Receiving Water Quality Models for

TMDL Development and Implementation

René A. Camacho, Ph.D., M.ASCE 1; Zhonglong Zhang, P.E., M.ASCE 2; and Xiaobo Chao, Ph.D., M.ASCE 3

Abstract: Water quality models are critical tools for the development of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) and for the evaluation of water
quality management alternatives by stakeholders and state environmental protection agencies. Currently there is a large availability of water
quality models that can be used to support TMDL studies, and the selection of a particular model requires a good understanding of the model
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by URI LIBRARIES on 12/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

limitations, capabilities, and data requirements. The ASCE/Environmental and Water Resources Institute (EWRI) TMDL Analysis and Mod-
eling Task Committee was established in part to produce guidance documentation to help modelers to identify and implement existing
modeling approaches to address some of the most important causes of water quality impairment in the United States, including eutrophi-
cation, toxic chemicals, and metals. This paper presents a review of existing mathematical models to evaluate eutrophication processes,
including carbon and nutrient cycling, phytoplankton dynamics, and dissolved oxygen availability, as well as a review of mathematical
models to simulate the fate and transport of toxic chemicals and mercury. The paper also discusses the main capabilities and limitations
of 11 widely used water quality models in the United States. Modelers can use this information to support more informed model selections
and to facilitate an effective and successful application of models in TMDL studies. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001723. © 2018
American Society of Civil Engineers.

Introduction eutrophication problems, and the fourth phase occurred between

The excess of nutrients and organic matter and the presence of toxic
chemicals and heavy metals are some of the main causes of water
quality impairment in the United States and around the world
(Table 1). The need to understand the fate and transport of these
contaminants and to implement remediation programs have pro-
moted the evolution of water quality models in the last century,
starting from the seminal models of Streeter and Phelps (1925) re-
lating organic-matter decomposition to dissolved oxygen (DO)
depletion, up to the most recent and sophisticated models capable
of simulating fate and transport of nutrients, multialgae dynamics,
sediment diagenesis, and toxic chemicals, among others (Chapra
1997; Park et al. 2008; Wool et al. 2003a). Chapra (2011) explained
the evolution of water quality models as having four major phases.
The first phase occurred approximately between 1925 and 1960
when one-dimensional (1D), analytical, and steady-state models
were developed to address DO depletion and bacteria contamina-
tion due to untreated urban waste loads. The second phase occurred
between 1960 and 1970 when, thanks to advances in digital com-
puters and numerical methods, models became more powerful and
able to simulate multidimensional systems and time-variable re-
sponses. The third phase occurred during the 1970s, when models
of nutrient cycling and algae dynamics were developed to address
1
Water Resources Engineer, Tetra Tech, Inc., 1899 Powers Ferry Rd.
SE, Suite 400, Atlanta, GA 30339 (corresponding author). Email: rene
.camachorincon@tetratech.com
2 helped engineers bring the urban-point-source problem under con-
Senior Scientist, LimnoTech, Environmental Laboratory, US Army
Engineer Research and Development Center, Davis, CA 95616. Email:
zhonglong.zhang@erdc.dren.mil
3
Senior Research Scientist, National Center for Computational Hydro-
science and Engineering, Univ. of Mississippi, Oxford, MS 38677. Email:
chao@ncche.olemiss.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 27, 2017; approved
on July 10, 2018; published online on November 21, 2018. Discussion per-
iod open until April 21, 2019; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Hydrologic Engi-
neering, © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0699.
1970 and 1990, when models of toxic chemicals and metals
emerged to address problems related to human and ecosystem
health.
Since their early development, water quality models have been
extremely important tools to understand how impaired water bodies
respond to contaminant loads and to determine their assimilative
capacity. Impaired water bodies are typically subject to contami-
nant loads from adjacent watersheds via two primary routes:
(1) point sources and (2) nonpoint sources (ASCE 2017; Chapra
2003; USEPA 1991). Point sources of contaminants have a
well-defined point of entry where contaminants reach a water body
(e.g., discharges from municipal and industrial treatment facilities).
Nonpoint sources of contaminants, on the other hand, have no
easily identified point of entry to a water body, originate from a
wide variety of sources over a watershed, and enter surface water
bodies at many locations, by many processes (e.g., atmospheric
deposition and loads from surface runoff). Non-point-source load-
ing can be significant. For example, atmospheric deposition can be
a major nonpoint source of mercury (FDEP 2013), and surface run-
off can be a primary transport mechanism for sediments, nutrients,
pesticides, toxic chemicals, and pathogens.
Contamination due to point sources was the primary concern
during most of the twentieth century and the first 30 years follow-
ing the Clean Water Act (CWA) (Martin et al. 2015). It was also the
primary focus of the DO and eutrophication models developed dur-
ing this period. The modeling advances achieved during this period
trol using technologies such as secondary treatment of effluents.
During the last decades, however, remaining water quality prob-
lems after the implementation of point-source controls have
revealed the increasing importance of nonpoint sources of pollu-
tion. Nonpoint sources are currently a major cause of water prob-
lems around the world and the reason why approximately 40% of
surveyed rivers, lakes, and estuaries of the United States do not
meet water quality standards for swimming, fishing, and other uses
(USEPA 1996). Modeling advances and controls on nonpoint

© ASCE 04018063-1 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng., 2019, 24(2): 04018063

 Table 1. Top 15 pollutants from the national summary of impaired waters and water quality responses of a particular water body. This linkage
and TMDL information as of August 22, 2017 modeling approach is currently used by federal agencies, private
Number of Amount of groups, and local governments to determine total maximum daily
Pollutant impairments total (%) load (TMDL) allocations of point and nonpoint loads of
Pathogens 9,619 13.4
contaminants.
Nutrients 7,114 9.9 Several watershed models, receiving transport models, and re-
Metals (other than mercury) 6,802 9.5 ceiving water quality models currently available can be linked to
Organic enrichment and oxygen depletion 6,554 9.1 support TMDL studies. The selection of appropriate models is,
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 6,050 8.4 however, a difficult task because it requires a good understanding of
Sediment 5,968 8.3 the mathematical approaches, data requirements, capabilities, and
Mercury 4,471 6.2 limitations of the existing models. The ASCE/Environmental and
pH, acidity, and caustic conditions 4,377 6.1 Water Resources Institute (EWRI) TMDL Analysis and Modeling
Cause unknown—impaired biota 4,172 5.8 Task Committee was established in part to review existing models
Temperature 2,929 4.1
used in TMDL studies to help water resources professionals to iden-
Turbidity 2,882 4.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by URI LIBRARIES on 12/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Salinity, total dissolved solids, 1,977 2.8

tify the best available modeling approaches and technologies to sup-
chlorides, and sulfates port a particular study. This paper presents a review of receiving
Pesticides 1,852 2.6 water quality models to address contamination due to eutrophication,
Cause unknown 1,126 1.6 toxic chemicals, and mercury, which are contaminants of primary
Algal growth 1,040 1.4 concern in the United States.
Habitat alterations 880 1.2
Total 94.5
Source: Reprinted from USEPA (2017). Transport and Water Quality

Mass-Balance Equation
Model Outputs Water quality models are derived from the principle of conservation
Subwatershed flows
of mass (mass balance) evaluated in a finite control volume (Martin
Runoff volumes and McCutcheon 1999). The mass balance computes the internal
Watershed Model Nutrient loads production, consumption, and accumulation of a constituent within
Hydrology
Sediment loads
Flows
the control volume as well as the entries and exits of mass across
Temperatures the boundaries. The generic equation to represent the fate and trans-
Non-point source loads of port of a water quality constituent is given by (Martin and
Water surface elevations
nutrients and sediments
Water depths McCutcheon 1999)
Flow velocities
Receiving Water

Transport Model Hydrodynamics
Flow discharges
δC δ δ δ δ δC
Temperature ¼ − ðU x CÞ − ðU y CÞ − ðU z CÞ þ Ex
Travel times Salinity δt δx δy δz δx δx



Residence times
δ δC δ δC
Advection/dispersion rates Concentrations and loads of þ Ey þ Ez  Sc ð1Þ
Temperature and salinity Nutrients δy δy δz δz
Dissolved Oxygen
Receiving Water Carbon
Quality Model
where C = concentration of a particular water quality constituent
Biochemistry Sediments
Phytoplankton (mg=L); t = time (days); x, y, and z = spatial dimensions of fluid
Toxic chemicals movement (m); U x , U y , and U z = longitudinal, lateral, and vertical
Metals advective velocities (m=day); Ex , Ey , and Ez = longitudinal, lateral,
and vertical diffusion coefficients (m2 =day); and Sc = all sources
Fig. 1. Linkages among watershed, transport, and water quality
and sinks of the water quality constituent (mg=L · day).
models.
The sources and sinks term (Sc ) in Eq. (1) depend on several
biochemical factors and external loadings that need to be calculated
independently for each constituent. The remaining terms for the
sources of pollution have occurred at a slower pace in the last dec- hydrodynamic advection and diffusion transport are valid for any
ades due the complexity of the processes that control the fate and water quality constituent. Eq. (1) is typically solved using a com-
transport of contaminants and the difficulty to mathematically re- bination of hydrodynamic and water quality models. Some models
present the different temporal and spatial scales at which these such as CE-QUAL-W2 or the Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code
processes occur. (EFDC) have fully integrated hydrodynamic and water quality
Existing modeling approaches to simulate contamination due to modules and therefore are able to solve Eq. (1) using a single pro-
point and nonpoint sources typically consist in linking watershed gram executable. Other models such as CE-QUAL-ICM have only
models, receiving water transport models, and receiving water water quality routines and therefore require inputs of the advection
quality models, as depicted in Fig. 1. A watershed model is used and diffusion transport terms from an external hydrodynamic
to estimate non-point-source loads and exports of nutrients and pol- model such as the Curvilinear-Grid Hydrodynamics Model in
lutants into water bodies (Chapra 2003; Shoemaker et al. 2005). Three Dimensions (CH3D-WES).
These loads are then transferred to receiving transport models The following sections are devoted to explaining the main proc-
and receiving water quality models to simulate the major physical, esses and modeling approaches used to calculate Sc for the most
chemical, and biological processes that occur within the water body critical water quality constituents found in TMDL studies. Unless
in response to the contaminant loads. The aforementioned linkage expressed otherwise, concentrations are giving in units of mg=L
establishes a quantitative relationship between the external loadings and velocities are in m=day.

© ASCE 04018063-2 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng., 2019, 24(2): 04018063

 Eutrophication Models
Eutrophication models are generally used to simulate carbon (C),
nitrogen (N), and phosphorus (P) cycling, the impacts of nutrients
on phytoplankton dynamics, and the impacts of organic matter de-
composition on the availability of DO in a water body. Currently, there
is a large number of proprietary and publicly available eutrophication
models around the world (Shoemaker et al. 2005). In the United
States, several eutrophication models in the public domain were de-
veloped and are maintained by the USEPA and the US Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE). Some examples include among others
CE-QUAL-ICM (Cerco and Cole 1995), Water Quality Analysis Sim-
ulation Program (WASP) (Wool et al. 2003a), and Hydrologic Engi-
neering Center–River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) (USACE 2016).
Water quality state variables and biochemical processes evalu-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by URI LIBRARIES on 12/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ated by eutrophication models are usually standard. However, the
level of detail or approximations to represent specific processes
can result in substantial differences among available models.
For example, some models simulate one phytoplankton group
(e.g., QUAL2K) (Chapra et al. 2012), whereas others simulate
multiple phytoplankton groups (e.g., HEC-RAS, CE-QUAL-W2,
and CE-QUAL-ICM). Some models represent organic matter
decomposition/availability by simulating dissolved organic carbon
(DOC), and particulate organic carbon (POC) as well as the dynam-
ics of these carbon pools (e.g., CE-QUAL-ICM). Other models
lump them together to simulate carbonaceous biochemical oxygen
demand (CBOD) as a state variable (e.g., QUAL2K and WASP).
Other models simulate both carbon constituents and CBOD as state
variables (e.g., HEC-RAS and CEQUAL-W2).
The following sections provide an overview of the mathematical
models generally used to represent the most important processes
controlling eutrophication. The purposes of this review are to allow
the reader to identify the fundamental equations included in most
water quality modeling packages and to help determine the data
requirements, benefits, and challenges of using a particular model.
Carbon
Carbon-based water quality models simulate the availability of
organic carbon in aquatic ecosystems. Because the inorganic car-
bon is usually available in excess, this form of carbon is usually
excluded from the models unless pH is simulated. More attention
is placed on organic carbon because its presence directly impacts
the amount of oxygen available in the aquatic ecosystem. Models
of organic carbon generally simulate a particulate and a dissolved
fraction (POC and DOC, respectively) to distinguish the organic
carbon present in solid form in materials such as, leaves or dead
fish, from that present in dissolved form. The main distinction be-
tween the two fractions is that the dissolved fraction is readily avail-
able for oxidation whereas the particulate fraction must be subject
to dissolution before it can be oxidized. The particulate fraction can
be further divided into labile (LPOC) and refractory (RPOC) forms,
respectively, to simulate a fast and slow dissolution rate of the par-
ticulate organic carbon.
Under the aforementioned speciation, total organic carbon
(TOC) is expressed as the sum of the particulate and dissolved
forms, i.e., TOC ¼ RPOC þ LPOC þ DOC. The mathematical
models for the particulate forms of organic carbon, i.e., RPOC
and LPOC, generally account for sources such as algal predation
and external loads and sinks such as dissolution and settling as
follows (Cerco and Cole 1995; Hamrick 1992):
∂CRPOC
¼ FCRP kPR Cphyto − kRPOC CRPOC
∂t
1 W
− vRPOC CRPOC þ RPOC ð2Þ
H V
© ASCE 04018063-3
J. Hydrol. Eng., 2019, 24(2): 04018063
∂CLPOC
¼ FCLP kPR Cphyto − kLPOC CLPOC
∂t
1 W
− vLPOC CLPOC þ LPOC ð3Þ
H V
where CRPOC and CLPOC = concentrations of refractory and labile
particulate organic carbon, respectively; FCRP and FCLP = fractions
of phytoplankton carbon recycled during predation to the pool of
refractory and labile organic carbon, respectively; Cphyto = phyto-
plankton carbon concentration; kRPOC and kLPOC = dissolution rates
of refractory and labile organic carbon, respectively; H = water
body depth; vRPOC and vLPOC = settling velocities of the refractory
and labile particulate organic carbon, respectively; V = water body
volume; and W RPOC and W LPOC = external loads of refractory and
labile particulate organic carbon, respectively.
The model for DOC includes as sources algae excretion and pre-
dation, hydrolysis of the refractory and labile particulate organic
carbon, and external loads; the sinks are the heterotrophic respira-
tion and denitrification (Cerco and Cole 1995; Hamrick 1992)


