[Insert Watershed] Watershed Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
A descriptive phrase or sentence in plain language.
Picture can be inserted in this space Right click on this picture, choose
Change picture, click on the picture you want then insert. Resize/Crop
either the picture to fit, or the Title box.
Month Year
wq-iw1-00 "Note: Be sure to change the template document number to the assigned separate TMDL
report number."
(Delete this page before submitting to the MPCA for review)
Below are general recommendations to improve the quality of TMDL reports and better expedite their
review. More specific recommendations, including some required, or example text, are provided
throughout this document. Note: this document is not intended to cover all relevant guidance for
completing a TMDL.






For readability and ease of use we encourage succinct writing with a focus on the essential
information necessary to develop and support the TMDL.
Prior to submittal to the MPCA for review, TMDLs must be carefully checked for spelling, grammar,
accuracy of charts and tables and consistency of any cross-referencing throughout the TMDL.
Avoid presenting the same data in multiple tables/graphs and text. Redundant presentation
increases chances of error following revision to underlying data.
Extensive analysis in the areas of fish and macrophyte surveys, and detailed reports addressing
hydrology, limnology, geology, stream channel analysis, habitat, land use, etc. should be included as
appendices or, if previously published, by reference (preferably with a hot-link).
Modeling details, including large tables, should be included in an appendix.
For load duration curve tables use the following headings to represent your flow regimes: Very
High, High, Mid, Low, Very Low
Other TMDL Guidance and Policies one should be aware of:
Stormwater and MS4 TMDL Guidance
TMDL Policy and Guidance
Required Language and Recommendations for all Total Maximum Daily Loads developed in Minnesota :
Most of this information is already included in this document, but you should check it to ensure that you
are using the most recent language.
XX Watershed TMDL • Month Year
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Authors and contributors:
Text
Cover Photo Credit:
XX Watershed TMDL • Month Year
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Contents
Contents ............................................................................................................................................1
List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................4
List of Figures.....................................................................................................................................5
TMDL Summary Table ........................................................................................................................ i
Acronyms ......................................................................................................................................... iv
Executive Summary........................................................................................................................... vi
1.
Project Overview ........................................................................................................................1
1.1
Purpose ................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2
Identification of Waterbodies .............................................................................................................. 1
1.3
Priority Ranking .................................................................................................................................... 1
2.
Applicable Water Quality Standards and Numeric Water Quality Targets .....................................3
3.
Watershed and Waterbody Characterization ...............................................................................4
3.1
Lakes..................................................................................................................................................... 4
3.2
Streams ................................................................................................................................................ 4
3.3
Subwatersheds ..................................................................................................................................... 4
3.4
Land Use ............................................................................................................................................... 4
3.5
Current/Historic Water Quality ............................................................................................................ 4
3.6
Pollutant Source Summary................................................................................................................... 4
3.6.1
3.6.1.1
Permitted .......................................................................................................................... 4
3.6.1.2
Non-permitted .................................................................................................................. 6
3.6.2
4
[Parameter#1, e.g., E. coli] .................................................................................................... 4
[Parameter #2] ...................................................................................................................... 6
3.6.2.1
Permitted .......................................................................................................................... 6
3.6.2.2
Non-permitted .................................................................................................................. 6
TMDL Development ....................................................................................................................7
4.1
[Parameter #1] ..................................................................................................................................... 7
4.1.1
Loading Capacity ................................................................................................................... 7
4.1.2
Load Allocation Methodology ............................................................................................... 7
4.1.3
Watershed Allocation Methodology ..................................................................................... 7
4.1.4
Margin of Safety .................................................................................................................... 7
XX Watershed TMDL • Month Year
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
