report entitled, ?The Twenty Needs Report: How Research Can Improve the TMDL Program?, and other needs of the TMDL program. The group identified major areas in the Twenty Needs Report the S-1004 could fit into. These include:
· Synthesis papers on the ?state of the science? in key areas are extremely valuable to agency personnel. Useful areas where S-1004 has great strengths include how to do uncertainty analyses (of both biophysical and economic models), estimating the uncertainty of simulations with current models. The audience for such a publication would be modelers and agency people who review models. Technical writers could be hired to put the publication in clear language. It was brought up that Limno-Tech has done something like this for the Water Environment Research Foundation. The Livestock Poultry Environmental Stewardship publication, CD-ROM, and outreach program was brought up as a comparison, since that effort received such widespread buy-in.
· Some topics where synthesis papers would be useful include the following:
o Critical conditions for TMDLs. Related to stream biology, how do we calculate critical flow?
o How do people do allocations? What decision rules? How is cost brought in?
o Experience with 3rd party TMDLs (when someone other than EPA, state, or their contractors do it.)
o Experiences with implementation. How many states have something they call implementation? What do they look like? EPA needs good examples of success stories.
o TMDL pre-emption strategies (a watershed plan is developed and the water meets standards, so no TMDL is required.)
o How are states using their monitoring to assess whether they are meeting water quality standards? How can modeling be combined with monitoring to make better decisions on impairments?
Needs particularly relevant to our research committee are:
Improve modeling [includes model support, training, and others]
o Improve uncertainty analysis and statistical techniques for TMDLs.
o Improve the science base concerning all stressors (pollutants and pollution). [Note that pollution includes habitat degradation, flow alteration, channelization, and loss of riparian zone. Specifically, drainage ditch dredging is a concern in Indiana and Illinois. Can we improve research, to better restore and protect those waters?]
o Improve guidance for allocation development and methods to translate allocations into implementable control actions. Improve information on BMP, restoration or other management practice effectiveness, and the related processes of system recovery. [This is the great need that ARS is addressing through the Conservation Effects Assessment Program, CEAP. More research is needed.]
o Make monitoring more program-relevant and results-relevant. [There are many research needs around monitoring. Making the state strategy more useful for modeling, improved methods, thinking about how we can use monitoring of one stream for other decisions.
Nutrient criteria: The EPA-developed proposed criteria are ?water under the bridge? at this point, therefore, it would not be useful to continue to discuss them. Researchers should instead get involved at the regional level and particularly at the state level in developing criteria in their individual state. Note that criteria can be different for different parts of the state. Economic impact cannot be used in setting criteria. Economics can only go into the use designation. (Nutrient criteria are set for the aquatic life use, so in order not to meet them, you?d need to not have an aquatic life designated use.) Many questions followed about nutrient standards. Participants were directed to Bill Painter?s Clean Water Act Training, http://www.epa.gov/watertrain/cwa and ?The Clean Water Act: An Owner?s Manual?, available at http://www.rivernetwork.org for more information.
To date, one regionally-based proposal has been submitted for funding to the USDA-CSREES NRI program. The proposal ?Assessment of TMDL Models? is designed to critically evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of water quality and economic models commonly used for TMDL development in agricultural watersheds. The proposed work will provide environmental policy makers and program analysts with information needed to select the most appropriate TMDL model for a particular TMDL application. The project considers the ability of models to simulate specific pollutants and how water quality and economic models can be coupled and used to evaluate economic and social impacts of alternative TMDL implementation scenarios and policies. Proposal PIs include S1004 economists and engineers from Alabama A&M, Tarleton State University (Texas), Texas A&M, the Universities of Maryland and Minnesota, and Virginia Tech.
One meeting was held during the reporting period for the project for organizational purposes and to discuss and develop proposals to secure support to accomplish project objectives. The meeting was originally scheduled for September 18 ? 20, 2003 in Beltsville, Maryland. However, due to Hurricane Isabel, the meeting was rescheduled for November 11 ? 13, 2003 in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Meeting was held in conjunction with the 2003 ASAE TMDL conference.
The meeting began on Tuesday with a roundtable discussion on state-led activities related to TMDLs and modeling. Reports by states were given and are outlined, along with other state activities related to S-1004, in the individual objectives section.
