1. Allen Berthold Texas Water Resources Institute

2. Review: Clean Water Act Goal of CWA is to restore and maintain water quality suitable for the “protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, wildlife and recreation in and on the water” Implemented primarily by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) CWA requires that all waterbodies exceeding a state’s water quality standards be identified Those identified are placed on the (Texas) Integrated Report for Clean Water Act Sections 305(b) and 303(d) CWA also requires that states develop an approach to address each impairment

3. Alternatives for Addressing Impairments (TMDL/TMDL I-Plan) Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) TMDL = WLA + LA + MOS WLA = Waste load Allocation = regulated sources LA = Load Allocation = non-regulated sources MOS = margin of safety Implementation Plan Developed by local stakeholders Typically a 3-5 year plan of activities Revised periodically to evaluate the process of improving water quality and adapted as necessary

4. Alternatives for Addressing Impairments (WPP) Watershed Protection Plans (WPPs) are coordinated frameworks for implementing prioritized and integrated protection and restoration strategies driven by environmental objectives Holistically address all sources of impairments to a water body Developed by the local stakeholders and meets EPA 9 Key Elements Typically a 10-15 year plan of activities Makes use of adaptive management to modify the plan according to stakeholder input and observed water quality

5. Similarities of TMDLs/TMDL I-Plans and WPPs Goal: Improve water quality in rivers, lakes and bays Define actions needed to reduce pollution and restore water quality Provides estimated loading limits Can use simplistic or complex analytical tools (e.g., water quality models) Uses existing data and can include additional data collection if necessary Developed in coordination with local and regional stakeholders Implementation of measures eligible for grant funds Implementation of nonpoint source control measures currently voluntary Law suits or changes in CWA could result in compulsory implementation

6. Differences of TMDLs/TMDL I-Plans TMDL and TMDL I-PlanWPPs Results in automatic removal from 303(d) list Can result in removal from 303(d) list though 4b process TMDL approved by State and EPA TMDL I-Plan only approved by State WPP acceptance by State and EPA (i.e., determination of consistency with nine- element guidance) Focused on singular pollutants in most cases Pollutant focus is determined by stakeholders TMDLs are set at full permitted flow allowing for more generous WLA End points and flow conditions must be consistent with EPA nine element guidelines Implementation of point source control measures currently compulsory Implementation of point source control measures currently voluntary Annual stakeholder meeting required following development to evaluate implementation progress Quarterly stakeholder meetings generally held to assess and maintain implementation efforts

7. Timeline of Planning though Implementation TMDL and TMDL I-PlanWPPs Begin forming/working with workgroups immediately Grant proposal developed/submitted and planning would begin Sept. 2013 if funded Development of Plan: 1 – 2 years Funded by State Development of Plan – ≥ 3 years Funded by EPA or other funding source Implementation Period: ~5 year plan outlined in I-Plan Implementation Period: ~10 year plan outlined in WPP Evaluate and revise every 5 years or as needed Evaluate and revise as outlined in the WPP

8. Questions/Discussion Kevin Wagner, PhD Texas Water Resources Institute klwagner@ag.tamu.edu 979-845-2649 Allen Berthold Texas Water Resources Institute taberthold@ag.tamu.edu 361-318-8780