∂CDOC KHR
¼ FCD þ ð1 − FCD Þ kBM
∂t KHR þ CDO

þ FCDP kPR Cphyto þ kRPOC CRPOC þ kLPOC CLPOC
W DOC
− kHR CDOC − kdenit CDOC þ ð4Þ
V
where CDOC = concentration of DOC; FCD = fraction of DOC
exuded during phytoplankton respiration; KHR = half-saturation
dissolved oxygen concentration at which DOC excretion from
phytoplankton respiration is reduced by half; CDO = dissolved
oxygen concentration; kBM and kPR = phytoplankton basal metabo-
lism rate and predation rate, respectively; FCDP = fraction of pre-
dated phytoplankton recycled to DOC; kHR = oxidation rate of
DOC; kdenit = denitrification rate; and W DOC = external load
of DOC.
A strategy to separate organic carbon and nutrients into refrac-
tory and labile forms for modeling purposes was presented by Hen-
drickson et al. (2002), who calculated the proportions of RPOC and
LPOC within a sample using a test of BOD. Their strategy consists
of expressing the amount of TOC oxidized at any time during the
experiment as a function of the unknown quantities RPOC and
LPOC. The two unknowns, RPOC and LPOC, are then solved by
formulating two different equations. One equation calculated the
TOC oxidized at t ¼ 5 days [measured at the end of the 5-day bio-
chemical oxygen demand (BOD5) experiment] and other equation
calculated the amount of TOC oxidized at t ¼ ∞ (same as the ini-
tial concentration of TOC). The formulas to calculate the amount of
TOC oxidized during the experiment assumed that the oxidation of
RPOC and LPOC follow a first-order decay model with a decay
rate estimated based on literature values depending on the type of
organic material present in the sample. Once RPOC and LPOC are
computed, the ratios RPOC/TOC and LPOC/TOC are used along
with the ratios between organic carbon and organic nitrogen (C∶N)
and organic carbon and organic phosphorus (C∶P) to determine the
organic nutrient separation for nitrogen and phosphorus.
Nitrogen
Nitrogen is a nutrient necessary for phytoplankton primary produc-
tion and is present in nature in different phases and chemical forms.
Nitrogen is constantly recycled in the hydrosphere. Autotrophic or-
ganisms such as phytoplankton use inorganic nitrogen available in
form of ammonium NH4 and nitrate NO3 to synthesize organic
molecules and store energy. Although both forms NH4 and NO3
J. Hydrol. Eng.
 can be used for primary production, there is a preference for NH4
over NO3 because it requires less energy to uptake. This is de-
scribed as ammonium preference, but ultimately the use of one
or another form depends on the availability of the nutrient species.
Some type of algae are also able to fixate atmospheric nitrogen that
exists as a gas (N2 ). The inorganic nitrogen assimilated is converted
into organic nitrogen and stored in living tissues.
Once in organic tissues, organic nitrogen is able to return to the
pool of inorganic nitrogen with the help of heterotrophic organ-
isms. Organic nitrogen is first transformed into NH4 and then from
NH4 to NO3 in the processes of ammonification and nitrification,
respectively. Under anoxic conditions, a further transformation oc-
curs where the inorganic nitrogen in form of NO3 is transformed
into N2 gas and released to the atmosphere in the process of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by URI LIBRARIES on 12/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
denitrification.
Excess nitrogen is one of the leading causes of eutrophication in
aquatic ecosystems around the word, and the correct representation
of the sources and sinks of the different forms of nitrogen are
critical for the development of effective strategies to maintain
the ecological integrity of these ecosystems (Cloern 1999; Egge
and Aksnes 1992; Mortazavi et al. 2000; Muylaert et al. 2005;
Pinckney et al. 1999, 2001). Mathematical models of nitrogen sim-
ulate the distribution and transformation of organic and inorganic
nitrogen. Models of organic nitrogen generally represent the total
organic nitrogen (TON) as the sum of a particulate fraction (PON)
and dissolved fraction (DON), i.e., TON ¼ PON þ DON. The par-
ticulate fraction is further divided into refractory and labile organic
nitrogen, RPON and LPON, respectively, to simulate a slow and a
fast dissolution rate of the particulate organic nitrogen, i.e., PON ¼
RPON þ LPON.
The models for RPON and LPON include as sources the exter-
nal loadings and recycling of organic nitrogen during phytoplank-
ton metabolism and predation and use as sinks the dissolution to
DON and the settling, as follows (Cerco and Cole 1995; Hamrick
1992):
∂CRPON
¼ ðFRN kBM þ FPRN kPR Þ aNC Cphyto
∂t
1 W
− kRPON CRPON − vRPON CRPON þ RPON ð5Þ
H V
∂CLPON
¼ ðFLN kBM þ FPLN kPR Þ aNC Cphyto
∂t
1 W
− kLPON CLPON − vLPON CLPON þ LPON ð6Þ
H V
where CRPON and CLPON = concentrations of RPON and LPON,
respectively; FRN and FLN = fractions of phytoplankton nitrogen
recycled during metabolism to the pool of RPON and LPON, re-
spectively; FPRN and FPLN = fractions of phytoplankton nitrogen
recycled during predation to the pool of RPON and LPON, respec-
tively; aNC = phytoplankton nitrogen to carbon ratio; kRPON and
kLPON = dissolution rates of RPON and LPON; vRPON and
vLPON = settling velocities of RPON and LPON, respectively;
and W RPON and W LPON = external load of RPON and LPON,
respectively.
The model of dissolved organic nitrogen includes as sources the
recycling of nitrogen during metabolism and predation, the disso-
lution of RPON and LPON, and external sources. The sinks are
mainly represented by the mineralization of DON to inorganic
nitrogen. The model of DON is given by
© ASCE 04018063-4
J. Hydrol. Eng., 2019, 24(2): 04018063
∂CDON
¼ ðFDN kBM þ FPDN kPR Þ aNC Cphyto
∂t
þ kRPON CRPON þ kLPON CLPON
W DON
− kDON CDON þ ð7Þ
V
where CDON = concentration of DON; FDN and FPDN = fractions of
phytoplankton nitrogen recycled during metabolism and predation
to the pool of DON, respectively; kDON = mineralization rate of
DON; and W DON = external load of DON.
The model of ammonium nitrogen, NH4 , includes as sources the
recycling of NH4 during phytoplankton metabolism and predation,
mineralization of DON, benthic exchange with the bottom sedi-
ments, and external loads. The sinks include the phytoplankton
uptake and the nitrification of NH4 to NO3 . The model of NH4
is given by (Cerco and Cole 1995; Hamrick 1992)
∂CNH4
¼ ðFIN kBM þ FPIN kPR − PN kP Þ aNC Cphyto
∂t
BF W
þ kDON CDON − knit CNH4 þ NH4 þ NH4 ð8Þ
H V
where CNH4 = concentration of NH4 ; FIN and FPIN = fractions of
phytoplankton nitrogen recycled during metabolism and predation
to the pool of NH4 , respectively; PN = preference of NH4 from
phytoplankton (0 ≤ PN ≤ 1); kP = phytoplankton growth rate;
knit = nitrification rate of NH4 to NO3 ; BFNH4 = flux of NH4 from
the bottom sediments to the water column; and W NH4 = external
load of NH4 . The phytoplankton recycling fractions related to
metabolism must satisfy FRN þ FLN þ FDN þ FIN ¼ 1, whereas
those related to predation FPRN þ FPLN þ FPDN þ FPIN ¼ 1.
The model of nitrate nitrogen, NO3 , includes as sources the ni-
trification of NH4 , benthic exchange with the bottom sediments,
and external loads. The sinks include the include the phytoplankton
uptake and denitrification of NO3 to N2
∂CNO3
¼ ðPN − 1Þ kP aNC Cphyto þ knit CNH4
∂t
BF W
− kdenit CNO3 þ NO3 þ NO3 ð9Þ
H V
where CNO3 = concentration of NO3 ; kdenit = denitrification rate of
NO3 to NO2 ; BFNO3 = flux of NO3 from the bottom sediments to
the water column; and W NO3 = external load of NO3 .
The phytoplankton nitrogen preference is simulated by means
of
 
CNO3
PN ¼ CNH4
ðKHN þ CNH4 ÞðKHN þ CNO3 Þ
 
KHN
þ CNH4 ð10Þ
ðCNH4 þ CNO3 ÞðKHN þ CNO3 Þ
where KHN = half-saturation constant for nitrogen uptake. This
equation uses PN ¼ 1 in absence of nitrate.
Phosphorus
Phosphorus is a critical nutrient for phytoplankton primary produc-
tion. In nature, phosphorus is less abundant than carbon, nitrogen,
and oxygen and is therefore the most common limiting factor for
phytoplankton productivity in lakes. Phosphorus is present in or-
ganic and inorganic forms, the latter form being available for phyto-
plankton growth. The organic form is mostly present in particulate
organic material (about 70%) and is the predominant form in the
environment. The inorganic form usually represents only a small
fraction of the total phosphorus budget (<10%) and is mostly
J. Hydrol. Eng.
 available dissolved as orthophosphate (PO3− 4 ). Phosphorus models
simulate the fate and transport of the organic and inorganic forms.
The total organic phosphorus (TOP) is generally divided into a par-
ticulate (POP) and dissolved fraction (DOP), and the inorganic
phosphorus is simulated as a dissolved (DIP) and sediment-sorbed
fraction (SIP). This way, the total phosphorus (TP) is represented as
TP ¼ POP þ DOP þ DIP þ SIP. POP is further divided into re-
fractory (RPOP) and labile (LPOP) forms (i.e., POP ¼ RPOP þ
LPOP) to simulate a slow and fast dissolution rate, respectively.
The models for the RPOP and LPOP include sources such as ex-
ternal loadings and phytoplankton metabolism and predation and
sinks such as dissolution and settling as follows:
∂CRPOP
¼ ðFPR kBM þ FPRP kPR Þ aPC Cphyto
∂t
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by URI LIBRARIES on 12/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
1 W
− kRPOP CRPOP − vRPOP CRPOP þ RPOP ð11Þ
H V
∂CLPOP
¼ ðFPL kBM þ FPLP kPR Þ aPC Cphyto
∂t
1 W
− kLPOP CLPOP − vLPOP CLPOP þ LPOP ð12Þ
H V
where CRPOP and CLPOP = concentrations of RPOP and LPOP,
respectively; FPR and FPL = fractions of phytoplankton phospho-
rus recycled during metabolism to the pool of RPOP and LPOP,
respectively; FPRP and FPLP = fractions of phytoplankton phos-
phorus recycled during predation to the pool of RPOP and LPOP,
respectively; aPC = phytoplankton phosphorus to carbon ratio;
kRPOP and kLPOP = dissolution rates of RPOP and LPOP; vRPOP
and vLPOP = settling velocities of the RPOP and LPOP, respec-
tively; and W RPOP and W LPOP = external loads of RPOP and
LPOP, respectively.
The models for DOP include sources such as external loadings,
dissolution of organic phosphorus and phosphorus recycling from
phytoplankton metabolism and predation, and sinks such as min-
eralization to orthophosphates, as follows (Cerco and Cole 1995;
Hamrick 1992):
∂CDOP
¼ ðFDP kBM þ FPDP kPR Þ aPC Cphyto þ kRPOP CRPOP
∂t
W
þ kLPOP CLPOP − kDOP CDOP þ DOP ð13Þ
V ¼ ðkP − kBM − kPR Þ Cphyto
where CDOP = concentration of DOP; FDP and FPDP = fraction of
phytoplankton phosphorus recycled during metabolism and preda-
tion to the pool of DOP, respectively; kDOP = mineralization rate of
DOP; and W DOP = external load of DOP.
The models for the total inorganic phosphorus TIP ¼ DIP þ
SIP include sources such as external loads, phytoplankton metabo-
lism and predation, benthic exchange with the bottom sediments,
and mineralization of DOP, and sinks such as phytoplankton uptake
and settling of SIP, as follows (Cerco and Cole 1995; Hamrick
1992):
∂CTIP
¼ ðFIP kBM þ FPIP kPR − kP Þ aPC Cphyto þ kDOP CDOP
∂t
1 BF W W
þ ðCTSS CSIP Þ þ DIP þ DIP þ SIP ð14Þ
H H V V
where CTIP = concentration of TIP; FIP and FPIP = fractions of
phytoplankton phosphorus recycled during metabolism and preda-
tion to the pool of DOP, respectively; CTSS = concentration of total
suspended solids in the water column; CSIP = concentration of
© ASCE 04018063-5
J. Hydrol. Eng., 2019, 24(2): 04018063
inorganic phosphorus sorbed to the suspended sediments; BFDIP =
flux of DIP from the bottom sediments to the water column; and
W DIP and W SIP = external loads of DIP and SIP, respectively.
The phytoplankton recycling fractions related to metabolism
must satisfy FRP þ FLP þ FDP þ FIP ¼ 1, and those related to pre-
dation FPRP þ FPLP þ FPDP þ FPIP ¼ 1.
Phytoplankton
Phytoplankton primary production is a critical biological pro-
cess in aquatic ecosystems. Phytoplankton fixate nutrients and
carbon through the process of photosynthesis, and the bio-
mass generated serves to feed other heterotrophic organisms.
Phytoplankton represents the basis of the food web. Phyto-
plankton productivity is also an important indicator of water
quality. Typically, the values of phytoplankton productivity
are in the range of 0.3–3.0 gOm−2 day−1 and are considered mod-
erate for most aquatic ecosystems. Values in the range of
3.0–20.0 gOm−2 day−1 are considered high and are character-
istic of ecosystems with excess of nutrients. Values below
0.3 gOm−2 day−1 are characteristic of low productive systems
with limitations in productivity due to lack of nutrients or inad-
equate levels of light and temperature (Camacho et al. 2014;
Chapra 1997).
A particular water body can exhibit periods of low, moderate,
and high productivity depending on the water quality conditions.
Highly productive periods triggered by excess of nutrient availabil-
ity are generally accompanied by algae blooms and have negative
impacts on the ecological structure and functioning of the water
bodies. Algae blooms can saturate a water body with organic com-
pounds and toxins, causing massive fish kills and extreme anoxic
conditions. These blooms can also have severe impacts on human
health. Algae blooms are natural events that also occur in pristine
ecosystems. However, the increasing urbanization of areas sur-
rounding major water bodies and increasing use of fertilizers in
agriculture have caused an increase in the frequency of these events
(Anderson et al. 2008; Heisler et al. 2008). Addressing pollution
due to nutrient excess is currently a priority in the United States.
Phytoplankton biomass is modeled by taking into account sour-
ces such as external loading and phytoplankton growth and sinks
such as metabolism, predation, and settling. A generic model of
phytoplankton biomass is given by (Cerco and Cole 1995; Hamrick
1992)
∂Cphyto
∂t
1 W phyto
þ ðvphyto Cphyto Þ þ ð15Þ
H V
where vphyto = settling rate of phytoplankton; and W phyto = external
loads. The rate of phytoplankton growth kP is controlled by several
factors including nutrient availability, light, temperature, and res-
idence time. The impacts of these factors on growth is simulated
as a multiplicative function of the following form:
kP ¼ kPmax f 1 ðNÞ f2 ðIÞ f3 ðTÞ ð16Þ
where kPmax = maximum growth rate of phytoplankton under op-
timal conditions of nutrients, light, and temperature; and f1 ðNÞ,
f2 ðIÞ, and f3 ðTÞ = limiting factors for suboptimal conditions of
nutrients, light, and temperature, respectively. Each limiting factor
varies between 0 and 1, with 0 representing complete inhibition of
phytoplankton growth and 1 no inhibition.
Effects of Nutrients on Growth
The effects of nutrient availability on phytoplankton growth is usu-
ally simulated using Liebig’s law of the minimum. Phytoplankton
J. Hydrol. Eng.