4.1.5
Seasonal Variation ................................................................................................................ 8
4.1.6
Reserve Capacity ................................................................................................................... 8
4.1.7
TMDL Summary ..................................................................................................................... 8
4.2
5
[Parameter #2] ..................................................................................................................................... 8
4.2.1
Loading Capacity Methodology ............................................................................................ 8
4.2.2
Load Allocation Methodology ............................................................................................... 9
4.2.3
Wasteload Allocation Methodology ..................................................................................... 9
4.2.4
Margin of Safety .................................................................................................................... 9
4.2.5
Season Variation ................................................................................................................... 9
4.2.6
Reserve Capacity ................................................................................................................... 9
4.2.7
TMDL Summary ..................................................................................................................... 9
Future Growth Considerations .................................................................................................. 10
5.1
New or Expanding Permitted MS4 WLA Transfer Process ................................................................. 10
5.2
New or Expanding Wastewater (TSS and E. coli TMDLs only)............................................................ 10
6
Reasonable Assurance .............................................................................................................. 11
7
Monitoring Plan........................................................................................................................ 12
8
Implementation Strategy Summary ........................................................................................... 13
8.1
8.1.1
Construction Stormwater ................................................................................................... 13
8.1.2
Industrial Stormwater ......................................................................................................... 13
8.1.3
MS4 ..................................................................................................................................... 13
8.1.4
Wastewater ......................................................................................................................... 13
8.2
9
10
Permitted Sources .............................................................................................................................. 13
Non-Permitted Sources ...................................................................................................................... 13
8.2.1
Agriculture........................................................................................................................... 13
8.2.2
XXXX .................................................................................................................................... 14
8.3
Cost .................................................................................................................................................... 14
8.4
Adaptive Management....................................................................................................................... 14
Public Participation................................................................................................................... 15
Literature Cited ..................................................................................................................... 16
Appendices ...................................................................................................................................... 17
XX Watershed TMDL • Month Year
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
XX Watershed TMDL • Month Year
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
List of Tables
XX Watershed TMDL • Month Year
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
List of Figures
XX Watershed TMDL • Month Year
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
TMDL Summary Table
EPA/MPCA Required
Elements
Location
303(d) Listing
Information
Summary
[When completing these portions below it is
recommended that you just identify the section and
hyperlink to it in the report instead of filling in all the
numbers.]
Drainage Basin, Part of State, County, etc.
[linked
page #s]
Describe the waterbody as it is identified on the State’s
303(d) list:
 Waterbody name, description and ID# for each river
segment, lake or wetland
 Impaired Beneficial Use(s) - List use(s) with source
citation(s)
 Impairment/TMDL Pollutant(s) of Concern (e.g.,
nutrients: phosphorus; biota: sediment)
 Priority ranking of the waterbody (i.e. schedule)
 Original listing year
Applicable Water
Quality Standards/
Numeric Targets
List all applicable WQS/Targets with source citations. If the
TMDL is based on a target other than a numeric water
quality criterion, a description of the process used to derive
the target must be included in the submittal.
Loading Capacity
(expressed as daily
load)
Identify the waterbody’s loading capacity for the applicable
pollutant. Identify the critical condition.
For each pollutant: LC = X/day; and Critical Condition
Summary
Wasteload Allocation
TMDL
Page #
Portion of the loading capacity allocated to existing and
future point sources [40 CFR §130.2(h)].
Total WLA = X/day, for each pollutant
Example:
Nutrient TMDL: Section 5.2 (Hyperlink to section)
Load Allocation
TSS TMDLs: Section 5.5
Identify the portion of the loading capacity allocated to
existing and future nonpoint sources and to natural
background if possible [40 CFR §130.2(g)].
Total LA = X/day, for each pollutant
Example:
XX Watershed TMDL • Month Year
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
i
Nutrient TMDL: Section 5.2 (Hyperlink to section)
TSS TMDLs: Section 5.5
Margin of Safety
Seasonal Variation
Reasonable Assurance
Include a MOS to account for any lack of knowledge
concerning the relationship between load and wasteload
allocations and water quality [CWA §303(d)(1)(C), 40 CFR
§130.7(c)(1)].
