mpca total maximum daily load (tmdl) template · web viewor npdes/sds general permit for...

[Month and Year of report]

Draft [Insert Watershed] Watershed Total Maximum Daily LoadA descriptive phrase or sentence in plain language. Tips: Avoid repeating the word “report” if already used above. Active voice is better.

Watershed

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 the picture to fit this area. Please try to leave same amount of white space above and below. Landscape pictures work best.

(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. Please use sentence case and PCA styles within this template. Examples cited here:

PCA Report Heading 1 – (Sentence case) Calibri Bold 22 spacing 0/3 pt

PCA Report Heading 2 (Sentence case) Calibri Bold 16, spacing 18 pt/6 pt

PCA Report Heading 3 (Sentence case) Calibri Bold 14, spacing 12 pt/3 pt

PCA Report Heading 4, standalone (Sentence case) Calibri Bold 12 spacing 8pt/0pt

PCA Report Heading 4 in-line (Sentence case) Calibri Bold 12 spacing 8pt/0pt

PCA Report Heading 5 (Sentence case)

PCA Report Heading 6 (Sentence case)PCA Body Text = Calibri 11 spacing 0 points before/6 points after (line spacing multiple 1.15 pt)

PCA Body text PCA body text PCA body text. Numbered list:

1. This is a PCA numbered list – spacing 0 points before/6 points after (line spacing multiple 1.15 pt)2. This is a PCA numbered list.3. This is a PCA numbered list.

PCA Figure/Table title Calibri 10 bold spacing 0 points before/0 points after.

PCA Table heading Calibri 10 bold 3/0 PCA Table heading PCA Table heading

PCA Table text Calibri 10 3/0 PCA Table text PCA Table text

PCA Table text PCA Table text PCA Table text

PCA Table text PCA Table text PCA Table text*PCA text under Table Calibri 9 spacing 3 pts before/6 points after.

Table lines = Style: Solid; Color: Automatic; Width: ¼ pt. (PCA Bullet Level 1 style used here) Before/after spacing 3/0 Try to align bottom left first; however, this is flexible due to the different tables we encounter. Repeat header on the top of each succeeding page in the table, when possible

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.

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=20570

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/water/water-types-and-programs/minnesotas-impaired-waters-and-tmdls/project-resources/tmdl-policy-and-guidance.html

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=747

Authors Principal AuthorOther authorOther author

Contributors/acknowledgementsNameName

Editing and graphic designPIO staffGraphic design staffAdministrative Staff

Cover photo credit

The MPCA is reducing printing and mailing costs by using the Internet to distribute reports and information to wider audience. Visit our website for more information.

MPCA reports are printed on 100% post-consumer recycled content paper manufactured without chlorine or chlorine derivatives.

Document number: wq-iw1-00 [Change the template document number to the assigned TMDL Report document number.] [TMDL Template: 5/4/2018]

ContentsList of tables........................................................................................................................................iv

List of figures........................................................................................................................................v

Acronyms............................................................................................................................................vi

Executive summary...........................................................................................................................viii

1. Project overview..........................................................................................................................1

1.1 Purpose................................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Identification of waterbodies...............................................................................................................1

1.3 Priority ranking.....................................................................................................................................2

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/historical water quality..........................................................................................................5

3.6 Pollutant source summary...................................................................................................................5

4. TMDL development......................................................................................................................8

4.1 Loading allocation methodology/Natural background........................................................................8

4.2 [Parameter #1].....................................................................................................................................8

4.3 [Parameter #2]...................................................................................................................................11

5. Future growth considerations.....................................................................................................12

5.1 New or expanding permitted MS4 WLA transfer process..................................................................12

5.2 New or expanding wastewater (TSS and E. coli TMDLs only)............................................................12

6. Reasonable assurance................................................................................................................14

7. Monitoring plan.........................................................................................................................15

8. Implementation strategy summary.............................................................................................16

8.1 Permitted sources..............................................................................................................................16

8.2 Non-permitted sources......................................................................................................................17

8.3 Cost....................................................................................................................................................17

8.4 Adaptive management.......................................................................................................................17

9. Public participation.....................................................................................................................18

10. Literature cited...........................................................................................................................19

Appendices........................................................................................................................................20

[Watershed name] Watershed TMDL Report Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

ii

Appendix Y.........................................................................................................................................21


iii

List of tables


iv

List of figures


v

Acronymsac-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 U.S. 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


vi

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


vii

Executive summary(High-level overview; ~one page)

Text


viii

1. Project overview

1.1 Purpose(Include watershed map and show where it is in Minnesota. It may also be useful to include project context in relation to other previous or related projects.)