requires nitrogen and phosphorous to generate biomass, and the
nutrient least available imposes a limit on phytoplankton growth.
The nutrient limitation is simulated by means of a model of the
following form:


CNH4 þ CNO3 CDIP
f1 ðNÞ ¼ Min ; ð17Þ
KHN þ CNH4 þ CNO3 KHP þ CDIP
where CDIP = concentration of dissolved inorganic phosphorus
(PO4 ); and KHP = half-saturation constant for phosphorus uptake.
If diatoms are simulated, a similar limiting factor expression can be
developed for silica.
Effects of Light on Growth
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by URI LIBRARIES on 12/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Different models of light limitation are available in the literature. Di
Toro et al. (1971) and Smith (1980) extended the model proposed
by Steele (1962) to limit growth at high light intensities (photoin-
hibition) and limit growth under reduced light availability in areas
below the photic zone. The mathematical formulation included in
models such as QUAL2K (Chapra et al. 2012), WASP (Wool et al.
2003a), CE-QUAL-ICM (Cerco and Cole 1995), CE-QUAL-W2
(Cole and Wells 2011), and EFDC (Hamrick 1992) is given by
2.718fday −αeð−Ke Hpz Þ
f2 ðIÞ ¼ ðe − e−α Þ ð18Þ
K e H pz
where α ¼ I o =I s , I o is the average incident light intensity at the
surface (Langley/day) and I s is the saturate light intensity for
phytoplankton growth (Langley/day); Hpz = average depth of the
photic zone (m); f day = fraction of day with light; and K e (m−1 ) =
total light extinction coefficient resulting from the sum of the light
attenuation due to total suspended solids (kTSS ), dissolved organic
carbon (kDOC ), and phytoplankton self-shading (kself 0 ). Mathemati-
cally, K e is given by
0
K e ¼ kb þ ksolids þ kDOC þ K self ð19Þ
where kb = background light extinction coefficient (m−1 ). K self
0
is
computed by means of
0
¼ 0.0088 Cphyto þ 0.054 C0.67 ð20Þ
K self phyto
Variations of the aforementioned model or alternative formula-
tions of light limitation based on Michaelis-Mentel kinetics are in-
cluded in recent versions of CE-QUAL-ICM (Cerco et al. 2000)
and in other models such as QUAL2K and CE-QUAL-RIV1
(Dortch et al. 1990).
Effects of Temperature on Growth
The effects of temperature on growth are generally simulated using
an Arrhenius model of the following form:
f 3 ðTÞ ¼ ΘT−20 ð21Þ
where Θ ¼ 1.068 is the temperature correction coefficient; and T =
water temperature. This formulation is used in models such as
WASP and QUAL2K but has the disadvantage that it does not ac-
count for phytoplankton growth limitation at high temperatures.
Other models such as CE-QUAL-ICM and EFDC use an alternative
formulation for temperature limitation based on a Gaussian model.
The formulation allows the definition of an optimum range of tem-
peratures [T opt1 , T opt2 ] at which phytoplankton growth occurs with-
out limitation. Below or above this temperature range, growth is
limited. The model implemented in EFDC is expressed as follows:
© ASCE 04018063-6
J. Hydrol. Eng., 2019, 24(2): 04018063
8 2
>
> e−kT1 ðT−T opt1 Þ T < T opt1
<
f 3 ðTÞ ¼ 1 T opt1 ≤ T ≤ T opt2 ð22Þ
>
>
: −kT2 ðT−Topt2 Þ2
e T > T opt2
where kT1 and kT2 = calibration coefficients that define the severity
of the limitation above or below the optimum range of temperatures
for growth.
Primary Productivity
Primary productivity can be expressed in units of oxygen (or
carbon) per unit area per day and is modeled as the product among
the phytoplankton growth rate (kP ), phytoplankton concentration
(Cphyto ), and photic zone depth (Hpz ) by
P ¼ αOC kP Cphyto H pz ð23Þ
where αOC = oxygen to carbon ratio (αOC ¼ 2.67 mgO=mgC).
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen is a critical water quality parameter necessary for
the metabolic activity of heterotrophic organisms. Dissolved
oxygen has been historically the main target of most water quality
remediation activities since the late nineteenth century when aes-
thetic and ecological problems started to arise from the direct dis-
charge of waste waters into lakes, rivers, and streams. By that time,
it was recognized that treatment plants were necessary to reduce the
waste loads and that the level of treatment necessary had to be ul-
timately linked to the assimilative capacity of the receiving water
body. One of the first models of dissolved oxygen resulted from
studies of pollution in the Ohio River by Streeter and Phelps
(1925) and only considered the impacts of organic matter decom-
position and reaeration. Models have evolved since then to
represent the impacts of nitrification, phytoplankton primary pro-
duction, and respiration and sediment oxygen demand. A general
formulation of the dissolved oxygen model including the impacts
of the aforementioned processes is given by (Cerco and Cole 1995;
Hamrick 1992)
∂CDO
¼ ka ðCs − CDO Þ − αOC kHR CDOC − αON knit CNH4
∂t
SOD
− þ αOC kP Cphyto − αOC kBM Cphyto ð24Þ
H
where ka = reaeration coefficient generally calculated based on hy-
draulic variables such as water depth and velocity (Bowie et al.
1985; Chapra 1997); Cs = saturation concentration of oxygen;
αON = oxygen to nitrogen ratio (αOC ¼ 4.57 mgO=mgN), and
SOD = sediment oxygen demand. The remaining variables have
been previously defined. The model given by Eq. (24) is the basis
for most models available at present. Adaptations of Eq. (24) to
incorporate production and respiration of periphyton and several
algae groups is available in QUAL2K, WASP, CE-QUAL-ICM,
CE-QUAL-W2, EFDC, and HEC-RAS, among others.
Toxic Chemicals
Organic chemicals such as pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), halogenated aliphatic hydrocarbons, halogenated ethers,
monocyclic aromatics, and heavy metals such as mercury are toxic
substances found in aquatic environments. In most cases, the pres-
ence of these substances is associated with discharges resulting
from human activities such as agriculture and manufacturing.
Toxic substances can be poisonous at very low concentrations and
can have severe acute and chronic impacts on human health and
the environment. Contamination due to toxic substances is an
J. Hydrol. Eng.
 increasing concern in the United States and around the world as the environment, such as photolysis, volatilization, biodegradation, and
use of pesticides and other chemicals in industries such as mining hydrolysis. These processes are in general simulated as first-order
becomes more frequent and massive. In the United States, multiple decaying processes that impact the total mass of a contaminant in
TMDLs have been conducted throughout the country to address the water column. A generic model for a toxic substance subject to
contamination caused by mercury, chlorinated pesticides, PCBs, these processes is given by (Park et al. 2008; Tetra Tech 2007; Wool
arsenic, selenium, and chromium, among others (e.g., USEPA et al. 2003b)
2002b). The national list of TMDLs studies for toxic chemicals
across the United States can be in accessed from the USEPA ∂CTox CToxðDÞ CToxðSedÞ CSed
¼ þ ð26Þ
(2018a). ∂t ∂t ∂t
Toxic substances can accumulate in tissues and other organs of where
aquatic animals and can move through different levels of the food
web from benthic invertebrates and fish to birds and mammals. CToxðDÞ ∂CToxðDÞ p ∂CToxðDÞ v ∂CToxðDÞ b ∂CToxðDÞ h
This way, toxic contaminants in animals at higher levels of the food ¼− − − −
∂t ∂t ∂t ∂t ∂t
web can be present in concentrations substantially higher than ð27Þ
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by URI LIBRARIES on 12/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

those in the surrounding aquatic environment due to biological ac-

cumulation and magnification. CToxðSedÞ ∂CToxðSedÞ ∂CToxðSedÞ ∂CToxðSedÞ
p b h
Toxic substances are transported in aquatic ecosystems dis- ¼− − − ð28Þ
∂t ∂t ∂t ∂t
solved in the water column and adsorbed to the sediments in par-
ticulate form. During transport, the dissolved and particulate and ∂CToxðDÞ p , ∂CToxðDÞ v , ∂CToxðDÞ b , and ∂CToxðDÞ h = changes
fractions are also impacted by several chemical, biological, and in the dissolved fraction due to photolysis, volatilization, biodeg-
physical processes. The dissolved fraction is subject to volatiliza- radation, and hydrolysis, respectively. With exception of volatiliza-
tion to the atmosphere, photolysis, or chemical breakdown due to tion, which only impacts the dissolved fraction of the substance,
solar radiation, biodegradation, or breakdown due to bacteria, these processes also apply to the sediment-sorbed fraction. A dis-
ionization, hydrolysis, and oxidation (Chapra 1997; Ji 2008; cussion of the fundamental processes impacting the fate of the dis-
Schnoor 1996). Meanwhile, the particulate fraction is impacted solved and sediment-sorbed fractions is discussed subsequently.
by sediment-transport processes such as settling and resuspension The model presented in Eqs. (25)–(28) is a basic two-fraction
and the sorption and desorption of toxics to the sediments. A con- (dissolved and sediment-sorbed) toxic model. However, more
ceptual model of the fate and transport of toxic substances is pre- complex models exist in the literature to simulate an additional
sented in Fig. 2. DOC-sorbed fraction and to distinguish sorption to multiple sedi-
ment classes, as included in models such as WASP, AQUATOX,
Generic Model of a Toxic Chemical and EFDC (Park et al. 2008; Tetra Tech 2007; Wool et al. 2003a).
Toxic chemicals are present in the water column in dissolved and More complex models can be constructed by adding the new
sediment-sorbed forms. In consequence, the total mass of a toxic sorbed fractions to Eqs. (29) and (26) and by including the proc-
chemical per unit volume (CTox ) (mg · L−1 ) can be expressed esses impacting the new fraction as in Eq. (28).
CTox ¼ CToxðDÞ þ CToxðSedÞ CSed ð25Þ Distribution into Dissolved and Particulated Phases:
Partition Coefficients
where CToxðDÞ (mgTox L−1 )
and CToxðSedÞ (mgTox mg−1
Sed )
= dis-
The distribution of a toxic chemical into dissolved and sorbed frac-
solved and sediment-sorbed concentrations, respectively; and
tions is controlled by adsorption-desorption processes, which vary
CSed (mgsed · L−1 ) = suspended sediment concentration. Toxic
as a function of pH, the properties of the solids in suspension,
substances are subject to several decaying processes in the
and the properties of the toxic substance (Chapra 1997). The
adsorption-desorption processes act faster than other environmental
processes such as decay, and therefore the dissolved and sorbed
Atmosphere fractions are able to rapidly reach equilibrium. When both fractions
are in chemical and physical equilibrium, the partition coefficient
defined by K Tox ¼ CToxðSedÞ =CToxðDÞ is constant [K Tox ¼ ðL ·
Volatilization Air deposition mg−1
Sed Þ] if the linear adsorption isotherm is applied. The partition
Water Column
coefficient may also vary with sediment concentration or adsorp-
tion properties of toxic chemical if the Langmuir isotherm is used to
Sorption describe the adsorption equilibrium substance (Chao et al. 2006;
Dissolved Particulate Chapra 1997). The partition coefficient can be considered as a
Desorption
property of a toxic chemical and can be used to simulate how a
discharge of a toxic load is distributed into dissolved and sorbed
Bioaccumulation Flocs phases using the following models (Ambrose et al. 1993; Ji 2008):
Reaction
K Tox CSed
Diffusion Deposition Resuspension fp ¼ ð29Þ
η þ K Tox CSed
Sorption η
Dissolved Particulate fd ¼ ð30Þ
Desorption η þ K Tox CSed
Sediments
where η = sediment porosity (1 for sediments in suspension);
fp = particulate fraction; and fd = dissolved fraction, where
Fig. 2. Schematic representation of processes affecting toxic
fp þ f d ¼ 1. The partition coefficient is an important input param-
substances.
eter for the accurate representation of the fate and transport of toxic