Identify and explain the implicit or explicit MOS for each
pollutant
Statute and regulations require that a TMDL be established
with consideration of seasonal variation. The method
chosen for including seasonal variation in the TMDL should
be described [CWA §303(d)(1)(C), 40 CFR §130.7(c)(1)]
Seasonal Variation Summary for each pollutant
Summarize Reasonable Assurance
Note: In a water impaired by both point and nonpoint
sources, where a point source is given a less stringent WLA
based on an assumption that NPS load reductions will
occur, reasonable assurance that the NPS reductions will
happen must be explained.
Monitoring
In a water impaired solely by NPS, reasonable assurances
that load reductions will be achieved are not required (by
EPA) in order for a TMDL to be approved.
Monitoring Plan included?
Note: EPA does not approve effectiveness monitoring plans
but providing a general plan is helpful to meet reasonable
assurance requirements for nonpoint source reductions. A
monitoring plan should describe the additional data to be
collected to determine if the load reductions provided for in
the TMDL are occurring and leading to attainment of water
quality standards.
Implementation
1. Implementation Strategy included?
The MPCA requires a general implementation
strategy/framework in the TMDL.
2. Cost estimate included?
The Clean Water Legacy Act requires that a TMDL include
an overall approximation (“…a range of estimates”) of the
cost to implement a TMDL and for point sources the
estimated cost of compliance with the TMDL [MN Statutes
2007, section 114D.25].
XX Watershed TMDL • Month Year
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
ii
Note: EPA is not required to and does not approve TMDL
implementation plans.
Public Participation
 Public Comment period (dates)
 Summary of other key elements of public participation
process.
 Document participation by regulated entities in TMDL
development, particularly regulated cities and industries
with stormwater and wastewater requirements.
Note: EPA regulations require public review [40 CFR
§130.7(c)(1)(ii), 40 CFR §25] consistent with State or Tribe’s
own continuing planning process and public participation
requirements.
XX Watershed TMDL • Month Year
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
iii
Acronyms
ac-ft/yr
acre feet per year
AF
Anoxic factor
AUID
Assessment Unit ID
BMP
best management practice
CAFO(s)
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation(s)
CAC
Citizens Advisory Committee
cfu
colony-forming unit
Chl-a
Chlorophyll-a
DNR
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
EQuIS
Environmental Quality Information System
FWMC
flow weighted mean concentration
GW
groundwater
HSPF
Hydrologic Simulation Program-Fortran
in/yr
inches per year
km2
square kilometer
LA
load allocation
Lb
pound
lb/day
pounds per day
lb/yr
pounds per year
LGU
Local Government Unit
m
meter
mg/L
milligrams per liter
mg/m2-day
milligram per square meter per day
mL
milliliter
MLCCS
Minnesota Land Cover Classification System
MOS
Margin of Safety
MPCA
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
MS4
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
XX Watershed TMDL • Month Year
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
iv
RR
release rate
SRO
surface runoff
SONAR
Statement of Need and Reasonableness
SSTS
Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems
SWPPP
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
TDLC
Total Daily Loading Capacity
TMDL
Total Maximum Daily Load
TP
Total phosphorus
UAL
Unit-area Load
μg/L
microgram per liter
WLA
wasteload allocation
WRAPS
Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy
XX Watershed TMDL • Month Year
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
v
Executive Summary
(High-level overview; ~one page)
Text
XX Watershed TMDL • Month Year
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
vi
1. Project Overview
1.1
Purpose
(Include watershed map and show where it is in MN. It may also be useful to include project context
in relation to other previous or related projects.)
Text
1.2
Identification of Waterbodies
(Table - include waterbodies, pollutant(s) of concern and year listed. If while developing the TMDL
Report it is identified that a currently impaired or unimpaired waterbody is impaired, or impaired for
another pollutant it will be important to work with the MPCA Assessment staff to verify the
impairment. If it is indeed impaired a TMDL should be developed for the pollutant at that time. The
MPCA Project Manager will need to work with Miranda Nichols or Pam Anderson to fill out the “Off
Cycle Waterbody Assessment” form so it can be added to the impaired waters list.
