Water has been the source of life for so long and now the
water is so precious because the water we got that is freshwater is all we got
left. That water is 2.845% of all water
in the world; the other 97.155% is ocean water. Now days people take for granted the water by polluting the
water. This is the reason why we must
learn how to manage the water not only for us but aquatic life and wildlife
also.
There are
waters that are polluted not only chemically, but also by soil (sediment). That is why we need to know the basics about
how to detect chemical pollution and sediment pollution, and take control of
that watershed. On the Uintah and Ouray
Reservation there are some waters that are in need of a TMDL. TMDL (Total
Maximum Daily Load) what is it? It is a
calculation of the maximum amount of pollutant that a water body can receive
and still meet water quality standards. Under the Clean Water Act (CWA)
section 303 (d) requires states to identify waters that are not expected to
meet the national goal of “fishable,” “swim able,” and the develop TMDLs for
them, with oversight from the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). EPA’s regulations for implementing 303 (d)
are codified in the Water Quality Planning and Management Regulations at 40 CFR
parts 130, specifically at section 130.2, 130.7, and 130.10. The regulations define terms used in
sections 303 (d) and otherwise interpret and expand upon the statutory
requirements. A TMDL is the sum of the individual waste load allocations
for point sources and load allocations for nonpoint sources and natural
background (40 CFR 130.2) with a margin of steady (CWA Section 303 (d) (1)
(c)). The TMDL can be generically
described by the following equation: TMDL = LC = SWLA + SLA + MOS Where: LC=
loading capacity,· or the greatest loading a
water-body can receive without violating water quality standards; WLA= waste load allocation, or the portion of the TMDL
allocated to existing or future point sources; LA= load allocation, or the portion of the TMDL allocated
to existing or future nonpoint sources and natural background; and MOS= margin of safety, or an accounting of uncertainty
about the relationship between pollutant loads and receiving water
quality. The margin of safety can be
provided implicitly through analytical assumptions or explicitly by reserving a
portion of loading capacity. ·TMDLs can be expressed in terms of mass per time, toxicity, or other appropriate measures. On August 23, 1999, EPA published proposed changes
to the current TMDL rules at 40 CFR 130.2, 130.7, and 130.10. These changes would significantly strengthen
the Nation’s ability to achieve clean water goals by ensuring that the public
has more and better information about the health of their watershed, States
have clearer direction and greater consistency as they identify impaired waters
and set priorities, and new tools are used to make sure that TMDL
implementation occurs. EPA’s regional offices are responsible for
approving or disapproving state, territorial, or tribal section 303 (d) lists,
TMDLs and for establishing list and TMDLs in cases of disapproval. In accordance with the priority ranking,
states, territories, and authorized tribes are to establish TMDLs that will
meet water quality standards for each listed water, considering seasonal
variations and margin of safety that accounts for uncertainty. State, territories, and authorized tribes
are to submit their lists and TMDLs to EPA for approval and once EPA approves
them, they are to incorporate these items into their continuing planning
processes. If EPA disapproves a state, territorial or tribal
list and/or TMDL. EPA must (within 30
days of disapproval and allowing for public comment) establish the list and/or
TMDL. The state, territories, or tribe
is then to incorporate EPA’s action into it’s continuing planning process. For many chemicals pollutants, guidance on
developing TMDLs is readily available.
For some pollutants, however, the development TMDLs is complicated
because of the lack of adequate or proven tools or information on the fate,
transport, or impact of each pollutant within the natural system. EPA is developing TMDL protocols to provide
guidance on TMDL development. The TMDL
protocols represent a suggested approach, but not the only approach to TMDL
development. Sediment Sources and
Transport The weathering of host rock creates sediment and
delivered in stream channels through various erosional processes, including
sheet wash, gully, and rill erosion, wind, landslides, dry ravel, and human
excavation. Sediments are often
produced as a result of stream channel, bank erosion, and channel
disturbance. Movement of eroded
sediments down slope from their points of origin into stream channels and
through stream systems is influences by multiple interacting factors. Eroded sediments are often trapped on hill
slopes and stored in and along side stream channels. Sediment analysis conducted for TMDLs often account for the
influence of these sediment storage and transport mechanism on the magnitude,
timing, and location of sediment related impairment of designated used. Some settings, land management changes cause
changes in runoff even if they do not result in increased up slope
erosion. Where this occurs, channel
erosion or sediment deposition may increase (This might be appropriate to
develop sediment TMDLs to address this type of situation). Sediment Source Control Several approaches are
available to manage sediment related problems, but preventing erosion in the
first place is usually the most of effective.