Given that many watersheds will now have some number of completed TMDLs at the time of public notice, it is good to include a discussion of how past and current TMDL work “fits together.” EPA has asked for such explanation. For example if adding more E. coli listings to an existing “pool” of approved E. coli TMDLs, consider summarizing the past work and concluding (if applicable) with a statement that marries them: “The E. coli TMDLs in this report should be considered (for planning purposes) an addendum to the XXX TMDL work.”

“Because there are already approved TMDLs for E. coli and TSS impairments downstream of all the watershed’s MS4s, their permits and associated planning documents should already reflect BMPs to address these pollutants. As such, the new MS4 WLAs noted in the TMDL tables will require consideration and will be added to existing lists of downstream WLAs for E. coli and TSS.”

If there are “future” TMDLs to discuss, this may be the best section for that discussion too. For example if waiting on a site specific standard for one or more waterbodies, that could be noted here.

Text

1.2 Identification of waterbodies(Table - include waterbodies, pollutant(s) of concern and year listed. If newly identified impairments are discovered while developing the TMDL Report work with the MPCA Assessment staff to verify the impairment. If it is indeed impaired, a TMDL should be developed for the pollutant and included in the TMDL Report. The MPCA Project Manager should 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 for the new impairments, except for the listing year. Use the next year that the 303(d) impaired waters list will be developed for the new impairments. Also, include the footnote in the example below.)

If needed, listings for which no TMDLs are required could be mentioned in this section. For example:

Non-pollutant stressors are not subject to load quantification and therefore do not require TMDLs. If a non-pollutant stressor is linked to a pollutant (e.g. habitat issues driven by TSS or low dissolved oxygen (DO) caused by excess phosphorus) a TMDL is required. However, in many cases habitat stressors are not linked to pollutants. Note that all aquatic life use impairments – not just those with associated TMDLs – are addressed in the WRAPS report.

Table X below and Appendix Y (which includes notes regarding aquatic life impairments for which TMDLs are not computed) summarize [watershed] impairments and those addressed by TMDLs in this document. See Appendix Y in this template for an example format of a table summarizing “No TMDLs rationale.”


1

Example:

Affected use: Pollutant/Stressor

AUID/Lake ID

Stream or lake name

Location/Reach description

Designated use class

Listing year

Target start/Completion

Aquatic recreation:Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological indicators(Phosphorus)

13-0083-01 Goose Lake (North Bay) 5 miles SW of Rush City 2B, 3C 2008

2012/2015

13-0083-02 Goose Lake (South Bay) 6 miles SW of Rush City 2B, 3C 2008

13-0073-00 Horseshoe Lake 4 miles WNW of Harris 2B, 3C 201058-0117-00 Rock Lake Pine City 2B, 3C 2018*

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* Expected to be listed on the 2018 303(d) Impaired Waters List.

Text

1.3 Priority rankingThe MPCA’s schedule for TMDL completions, as indicated on Minnesota’s Section 303(d) impaired waters list, reflects Minnesota’s priority ranking of this TMDL. The 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 10-year cycle. The 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 Assessment, Restoration and Protection under the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Program. As part of these efforts, the MPCA identified water quality impaired segments that 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.


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 (Chl-a) and Secchi transparency standards must be met. In developing the lake nutrient standards for Minnesota lakes (Minn. R. ch. 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 Chl-a and Secchi transparency. Based on these relationships it is expected that by meeting the phosphorus target in each lake, the Chl-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


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)

(Add a brief narrative description of the pre-settlement or natural conditions of the watershed. Add a brief discussion about when, and to what extent, natural conditions were impacted by which land use changes. Include a pre-settlement map in addition to the land cover map that is usually included.)