In the Table include all of the standard information, except for the listing year include the next year
that the 303(d) impaired waters list will be developed. Also include the footnote in the example
below.)
Example:
Affected Use:
Pollutant/Stress
or
Designated
Use Class
AUID/ Lake ID
Stream or Lake Name
Location/Reach
Description
Listing
Year
13-0083-01
Goose Lake (North Bay)
5 miles SW of Rush City
2B, 3C
2008
Aquatic
Recreation:
13-0083-02
Goose Lake (South Bay)
6 miles SW of Rush City
2B, 3C
2008
Nutrient/Eutrop
hication
13-0073-00
Horseshoe Lake
4 miles WNW of Harris
2B, 3C
2010
Biological
Indicators
58-0117-00
Rock Lake
Pine City
2B, 3C
2016*
13-0069-02
Rush Lake (West)
6 miles W of Rush City
2B, 3C
2008
13-0069-01
Rush Lake (East)
5 miles W of Rush City
2B, 3C
2008
2012/2015
(Phosphorus)
* Expected to be listed on the 2016 or 2018 303(d) Impaired Waters List.
Text
1.3
Target Start/
Completion
Priority Ranking
MPCA’s schedule for TMDL completions, as indicated on the 303(d) impaired waters list, reflects
Minnesota’s priority ranking of this TMDL. MPCA has aligned our TMDL priorities with the watershed
approach and our WRAPS cycle. The schedule for TMDL completion corresponds to the WRAPS report
completion on the ten-year cycle. MPCA developed a state plan Minnesota’s TMDL Priority Framework
Report to meet the needs of EPA’s national measure (WQ-27) under EPA’s Long-Term Vision for
XX Watershed TMDL • Month Year
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
1
Assessment, Restoration and Protection under the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Program. As part of
these efforts, MPCA identified water quality impaired segments which will be addressed by TMDLs by
2022. The [insert watershed] Watershed waters addressed by this TMDL are part of that MPCA
prioritization plan to meet EPA’s national measure.
XX Watershed TMDL • Month Year
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
2
2. Applicable Water Quality Standards and
Numeric Water Quality Targets
(Table with standards/targets; include narrative on designated use classes)
(The following text needs to be included for all lake TMDLs. In addition, omit chlorophyll-a and Secchi
results from model output.)
In addition to meeting phosphorus limits, chlorophyll-a and Secchi transparency standards must also be
met. In developing the lake nutrient standards for Minnesota lakes (Minn. Rule 7050), the MPCA
evaluated data from a large cross-section of lakes within each of the state’s ecoregions (MPCA, 2005).
Clear relationships were established between the causal factor total phosphorus and the response
variables chlorophyll-a and Secchi transparency. Based on these relationships it is expected that by
meeting the phosphorus target in each lake, the chlorophyll-a and Secchi standards will likewise be met.
Reference to be included:
MPCA. 2005. Minnesota Lake Water Quality Assessment Report: Developing Nutrient Criteria, 3rd
Edition. September 2005.)