A variety of management practices have been applied effectively to
prevent or reduce erosion from the source.
Extensive guidance on sediment best management practices (BMP’s) is
available from the Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS), USDA Forest
Services (USFS), the Bureau of Land management (BLM), transportation
departments, conservation districts and many state water quality and forest
management agencies. Some cases, it is
possible to reduce or prevent delivery of eroded sediments to stream by
developing or maintaining buffer strips, vegetated swells, or sediment
detention basin, some of which also provide collateral benefits in the form of
wildlife habitat, nutrient trapping, and steam shading. Sometimes sediment impacts can be managed at relatively
high cost after sediments reach water bodies of concern. Control options include channel and bank
restoration and dredging to remove sediments from some types of water bodies,
although dredging can sometimes cause more harm than benefit. Issues in Sediment Water
Quality Analysis Sediment water quality analysis is less
straightforward than analysis of many other pollutants because clean sediment
is rarely discharged intentionally to water bodies. Rather, adverse sediment discharges usually occur as a result of
changes in processes that influences erosion and the capacity of watersheds to
store sediment and transport it through the system. To evaluate potential impacts of land management activities on
designated uses, the analysis must assess the influence of land management
activities on factors such as changes in erosion processes. This assessment requires evaluation of the
extent to which existing conditions will respond to plan land management
activities. The analysis will
reconstruct past conditions, accurately describe present conditions, and
identify desired future conditions. The conditions of the water resource as it relates to erosional processes must be evaluated, and the relationship between erosion processes and impacts must be understood. Key Question TMDL Element(s) How do land management Source activities affect sediment Assessment/Allocation production? ß How is the sediment routed Sources Assessment into the stream? ß How is an increased sediment Source load routed through the
stream system? Assessment/Linkage ß How does the change in
sediment Targets/Linkage affect channel and
stability? ß How do changes in sediment
loading Targets and channel morphology
affect designated uses of concern? The general goal of sediment TMDL analysis is to protect
designated uses by characterizing existing and desired watershed condition,
evaluating the degree of impairment to the existing (and future) conditions,
and identifying land management and restoration actions needed to attain
desired conditions. Although this
guidance focuses on sediment as the water quality stressor of concern, analysts
should consider the combined effects of multiple pollutants on the designated
uses of water resources. Sediment TMDLS TMDL development is pollutant-and site-specific. Proposals provide descriptions of the main
elements of TMDLs established for sediments.
Proposals emphasize the use of rational, science-based methods and tools
for TMDL development. Available data
influences the types of methods analysts can use. Extensive monitoring data are available to establish baseline
water quality conditions, pollutant source loadings, and water body system
dynamics. If long-term monitoring data
are lacking, however the analyst will have to use a combination of monitoring,
analytical tools (including methods), and qualitative assessments to collect
information, assess system processes and responses, and make decisions. Although some aspects of TMDLs must be quantified (e.g.,
numeric targets, loading capacity, and allocations), qualitative assessments
are acceptable as long as they are supported by sound scientific justification
or result from rigorous modeling techniques.