Bill Painter of USEPA and Jane Frankenberger led a discussion of needs identified in EPA?s report entitled, ?The Twenty Needs Report: How Research Can Improve the TMDL Program?, and other needs of the TMDL program. The group identified major areas in the Twenty Needs Report the S-1004 could fit into. These include:
· Synthesis papers on the ?state of the science? in key areas are extremely valuable to agency personnel. Useful areas where S-1004 has great strengths include how to do uncertainty analyses (of both biophysical and economic models), estimating the uncertainty of simulations with current models. The audience for such a publication would be modelers and agency people who review models. Technical writers could be hired to put the publication in clear language. It was brought up that Limno-Tech has done something like this for the Water Environment Research Foundation. The Livestock Poultry Environmental Stewardship publication, CD-ROM, and outreach program was brought up as a comparison, since that effort received such widespread buy-in.
· Some topics where synthesis papers would be useful include the following:
o Critical conditions for TMDLs. Related to stream biology, how do we calculate critical flow?
o How do people do allocations? What decision rules? How is cost brought in?
o Experience with 3rd party TMDLs (when someone other than EPA, state, or their contractors do it.)
o Experiences with implementation. How many states have something they call implementation? What do they look like? EPA needs good examples of success stories.
o TMDL pre-emption strategies (a watershed plan is developed and the water meets standards, so no TMDL is required.)
o How are states using their monitoring to assess whether they are meeting water quality standards? How can modeling be combined with monitoring to make better decisions on impairments?
Needs particularly relevant to our research committee are:
Improve modeling [includes model support, training, and others]
o Improve uncertainty analysis and statistical techniques for TMDLs.
o Improve the science base concerning all stressors (pollutants and pollution). [Note that pollution includes habitat degradation, flow alteration, channelization, and loss of riparian zone. Specifically, drainage ditch dredging is a concern in Indiana and Illinois. Can we improve research, to better restore and protect those waters?]
o Improve guidance for allocation development and methods to translate allocations into implementable control actions. Improve information on BMP, restoration or other management practice effectiveness, and the related processes of system recovery. [This is the great need that ARS is addressing through the Conservation Effects Assessment Program, CEAP. More research is needed.]
o Make monitoring more program-relevant and results-relevant. [There are many research needs around monitoring. Making the state strategy more useful for modeling, improved methods, thinking about how we can use monitoring of one stream for other decisions.
Nutrient criteria: The EPA-developed proposed criteria are ?water under the bridge? at this point, therefore, it would not be useful to continue to discuss them. Researchers should instead get involved at the regional level and particularly at the state level in developing criteria in their individual state. Note that criteria can be different for different parts of the state. Economic impact cannot be used in setting criteria. Economics can only go into the use designation. (Nutrient criteria are set for the aquatic life use, so in order not to meet them, you?d need to not have an aquatic life designated use.) Many questions followed about nutrient standards. Participants were directed to Bill Painter?s Clean Water Act Training, http://www.epa.gov/watertrain/cwa and ?The Clean Water Act: An Owner?s Manual?, available at http://www.rivernetwork.org for more information.
To date, one regionally-based proposal has been submitted for funding to the USDA-CSREES NRI program. The proposal ?Assessment of TMDL Models? is designed to critically evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of water quality and economic models commonly used for TMDL development in agricultural watersheds. The proposed work will provide environmental policy makers and program analysts with information needed to select the most appropriate TMDL model for a particular TMDL application. The project considers the ability of models to simulate specific pollutants and how water quality and economic models can be coupled and used to evaluate economic and social impacts of alternative TMDL implementation scenarios and policies. Proposal PIs include S1004 economists and engineers from Alabama A&M, Tarleton State University (Texas), Texas A&M, the Universities of Maryland and Minnesota, and Virginia Tech.
Impacts
- This project is increasing knowledge concerning the appropriateness of various TMDL development tools for application in agricultural watersheds
- The utility of current models used for TMDL development in agricultural watersheds is being improved.
- Biotic and economic factors are being incorporated into several models that do not currently include them.
- Stakeholders will continue to benefit from water quality improvements and landowners and taxpayers will benefit from the development of TMDL implementation plans that are more economically feasible.