Text
XX Watershed TMDL • Month Year
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
3
3. Watershed and Waterbody Characterization
(Avoid covering background information that is not required per se and is readily available in other
reports, e.g., aquatic plant surveys, Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Reports)
3.1
Lakes
(Table—morphometric info and subwatershed area)
Text
3.2
Streams
(Table—subwatershed area)
Text
3.3
Subwatersheds
(Figure(s) showing sub-watersheds for each waterbody – lake or stream reach – so it’s clear what area
is included in the TMDL; if it’s not readily apparent show drainage patterns)
Text
3.4
Land Use
(Table, figure; include citation/source and year)
Text
3.5
Current/Historic Water Quality
(Figures/tables should use the most recent 10 years of data; provide concentrations and loads; limit
number of figures for lakes by placing all variables—TP, chl-a, Secchi—in one figure, if possible; show
the applicable water quality standard for each waterbody; include biota data summary for biota
impairments; also, allow figures / tables to speak for themselves—don’t repeat the numbers in the
narrative, but do comment on trends and broad conclusions)
Text
3.6
Pollutant Source Summary
3.6.1 [Parameter#1, e.g., E. coli]
Text
3.6.1.1 Permitted
(Either narrative or table(s) – should not be a list of specific regulated entities (since those are in
section 4.1.7), rather identify the source categories (e.g., regulated stormwater, wastewater, CAFO(s))
by subwatershed and also explain the actual sources within those categories (i.e., rather than just say
“stormwater runoff” state that bacteria comes from fecal matter from whichever animals; nutrients
XX Watershed TMDL • Month Year
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
4
from grass clippings, leaves, soil, etc.); also briefly describe delivery mechanisms (e.g., runoff during
certain times/conditions; sanitary/stormwater cross-connections through pipes); provide estimates or
relative magnitudes of loading from identified sources.
It is also important to note that groups like MN DOT, County Highway Departments, Colleges, and Jails
are covered by MS4 permits across the state when they overlap the urbanized area. The map below
shows the current (2010) urbanized area, so if a project is underway and encompasses one of these
areas it will be important to work with the Stormwater staff to verify these sources when the project
starts. )
Text
XX Watershed TMDL • Month Year
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
5
3.6.1.2 Non-permitted
(Either narrative or table(s) – avoid consolidating all nonpoint sources (“watershed runoff”); instead
address separate nonpoint sources, including various agricultural sources, natural background,
aquatic invasive species if they impact water quality (e.g., carp, curlyleaf pondweed), atmospheric
deposition; explain actual sources and delivery mechanisms; provide estimates or relative magnitudes
of loading from identified sources)
Text
3.6.2 [Parameter #2]
Text
3.6.2.1 Permitted
Text
3.6.2.2 Non-permitted
Text
XX Watershed TMDL • Month Year
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
6
4 TMDL Development
4.1 [Parameter #1]
4.1.1
Loading Capacity
(It is very important to identify any models used, explain why they were selected and clearly explain
how they were built (calibrated/validated) and used.
When EPA approves a load duration curve TMDL they are actually approving the curve itself as the
TMDL, not just the midpoints typically shown in TMDL tables. Below is text that can be used to explain
this. Also, note on a map the location of the flow station used for generating the curve. This becomes
an issue with larger TMDLs with several sampling points.)
The load duration curve method is based on an analysis that encompasses the cumulative frequency of
historic flow data over a specified period. Because this method uses a long-term record of daily flow
volumes virtually the full spectrum of allowable loading capacities is represented by the resulting curve.
In the TMDL equation tables of this report (Tables XX – XX) only five points on the entire loading capacity
curve are depicted (the midpoints of the designated flow zones). However, it should be understood that
the entire curve represents the TMDL and is what is ultimately approved by EPA.
Text
4.1.2
Load Allocation Methodology
(Include baseline year/conditions from which reductions are based. For those without a baseline year
provide a description of the conditions used in the modeling.)
Text
4.1.3
Watershed Allocation Methodology
(Include baseline year/conditions from which reductions are based. For those without a baseline year
provide a description of the conditions used in the modeling. Also clearly state how the WLA was
separated from the LA and how individual WLAs were set. There needs to be enough description to
explain why we believe this to be an appropriate/justifiable way to provide allowable loads. If a
categorical WLA was used provide a justification for using that approach.)
Text
4.1.4
Margin of Safety
(For implicit MOS, discussion is needed on why the conservative assumptions are conservative. Do
they overestimate loadings, or underestimate reductions? For explicit MOS, why is X% considered
sufficient?)