A goal of this document is to assist analysts in using a rational TMDL
development process that incorporates the required elements of a TMDL. References and recommended reading lists are provided for
readers interested in obtaining more detailed background information. Range of Viable Sediment
TMDL Approaches Analysts should be resourceful and creative in selecting
TMDL approaches and should learn from the results of similar analytical
efforts. The degree of analysis
required for each of the components of TMDL development can range from simple,
screening-level approaches based on limited data to detailed investigations
that might take several months or even years to complete. Variety of interrelated factors affects the
degree of analysis in each of these analytical elements. The factor include the type of impairment
(e.g., violation of a numeric criterion versus designated or existing use
impairment); the physical, biological, and chemical processes occurring in the
water body and its watershed; the size of the watershed; the number of sources;
the data and resources available; and the types and cost of actions needed to
implement the TMDL. Decisions regarding the extent of the analysis must always
be made on a site-specific basis as part of a comprehensive problem-solving
approach. TMDLs are essentially a
problem-solving approach to which no “cookbook” approach can be applied. Not only will analyses for different TMDLs
studies vary in complexity, but the degree of complexity in the methods used
within individual TMDLs might also vary substantially. Screening-levels approaches afford cost and
time saving, can be applied by a wide range of personnel, and are generally
easier to understand than more detailed analyses. The trade-offs associated with using simple approaches
include a potential decrease in predictive accuracy and often an inability to
make predictions at fine geographic and time scales (e.g., watershed-scale
source predictions versus parcel-by-parcel predictions, and annual estimates
versus seasonal estimates). When using
simple approaches, these two shortcomings should be considered when determining
an appropriate margin of safety. The advantages of more detailed approaches are presumably
an increase in predictive accuracy and greater spatial and temporal
resolution. These advantages can
translate into greater stakeholder “buy-in” and smaller margins of safety,
which usually reduce source management costs.
Detailed approaches might be necessary when the screening-level
approaches have been tried and have proven ineffective or when it is especially
important to “get it right the first time” (e.g., where protection of aquatic
life habitat is a TMDL issue). In
addition, more detailed approaches might be warranted when there is significant
uncertainty regarding whether sediment discharges are attributable to human or
to natural sources and the anticipated cost of controls is especially
high. However, more detailed approaches
are likely to cost more, require more data and take more time to complete. Using Sediment Loads
Versus Alternative Approaches for Sediment TMDLs The traditional approach to TMDL formulation is to identify
the total capacity of a water body for loading of a specific pollutant while
meeting water quality standards. This
loading capacity is not to be exceeded by the sum of pollutant loads allocated
to individual point sources, nonpoint loads allocated to individual point
source, nonpoint sources, and natural background. Therefore, TMDLs have often been expressed in terms of maximum
allowable mass load per unit of time.
However, alternative approaches to sediment TMDL analysis might also be
appropriate. In many cases, it is
difficult or impossible to relate sediment mass loading levels to designated or
existing use impacts or to source contributions. These analytical connections can be difficult to draw for several
reasons, including the following: Sediment yields vary
radically at different spatial and temporal scales, not only within a watershed, but
across the country, making it difficult to derive meaning-ful “average”
sediment conditions. Sediments are a natural part
of all water body environments, and it can be difficult to determine whether too
much or too little mass loading is expected to occur in the future and how
sediment loads compare to natural or background conditions. A significant level of
uncertainty is associated with sediment delivery, storage, and transport estimates. Fortunately, it is acceptable for TMDLs to be expressed
through appropriate measures other than mass loads per time (40 CFR
130.2). It is important to note, however,
that some of the limitations associated with mass load approaches, such as high
temporal variability, are also present in the alternative approaches of these
limitations should be assessed and acknowledged. The alternative measures for sediment TMDLs can take several
forms, including the following: Expression of numeric
targets in terms of substrate or channel condition, aquatic Biological indicators, or
hill slope indicators such as road stream crossings with diversion potential or road
culvert sizing. The hill slope
indictors and targets should be complement in-stream indicators and targets. Expression of numeric
targets and source allocations in terms of time steps different form daily loadings and as
functions of other watershed processes such as precipitation or runoff. Expression of allocation
in terms other than loads or load reductions (e.g., specific action shown to be
adequate to result in attainment of TMDL numeric targets and water quality standards). Proposals discuss a range of pollutant load-based and
alternative measures that can be used for sediment TMDLs. In general, the load-based approach to
sediment TMDL development is recommended.