Publications
PROCEEDINGS AND PUBLISHED PAPERS/PRESENTATIONS
Benham, Brian, Kevin Brannan, Theo Dillaha, Saied Mostaghimi, and Gene Yagow. 2002. TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Loads) ? Terms and Definitions. ABC?s of TMDLs Series. Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication No. 442-550. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg. 8 p.
Brannan et al., 2003. TMDL Case Studies. In: TMDL: Approaches and Challenges. PennWell Corp.
Wagner, R.C., T. Dillaha, E. Yagow, S. Mostaghimi, B. Benham, K. Brannan, J. Wynn, R. Zeckoski. 2003. Sensitivity of the Reference Watershed Approach in Benthic TMDLs. In: Proc. of the Second Conference on Watershed Management to Meet Emerging TMDL Environmental Regulations. ASAE, St. Joseph, Mich.
Burcher, C.L. and C.D. Heatwole. 2003. Spatially explicit watershed ?zone of influence? based on runoff travel time hydrologic modeling using GIS. Presented at the North American Benthological Society Annual Meeting, May 2003, Athens Georgia.
Burgholzer, R. and C.D. Heatwole. 2003. Map-based Modeling of Upland Hydrology in a Vector GIS. Presented at the Virginia GIS and Remote Sensing Research Symposium, Blacksburg, Mar. 28,
2003. Virginia Tech Office of GIS, Blacksburg, Va.
Heatwole, C.D. and M. Caiado. 2002. Limitations of GIS elevation data for watershed modeling. Presented at the Virginia Water Research Symposium 2002, Nov 6-7, 2002, Richmond. Va. Water Resources Research Center.
Neilson, B.T., D.P. Ames, D.K. Stevens. March 2002. Application of Bayesian Decision Networks to Total Maximum Daily Load Analysis. ASAE Watershed Management to Meet Emerging TMDL Environmental Regulations Conference Proceedings. Fort Worth, TX.
Mishra, A., A. Sachan, and C.D. Heatwole. 2003. Analysis and Comparison of Various Methods to Determine Channel Slope in a DEM. Presented at the Virginia GIS and Remote Sensing Research Symposium, Blacksburg, Mar. 28, 2003. Virginia Tech Office of GIS, Blacksburg.
University.
Neilson, B.T., J.S. Horsburgh, D.K. Stevens, M.R. Matassa, and J.N. Brogdon. November 2003. EPRI?s Watershed Analysis Risk Management Framework (WARMF) vs. USEPA?s Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources (BASINS). ASAE Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Environmental Regulations II Conference Proceedings. Albuquerque, NM.
Stevens, D.K., J.S. Horsburgh, B.T. Neilson, and B. Lunt. November 2002. GIS-based Watershed Data Viewer and Water Quality Data Analyst. WEF National TMDL Science and Policy 2002 Specialty Conference Proceedings. Phoenix, AZ.
Virginia TMDL Program, Water and the Future of Kansas: The Challenge of Abundant Clean Water Conference, Manhattan, KS, March 10-12, 2003 (presentation)
Yagow, G., S. Mostaghimi, T. Dillaha, K. Brannan, J. Wynn, R. Zeckoski, and B. Benham. 2003. Linville Creek TMDL for a Benthic Impairment. In: Proc. of the Second Conference on Watershed Management to Meet Emerging TMDL Environmental Regulations. ASAE, St. Joseph, Mich.
Zeckoski, R., S. Mostaghimi, K. Brannan, B. Benham, T. Dillaha, C. Heatwole, S. Shah, R. Wagner, M. L. Wolfe, J. Wynn, and G. Yagow. 2003. A program for generating fecal coliform inputs to HSPF. In: Proc. 2nd Conference on Watershed Management to Meet Emerging TMDL Environmental Regulations. Albuquerque, NM. ASAE, St. Joseph, Mich.
JOURNAL ARTICLES
Ames, D.P., B.T. Neilson, D.K. Stevens, U.L. Lall. 2002. ?Using Bayesian networks to model watershed management decisions: an East Canyon Creek case study.? Hydroinformatics. Accepted for publication, November, 2002.
Neilson, B.T., S.C. Chapra. Jan. 2003. ?Integration of Water Quality Monitoring and Modeling for TMDL Development.? Water Resources Impact. 5(1), 9-11.