Text
XX Watershed TMDL • Month Year
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
7
4.1.5
Seasonal Variation
Text
4.1.6
Reserve Capacity
Text (Include if necessary, otherwise delete)
4.1.7
TMDL Summary
(Table; the table can be for each impaired waterbody and pollutant or multiple waterbodies; if
categorical WLA for MS4s or wastewater an additional table will be needed showing the regulated
entities; also need to include the % reduction on the table)
Text
(Example of TMDL Table: all information regarding existing load, WLA, and LA are in the same table.
Using the one table format shown below, allows for less errors between multiple tables. It is also
import to use the same TMDL table format across the entire report.)
Table 4.1. Dutch Lake TMDL summary.
Wasteload
Load
TOTAL LOAD
Total WLA
Construction/Industrial SW
Hennepin Co. (MS400138)
Minnetrista (MS400106)
Mound (MS400108)
Total LA
Non-MS4 runoff
SSTS
Upstream lakes
Atmospheric deposition
Groundwater
Internal load
MOS
Existing TP Load
lbs/yr
lbs/day
591
1.62
319
0.874
1
0.00406
1
0.00354
288
0.787
29
0.0795
272
0.745
10
0.0281
46
0.125
0
0
42
0.115
0
0
174
0.476
Allowable TP Load
lbs/yr
lbs/day
347
0.950
126
0.346
1
0.00406
0.5
0.00129
115
0.314
10
0.0268
203
0.557
5
0.0127
0
0
0
0
42
0.115
0
0
157
0.429
17
0.0475
Estimated Load
Reduction
lbs/yr
%
262
44
193
60
0.0
0
0.8
64
173
60
19
66
69
25
6
55
46
100
0
NA
0
0
0
NA
17
10
4.2 [Parameter #2]
4.2.1
Loading Capacity Methodology
Text
XX Watershed TMDL • Month Year
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
8
4.2.2
Load Allocation Methodology
Text
4.2.3
Wasteload Allocation Methodology
Text
4.2.4
Margin of Safety
Text
4.2.5
Season Variation
Text
4.2.6
Reserve Capacity
(Include if necessary, otherwise delete)
Text
4.2.7
TMDL Summary
Text
XX Watershed TMDL • Month Year
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
9
5 Future Growth Considerations
[This section, or parts of it, may not be needed for all projects.]
5.1 New or Expanding Permitted MS4 WLA Transfer Process
Future transfer of watershed runoff loads in this TMDL may be necessary if any of the following
scenarios occur within the project watershed boundaries:
1. New development occurs within a regulated MS4. Newly developed areas that are not already
included in the WLA must be transferred from the LA to the WLA to account for the growth.
2. One regulated MS4 acquires land from another regulated MS4. Examples include annexation or
highway expansions. In these cases, the transfer is WLA to WLA.
3. One or more non-regulated MS4s become regulated. If this has not been accounted for in the WLA,
then a transfer must occur from the LA.
4. Expansion of a US Census Bureau Urban Area encompasses new regulated areas for existing
permittees. An example is existing state highways that were outside an Urban Area at the time the
TMDL was completed, but are now inside a newly expanded Urban Area. This will require either a
WLA to WLA transfer or a LA to WLA transfer.
5. A new MS4 or other stormwater-related point source is identified and is covered under a NPDES
permit. In this situation, a transfer must occur from the LA.
Load transfers will be based on methods consistent with those used in setting the allocations in this
TMDL [Specify method, if needed. E.g., “Loads will be transferred on a simple land-area basis.”]. In
cases where WLA is transferred from or to a regulated MS4, the permittees will be notified of the
transfer and have an opportunity to comment.
5.2 New or Expanding Wastewater (TSS and E. coli TMDLs only)
The MPCA, in coordination with the US EPA Region 5, has developed a streamlined process for setting or
revising wasteload allocations (WLAs) for new or expanding wastewater discharges to waterbodies with
an EPA approved TMDL (MPCA, 2012). This procedure will be used to update WLAs in approved TMDLs
for new or expanding wastewater dischargers whose permitted effluent limits are at or below the
instream target and will ensure that the effluent concentrations will not exceed applicable water quality
standards or surrogate measures. The process for modifying any and all WLAs will be handled by the
MPCA, with input and involvement by the US EPA, once a permit request or reissuance is submitted.