Tribal Lands in the [insert watershed]

Identify tribal lands that are located within the watershed. (Reference: Minnesota’s Tribal Boundary Map).

(If no tribal lands and/or waters are impacted by the TMDL, EPA requests that the State add a statement to clarify that this is the case. If tribal lands and/or waters are present within the watershed and are potentially impacted by the TMDL, EPA requests that the State add additional discussion on how the TMDL may affect those lands and/or waters, and also add language to clarify that the TMDL does not apply to any lands/waters in Indian Country.)

(No part of the [insert watershed] is located within the boundary of a Native American Reservation.)

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


4

https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/wq-iw1-60.pdf

https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/wq-iw1-60.pdf

3.5 Current/historical 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)

(Include the definition of natural background stressing the “non-human induced” aspects of natural background. Add a brief description of pre-settlement conditions before moving into the monitored water quality trends.) For example, “Natural background is the landscape condition that occurs outside of human influence. Minn. R. 7050.0150, subp. 4 defines the term “Natural causes” as the multiplicity of factors that determine the physical, chemical, or biological conditions that would exist in a waterbody in the absence of measurable impacts from human activity or influence.”

Text

3.6 Pollutant source summary

3.6.1 [Parameter #1, e.g., E. coli]

Section 3.6.X Source assessment E. coli.

This section of the report should include text describing the natural growth of E. coli in soil and sediment. Research in the last 15 years has found the persistence of E. coli in soil, beach sand, and sediments throughout the year in the north central United States without the continuous presence of sewage or mammalian sources. An Alaskan study [Adhikari et al. 2007] found that total coliform bacteria in soil were able to survive for six months in subfreezing conditions. A study of cold water streams in southeastern Minnesota completed by the MPCA staff found the resuspension of E. coli in the stream water column due to stream sediment disturbance. A recent study near Duluth, Minnesota [Ishii et al., 2010] found that E. coli were able to grow in agricultural field soil. A study by Chandrasekaran et al. [2015] of ditch sediment in the Seven Mile Creek watershed in southern Minnesota found that strains of E. coli had become naturalized to the water−sediment ecosystem. Survival and growth of fecal coliform has been documented in stormsewer sediment in Michigan [Marino and Gannon 1991].

3.6.1.1 Permitted sources

(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 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.


5

It is also important to note that groups like MnDOT, 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

3.6.1.2 Non-permitted sources

(Either narrative or table(s) – avoid consolidating all nonpoint sources (“watershed runoff”). Instead, address separate nonpoint sources including, various agricultural sources, natural background, aquatic


6

invasive species if they affect water quality (e.g., carp, curlyleaf pondweed), and atmospheric deposition. Explain actual sources and delivery mechanisms. Provide estimates or relative magnitudes of loading from identified sources.)

(If a stressor identification study eliminated natural background from consideration, add detail as to why natural background was eliminated by the stressor identification study, including the scientific basis for such a conclusion. If natural background was measured, include information on the results. If natural background was not considered, there better be a good explanation as to why it was not considered.)

Text

3.6.2 [Parameter #2]Text

3.6.2.1 Permitted sources

Text

3.6.2.2 Non-permitted sources

Text


7

4. TMDL development

4.1 Loading allocation methodology/Natural backgroundExample text:

4.1.1 Natural background consideration Natural background conditions refer to inputs that would be expected under natural, undisturbed conditions. Natural background sources can include inputs from natural geologic processes such as soil loss from upland erosion and stream development, atmospheric deposition, and loading from forested land, wildlife, etc. For each impairment, natural background levels are implicitly incorporated in the water quality standards used by the MPCA to determine/assess impairment and therefore natural background is accounted for and addressed through the MPCA’s waterbody assessment process. Natural background conditions were also evaluated, where possible, within the modeling and source assessment portion of this study. These source assessment exercises indicate natural background inputs are generally low compared to livestock, cropland, streambank, WWTFs, failing SSTSs, and other anthropogenic sources.