Neilson, B.T., D.K. Stevens. 2002. ?Issues Related to the Success of the TMDL Program.? Water Resources Update. 122:55-61.
Rosa, J. A., A. G. Smajstrla, K. L. Campbell and S. J. Locascio. 2002. Evaluation of a computer model to simulate water table response to subirrigation. Brasilian Journal of Agricultural Research 37(12):1743-1750.
Rosa, J. A., A. G. Smajstrla and K. L. Campbell. 2002. Development and testing of a computer model to simulate water table response to subirrigation. Irriga, Botucatu 7(2):64-75.
THESES AND DISSERTATIONS AND GRADUATE WORK
Habersack, Matt; Virginia Tech, Ph.D (T. A. Dillaha): Research Problem: Characterization wildlife bacterial loadings to streams in Southwestern Virginia. The goal of this research is to model and predict the loadings and fate of fecal coliform (FC) and Escherichia coli (EC) bacteria from raccoons (Procyon lotor), muskrats(Ondatra zibethicus), and beavers(Castor canadensis) in streams in Southwest Virginia for TMDL development purposes. This will be accomplished by:
1. Quantifying fecal production rates and spatial distribution of fecal deposits
2. FC and EC concentrations of scat
3. In-situ die-off rates for bacteria isolates originating from the three species investigated
Hendricks, G. S. 2003. Performance evaluation of two hydrologic/water quality models on beef pastures at Buck Island Ranch. Masters Thesis. Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department, University of Florida, Gainesville. 124 p.
Henry, Leigh-Anne; MS, Virginia Tech (T.A. Dillaha): Research Question: How do fecal indicator bacteria partition between sediment-attached and free phases. Research objectives
1. Investigate the accuracy and reliability of different methods used to differentiate between free and soil-adsorbed bacteria.
a. Identify candidate methods.
b. Evaluate the accuracy and precision of identified methods using bacterial samples of known composition to determine each of the tests? accuracy and repeatability.
c. Select the best methods for different bacteria and sample matrices.
2. Use the selected methods to develop isotherm equations describing the partitioning between free and soil-attached bacteria for E. coli bacteria.
3. Determine the applicability of these isotherm equations using runoff samples obtained from a rainfall simulator experiment.
Wagner, Rachel; MS, Virginia Tech (T. A. Dillaha): Research Question: How do the different methods of developing and implementing benthic TMDLs differ in terms of the stressor reductions required to eliminate the benthic impairment? Methods being investigated include:
1. Alternative reference watersheds with the GWLF model (Stroubles Creek TMDL).
2. Regression model approach without reference watershed.
3. Reference watershed with different water quality models (SWAT and GWLF).
4. Reference watershed approach using SWAT and GWLF with three different reference watersheds to investigate the sensitivity of the method to reference watershed selection.
5. Quantify the land use/watershed changes required for TMDL implementation using GWLF and SWAT.
BOOK CHAPTERS/SECTIONS
Campbell, K. L. 2003. Everglades. In Stewart, B. A. and T. A. Howell (eds.). Encyclopedia of Water Science. Marcel Dekker, Inc.: New York, NY. pp. 275-277.
Neilson, B.T. and R. Kinerson. 2003. ?The Role of Models? and portion of ?Tools for Developing and Implementing Watershed Plans and TMDLs.? Jarrell, W.M. Water Quality Monitoring for Watershed Planning and TMDLs. YSI Incorporated.
Neilson, B.T., D.K. Stevens, J.S. Horsburgh. 2003. ?TMDL Development Process?, TMDL Process and Implementation, In Review.
OTHER PUBLICATIONS
Capece, J. C., K. L. Campbell, D. A. Graetz, K. M Portier, P. J. Bohlen, M. Siddo, M. Fidler and G. S. Hendricks. 2003. Optimization of best management practices for beef cattle ranching in the Lake Okeechobee basin ? Part 2. Project No. WM796 Final Report to Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department, University of Florida. Gainesville, FL. 264 p.
Neilson, B.T., J.S. Horsburgh, D.K. Stevens, M.R. Matassa, J.N. Brogdon, and A. Spackman. December 2003. Comparison of Complex Watershed Models? Predictive Capabilities: EPRI?s Watershed Analysis Risk Management Framework (WARMF) vs. USEPA?s Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources (BASINS). Final Project Report. Utah State
Benham, Brian, Kevin Brannan, Theo Dillaha, Saied Mostaghimi, and Gene Yagow. 2002. TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Loads) ? Terms and Definitions. ABC?s of TMDLs Series. Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication No. 442-550. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg. 8 p.