The overall process will use the permitting public notice process to allow for the public and US EPA to
comment on the permit changes based on the proposed WLA modification(s). Once any comments or
concerns are addressed, and the MPCA determines that the new or expanded wastewater discharge is
consistent with the applicable water quality standards, the permit will be issued and any updates to the
TMDL WLA(s) will be made.
For more information on the overall process visit the MPCA’s TMDL Policy and Guidance webpage.
XX Watershed TMDL • Month Year
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
10
6 Reasonable Assurance
Text
XX Watershed TMDL • Month Year
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
11
7 Monitoring Plan
Text
XX Watershed TMDL • Month Year
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
12
8 Implementation Strategy Summary
8.1 Permitted Sources
8.1.1
Construction Stormwater
The wasteload allocation for stormwater discharges from sites where there is construction activity
reflects the number of construction sites greater than one acre expected to be active in the watershed
at any one time, and the Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other stormwater control measures
that should be implemented at the sites to limit the discharge of pollutants of concern. The BMPs and
other stormwater control measures that should be implemented at construction sites are defined in the
State's NPDES/SDS General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity (MNR100001). If a construction
site owner/operator obtains coverage under the NPDES/SDS General Stormwater Permit and properly
selects, installs and maintains all BMPs required under the permit, including those related to impaired
waters discharges and any applicable additional requirements found in Appendix A of the Construction
General Permit, the stormwater discharges would be expected to be consistent with the WLA in this
TMDL. It should be noted that all local construction stormwater requirements must also be met.
8.1.2
Industrial Stormwater
The wasteload allocation for stormwater discharges from sites where there is industrial activity reflects
the number of sites in the watershed for which NPDES industrial stormwater permit coverage is
required, and the BMPs and other stormwater control measures that should be implemented at the
sites to limit the discharge of pollutants of concern. The BMPs and other stormwater control measures
that should be implemented at the industrial sites are defined in the State's NPDES/SDS Industrial
Stormwater Multi- Sector General Permit (MNR050000), [or facility specific Individual Wastewater
Permit (MN00XXXXX)( This is project specific, and is only used if you do assign a WLA to a specific
industry. If not, delete.] or NPDES/SDS General Permit for Construction Sand & Gravel, Rock Quarrying
and Hot Mix Asphalt Production facilities (MNG490000). If a facility owner/operator obtains stormwater
coverage under the appropriate NPDES/SDS Permit and properly selects, installs and maintains all BMPs
required under the permit, the stormwater discharges would be expected to be consistent with the WLA
in this TMDL. It should be noted that all local stormwater management requirements must also be met.
8.1.3
MS4
Text
8.1.4
Wastewater
Text
8.2 Non-Permitted Sources
8.2.1
Agriculture
Text
XX Watershed TMDL • Month Year
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
13
8.2.2
XXXX
Text
8.3 Cost
(Needs to include overall cost estimate to achieve TMDLs separated by permitted and non-permitted
actions)
Text
8.4 Adaptive Management
Example: This list of implementation elements and the more detailed WRAPS report that will be
prepared following this TMDL assessment focuses on adaptive management Figure X. Continued
monitoring and “course corrections” responding to monitoring results are the most appropriate strategy
for attaining the water quality goals established in this TMDL. Management activities will be changed or
refined to efficiently meet the TMDL and lay the groundwork for de-listing the impaired water bodies.
Figure X. Adaptive Management
XX Watershed TMDL • Month Year
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
14
9 Public Participation
Text
XX Watershed TMDL • Month Year
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
15
10 Literature Cited
Text
XX Watershed TMDL • Month Year
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
16
Appendices
(Include modeling input/output summary, avoid including separate published reports here – link to
them instead)
XX Watershed TMDL • Month Year
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
17