Based on the MPCA’s waterbody assessment process and the TMDL source assessment exercises, there is no evidence at this time to suggest that natural background sources are a major driver of any of the impairments and/or affect the waterbodies’ ability to meet state water quality standards. For all impairments addressed in this TMDL study, natural background sources are implicitly included in the LA portion of the TMDL allocation tables and TMDL reductions should focus on the major anthropogenic sources identified in the source assessment.

Reference: Little Rock Creek TMDL Court of Appeals Decision ; Filed November 28, 2016

4.2 [Parameter #1]

4.2.1 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 how they were used at the various steps. Indicate whether inputs (e.g., flows) are based on measured vs. simulated data. Supporting modeling reports should be included as an appendix or provided on the project webpage.

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 historical 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


8

https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/tmdl/little-rock-creek-dissolved-oxygen-nitrate-temperature-and-fish-bioassessment

capacity curve are depicted (the midpoints of the designated flow zones). However, it should be understood that the entire curve represents the TMDL and it is what the EPA ultimately approves.

Text

4.2.2 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

4.2.3 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

4.2.4 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 (and/or why would a higher percentage not be needed)? Do not base the justification for the explicit MOS percentage on the fact that other TMDLs have used it or that EPA has approved that level in the past.)

Reference: Margin of Safety guidance document

Text

4.2.5 Seasonal variationText

4.2.6 Reserve capacity Text (Include if necessary, otherwise delete)

4.2.7 TMDL summary(Table; the table can be for each impaired waterbody and pollutant or for multiple waterbodies. If categorical WLA for MS4s or wastewater, an additional table will be needed with the appropriate TMDL Summary Table showing the regulated entities. Also need to include the % reduction on the table. These permittee tables should not be included in a separate section.)

(Set out the legal requirements for allocating loads, including mention of natural background. Be very specific about the process and scientific basis for either eliminating natural background from the load allocation, for lumping it with nonpoint sources, or for giving natural background a separate allocation.)


9

Text

TMDL Summary Table requirements (Example below):

All information regarding existing load (WLA and LA) must be in the same table.

Existing or Baseline values must be included in all TMDLs. If no baseline values are available then specific information about how the determination was made should be given.

All listed permits must include with permit numbers. If there are more than 25 permittees then a separate table may be used. However, that table should be placed below the specific TMDL summary table.

Using the one table format shown below, allows for less errors between multiple tables. It is also important to use the same TMDL table format across the entire report.

Tables should be tables and not images.

Include the Waterbody ID number in the title of the table.

All Totals should total the values that are displayed in the table, even with rounding.

Table X. Large Lake (XX-XXXX) TMDL summary 303(d) listing year or proposed year: 2008 Baseline year(s): 2010

TMDL parameter Existing TP load Allowable TP loadEstimated load

reductionSources lbs/year lbs/day lbs/year lbs/day lbs/year %

Wasteload

Construction/Industrial SW 1 0.00406 1 0.00406 0.0 0Blue Co. (MS400XXX) 1 0.00354 0.5 0.00129 0.8 64Green City (MS400XXX) 288 0.787 115 0.314 173 60Red City (MS400XXX) 29 0.0795 10 0.0268 19 66

Total WLA 319 0.8741 126.5 0.34615 192.8 60

Load

Non-MS4 runoff 10 0.0281 5 0.0127 6 55SSTS 46 0.125 0 0 46 100Upstream lakes 0 0 0 0 0 NAAtmospheric deposition 42 0.115 42 0.115 0 0Groundwater 0 0 0 0 0 NAInternal load 174 0.476 157 0.429 17 10

Total LA 272 0.7441 204 0.5567 69 25MOS 17 0.0475

Total load 591 1.6182 347.5 0.95035 261.8 44

Table X. TSS TMDL summary, Mud Creek (07020012-XXX)


10

303(d) listing year or proposed year: 2010 Baseline year(s): 2012

Flow zonesTMDL parameter Very high High Mid-

range Low Very low

Sources TSS load (tons/day)