In cases where this approach is used, numeric targets can be stated in
terms that express desired environmental conditions (e.g., suspended sediment
concentration or substrate size distribution) while the TMDL itself is
expressed in mass-based units. Where
alternative approaches are used, alternative method and explain why a
conventional load-based approach is not appropriate. We talked about how to go about a TMDL should be written or
what to look for in sediment TMDLs. But
let’s look at what the sediment effects. Aquatic life and fisheries Excessive sediment deposited on stream and lake bottoms can choke spawning gravels (reducing survival and growth rate), impair fish food sources, fill in rearing pools (reducing cover from prey and thermal refugia), and reduce habitat complexity in stream channels. Excessive suspended sediments can make it more difficult for fish to find prey and at high levels can cause direct physical harm, such as clogged gills. In some waters, hydrologic modifications (e.g., dams) can scour and destruction of habitat structure. In note of this there is some endangered fish that use the Duchesne River in Utah for feed maybe also used for spawning. But the Uinta River comes in contact with the Duchesne River where endangered fish have been located in past telemetry study. So this would help out the endangered fish that use the Duchesne River.’ Drinking Water SupplySediments can cause taste and odor problems, block water supply intakes, foul treatment systems, and fill reservoirs. Although most treatment systems can remove most turbidity, very high sediment levels sometimes require that water supply intakes be shut down until turbidity clears or system maintenance (e.g., back flushing) is performed. Recreational Use High levels of sediment can impair swimming and boating by altering channel form, creating hazards due to reductions in water clarity, and adversely affecting aesthetics. Aquatic habitat impairment by sediments can also interfere with fishing. Since there is a little background about TMDLs here is a little more information about the Uintah Basin and the Uinta River. Since the Uintah and Ouray Ute Tribe Reservation have barely started their water quality this year, the information is a base line for tribe. We are going to get more information, in the near future. Uintah Basin The Uintah Basin covers 6,969,600 acres of which 73 percent is administered by the Federal Government and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The Basin has 82 active reservoirs and lakes used for water storage. 38 are below 1,000 AF in storage. With completion or the Central Utah Project, many of the large dam and reservoir sites will be developed. Federally administered land is under the jurisdiction of six agencies: the Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and Bureau of Reclamation (BR). The Division of Wildlife Resources has responsibility for managing, protecting, propagating, and conserving the state’s wildlife. The Fish and Wildlife Service has authority to conserve and protect endangered and threaten species on federal and private lands. Of course we got recreation in the Basin and the design of water access and recreation features associated with water development projects are important components of water planning and development. With that said, water quality is regulated at the state levels by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), through two agencies the Division of Drinking Water (DDW). Other agencies and organizations that regulate water in the Basin are water conservancy districts, special services districts, city water departments, mutual irrigation companies and private water companies. Towns, cities, and counties all have primary responsibility for drinking water quality control in their jurisdiction, under rules set forth by the state. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) manages all irrigation water on the reservation, both Indian and non-Indian. Water is allocated according to water rights associated with the irrigated land, and Indian water rights have first priority. Ditch riders, hired by the BIA check the water diverted to each farm. There are about 59,300 acres of irrigated Indian land. The Uintah Indian Irrigation Project (UIIP), managed by BIA, delivers water to UIIP lands owned by the tribe, individual Indians and non-Indians. The BIA holds all Indian irrigation water rights in trust. Issues imparting water quality in the Uintah Basin are increase in salt loading from irrigation, agriculture, water, and land contamination due to oil/gas drilling. Elevated levels of total phosphorus and dissolved solids in several basin streams. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Forest Service and the Utah Division of Water Quality should insure water quality monitoring in selected drainages of any pressure of effluents from oil and gas development projects. The Utah Department of Environmental Quality, through the Division of Water Quality, is responsible for water quality regulation. Quality of specific body of water is determined using a set of standards for allowable contaminants levels. The Utah Water Quality Act (UWQA) regulates discharge of pollutants. The Utah Water Quality Board (UWQB) carries out the regulations, polices and continuous planning necessary to prevent, control or abate surface and groundwater pollution. The UWQB develops and carries out Utah water quality rules under authority of Utah Code Annotated 26-11-1 through 20. They described in section 12 of the State Water Plan. The Division of Water Quality, Department of Environmental Quality, serves as staff to the UWQB. Water quality certification by the state is covered under Section 401 of the federal Water Pollution Control Act (1977). This act requires states certification on any application for a federal license or permit resulting in discharge into water and/or wetlands or the United States. These activities include, but are not limited to, the construction or operation of the discharging facilities. Any discharges must comply with applicable state water quality and standards and the applicable provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
There are some sources of information in the back of this report. But what we covered in the Sediment TMDL is very important to the river system, but also to human being because the water we got right now is all we got left. So we must learn how to manage the water and care for it.
"For us and future generations to come!"
|