Brannan et al., 2003. TMDL Case Studies. In: TMDL: Approaches and Challenges. PennWell Corp.
Wagner, R.C., T. Dillaha, E. Yagow, S. Mostaghimi, B. Benham, K. Brannan, J. Wynn, R. Zeckoski. 2003. Sensitivity of the Reference Watershed Approach in Benthic TMDLs. In: Proc. of the Second Conference on Watershed Management to Meet Emerging TMDL Environmental Regulations. ASAE, St. Joseph, Mich.
Burcher, C.L. and C.D. Heatwole. 2003. Spatially explicit watershed ?zone of influence? based on runoff travel time hydrologic modeling using GIS. Presented at the North American Benthological Society Annual Meeting, May 2003, Athens Georgia.
Burgholzer, R. and C.D. Heatwole. 2003. Map-based Modeling of Upland Hydrology in a Vector GIS. Presented at the Virginia GIS and Remote Sensing Research Symposium, Blacksburg, Mar. 28,
2003. Virginia Tech Office of GIS, Blacksburg, Va.
Heatwole, C.D. and M. Caiado. 2002. Limitations of GIS elevation data for watershed modeling. Presented at the Virginia Water Research Symposium 2002, Nov 6-7, 2002, Richmond. Va. Water Resources Research Center.
Neilson, B.T., D.P. Ames, D.K. Stevens. March 2002. Application of Bayesian Decision Networks to Total Maximum Daily Load Analysis. ASAE Watershed Management to Meet Emerging TMDL Environmental Regulations Conference Proceedings. Fort Worth, TX.
Mishra, A., A. Sachan, and C.D. Heatwole. 2003. Analysis and Comparison of Various Methods to Determine Channel Slope in a DEM. Presented at the Virginia GIS and Remote Sensing Research Symposium, Blacksburg, Mar. 28, 2003. Virginia Tech Office of GIS, Blacksburg.
University.
Neilson, B.T., J.S. Horsburgh, D.K. Stevens, M.R. Matassa, and J.N. Brogdon. November 2003. EPRI?s Watershed Analysis Risk Management Framework (WARMF) vs. USEPA?s Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources (BASINS). ASAE Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Environmental Regulations II Conference Proceedings. Albuquerque, NM.
Stevens, D.K., J.S. Horsburgh, B.T. Neilson, and B. Lunt. November 2002. GIS-based Watershed Data Viewer and Water Quality Data Analyst. WEF National TMDL Science and Policy 2002 Specialty Conference Proceedings. Phoenix, AZ.
Virginia TMDL Program, Water and the Future of Kansas: The Challenge of Abundant Clean Water Conference, Manhattan, KS, March 10-12, 2003 (presentation)
Yagow, G., S. Mostaghimi, T. Dillaha, K. Brannan, J. Wynn, R. Zeckoski, and B. Benham. 2003. Linville Creek TMDL for a Benthic Impairment. In: Proc. of the Second Conference on Watershed Management to Meet Emerging TMDL Environmental Regulations. ASAE, St. Joseph, Mich.
Zeckoski, R., S. Mostaghimi, K. Brannan, B. Benham, T. Dillaha, C. Heatwole, S. Shah, R. Wagner, M. L. Wolfe, J. Wynn, and G. Yagow. 2003. A program for generating fecal coliform inputs to HSPF. In: Proc. 2nd Conference on Watershed Management to Meet Emerging TMDL Environmental Regulations. Albuquerque, NM. ASAE, St. Joseph, Mich.
JOURNAL ARTICLES
Ames, D.P., B.T. Neilson, D.K. Stevens, U.L. Lall. 2002. ?Using Bayesian networks to model watershed management decisions: an East Canyon Creek case study.? Hydroinformatics. Accepted for publication, November, 2002.
Neilson, B.T., S.C. Chapra. Jan. 2003. ?Integration of Water Quality Monitoring and Modeling for TMDL Development.? Water Resources Impact. 5(1), 9-11.