© ASCE 04018063-7 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng., 2019, 24(2): 04018063

 chemicals in aquatic environments and can be measured in labo-
ratory using different methods such as the slow-stirring method
(Chapra 1997; Lyman et al. 1990; Schnoor 1996). Partition coef-
ficient values for different toxic chemicals and metals have been
given by Schnoor (1996) and Allison and Allison (2005).
The fractioning model given by Eqs. (29) and (30) is the basic
generic model to represent the sorption-desorption processes of
toxic chemicals in aquatic environments. However, more compre-
hensive fractioning models to represent the sorption of toxic chem-
icals to DOC are also available and used in models such as WASP
and AQUATOX.
Volatilization
Volatilization is a mass-transfer process that occurs between the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by URI LIBRARIES on 12/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
water column and the atmosphere. During volatilization, a toxic
substance in the water column is able to move across the water–
atmosphere interface, escaping to the atmosphere in gaseous form.
The rate of volatilization is driven by partial pressure differences at
the interface water–atmosphere and also by concentration gradients
of the toxic substance in the water and atmosphere. Volatilization
only acts on the dissolved fraction of the toxicant (CToxðDÞ ¼
f d CTox ) and is generally represented similarly to surface oxygen
exchange using a model of the following form:


∂CToxðDÞ v kToxðDÞ v CToxðatmÞ
¼− f d CTox − ð31Þ
∂t H He
RT
k
where ∂CToxðDÞ v =∂t = rate of change of the dissolved concentra-
tion of the toxic substance in the water column due to volatilization;
kToxðDÞ v = transfer rate of toxic mass across the air-water interface
m day−1 ; Catm = atmospheric concentration of the toxic substance;
R = universal gas constant (e.g., 8.206 Pa m3 mol−1 K−1 ), He =
Henry’s constant for the toxic substance (Pa m3 mol−1 ); and T k =
water temperature (K). Eq. (31) is the basic model of volatilization
included in models such as WASP, AQUATOX, and EFDC. The
parameter kv can be treated as a calibration parameter and/or
directly prescribed based on air–water mass-transfer studies and
measurements. Alternatively, kv can also be modeled based on
Whitman’s (1923) two-layer resistant model as follows:
He
kTox v ¼ kvl
He þ RT k ðkvl =kvg Þ
where kvl and kvg = mass-transfer coefficients for the liquid and
gaseous films (m day−1 ). The values of kvl and kvg depend on sev-
eral physical factors such as flow turbulence and wind speed.
WASP includes several options to compute the mass-transfer coef-
ficients kvl and kvg . The first one is based on adjusted or calibrated
reaeration rates using a model of the form
kvl ¼ ka kvo
where ka = reaeration transfer coefficient (m day−1 ); and kvo = ratio
of volatilization rate to reaeration rate, which can be provided to theffi
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
model or internally computed by the model as kvo ¼ 32=mToxi
using the ratio between the molecular weight of O2 (32 g mol−1 )
and the toxic substance under analysis mToxi (g mol−1 ).
Alternative models to compute the rates kvl and kvg using
Eq. (33) take into account the type of water body under analysis
to internally calculate the reaeration rates based on the sources of
turbulence. In rivers and other active flowing water bodies, turbu-
lence is induced by flows dynamics. For these type of systems, kvl
can be computed based on velocity and segment depth using a
reaeration rate formula, such as the Owens formula, O’Connor-
Dobbins formula, or Churchill formula (Bowie et al. 1985). For
© ASCE
J. Hydrol. Eng., 2019, 24(2): 04018063
example, for segments with depths of less than 0.61 m, the Owens
formula is used, resulting in
u2.91
ka ¼ 5.349 ð34Þ
H 0.85
and for segments with flow velocity (u) of less than 0.518 m=s and
depths (m) greater than H ¼ 13.584 · u2.91 , the O’Connor-Dobbins
formula is used. For other cases, the Churchill formula is used,
resulting in
u0.969
ka ¼ 5.049 ð35Þ
H0.673
WASP assumes that in rivers and flowing waters, kvg is constant
and equal to kvg ¼ 100ðm day−1 Þ. For lakes and stagnant water
bodies, alternative models to calculate kvl and kvg are included
in WASP and AQUATOX models.
Photolysis
Photolysis is the transformation of a chemical substance due to the
radiant energy of light. Photolysis can be a direct or indirect pro-
cess. Direct photolysis is a reaction caused by direct absorption of
light by the chemical substance. Indirect photolysis or synthesized
photolysis is a process initiated through light absorption by inter-
mediary compounds present in water. Given the complexity of the
photolysis, most models focus on direct photolysis because it is
better understood. Direct photolysis only occurs in molecules able
to absorb sunlight energy. Benzene, for example, is a compound
unaffected by photolysis because it is unable to absorb light ener-
gies within the sunlight spectrum. Naphthacene, on the other hand,
is able to absorb sunlight energy in the 300–500 nm wavelength
range and in consequence is subject to direct photolysis. Direct
photolysis can act on both the dissolved and particulate fractions
of toxic chemicals. This process is simulated in models such as
WASP, AQUATOX, and EFDC using a first-order decay process
of the following form:
∂CToxðiÞ p
¼ −kToxðiÞ p fi CToxðiÞ ð36Þ
∂t
where i = dissolved (i ¼ 1) or particulate (i ¼ 2) form of the toxic
ð32Þ substance; fi = fraction of the contaminant present in dissolved or
particulate form; ∂CToxðiÞ p = change in concentration of the dis-
solved or particulate fractions due to photolysis; and kToxðiÞ p
(day−1 ) = photolysis rate acting on the fraction i. The photolysis
rate included in Eq. (36) implicitly assumes that light absorption
is independent of wavelength and is representative of conditions
near the surface water.
There are several options to calculate kToxðiÞ p . AQUATOX, for
example, computes kTox p;i as the product of an observed photoly-
ð33Þ sis rate (day−1 ), a dimensionless screening factor to account for
light attenuation, and a dimensionless factor to account for seasonal
changes in light conditions. WASP includes more complex models
to calculate kToxðiÞ p as a function of sunlight wavelength allowing
the user to specify different values of molar absorptivity for differ-
ent wavelengths.
Biodegradation
Some microorganisms are able to obtain energy from the decom-
position of organic compounds such as fuels, solvents, and pesti-
cides. This type of transformation is known as biodegradation.
Biodegradation is a process that impacts the dissolved and particu-
late fractions of a toxic chemical and is simulated as a first-order
reaction process similar to the decomposition of detritus. In WASP,
the model used to represent biodegradation is given by
04018063-8 J. Hydrol. Eng.
 ∂CToxðiÞ b
¼ −Pbac kToxðiÞ b fi CToxðiÞ
∂t
where ∂CToxðiÞ b = change in concentration of the dissolved (i ¼ 1)
or particulate (i ¼ 2) fractions of a toxic chemical due to biodeg-
radation; Pbac = active bacteria population density (cell=mL); and
kTox b;i = biodegradation rate constant (day−1 ). Corrections of
kToxðiÞ b due to temperature, DO concentrations, and pH can be
considered. WASP includes a temperature correction factor of
the following form:
kToxðiÞ b ðTÞ ¼ kToxðiÞ b QðT−20Þ=10
where Q = dimensionless temperature correction factor that ac-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by URI LIBRARIES on 12/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Mercury
b ð37Þ Mercury is a neurotoxin that can cause severe damage to the nerv-
ous system, immune system, and other human organs (Bernhoft
2012). Compared with other contaminants requiring TMDLs,
mercury is unique given that impairments are evaluated based
upon potential risks to human health. Human exposure to mercury
mainly results from consumption of fish that contain this metal.
In consequence, TMDLs are targeted at reducing the anthropogenic
sources of mercury to limit the concentrations found in fish tissues.
Contamination due to mercury is a serious problem around the
globe. In the United States, mercury is listed as the seventh most
ð38Þ important cause of contamination, with at least 4,471 water bodies
included in the 303d list (USEPA 2017) as of August 2017 (Table 1).
Contamination due to mercury affects approximately 47,600 km

counts for an increase in the biodegradation rate resulting from
a 10°C temperature increase. Q usually varies between 1.5 and 2.0.
Hydrolysis
Hydrolysis is the reaction of a chemical substance with water.
During hydrolysis, a chemical is subject to molecular breakdown
and formation of a bond with either the hydrogen or hydroxyl com-
ponent of a water molecule. Hydrolysis can be an important deg-
radation path for several toxic chemicals and is usually simulated as
a first-order decay process. In WASP and AQUATOX, a basic
model to simulate hydrolysis is given by
∂CToxðiÞ h acres) of lakes, and 2.9 million hectares (10,000 sq mi) of bayous
¼ −kToxðiÞ h fi CToxðiÞ h ð39Þ
∂t
where kToxðiÞ h (day−1 ) = first-order hydrolysis decay rate. The
hydrolysis rate kToxðiÞ h is usually a function of pH. To account
for this dependency, the user must specify baseline hydrolysis de-
cay rates for neutral, acid, and basic environments. In AQUATOX,
the hydrolysis rate is then modeled as a function of the pH using the
approach of Mabey and Mill (1978) as follows:
kToxðiÞ h ¼ ðkAcid × 10−pH þ kBase × 10pH–14 þ kUncatÞ × θhydr
ð40Þ
where kAcid = acid-catalized hydrolysis rate constant; pH = water
pH; kBase = base-catalized hydrolysis rate constant; and kUncat =
hydrolysis rate at pH 7. A temperature correction factor is also
included in the computation of kTox h;i by means of θhydr , which
is computed
mercury or methylmercury MeHgþ. Some of the main sources
1800 1800
RTRef −RTAdj
θhydr ¼ e ð41Þ
where T Ref (K) and T Adj (K) = reference temperature and temper-
ature at which the rate kToxðiÞ h is computed, respectively. Alterna-
tive models to simulate hydrolysis as a second-order decay process
are also included in WASP.
(29,600 mi) of rivers and streams, 0.7 million hectares (1.7 million
acres) of lakes, and 1.7 million hectares (6,700 sq mi) of bayous and
estuaries (USEPA 2018d). The USEPA provides the National List-
ing of Fish Advisories (NLFA) to warn people about the risks of
eating contaminated fish from local water bodies. By 2011, 37
states had statewide advisories, and 94% of all advisories involved
five bioaccumulative chemicals, with mercury the most common
source of contamination found in fish tissues (USEPA 2011). Other
chemicals identified included PCBs, chlordane, dioxins, and
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethanes (DDT). By 2017, contaminated
fish tissues had been reported for approximately 51,500 km
(32,000 mi) of rivers and streams, 2.45 million hectares (6.1 million
and estuaries.
TMDLs studies addressing mercury contamination have been
conducted on a statewide basis in Minnesota, Florida, Michigan,
and North Carolina (FDEP 2013; LimnoTech 2013; MPCA
2007; NCDENR 2012), and similar studies are expected to occur
in other states in the next years. Most of the existing TMDL studies
have been conducted based on statistical relationships relating mer-
cury loading to mercury concentrations in fish. However, these ap-
proaches have a limited capability to predict the internal cycling
and transformations of mercury in the water column (Caruso et al.
2008). The development, implementation, and testing of mechanis-
tic models of mercury fate, transport, and biological accumulation
is at present one of the most critical challenges to support TMDL
studies.
Sources of Mercury, Speciation, and Partitioning
Mercury is a chemical element found in the environment in form of
elemental mercury Hg0, inorganic mercury Hg(II), and organic
and sinks of each form are listed in Table 2. Mercury undergoes
several transformation reactions in the water column and sedi-
ments, including oxidation of elemental mercury, reduction and
methylation of organic mercury, and demethylation of methylmer-
cury. Currently, only few mechanistic models are able to simulate
mercury cycling and speciation including sources and sinks. One of

Table 2. Sources and sinks of mercury in the environment

Form
0
Elemental mercury (Hg )
Inorganic mercury (Hg(II))
Organic mercury or
methylmercury (MeHgþ )
Location available
Predominant form in the
atmosphere
Water, soil, and sediments
Water, soil, sediments, and animals
Sources
Volcanic eruptions, fires,
anthropogenic sources as mining of
gold, and photoreduction of Hg(II)
in the water
Mostly oxidation of elemental
mercury. Bacterial demethylation
Methylation of Hg(II)
Sinks
Atmospheric deposition and direct plant
uptake. In water, oxidation to Hg(II) and
volatilization to the atmosphere
Settling, photoreduction to Hg0 , and
methylation
Bacterial demethylation to Hg(II) and
reductive demethylation by sunlight to Hg0

© ASCE 04018063-9 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng., 2019, 24(2): 04018063

 Atmosphere exchange of elemental mercury between the water column and
atmosphere is simulated using a transfer rate calculated based
Hg0 Watershed, point
on flow velocity, depth, and Henry’s Law constant. Processes im-
Atm. and atmospheric sources of
Deposition Hg(II) and MeHg pacted by sunlight, such as reduction and demethylation, are
attenuated through the water column using light extinction coeffi-
Volatilization cients. A summary of the main processes simulated in WASP is
presented in the Appendix.