Wasteload

Construction/Industrial SW 0.42 0.098 0.03 0.005 *Big City MS4 (MS400XXX) 1.26 0.29 0.0935 0.014 *Little City MS4 (MS400XXX) 0.026 0.0061 0.0019 0.00029 *Big City WWTP (MN000XXXX) 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 *

Total WLA 2.29 0.97 0.71 0.60 *Load Total LA 115 28 8.5 1.4 *

MOS 6.2 1.5 0.49 0.1 0.021Total load 123 30 9.7 2.1 0.41

Existing 90th percentile concentration (mg/L) 616Overall estimated percent reduction 89%

* The permitted wastewater design flows exceed the stream flow in the indicated flow zone(s). The allocations are expressed as an equation rather than an absolute number: allocation = (flow contribution from a given source) x 65 mg/L (or NPDES permit concentration). See section X.XX for more detail.

4.3 [Parameter #2]

4.3.1 Loading capacity methodologyText

4.3.2 Load allocation methodologyText

4.3.3 Wasteload allocation methodologyText

4.3.4 Margin of safetyText

4.3.5 Seasonal variationText

4.3.6 Reserve capacity(Include if necessary, otherwise delete)

Text

4.3.7 TMDL summaryText


11

5. Future growth considerations[Include some basic future growth discussion. For example, briefly describe the potential likely growth and cite reference sources like census projections, land use or local development plans for the area.]

5.1 New or expanding permitted MS4 WLA transfer processFuture transfer of watershed runoff loads in this TMDL may be necessary if any of the following scenarios occur within the project watershed boundaries.

4. 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.

5. One regulated MS4 acquires land from another regulated MS4. Examples include annexation or highway expansions. In these cases, the transfer is WLA to WLA.

6. 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.

7. Expansion of a U.S. 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.

8. 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 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 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 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.


12

6. Reasonable assurance[The purpose of this section is to show that elements are in place for both point (permitted) and nonpoint (nonpermitted) sources that are making (or will make) progress toward needed pollutant reductions. For point sources, cite and briefly describe permit programs in place. For nonpoint sources, reasonable assurance that water quality will be improved should be formulated on the following points:]

1. Availability of reliable means of addressing pollutant loads (i.e. best management practices (BMPs), NPDES Permits)

2. A means of prioritizing and focusing management

3. Development of a strategy for implementation

4. Availability of funding to execute projects

5. A system of tracking progress and monitoring water quality response

6. Nonpoint source pollution reduction examples at multiple scales

The substance of the section should be organized (approximately) according to those six elements, summarizing and providing examples for each as they pertain to the project watershed. The NPS pollution reduction examples requirement is from EPA per recent discussions; the examples can be at various scales, e.g. statewide, regional and local. The intent is to provide confidence that similar projects/programs/etc. will result in NPS pollutant reduction in the future.

This section could be concluded with a summary that references a related Minnesota Court of Appeals decision:

In summary, significant time and resources have been devoted to identifying the best BMPs, providing means of focusing them in [watershed], and supporting their implementation via state initiatives and dedicated funding. The [watershed] WRAPS and TMDLs process engaged partners to arrive at reasonable examples of BMP combinations that attain pollutant reduction goals. Minnesota is a leader in watershed planning as well as monitoring and tracking progress toward water quality goals and pollutant load reductions. Finally, examples cited herein confirm that BMPs and restoration projects have proven to be effective over time and as stated by the State of Minnesota Court of Appeals in A15-1622 MCEA vs MPCA and MCES:

We conclude that substantial evidence exists to conclude that voluntary reductions from nonpoint sources have occurred in the past and can be reasonably expected to occur in the future. The Nutrient Reduction Strategy (NRS) […] provides substantial evidence of existing state programs designed to achieve reductions in nonpoint source pollution as evidence that reductions in nonpoint pollution have been achieved and can reasonably be expected to continue to occur.