Neilson, B.T., D.K. Stevens. 2002. ?Issues Related to the Success of the TMDL Program.? Water Resources Update. 122:55-61.
Rosa, J. A., A. G. Smajstrla, K. L. Campbell and S. J. Locascio. 2002. Evaluation of a computer model to simulate water table response to subirrigation. Brasilian Journal of Agricultural Research 37(12):1743-1750.
Rosa, J. A., A. G. Smajstrla and K. L. Campbell. 2002. Development and testing of a computer model to simulate water table response to subirrigation. Irriga, Botucatu 7(2):64-75.
THESES AND DISSERTATIONS AND GRADUATE WORK
Habersack, Matt; Virginia Tech, Ph.D (T. A. Dillaha): Research Problem: Characterization wildlife bacterial loadings to streams in Southwestern Virginia. The goal of this research is to model and predict the loadings and fate of fecal coliform (FC) and Escherichia coli (EC) bacteria from raccoons (Procyon lotor), muskrats(Ondatra zibethicus), and beavers(Castor canadensis) in streams in Southwest Virginia for TMDL development purposes. This will be accomplished by:
1. Quantifying fecal production rates and spatial distribution of fecal deposits
2. FC and EC concentrations of scat
3. In-situ die-off rates for bacteria isolates originating from the three species investigated
Hendricks, G. S. 2003. Performance evaluation of two hydrologic/water quality models on beef pastures at Buck Island Ranch. Masters Thesis. Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department, University of Florida, Gainesville. 124 p.
Henry, Leigh-Anne; MS, Virginia Tech (T.A. Dillaha): Research Question: How do fecal indicator bacteria partition between sediment-attached and free phases. Research objectives
1. Investigate the accuracy and reliability of different methods used to differentiate between free and soil-adsorbed bacteria.
a. Identify candidate methods.
b. Evaluate the accuracy and precision of identified methods using bacterial samples of known composition to determine each of the tests? accuracy and repeatability.
c. Select the best methods for different bacteria and sample matrices.
2. Use the selected methods to develop isotherm equations describing the partitioning between free and soil-attached bacteria for E. coli bacteria.
3. Determine the applicability of these isotherm equations using runoff samples obtained from a rainfall simulator experiment.
Wagner, Rachel; MS, Virginia Tech (T. A. Dillaha): Research Question: How do the different methods of developing and implementing benthic TMDLs differ in terms of the stressor reductions required to eliminate the benthic impairment? Methods being investigated include:
1. Alternative reference watersheds with the GWLF model (Stroubles Creek TMDL).
2. Regression model approach without reference watershed.
3. Reference watershed with different water quality models (SWAT and GWLF).
4. Reference watershed approach using SWAT and GWLF with three different reference watersheds to investigate the sensitivity of the method to reference watershed selection.
5. Quantify the land use/watershed changes required for TMDL implementation using GWLF and SWAT.
BOOK CHAPTERS/SECTIONS
Campbell, K. L. 2003. Everglades. In Stewart, B. A. and T. A. Howell (eds.). Encyclopedia of Water Science. Marcel Dekker, Inc.: New York, NY. pp. 275-277.
Neilson, B.T. and R. Kinerson. 2003. ?The Role of Models? and portion of ?Tools for Developing and Implementing Watershed Plans and TMDLs.? Jarrell, W.M. Water Quality Monitoring for Watershed Planning and TMDLs. YSI Incorporated.
Neilson, B.T., D.K. Stevens, J.S. Horsburgh. 2003. ?TMDL Development Process?, TMDL Process and Implementation, In Review.
OTHER PUBLICATIONS
Capece, J. C., K. L. Campbell, D. A. Graetz, K. M Portier, P. J. Bohlen, M. Siddo, M. Fidler and G. S. Hendricks. 2003. Optimization of best management practices for beef cattle ranching in the Lake Okeechobee basin ? Part 2. Project No. WM796 Final Report to Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department, University of Florida. Gainesville, FL. 264 p.
Neilson, B.T., J.S. Horsburgh, D.K. Stevens, M.R. Matassa, J.N. Brogdon, and A. Spackman. December 2003. Comparison of Complex Watershed Models? Predictive Capabilities: EPRI?s Watershed Analysis Risk Management Framework (WARMF) vs. USEPA?s Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources (BASINS). Final Project Report. Utah State