Oxidation Methylation
Hg0 Hg(II) MeHg Water Quality Models for TMDL Applications
Reduction
This section presents a review of widely used models for water
Reductive demethylation Settling and resuspension quality studies and TMDL applications in the United States.
Water Column of solid phases Although a comprehensive review of the large amount of existing
software packages used for water quality studies is unpractical, the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by URI LIBRARIES on 12/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Methylation models discussed in this section have been identified by the ASCE/
Hg(II) MeHg EWRI TMDL Analysis and Modeling Task Committee as a
Bacterial
Demethylation representative subset of models that effectively illustrates the main
Sediments capabilities and approaches currently used to support TMDL stud-
ies (ASCE 2017). A summary of the models discussed in this
Fig. 3. Conceptual representation of mercury transformations in the section is presented in Table 3. Additional reviews of water quality
water column and sediments included in WASP. models not included in this section can be found elsewhere
(e.g., Shoemaker et al. 2005).

the most comprehensive models available at present is included in
WASP. The conceptual representation of mercury transformations
in WASP is presented in Fig. 3.
Mercury, like other toxic chemicals, can be sorbed to sediments
and biotic solids and bounded to organic carbon. This is simulated
in WASP by partitioning the Hg(II) and MeHgþ into DOC-
bounded, sediment sorbed (sand and silts), and biotic-sorbed frac-
tions. For MeHgþ, this fractioning is represented by
CMeHgðDOCÞ ¼ K MeHgðDOCÞ CMeHg
CMeHgðsedÞ ¼ K MeHgðsedÞ CMeHg
where CMeHg = dissoved concentration of MeHgþ (μg L−1 );
CMeHgðDOCÞ and CMeHgðsedÞ = carbon-bounded and solid-sorbed con-
centrations; and K MeHgðDOCÞ and K MeHgðsedÞ = partition coefficients
(L · mg−1 ). As explained in the “Toxic Chemicals” section, when
these partition coefficients are prescribed from measurements, they
can be used to calculate the dissolved, DOC-bounded, and sorbed
fractions of the mercury species concentration (in this case MeHgþ )
using models similar to those presented in Eqs. (29) and (30) as
follows:
η
f MeHg;d ¼
η þ K MeHgðDOCÞ CDOC þ K MeHgðsedÞ CSed
K DOC CDOC
fMeHg;DOC ¼
η þ K MeHgðDOCÞ CDOC þ K MeHgðsedÞ CSed
K MeHgðsedÞ Csed
fMeHg;sed ¼
η þ K MeHgðDOCÞ CDOC þ K MeHgðsedÞ CSed
where f MeHg;d þ fMeHg;DOC þ f MeHg;sed ¼ 1. A similar partitioning
approach is included in WASP to simulate the dissolved and sorbed
fractions of Hg(II).
Reaction Processes
The mercury model included in WASP simulates transformation
reactions as first-order decay processes with rate constants adjusted
for temperature changes in the water column. The volatilization and
CE-QUAL-ICM
Model Background and Capabilities
The CE-QUAL-ICM model (Fig. 4), is a three-dimensional (3D)
eutrophication water quality model initially developed by USACE
for application on Chesapeake Bay (Cerco and Cole 1993). Since
its initial development in the late 1980s and early 1990s, many re-
finements and additions to the model have been made (Cerco et al.
2006, 2004). These include adding submerged aquatic vegetation,
ð42Þ multiple zooplankton groups, benthos, and other compartments.
Additionally, the model was modified later specifically to address
ð43Þ the unique environment of the Lower St. Johns River, Florida. The
CE-QUAL-ICM model computes and reports concentrations, mass
transport, kinetics transformations, and mass balances for 36 water
quality state variables including, among others, multiple forms
of algae, zooplankton, carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, silica, and
dissolved oxygen. Each state variable may be individually activated
or deactivated. CE-QUAL-ICM is generally recognized as the most
comprehensive 3D water quality model in the world.
One of the features of the ICM model is that it is an unstructured
grid finite-volume model. Thus, mass is absolutely conserved. Its
unstructured grid feature enables it be linked with various hydro-
dynamic models, including CH3D and EFDC. This feature enables
ð44Þ many simulations of the model to be made economically during
model calibration because the hydrodynamics has to be simulated
once, saved, and used repeatedly during water quality simulations.
ð45Þ Applicability to TMDL Studies
ICM is able to simulate water quality responses to point and non-
point-source loads and can be used as part of TMDLs. In addition to
ð46Þ its application in Chesapeake Bay, it has also been applied in Green
Bay, New York Harbor, San Juan Bay, Florida Bay, Lower St. Johns
River, Mississippi Sound, Lake Washington, and many other sys-
tems (Cerco and Noel 2013; Mark et al. 1993; Martin et al. 2002).
WASP
Model Background and Capabilities
During the 1960s and 1970s, the 1950s estuarine box models were
extended to simulate water quality as a series of completely mixed

© ASCE 04018063-10 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng., 2019, 24(2): 04018063

 Estuaries

—
—

—
—
—

—
—
X
X
X

X
Reservoirs
Applicability

—
—
—

—
—
X
X
X
X

X
Lakes

—
—
—

—
—
X
X
X
X

X
Rivers

—
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by URI LIBRARIES on 12/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Metals

—
—

—
—

—
X
X
X

X
Toxics

Fig. 4. Schematic representation of CE-QUAL-ICM water quality

—
—

—
—
—

—
—
X
X
X

kinetics.
Pathogens

—
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

reactors that could be stacked to represent one-, two-, or three-

dimensional water body physics. WASP started as a modular trans-
port code with water quality subroutines. After Di Toro et al. (1983)
Sediments

applied the WASP model to simulate nutrient cycling in the Great

—
—
—

—
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
Water quality

Lakes, Ambrose et al. (1986) created a publicly available WASP

code, which has evolved during the last decades to simulate ad-
vanced eutrophication, organic toxicants, metals, pH, and sediment
and algae
C, N, P,

diagenesis. The WASP model is at present one of the most widely

—

—
X
X
X
X
X
X

used water quality models in the world, and it has a user database
with over 15,000 users. The latest model version WASP 8.1 (as of
2018) can be downloaded from the USEPA—WASP distribution
DO

website (USEPA 2018e). The WASP model includes a graphical

—

—
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

user interface (GUI) with preprocessing capabilities to create

and edit model segments, develop model parameterization, and
Salinity

read inputs from different database formats. It also includes a

—

—
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

postprocessor system [Model Visualization Enhancement Module

(MOVEM)] to visualize model results and generate comparison
Temperature

plots between simulations and field data for calibration and con-
Can be linked to hydrodynamic models to simulate 2D and 3D transport.

firmation testing. Simulation outputs can be transferred to spread-

—

—
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

sheets as *.CSV files and plotted or animated two-dimensionally.

In addition to the WASP model interface, preprocessing of input
Table 3. Capabilities of selected receiving water body models

information and generation of WASP modeling segments can be

In-build transport

3D

assisted with tools available in the Better Assessment Science In-

—
—

—
—

—
—

—
—
X

tegrating Point and Nonpoint Sources (BASINS) system.

The WASP model is commonly used in conjunction with hydro-
2D
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
X
X

logic and hydrodynamic models to simulate complex large-scale

water bodies. Hydrologic models such as the Storm Water Manage-
1D
—

—
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X

ment Model (SWMM) and the Hydrological Simulation Program–

FORTRAN (HSPF) are typically used to calculate watershed loading
Public license

inputs for the model (Mandel et al. 2008). Meanwhile, multidimen-

sional hydrodynamic models such as EFDC are used to provide the
—

—
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X

model with critical transport information (e.g., velocities, depths, and

water temperatures, among others) via a linkage file.

Applicability to TMDL Studies

MIKE11 -ECOLAB

The WASP model can be used to simulate complex water quality

CCHE-1D/2D/3D

MINTEQA2 and
a

Visual MINTEQ
CE-QUAL-ICM

CE-QUAL-W2

problems in rivers, lakes, reservoirs, estuaries, and coastal waters.

The software can simulate conventional pollutants, three types of
EPD_RIV1
HEC-RAS

QUAL2K

sediments, pathogens, temperature, nitrogen speciation, phospho-

WASPa

OTEQ
Model

EFDC

rus speciation, dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand,

sediment oxygen demand, sediment digenesis, multiple species of
a

© ASCE 04018063-11 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng., 2019, 24(2): 04018063

 algae, detritus, periphyton, organic toxicants, metals, and mercury.
The WASP model has been applied to support TMDL studies in the
Neuse River Estuary, North Carolina, Sawgrass Lake, Florida, and
Wissahickon Creek, Pennsylvania, among others (USEPA 2009;
Wool et al. 2003b; Zou et al. 2006).
EFDC
Model Background and Capabilities
EFDC is a multifunctional surface water modeling system that in-
cludes hydrodynamic, sediment-contaminant, and eutrophication
components (Hamrick 1992). The public-domain EFDC model
was originally developed at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by URI LIBRARIES on 12/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(VIMS) and was later enhanced by Tetra Tech, Inc. for the USEPA.
The EFDC is available for download from the USEPA–EFDC
website (USEPA 2018b).
The EFDC simulates 1D, 2D, and 3D domains using a
curvilinear-orthogonal horizontal grid and a sigma terrain following
vertical grid. For 1D applications, an optional HEC cross-section de-
scription can be used. The EFDC hydrodynamic simulation is based
on a semi-implicit, conservative finite-volume solution scheme for
the hydrostatic primitive equations with either two-level or three-
level time stepping. Salinity and heat transport are dynamically cou-
pled with a choice of high-accuracy advection schemes including the
multidimensional positive definite advection transport algorithm
(MPDATA) and the conservative operator splitting for multidimen-
sions with inherent constancy (COSMIC). Additional capabilities
include simulation of shoreline movement by drying and wetting,
hydraulic control structures, vegetation resistance, wave–current
boundary layers, and wave-induced currents. An embedded single-
port buoyant jet simulation is included for coupled near-field and
far-field mixing analysis.
The EFDC includes a variable configuration eutrophication
component for simulation of aquatic carbon, nitrogen, and phos-
phorus cycles. The full configuration of state variables mimics the
USACE’s CE-QUAL-ICM model including sediment diagenesis.
The configuration can be readily reduced to equivalent WASP con-
figurations. In addition to the internal eutrophication model, EFDC
can create hydrodynamic transport files formatted for WASP and
CE-QUAL-ICM.
In addition to the conventional eutrophication variables, the
EFDC simulates multiple size classes of cohesive and noncohesive
sediment. A library of sediment processes functions allows the
model user to choose from a wide range of currently accepted pa-
rameterizations for settling, deposition, resuspension, and bed-load
transport. The sediment bed is represented by multiple layers and
includes a number of armoring representations for noncohesive
sediment and a finite strain consolidation formulation for dynamic
simulation of bed layer thickness, void ratio, and pore-water advec-
tion. The sediment-transport component can operate in a morpho-
logical mode with full coupling with the hydrodynamic component
to represent dynamic evolution of bed topography.
EFDC can also represent the transport and fate of an ar-
bitrary number of contaminants, including metals and hydrophobic
organics, sorbed to any of the sediment classes and dissolved
and particulate organic carbon using a three-phase equilibrium
partitioning formulation. Dissolved and particulate organic car-
bon can be represented as independent state variables, or pollu-
tant of concern (POC) can be fractionally assigned to any of the
sediment classes. A contaminant processes function library allows
the representation of various degradation and transformation
processes.
© ASCE 04018063-12
J. Hydrol. Eng., 2019, 24(2): 04018063
Applicability to TMDL Studies
The EFDC has been used for more than 100 modeling studies of
rivers, lakes, estuaries, coastal regions, and wetlands internation-
ally. Due to its range of applicability with respect to water body
and pollutant type, as well as its compatibility with watershed mod-
els such as the Loading Simulation Program C (LSPC) and HSPF,
EFDC has been a choice model for TMDL development. TMDL
applications include river, pond, lake, and estuary applications
throughout the continental United States. Notable TMDL appli-
cations include the Charles River in Massachusetts, Mobile Bay
in Alabama, Klamath Estuary in California, Christina River in
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware, Peconic Bay in New York,
Los Angeles Harbor in California, and Charleston Harbor in South
Carolina. The EFDC has been tested using analytical solutions,
simulations of laboratory experiments, and verified prototype ap-
plications. An extensive bibliography of refereed journal and con-
ference proceeding articles exists.
CE-QUAL-W2
Model Background and Capabilities
CE-QUAL-W2 is a 2D laterally averaged hydrodynamic and water
quality model. The model simulates water levels, temperature,
density, and constituent concentrations in surface water bodies.
CE-QUAL-W2 was originally developed in the 1970s as a hydro-
dynamic model known as Laterally Averaged Reservoir Model
(LARM) (Edinger and Buchak 1975). In the last three decades,
model research and development of CE-QUAL-W2 has been con-
ducted by the USACE and Portland State University (Cole and
Wells 2016). CE-QUAL-W2 allows the model to be applied to
multiple reservoirs and river reaches. The model can simulate sev-
eral water quality variables including a conservative tracer, nitrogen
and phosphorus species, DO, and multiple algae and CBOD
groups. The model also includes a sediment diagenesis module to
simulate sediment–water exchanges of nutrients (C, N, P, and Si).
The latest W2 model can be downloaded from the PSU (2018).
Fig. 5 provides an overview of the CE-QUAL-W2 water quality
state variables and major processes simulated by the model.
Applicability to TMDL Studies
The CE-QUAL-W2 model has been used to support TMDL studies.
US governmental agencies including the USACE, US Bureau of
Reclamation (USBR), USGS, USEPA, and Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA), as well as numerous states, county, and local
agencies, have used this model as a management tool to evaluate
effects from various stressors including temperature, nutrients, and
organic wastes in water bodies (Bowen and Hieronymus 2003;
O’Donnell et al. 2011; Singleton et al. 2013; Sullivan et al. 2003;
Zhang et al. 2008). Recent applications of CE-QUAL-W2 include
studies in the Lower Minnesota River, Minnesota, Lost Creek Lake,
Oregon, and Applegate Lake, Oregon, among others (Smith et al.
2012; Threadgill et al. 2017).
HEC-RAS
Model Background and Capabilities
HEC-RAS is a river analysis model developed by the USACE
Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC). HEC-RAS is an industry
standard hydraulic tool that has been used worldwide. It is designed
to perform hydraulic simulation for a full network of open channels
and a wide variety of hydraulic structures, such as bridges, culverts,
spillways, and weirs. The HEC-RAS system contains five modules:
(1) 1D steady flow water surface profile module; (2) 1D unsteady
flow module; (3) 2D unsteady flow module; (4) movable boundary
J. Hydrol. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by URI LIBRARIES on 12/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Schematic representation of CE-QUAL-W2 water quality kinetics.