Text


13

7. Monitoring planText


14

8. Implementation strategy summary

8.1 Permitted sources

8.1.1 Construction stormwaterThe WLA 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 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 Minnesota’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. Construction activity must also meet all local government construction stormwater requirements.

8.1.2 Industrial stormwaterThe 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 Minnesota’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 and 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. Industrial activity must also meet all local government construction stormwater requirements.

8.1.3 MS4Text

8.1.4 WastewaterText


15

8.2 Non-permitted sources

8.2.1 AgricultureText

8.2.2 XXXXText

8.3 Cost(Needs to include overall cost estimate to achieve TMDLs separated by permitted and non-permitted actions)

Text

8.4 Adaptive managementExample: 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


16

9. Public participation(Include in the final version of the TMDL a sentence or two about the public notice and comment period – public notice dates, number of comment letters received, etc.) Example:

Public notice

An opportunity for public comment on the draft TMDL report was provided via a public notice in the State Register from xxxx, 2018 through xxxx, 2018. There were xxxx comment letters received and responded to as a result of the public comment period.

Text


17

10. Literature citedText

Adhikari, Hrishikesh, David L. Barnes, Silke Schiewer, and Daniel M. White. “Total Coliform Survival Characteristics in Frozen Soils.” Journal of Environmental Engineering, Vol. 133, No. 12, pp: 1098–1105, December 2007.

Chandrasekaran, Ramyavardhanee, Matthew J. Hamilton, Ping Wanga, Christopher Staley, Scott Matteson, Adam Birr, and Michael J. Sadowsky. “Geographic Isolation of Escherichia coli Genotypes in Sediments and Water of the Seven Mile Creek — A Constructed Riverine Watershed.” Science of the Total Environment 538:78–85, 2015.

Ishii, Satoshi, Tao Yan, Hung Vu, Dennis L. Hansen, Randall E. Hicks, and Michael J. Sadowsky. “Factors Controlling Long-Term Survival and Growth of Naturalized Escherichia coli Populations in Temperate Field Soils.” Microbes and Environments, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 8−14, 2010.

Marino, Robert P, and John J. Gannon. “Survival of Fecal Coliforms and Fecal Streptococci in Storm Drain Sediments.” Water Research, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 1089–1098, 1991.


18

Appendices(Include modeling input/output summary. Avoid including separate published reports here. Link to them instead.)


19

Appendix YHistorically we have completed TMDLs for nearly all listings that end up in Category 5. However, given that we now have very good fish and bug data (integrative measures that do not directly examine pollutants) to provide lines of evidence in our assessment process, it follows that some aquatic life listings will require recategorization after stressor identification work is complete. There may also be cases in which more/better data suggest that a listing be removed (corrected). These recommendations and proposed new categories need to be documented somewhere; the TMDL appendices is probably the best place (decide in your project context if another document is better, e.g. stressor identification report). MPCA leadership and EPA will both want to see statements in this document noting that impairments that do not get TMDLs are still important and will be addressed in the greater planning context (WRAPS, etc.).

The most likely recategorizations include:

Category 4c: waters should be placed in Category 4c when the state demonstrates that the failure to meet an applicable water quality standard is not caused by a pollutant, but instead is caused by other types of pollution. Segments placed in Category 4c do not require the development of a TMDL.

Examples include aquatic life listings for which only habitat and/or flow alteration are conclusive stressors.

Category 4a: waters should only be placed in Category 4a when all TMDLs needed to result in attainment of all applicable WQSs have been approved or established by EPA.

Examples include WIDs with approved pollutant TMDLs and new aquatic life listings for which only habitat and/or flow alteration are conclusive stressors.

Listings with pollutant stressors that are not addressed should stay in Category 5. For example MN will have many identified nitrate stressors; we are waiting for the water quality standard; Category 5 maintains a sort of “holding bin” status for such aquatic life use listings.

Contact Miranda Nichols or Chandra Heinrich regarding recategorization forms and process. The following table (or something similar) can be used to summarize aquatic life listings for which no TMDLs are completed.


20

mpca total maximum daily load (tmdl) template · web viewor npdes/sds general permit for...

Documents