{"id":79035,"date":"2024-10-17T18:28:19","date_gmt":"2024-10-17T18:28:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pdfstandards.shop\/product\/uncategorized\/asce-9780784410578-2010\/"},"modified":"2024-10-24T19:38:53","modified_gmt":"2024-10-24T19:38:53","slug":"asce-9780784410578-2010","status":"publish","type":"product","link":"https:\/\/pdfstandards.shop\/product\/publishers\/asce\/asce-9780784410578-2010\/","title":{"rendered":"ASCE 9780784410578 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
This report contains a variety of case studies on urban TMDLs that demonstrate acceptable modeling, acceptable pollutant allocations, and in some cases, acceptable implementation plans.<\/p>\n
PDF Pages<\/th>\n | PDF Title<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
6<\/td>\n | Contents <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
8<\/td>\n | Introduction <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
15<\/td>\n | Fecal Coliform TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) Development for Four Mile Run, Virginia <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
18<\/td>\n | 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background 1.1.1 Study Area Description <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
20<\/td>\n | 1.2 Impaired Water Quality Status 1.3 Goal and Objectives <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
21<\/td>\n | 2. WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION 2.1 Climate 2.2 Land Use <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
23<\/td>\n | 2.3 Water Quality Data <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
24<\/td>\n | 2.3.1 Seasonal Analysis <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
25<\/td>\n | 3. SOURCE ASSESSMENT 3.1 Nonpoint Sources 3.1.1 Bacteria Source Tracking (Genetic Fingerprinting) <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
26<\/td>\n | 3.2 Point Sources <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
27<\/td>\n | 4. MODELING APPROACH FOR FOUR MILE RUN TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD 4.1 Model Description <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
28<\/td>\n | 4.2 Model Sub-watershed Discretization and Land Use <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
29<\/td>\n | 4.3 Selection of Model Simulation Period 4.3.1 Availability of Precipitation Data <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
30<\/td>\n | 4.4 Hydrology Modeling Approach 4.5 Hydrology Calibration <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
31<\/td>\n | 4.6 Summary of Key Hydrology Model Parameters Adjusted in Calibration 4.7 Water Quality Modeling Approach – Source Representation <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
34<\/td>\n | 4.8 Existing Scenario Conditions 4.8.1 Water Quality Parameters <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
35<\/td>\n | 4.8.2 Results of the Water Quality Calibration <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
36<\/td>\n | 5. LOAD ALLOCATIONS 5.1 Background <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
37<\/td>\n | 5.2 Allocations Scenarios 5.2.1 Wasteload Allocations 5.2.2 Load Allocations <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
38<\/td>\n | 5.3 Future Growth <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
39<\/td>\n | 5.3.1 Consideration of Critical Conditions 5.4 TMDL Implementation <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
40<\/td>\n | 6. REASONABLE ASSURANCE FOR IMPLEMENTATION 6.1 Follow-Up Monitoring 6.2 Regulatory Framework <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
41<\/td>\n | 7. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 8. REFERENCES <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
45<\/td>\n | Total Maximum Daily Load for Nitrogen Compounds for the Los Angeles River and its Tributaries <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
50<\/td>\n | 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Study Area Description <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
53<\/td>\n | 1.2 Extent of Impairments <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
55<\/td>\n | 2.0 TECHNICAL MODELING APPROACH <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
56<\/td>\n | 2.1 Guiding Assumptions <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
57<\/td>\n | 2.2 Model Selection <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
63<\/td>\n | 2.3 Supplemental Monitoring <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
64<\/td>\n | 3.0 MODEL DEVELOPMENT FOR THE LOS ANGELES RIVER <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
65<\/td>\n | 3.1 Model Configuration and Application Conditions 3.1.1 Model Linkages <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
66<\/td>\n | 3.1.2 Simulation Period 3.1.3 Downstream Boundary 3.1.4 Model Setup and Inputs <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
86<\/td>\n | 3.2 Hydrodynamic Model Calibration and Validation <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
87<\/td>\n | 3.2.1 Hydrodynamic Calibration (September 10 and 11, 2000) <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
89<\/td>\n | 3.3 Water Quality Model Calibration and Validation <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
92<\/td>\n | 3.3.1 Water Quality Calibration (September 10 and 11, 2001) <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
98<\/td>\n | 3.3.2 Summary of Water Quality Calibration 4.0 DEVELOPMENT OF TMDL <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
101<\/td>\n | 5.0 ALLOCATIONS 5.1 Wasteload Allocations <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
105<\/td>\n | 5.2 Load Allocations 5.3 Critical Conditions and Seasonality <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
106<\/td>\n | 5.4 Margin of Safety 5.5 Summary of TMDL <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
107<\/td>\n | 6.0 IMPLEMENTATION 7.0 REFERENCES <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
110<\/td>\n | Nutrient Management and Seagrass Restoration in Tampa Bay, Florida: A Voluntary Program Meeting TMDL Requirements <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
113<\/td>\n | 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background 1.2. Impaired Water Quality Status <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
114<\/td>\n | 1.3. Resource Goals and Water Quality Targets <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
115<\/td>\n | 2. WATERBODY CHARACTERISTICS 2.1. Water Use Classification <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
116<\/td>\n | 3. POLLUTANT OF CONCERN <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
117<\/td>\n | 3.1. Sources <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
119<\/td>\n | 4. ANALYTICAL AND MODELING APPROACHES 4.1. Technical Basis for the Goal-setting Process <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
121<\/td>\n | 4.2. Procedures to Determine the Need for Additional Corrective Actions <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
129<\/td>\n | 5. IMPLEMENTATION 5.1. Participating Entities <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
130<\/td>\n | 5.2. Management Activities <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
131<\/td>\n | 5.3. Future Growth 6. MONITORING AND REPORTING RESULTS 6.1. Water Quality Monitoring Programs 6.2. Implementing Management Activities <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
132<\/td>\n | 6.3. Evaluating Progress toward Goals 6.4. Proposed Corrective Actions 7. PROGRESS 7.1. Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium Action Plan: 1995-2000 <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
134<\/td>\n | 7.2. Chlorophyll a Targets 7.3. Seagrass Goals <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
136<\/td>\n | 8. REFERENCES <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
139<\/td>\n | Nutrient and Siltation TMDL Development for Wissahickon Creek, Pennsylvania <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
143<\/td>\n | 1.0 INTRODUCTION <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
145<\/td>\n | 2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
146<\/td>\n | 2.1 Hydrology <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
149<\/td>\n | 2.2 Water Quality <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
156<\/td>\n | 3.0 SOURCE ASSESSMENT 3.1 Nutrient Sources <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
160<\/td>\n | 3.2 Siltation Sources <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
162<\/td>\n | 4.0 MODELING APPROACH 4.1 Nutrient Modeling Approach <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
176<\/td>\n | 4.2 Siltation Modeling Approach <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
185<\/td>\n | 5.0 TMDL DEVELOPMENT 5.1 Nutrient TMDL <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
187<\/td>\n | 5.2 Siltation TMDL <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
189<\/td>\n | 6.0 IMPLEMENTATION 6.1 Nutrient TMDL Implementation <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
193<\/td>\n | 6.2 Siltation TMDL Implementation <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
195<\/td>\n | 7.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
196<\/td>\n | 8.0 REFERENCES <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
198<\/td>\n | Index B C E F G H I L <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
199<\/td>\n | M N P <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
200<\/td>\n | S T W <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" TMDLs in the Urban Environment<\/b><\/p>\n |