sediment-transport module; and (5) water quality module. All five
modules use a common geometric data representation and common
geometric and hydraulic computation routines. In HEC-RAS, its
GUI standardizes many aspects of data entry and facilitates an
efficient display of model results, data checking, data conversion,
and communication among model subcomponents. The latest
HEC-RAS model can be freely accessed and downloaded from
the HEC website (USACE 2018).
A set of plug-in water quality modules developed by USACE
have been integrated into the 1D HEC-RAS model. The water
quality modules were developed to simulate a wide range of water
quality constituents in aquatic environments including water tem-
perature, general constituent, solids, nutrients [nutrient simulation
modules I (NSMI) and nutrient simulation modules II (NSMII)],
and mercury. The submodules have been described in detail by
Zhang and Johnson (2016a, b). Each water quality module was de-
signed to compute kinetic terms in aquatic environments and
sources and sinks to the advection-dispersion transport solver in
HEC-RAS. Fig. 6 provides an overview of water quality state var-
iables modeled in nutrient simulation modules NSMI and NSMII.
Applicability to TMDL Studies
The HEC-RAS water quality model has been used to support
TMDL and environmental-impact statement studies. Some recent
studies include the lower Minnesota River (Zhang and Johnson
2014), Missouri River (Zhang and Johnson 2017), Columbia River,
and Snake System underway.
CCHE-1D/2D/3D
Model Background and Capabilities
The Center for Computational Hydroscience and Engineering
(CCHE) CCHE1D model simulates one-dimensional unsteady
flows, sediment transport, and water quality in dendritic channel

(a) (b)

Fig. 6. Schematic representation of water quality kinetics for (a) NSMI; and (b) NSMII.

© ASCE 04018063-13 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng., 2019, 24(2): 04018063

 networks. CCHE1D was designed to facilitate the combined mod-
eling of watershed and channel processes. CCHE1D is free and
distributed by the National Center for Computational Hydroscience
and Engineering (NCCHE) at the University of Mississippi
(NCCHE 2018). The development was supported by United States
Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service by means
of funds allocated by the United States Congress, with a mandate to
develop state of the art numerical models for simulating flow and
sedimentation processes in the natural environment.
The CCHE1D hydrodynamic model includes special procedures
for the computation of flow across hydraulic structures like cul-
verts, low-drop and high-drop structures, bridge crossings, and
measuring flumes. The sediment-transport module computes non-
equilibrium transport of nonuniform sediment mixtures. It has been
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by URI LIBRARIES on 12/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
designed for long-term simulations of channel morphological
changes, and it can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of in-
channel remedial and control structures on the sediment yield.
The CCHE1D water quality module simulates the transport and
fate of nutrients and other pollutants in channel networks, including
the biogeochemical reactions that take place in the streams and
sediment bed layers (Inthasaro 2010; Wu and Vieira 2002). This
water quality module can be applied to simulate phytoplankton,
biological oxygen demand, dissolved oxygen, organic nitrogen,
ammonia, nitrate, organic phosphorus, and phosphate. It is also
applicable to simulate toxic materials or metals. An ArcView
GUI facilitates the data management and the integration of the
channel model with watershed models and other tools. It also
includes a landscape analysis module that delineates the drainage
network and corresponding subcatchments based on digital eleva-
tion data.
In recent years, NCCHE also developed CCHE2D and
CCHE3D models to simulate the free surface flow hydrodynamics,
sediment, water quality, and pollutant transport in rivers, lakes, and
coastal waters (Chao et al. 2007; Jia et al. 2013). A mesh generator
and GUI were developed to generate the mesh for a computational
domain and operate the CCHE2D and CCHE3D models, including
model selection, data input processing, model execution, and
output visualization (Zhang 2013).
Applicability to TMDL Studies
The CCHE1D/2D/3D models are applicable to TMDL studies of
rivers, streams, lakes, and estuaries for conventional pollutants,
toxic chemicals, and metals. CCHE1D has been applied in various
hydrodynamic and sediment studies, including bed load transport
in East Fork River, Wyoming; sedimentation in the Danjiangkou
Reservoir on the Hanjiang River, China; runoff and sediment yield
in Goodwin Creek Watershed, Mississippi; and sediment and con-
taminant transport due to a coal ash spill accidents in Dan River,
North Carolina (Chao et al. 2016; Inthasaro 2010; Wu and Vieira
2002). More information on model capabilities and applications for
version 3.0 of CCHE1D can be found at NCCHE (2018). The
CCHE2D and CCHE3D models have been applied to simulate
water quality and sediment transport in Hudson River, Yangtze
River, Lake Pontchartrain, Ross Barnett Reservoir, Enid Lake,
Beasley Lake, and Mississippi coastal waters, among others.
(Chao et al. 2007, 2012; Zhu 2006). The simulation results provide
useful information for water quality management and TMDL
implementations.
EPD-RIV1
Model Background and Capabilities
The Georgia Environmental Protection Department–One-
Dimensional Model of Hydrodynamics and Water Quality
© ASCE 04018063-14
J. Hydrol. Eng., 2019, 24(2): 04018063
(EPD-RIV1) model is a fully dynamic one-dimensional, cross-
sectional averaged hydrodynamic water quality model created to
simulate the impact of time-varying point and nonpoint sources
on the hydrodynamics and water quality of a stream or river.
EPD-RIV1 was initially developed for the Georgia Environmental
Protection Division (EPD) to simulate water quality and hydrody-
namics in the Chattahoochee River (Martin and Wool 2002). The
code EPD-RIV1 was the result of a series of modifications to the
original CE-QUAL-RIV1 code to improve its performance and add
to its capabilities, particularly to perform analysis of waste load
allocations. Several model improvements were focused on making
the model easier to use and easier to link to preprocessing and post-
processing tools. At present, powerful preprocessing and postpro-
cessing capabilities for the EPD-RIV1 model are available within
the Water Resources Database (WRDB), a program also developed
for the Georgia EPD and USEPA Region IV to retrieve, organize,
and process environmental data for model inputs as well as to pro-
cess simulations results. The EPD-RIV1 model was distributed by
the USEPA.
In the EPD-RIV1 model, the hydrodynamic module simulates
the advective and dispersive transport of contaminants. The quality
module simulates the interactions of up to 16 state variables,
including water temperature, organic and inorganic nutrients, dis-
solved oxygen, carbonaceous oxygen demand (two types), algae,
iron, manganese, coliform bacteria, macrophytes, and two arbitrary
constituents.
Applicability to TMDL Studies
The model is applicable to one-dimensional river systems, with
some limited branching, with highly variable and dynamic flows.
It is capable of continuous simulations of water temperature and
a relatively extensive set of water quality constituents, primarily
focused on dissolved oxygen. EPD-RIV1 is not applicable to sedi-
ment transport, toxics, or metals. It has preprocessing, postpro-
cessing, and database capabilities. The model was designed for
the simulation of dynamic conditions in rivers and streams for
the purpose of analyzing existing conditions and performing
waste load allocations, including allocations for TMDLs. The
EPD-RIV1 model has been used, among others, by the Alabama
Department of Environmental Management as part of TMDL
studies in the Cahaba River Watershed (ADEM 2006) and by
the USEPA to support TMDL studies in the Savannah Harbor,
Georgia (USEPA 2010).
QUAL2K
Model Background and Capabilities
The QUAL2K model is a river and stream water quality model that
is intended to represent a modernized version of the QUAL2E
model. Version 1 was released in 2003. The most recent version
2.12 was released in 2012 (Chapra et al. 2012). The QUAL2K code
is distributed by the USEPA (2018c).
The QUAL2K model is a powerful model based on many of the
same assumptions as QUAL2E, such as a one-dimensional system
with steady-state, nonuniform flows and hydraulics while allowing
simulation of diel variations in water quality. Enhancements over
QUAL2E include algorithms for slow and fast carbonaceous bio-
chemical oxygen demand, periphyton, and detritus in addition to
sediment diagenesis, pH, and alkalinity. The model inputs and out-
puts are in the form of user friendly Excel spreadsheets, with under-
lying VBA routines to write and read files for use in a FORTRAN
executable code.
J. Hydrol. Eng.
 Applicability to TMDL Studies
QUAL2K is applicable to WLA and TMDL studies of rivers and
streams and to investigate problems related to pathogens, nitrogen,
phosphorus, dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand, sedi-
ment oxygen demand, phytoplankton and benthic algae, and pH
(Ohio EPA 2009, 2013). It is not applicable to toxics or metals
and is limited to simulation of steady time-invariant flow, and time
variations in water quality are only over diel cycles but constant
otherwise.
MINTEQA2 and Visual MINTEQ
Model Background and Capabilities
These two separate models have similar capabilities. The Metal
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by URI LIBRARIES on 12/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Speciation Equilibrium for Surface and Ground Water Model
(MINTEQA2) (Allison et al. 1991) is a geochemical equilibrium
speciation model for dilute aqueous systems. Visual MINTEQ and
MINTEQA2 compute the equilibrium distribution and mass distri-
bution among the dissolved, adsorbed, and multiple solid phases
under a variety of conditions including a gas phase with constant
partial pressure. The computations are based on input of measured
concentrations of a chemical of interest. The distribution is then com-
puted from known chemical forms including in a series of chemical
databases, with databases available for thermodynamics, gas reac-
tions, sorption, and other chemical reactions and transformations.
MINTEQA2 was originally developed at Battelle Pacific North-
west Laboratory (PNL) by combining the mathematical structure of
MINEQL with a thermodynamic database. The latest release is
version 4.03, released in May 2006. The model is distributed by
the USEPA (2018c).
Visual MINTEQ was originally developed in 2000 as a
Windows user interface to the USEPA model MINTEQA2. Sub-
sequently the model gradually diverged from MINTEQA2, such
as in expanding and revising the thermodynamic database and in-
cluding new options. The model is distributed free of charge by the
developer, Jon Petter Gustafsson at KTH (Royal Institute of Tech-
nology) in Stockholm, Sweden (KTH 2018).
Applicability to TMDL Studies
Simulation of the formation of free metal ions, dissolved metals,
metal precipitates, sorbed metals, and metal complexes is a difficult
task. Speciation is governed by the simultaneous occurrence of
multiple chemical reactions that must be resolved to understand
the transport, fate, biological exposure, and toxicity of metals.
MINTEQ and MINTEQA2 can be used to evaluate most of these
processes and to determine the necessary controls on sources of
metal pollution that must be applied for a particular TMDL
(e.g., USEPA 2002a).
One-Dimensional Transport with Equilibrium Chemistry
Model Background and Capabilities
The One-Dimensional Transport with Equilibrium Chemistry
(OTEQ) model is a reactive transport model for streams and rivers
(Runkel et al. 1999) developed and distributed by the United States
Geological Survey (USGS 2018).
The OTEQ model simulates the transport and speciation of met-
als and the fate and transport of solutes in streams and rivers. The
model couples a solute transport model with a chemical equilibrium
model based on MINTEQ. The transport model simulates dispersion,
transient storage, and transport and deposition of waterborne solid
particles. The chemical algorithms include acid–base reactions, com-
plexation, precipitation or dissolution, and sorption.
© ASCE 04018063-15
J. Hydrol. Eng., 2019, 24(2): 04018063
Applicability to TMDL Studies
OTEQ can be applied to support WLA and TMDL studies deal-
ing with the fate and transport of metals in rivers and streams.
The ability of the model to support the evaluation of remediation
alternatives for polluted streams has been examined by Runkel and
Kimball (2002).
MIKE 11
Model Background and Capabilities
MIKE 11 is part of a family of water modeling software products
developed by DHI Water and Environment (DHI 2018). Part of
the MIKE suite of models, MIKE 11 is the river hydraulics and
sediment-transport model. The model has been used in numerous
applications around the world for real-time forecasting of river flows
and flood warnings, including projects in Thailand, China, Italy, the
United Kingdom, United States, Bangladesh, Czech Republic, Iran,
and Denmark.
Although MIKE 11 is a 1D model, it can be dynamically linked
to other DHI software such as MIKE 21 to perform 2D river and
floodplain modeling, MIKE SHE (Système Hydrologique Eu-
ropéen) for surface water–groundwater modeling, and ECO-Lab
for water quality modeling. These linkage options facilitate the
use of MIKE 11 in complex projects requiring an integrated analy-
sis of hydrologic, hydraulic, and hydrogeological processes. The
linkage between MIKE 11 and ECO-Lab in particular, allows
the user to perform water quality simulations and TMDL studies
for different constituents. General MIKE 11 capabilities include
floodplain analysis and mapping, integrated groundwater and sur-
face water analysis, design and analysis of flood mitigation sys-
tems, dam-break analysis, real-time flood, inflow, and water
quality forecasting, analysis and design of hydraulic structures, op-
timization of river and reservoir operations, water quality analysis,
TMDL development and channel restoration, sediment transport,
and dredging impact.
Applicability to TMDL Studies
MIKE 11 is commonly used in the United States along with MIKE
SHE to analyze surface water–groundwater interactions, develop
minimum flows and levels (MFLs), and support ecosystem restora-
tion studies (e.g., Cook 2012; Dai et al. 2010; Sørensen et al. 1999).
Meanwhile, MIKE 11 and ECO-Lab are used for water quality stud-
ies involving eutrophication of water bodies and nutrient transport
and cycling and to support TMDL projects (e.g., Liang et al. 2015;
Long 2014).
Conclusions
This paper has presented a review of mathematical models and ap-
proaches currently used in TMDL studies to simulate some of the
main causes of water pollution in the United States, including
eutrophication, toxic chemicals, and mercury. The physical and
biochemical processes associated to eutrophication, including
nutrient cycling, phytoplankton production, organic matter decom-
position, and DO balance, were discussed. Similarly, the paper de-
scribed the main processes controlling the fate and transport of
toxic chemicals and mercury, including volatilization, photolysis,
biodegradation, and hydrolysis, and presented mathematical mod-
els to simulate each of the aforementioned processes, indicating
the main assumptions and limitations for their use in TMDL
applications.
The paper also included a review of the capabilities and limi-
tations of selected water quality modeling packages (Table 3).
J. Hydrol. Eng.
 Although a comprehensive review of the large amount of software of the general modeling capabilities available at present to support
packages used for water quality studies is unpractical, the reviewed TMDL studies. The purpose of the review is also to help users to
modeling packages have been identified by the ASCE/EWRI make a more informed selection of models for their specific
TMDL Analysis and Modeling Task Committee as representative project needs.

Appendix. Simulated Processes in the WASP Mercury Model

Reaction process Species Process path Model


∂CHg CHgðatmÞ
Hg0
v
Volatilization Water–atmosphere exchange ¼ kv CHg −
∂t He
RT k
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by URI LIBRARIES on 12/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

kv = volatilization rate (day−1 )

∂CHg ox
Oxidation Hg0 From Hg0 to Hg(II) ¼ −kox CHg
Sink for Hg0 ∂t

∂CHgðIIÞ ox ∂CHg ox
Source for Hg(II) ¼ Abs
∂t ∂t
kox = oxidation rate (day−1 )
∂CHgðIIÞ r
Photoreduction Hg(II) From Hg(II) to Hg0 due to sunlight ¼ −kr Ln ðCHgðIIÞ þ CHgðIIÞðsedÞ Þ
Sink for Hg(II) ∂t

∂CHg r ∂CHgðIIÞrd
Source for Hg0 ¼ Abs
∂t  ∂t
Ls 1 − e−Ke H
Ln ¼
Lref Ke H
Ln = normalized light intensity over the depth (H);
Ls = surface light intensity; Lref = light intensity at reference
photoreduction rate; K e = light extinction coefficient [Eq. (19)];
and kr = photoreduction rate (day−1 )
∂CHgðIIÞ m
Methylation Hg(II) From Hg(II) to MeHgþ ¼ −km ðCHgðIIÞ þ CHgðIIÞðsedÞ Þ
Sink for Hg(II) ∂t

∂CMeHg m ∂CHgðIIÞm
Source for MeHgþ ¼ 1.07 Abs
∂t ∂t
km = methylation rate (day−1 )
∂CMeHg rdm
Photoreductive MeHgþ From MeHgþ to Hg0 due to sunlight ¼ −krdm Ln ðCMeHg þ CMeHgðsedÞ Þ
demethylation Sink for MeHgþ ∂t

∂CHg rdm ∂CMeHgrdm
Source for Hg0 ¼ 0.93 Abs
∂t ∂t
krdm = photoreduction rate (day−1 )
∂CMeHg bdm
Bacterial demethylation MeHgþ MeHgþ to Hg0 due to bacteria ¼ −kbdm ðCMeHg þ CMeHgðsedÞ Þ
Sink for MeHgþ ∂t

∂CHg bdm ∂CMeHgbdm
Source for Hg0 ¼ 0.93 Abs
∂t ∂t
kbdm = bacterial demethylation rate (day−1 ).

Acknowledgments References

The TMDL Analysis and Modeling Task Committee of the Amer-
ican Society of Civil Engineers’ Environmental and Water Re-
sources Institute was formed to address concerns and challenges
over the current practices of analysis and modeling in the TMDL
development and implementation in terms of analysis technique
and model selection, data requirements, calibration, validation,
and uncertainty reporting. The committee reviewed the current
practices of analysis and modeling in TMDL development and
implementation and documented the review in a report, “Total
Maximum Daily Load Analysis and Modeling: Assessment of
the Practice,” published by ASCE in 2017. The authors of this
paper are members of the Task Committee and the paper is partly
based on the findings of the Task Committee.
ADEM (Alabama Department of Environmental Management). 2006.
Final nutrient total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for the Cahaba
River Watershed, 96. Montgomery, AL: ADEM.
Allison, J. D., and T. L. Allison. 2005. Partition coefficients for metals in
surface water, soil, and waste. Rep. No. EPA/600/R-05. Washington,
DC: USEPA.
Allison, J. D., D. S. Brown, and K. J. Novo-Gradac. 1991. MINTEQA2/
PRODEFA2, a geochemical assessment model for environmental sys-
tems: Version 3.0 user’s manual. EPA/600/3-91/021. Athens, GA:
USEPA.
Ambrose, R. B., S. B. Vandergrift, and T. A. Wool. 1986. WASP3, A hydro-
dynamic and water quality model—Model theory, user’s manual and
programmer’s guide. Athens, GA: USEPA.
Ambrose, R. B., T. A. Wool, and J. L. Martin. 1993. The water
quality analysis simulation program, WASP5. Part A: Model

© ASCE 04018063-16 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng., 2019, 24(2): 04018063

 documentation. Athens, GA: USEPA Center for Exposure Assess-
ment Modeling.
Anderson, D. M., et al. 2008. “Harmful algal blooms and eutrophication:
Examining linkages from selected coastal regions of the United States.”
Harmful Algae 8 (1): 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2008.08.017.
ASCE. 2017. Total maximum daily load analysis and modeling: Assess-
ment of the practice. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Bernhoft, R. A. 2012. “Mercury toxicity and treatment: A review of the
literature.” J. Environ. Public Health 2012: 10.
Bowen, J., and J. Hieronymus. 2003. “A CE-QUAL-W2 model of Neuse
Estuary for total maximum daily load development.” J. Water Resour.
Plann. Manage. 129 (4): 283–294. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9496(2003)129:4(283).
Bowie, G. L., W. B. Mills, D. B. Porcella, C. L. Campbell, J. R. Pagenkopf,
G. L. Rupp, K. M. Johnson, P. Chan, S. A. Gherini, and C. E.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by URI LIBRARIES on 12/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Chamberlin. 1985. Vol. 600 of Rates, constants, and kinetics formula-
tions in surface water quality modeling, 3–85. Athens, GA: USEPA.
Camacho, R., J. Martin, B. Watson, M. Paul, L. Zheng, and J. Stribling.
2014. “Modeling the factors controlling phytoplankton in the St. Louis
Bay Estuary, Mississippi and evaluating estuarine responses to nutrient
load modifications.” J. Environ. Eng. 141 (3): 04014067. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000892.
Caruso, B., T. Cox, R. L. Runkel, M. Velleux, K. E. Bencala, D. K.
Nordstrom, P. Julien, B. Butler, C. N. Alpers, and A. Marion. 2008.
“Metals fate and transport modelling in streams and watersheds: State
of the science and USEPA workshop review.” Hydrol. Processes
22 (19): 4011–4021. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7114.
Cerco, C. F., B. W. Bunch, A. M. Teeter, and M. S. Dortch. 2000. Water
quality model of Florida Bay. Vicksburg, MS: Engineer Research and
Development Center Vicksburg MS Environmental Lab.
Cerco, C. F., and T. Cole. 1993. “Three-dimensional eutrophication model
of Chesapeake Bay.” J. Environ. Eng. 119 (6): 1006–1025. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(1993)119:6(1006).
Cerco, C. F., and T. Cole. 1995. User’s guide to the CE-QUAL-ICM: Three-
dimensional eutrophication model. Technical Rep. No. EL-95-1 5.
Vicksburg, MS: USACE.
Cerco, C. F., and M. R. Noel. 2013. “Twenty one year simulation of Chesa-
peake Bay water quality using the CE-QUAL-ICM eutrophication
model.” J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 49 (5): 1119–1133. https://doi
.org/10.1111/jawr.12107.
Cerco, C. F., M. R. Noel, and S.-C. Kim. 2006. “Three-dimensional man-
agement model for Lake Washington. Part II: Eutrophication modeling
and skill assessment.” Lake Reservoir Manage. 22 (2): 115–131. https://
doi.org/10.1080/07438140609353889.
Cerco, C. F., M. R. Noel, and L. Linker. 2004. “Managing for water clarity
in Chesapeake Bay.” J. Environ. Eng. 130 (6): 631–642. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2004)130:6(631).
Chao, X., M. Altinakar, and R. Marsooli. 2016. “Numerical modeling of
the fate and transport of contaminants due to a coal ash spill accident in
the Dan River.” In Proc., ASCE World Water and Environmental
Resources Congress. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Chao, X., Y. Jia, C. M. Cooper, F. D. Shields, Jr., and S. S. Wang. 2006.
“Development and application of a phosphorus model for a shallow
oxbow lake.” J. Environ. Eng. 132 (11): 1498–1507. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2006)132:11(1498).
Chao, X., Y. Jia, F. D. Shields, S. S. Wang, and C. M. Cooper. 2007.
“Numerical modeling of water quality and sediment related processes.”
Ecol. Modell. 201 (3): 385–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel
.2006.10.003.
Chao, X., Y. Jia, S. S. Wang, and A. A. Hossain. 2012. “Numerical mod-
eling of surface flow and transport phenomena with applications to
Lake Pontchartrain.” Lake Reservoir Manage. 28 (1): 31–45. https://doi
.org/10.1080/07438141.2011.639481.
Chapra, S. C., G. J. Pelletier, and H. Tao. 2012. “QUAL2K: A modeling
framework for simulating river and stream water quality. Version
2.12: Documentation and users manual. Medford, MA: Dept. of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Tufts Univ.
Chapra, S. C. 1997. Surface water: Quality modeling. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
© ASCE 04018063-17
J. Hydrol. Eng., 2019, 24(2): 04018063
Chapra, S. C. 2003. “Engineering water quality models and TMDLs.”
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 129 (4): 247–256. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2003)129:4(247).
Chapra, S. C. 2011. “Rubbish, stink, and death: The historical evolution,
present state, and future direction of water-quality management and
modeling.” Environ. Eng. Res. 16 (3): 113–119. https://doi.org/10
.4491/eer.2011.16.3.113.
Cloern, J. E. 1999. “The relative importance of light and nutrient limitation
of phytoplankton growth: A simple index of coastal ecosystem sensi-
tivity to nutrient enrichment.” Aquat. Ecol. 33 (1): 3–15. https://doi.org
/10.1023/A:1009952125558.
Cole, T. M., and S. A. Wells. 2011. CE-QUAL-W2: A two-dimensional,
laterally averaged, hydrodynamic and water quality model, version 3.7.
Washington, DC: USACE.
Cole, T. M., and S. A. Wells. 2016. CE-QUAL-W2: A two-dimensional,
laterally averaged, hydrodynamic and water quality model, version 4.0.
Portland, OR: Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Portland
State Univ.
Cook, A. 2012. “Development of an integrated surface and subsurface
model of Everglades National Park.” Electronic theses and dissertations,
Florida International Univ.
Dai, Z., C. Li, C. Trettin, G. Sun, D. Amatya, and H. Li. 2010. “Bi-criteria
evaluation of the MIKE SHE model for a forested watershed on
the South Carolina coastal plain.” Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 14 (6):
1033–1046. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-14-1033-2010.
DHI (Danish Hydraulic Institute). 2018. “MIKE model distribution
website.” Accessed November 2, 2018. http://www.dhisoftware.com/.
Di Toro, D. M., J. J. Fitzpatrick, and R. V. Thoman 1983. Documentation
for water quality analysis simulation program (WASP) and model veri-
fication program (MVP). Duluth, MN: Environmental Protection
Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and
Development.
Di Toro, D. M., D. J. O’Connor, and R. V. Thomann. 1971. “A dynamic
model of the phytoplankton population in the Sacramento San Joaquin
Delta.” Am. Chem. Soc. 106 (2): 131–180. https://doi.org/10.1021/ba
-1971-0106.ch005.
Dortch, M., T. Schneider, J. L. Martin, M. Zimmerman, and D. M. Griffin.
1990. CE-QUAL-RIV1: A dynamic, one-dimensional (longitudinal)
water quality model for streams. User’s manual. Vicksburg, MS: Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Edinger, J. E., and E. M. Buchak. 1975. A hydrodynamic, two-dimensional
reservoir model: The computational basis. Cincinnati: US Army
Engineer Division.
Egge, J. K., and D. L. Aksnes. 1992. “Silicate as regulating nutrient in
phytoplankton competition.” Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 83 (2): 281–289.
https://doi.org/10.3354/meps083281.
FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2013. Mercury
TMDL for the State of Florida. Final Rep. Tallahassee, FL: FDEP.
Hamrick, J. M. 1992. A three-dimensional environmental fluid dynamics
computer code: Theoretical and computational aspects. Williamsburg,
VA: College of William and Mary, Virginia Institute of Science.
Heisler, J., et al. 2008. “Eutrophication and harmful algal blooms: A sci-
entific consensus.” Harmful Algae 8 (1): 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.hal.2008.08.006.
Hendrickson, J., N. Trahan, E. Stecker, and Y. Ouyang. 2002. TMDL and
PLRG modeling of the lower St. Johns River technical report series.
Volume 1: Calculation of the external load. Palatka, FL: St. Johns River
Water Management District.
Inthasaro, P. 2010. “A one-dimensional aquatic ecology and ecotoxicology
model in river system.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
National Center for Computational Hydroscience and Engineering,
Univ. of Mississippi.
Ji, Z.-G. 2008. Hydrodynamics and water quality: Modeling rivers, lakes,
and estuaries. New York: Wiley.
Jia, Y., X. Chao, Y. Zhang, and T. Zhu. 2013. Technical manual of
CCHE2D, version 4.1. NCCHE-TR-02-2013. Oxford, MS: Univ. of
Mississippi.
KTH (Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm). 2018. “Visual
MINTEQ version 3.1.” Accessed November 1, 2018. https://vminteq
.lwr.kth.se/.
J. Hydrol. Eng.
 Liang, J., Q. Yang, T. Sun, J. Martin, H. Sun, and L. Li. 2015. “MIKE 11
model-based water quality model as a tool for the evaluation of water
quality management plans.” J. Water Supply Res. Technol.-Aqua 64 (6):
708–718. https://doi.org/10.2166/aqua.2015.048.
LimnoTech. 2013. Statewide Michigan mercury TMDL. Michigan Dept. of
Environmental Quality and USEPA Region 5. Duxbury, MA: USEPA.
Long, S. 2014. “Simulating Everglades National Park hydrology and
phosphorus transport under existing and future scenarios using numeri-
cal modeling.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Geosciences, Florida
International Univ.
Lyman, W. J., W. F. Reehl, and D. H. Rosenblatt. 1990. Handbook of
chemical property estimation methods: Environmental behavior of
organic compounds. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
Mabey, W., and T. Mill. 1978. “Critical review of hydrolysis of organic
compounds in water under environmental conditions.” J. Phys. Chem.
Ref. Data 7 (2): 383–415. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.555572.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by URI LIBRARIES on 12/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Mandel, R., S. Kim, A. Nagel, J. Palmer, C. Schultz, and K. Brubaker.
2008. The TAM/WASP modeling framework for development of nutrient
and BOD TMDLs in the tidal Anacostia River. ICPRB Rep. No. 000–7.
Washington, DC: Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin
Modeling.
Mark, D. J., N. W. Scheffner, H. L. Butler, B. W. Bunch, and M. S. Dortch.
1993. Vol. 1 of Hydrodynamic and water quality modeling of lower
Green Bay, Wisconsin. Vicksburg, MS: Coastal Engineering Research
Center.
Martin, J. L., D. K. Borah, E. Martinez-Guerra, and J. D. Pérez-Gutiérrez.
2015. “TMDL modeling approaches, model surveys, and advances.”
In Proc., World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2015:
Water without Borders. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Martin, J. L., and S. C. McCutcheon. 1999. Hydrodynamics and transport
for water quality modeling. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Martin, J. L., D. Tillman, C. Cerco, J. Hendrickson, and M. Dortch. 2002.
“A three-dimensional water quality model for estimating TMDLs in a
Blackwater river estuary, the lower St. Johns River, FL.” In Proc., 7th
Int. Conf. on Estuarine and Coastal Modeling, 227–245. Reston, VA:
ASCE.
Martin, J. L., and T. Wool. 2002. “A dynamic one-dimensional model of
hydrodynamics and water quality EPD-RIV1, version 1.0.” In Model
documentation and user manual. Atlanta: Georgia Environmental
Protection Division.
Mortazavi, B., R. L. Iverson, W. M. Landing, F. G. Lewis, and W. Huang.
2000. “Control of phytoplankton production and biomass in a river-
dominated estuary: Apalachicola Bay, Florida, USA.” Mar. Ecol. Prog.
Ser. 198 (1): 19–31. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps198019.
MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency). 2007. Minnesota statewide
mercury total maximum daily load, 75. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency.
Muylaert, K., M. Tackx, and W. Vyverman. 2005. “Phytoplankton growth
rates in the freshwater tidal reaches of the Schelde Estuary (Belgium)
estimated using a simple light-limited primary production model.”
Hydrobiologia 540 (1–3): 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750
-004-7128-5.
NCCHE (National Center for Computational Hydroscience and Engineer-
ing). 2018. “CCHE1D download website.” Accessed November 2,
2018. https://www.ncche.olemiss.edu/downloads/.
NCDENR (North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality). 2012.
North Carolina mercury TMDL. Raleigh, NC: NCDENR.
O’Donnell, S., R. Gelda, S. Effler, and D. Pierson. 2011. “Testing and ap-
plication of a transport model for runoff event inputs for a water supply
reservoir.” J. Environ. Eng. 137 (8): 678–688. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000378.
Ohio EPA. 2009. Total maximum daily loads for the Blanchard River
Watershed. Columbus, OH: Ohio EPA, Division of Surface Water.
Ohio EPA. 2013. Total maximum daily loads for the Ottawa River (Lima
area) Watershed. Columbus, OH: Ohio EPA, Division of Surface
Water.
Park, R. A., J. S. Clough, and M. C. Wellman. 2008. “AQUATOX: Mod-
eling environmental fate and ecological effects in aquatic ecosystems.”
Ecol. Modell. 213 (1): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008
.01.015.
© ASCE 04018063-18
J. Hydrol. Eng., 2019, 24(2): 04018063
Pinckney, J. L., H. W. Paerl, and M. B. Harrington. 1999. “Responses of the
phytoplankton community growth rate to nutrient pulses in variable
estuarine environments.” J. Phycol. 35 (6): 1455–1463. https://doi
.org/10.1046/j.1529-8817.1999.3561455.x.
Pinckney, J. L., H. W. Paerl, P. Tester, and T. L. Richardson. 2001. “The
role of nutrient loading and eutrophication in estuarine ecology.” Sup-
plement, Environ. Health Perspect. 109 (S5): 699–706. https://doi.org
/10.1289/ehp.01109s5699.
PSU (Portland State University). 2018. “CE-QUAL-W2: Hydrodynamic
and water quality model.” Accessed September 27, 2018. http://www
.ce.pdx.edu/w2/.
Runkel, R. L., and B. A. Kimball. 2002. “Evaluating remedial alternatives
for an acid mine drainage stream: Application of a reactive transport
model.” Environ. Sci. Technol. 36 (5): 1093–1101. https://doi.org/10
.1021/es0109794.
Runkel, R. L., B. A. Kimball, D. M. McKnight, and K. E. Bencala. 1999.
“Reactive solute transport in streams: A surface complexation approach
for trace metal sorption.” Water Resour. Res. 35 (12): 3829–3840.
https://doi.org/10.1029/1999WR900259.
Schnoor, J. L. 1996. Environmental modeling: Fate and transport of
pollutants in water, air, and soil. New York: Wiley.
Shoemaker, L., T. Dai, J. Koenig, and M. Hantush. 2005. TMDL model
evaluation and research needs. Washington, DC: National Risk
Management Research Laboratory, USEPA.
Singleton, V., B. Jacob, M. Feeney, and J. Little. 2013. “Modeling a pro-
posed quarry reservoir for raw water storage in Atlanta, Georgia.”
J. Environ. Eng. 139 (1): 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE
.1943-7870.0000582.
Smith, D. L., T. L. Threadgill, and C. E. Larson. 2012. Modeling the hydro-
dynamics and water quality of the lower Minnesota River using
CE-QUAL-W2: A report on the development, calibration, verification,
and application of the model. Vicksburg, MS: US Army Engineer
Research and Development Center.
Smith, R. A. 1980. “The theoretical basis for estimating phytoplankton pro-
duction and specific growth rate from chlorophyll, light and temperature
data.” Ecol. Modell. 10 (3–4): 243–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304
-3800(80)90062-9.
Sørensen, H. R., T. V. Jacobsen, J. T. Kjelds, J. Yan, and E. Hopkins. 1999.
“Application of MIKE SHE and MIKE 11 for integrated hydrological
modelling in South Florida.” In Proc., 3rd DHI Software Conf.
Helsingor, Denmark: Danish Hydraulic Institute.
Steele, J. H. 1962. “Environmental control of photosynthesis in the sea.”
Limnol. Oceanogr. 7 (2): 137–150. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1962.7.2
.0137.
Streeter, H., and E. Phelps. 1925. A study of the pollution and natural
purification of the Ohio River. Part III: Factors concerned in the phe-
nomena of oxidation and reaeration. Public Health Bulletin No. 146.
Washington, DC: US Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare.
Sullivan, A. B., H. I. Jager, and R. Myers. 2003. “Modeling white sturgeon
movement in a reservoir: The effect of water quality and sturgeon
density.” Ecol. Modell. 167 (1–2): 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1016
/S0304-3800(03)00169-8.
Tetra Tech. 2007. The environmental fluid dynamics code theory and com-
putation volume 3: Water quality module. Fairfax, VA: Tetra Tech.
Threadgill, T. L., D. F. Turner, L. A. Nicholas, B. W. Bunch, D. H. Tillman,
and D. L. Smith. 2017. Temperature modeling of Lost Creek Lake using
CE-QUAL-W2: A report on the development, calibration, verification,
and application of the model. Vicksburg, MS: US Army Engineer
Research and Development Center.
USACE. 2016. HEC-RAS river analysis system. Version 5.0. user’s
manual. Davis, CA: Hydrologic Engineering Center.
USACE. 2018. “HEC-RAS website.” Accessed November 2, 2018. http://
www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-ras/.
USEPA. 1991. Guidance for water quality-based decisions: The TMDL
process. Washington, DC: USEPA.
USEPA. 1996. Nonpoint source pollution: The nation’s largest water
quality problem. Nonpoint Pointers: Pointer No. 1. Washington, DC:
USEPA.
USEPA. 2002a. Metals and pH total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for the
West Fork River Watershed, West Virginia. Philadelphia: USEPA.
J. Hydrol. Eng.
 USEPA. 2002b. Total maximum daily loads for toxic pollutants San Diego
Creek and Newport Bay, California. Washington, DC: USEPA.
USEPA. 2009. Proposed total maximum daily loads for the Sawgrass Lake
WBID 28931 nutrients and dissolved oxygen, 33. Washington, DC:
USEPA.
USEPA. 2010. Total maximum daily load for dissolved oxygen in Savannah
Harbor Savannah River Basin. Washington, DC: USEPA.
USEPA. 2011. National listing of fish advisories. Washington, DC:
USEPA.
USEPA. 2017. “National summary of impaired waters and TMDL infor-
mation.” Accessed October 10, 2017. http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10
/attains_nation_cy.control?p_report_type=T#causes_303d.
USEPA. 2018a. “Clean water act section 303(d): Impaired waters and total
maximum daily loads (TMDLs).” Accessed November 2, 2018. https://
www.epa.gov/tmdl.
USEPA. 2018b. “EFDC distribution website.” Accessed November 2,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by URI LIBRARIES on 12/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
2018. https://www.epa.gov/ceam/environment-fluid-dynamics-code-efdc
-download-page.
USEPA. 2018c. “Environmental modeling community of practice.”
Accessed November 1, 2018. https://www.epa.gov/ceam.
USEPA. 2018d. “Impaired waters and Mercury.” Accessed November 1,
2018. https://www.epa.gov/tmdl/impaired-waters-and-mercury.
USEPA. 2018e. “WASP distribution website.” Accessed November 2,
2018. http://epawasp.twool.com/.
USGS (US Geological Survey). 2018. “One-dimensional transport with
equilibrium chemistry (OTEQ): A reactive transport model for streams
and rivers.” Accessed November 1, 2018. https://water.usgs.gov
/software/OTEQ/.
Whitman, W. G. 1923. “The two film theory of gas absorption.” Chem.
Metallurg. Eng. 29 (4): 146–148.
Wool, T. A., R. B. Ambrose, J. L. Martin, and E. A. Corner. 2003a. Water
quality analysis simulation program (WASP), version 6: Draft user’s
manual. Athens, GA: Environmental Research Laboratory, USEPA.
Wool, T. A., S. R. Davie, and H. N. Rodriguez. 2003b. “Development of
three-dimensional hydrodynamic and water quality models to support
© ASCE 04018063-19
J. Hydrol. Eng., 2019, 24(2): 04018063
total maximum daily load decision process for the Neuse River Estuary,
North Carolina.” J. Environ. Eng. 129 (4): 295–306. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2003)129:4(295).
Wu, W., and D. A. Vieira. 2002. One-dimensional channel network model
CCHE1D 3.0-Technical manual. Technical Rep. No. NCCHETR-2002-1.
Oxford, MS: Univ. of Mississippi.
Zhang, H., D. A. Culver, and L. Boegman. 2008. “A two-dimensional eco-
logical model of Lake Erie: Application to estimate Dreissenid impacts
on large lake plankton populations.” Ecol. Modell. 214 (2–4): 219–241.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.02.005.
Zhang, Y. 2013. CCHE-GUI: Graphical users interface for NCCHE model
quick start guide: Version 4.x. NCCHE-TR-2013-03. Oxford, MS:
Univ. of Mississippi.
Zhang, Z., and B. E. Johnson. 2014. Application and evaluation of the
HEC-RAS: Nutrient simulation module (NSMI). Vicksburg, MS: US
Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
Zhang, Z., and B. E. Johnson. 2016a. Aquatic contaminant and mercury
simulation modules developed for hydrological and hydraulic models.
Vicksburg, MS: US Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
Zhang, Z., and B. E. Johnson. 2016b. Aquatic nutrient simulation modules
(NSMs) developed for hydrologic and hydraulic models. Vicksburg,
MS: US Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
Zhang, Z., and B. E. Johnson. 2017. Hydrologic engineer center-river
analysis system (HEC-RAS) water temperature models developed for
the Missouri River recovery management plan and environmental
impact statement. Vicksburg, MS: US Army Engineer Research and
Development Center.
Zhu, T. 2006. “A depth-averaged two-dimensional water quality model
as a research and management tool.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Civil
Engineering, Univ. of Mississippi.
Zou, R., S. Carter, L. Shoemaker, A. Parker, and T. Henry. 2006.
“Integrated hydrodynamic and water quality modeling system to sup-
port nutrient total maximum daily load development for Wissahickon
Creek, Pennsylvania.” J. Environ. Eng. 132 (4): 555–566. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2006)132:4(555).
J. Hydrol. Eng.