Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL Project

transcript

Phil VotrubaProject Manager, MPCA

Barb PeichelProject Manager, MPCA

UMR Bacteria TMDL Meeting, 5/10/11

wq-iw8-08p

trol A

yUpper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL Project

Overall GoalImprove and restore the water quality of the Upper Mississippi River

Joint EffortMPCA & MDH, Partners, EOR (Consultant)Beneficial use designation MDH Source Water Protection/MPCA TMDL

Draft Timeline2008 - Project Start (Work Plan, Stakeholder Meetings)2009-2011 - Additional monitoring/ID pollution sources 2012-2015 - Draft TMDL/Implementation Plan

trol A

Project Scope Notes

Includes watershed areas in all or portions of 22 counties.

Primary project area includes 9-10 counties.

Within the project study area approx. 950,000 Minnesotan’s use the Mississippi River for their drinking water supply.

St. Cloud is the first City on the Mississippi River to use it as a drinking water resource.

Since 2008 assessment inventory 12 new reaches have been listed as being impaired for bacteria.

trol A

yProject Scope

Bacteria Impairments within project scope –2008 Inventory

trol A

yBest Management Practice (BMP) Implementation – Interim Progress

As a result of last year’s monitoring efforts, a riparian pasture site is now in the process of being restored through proposed BMPs. BMP implementation does not have to wait until the TMDL project is complete.This project has and continues to increase the overall awareness of surface water bacteria issues within the project scope area.

Barb PeichelProject Manager, MPCA

Phil VotrubaProject Manager, MPCA

Upper Mississippi River (UMR) Bacteria TMDL Project

Phase I – UMR Bacteria TMDL Project

• Summarize and Analyze Existing Data

• Compare E. coli with other Water Quality Parameters

Data Analysis, Source Assessment, and Monitoring Recommendations Report

Bacteria Concentrations (data from 1999-2008):

• Peak in the Metro – Miss River mainstem (MR)

• Exceed more often in tributaries than MR (43% vs. 18%)

• Increase in the fall (63% trib. vs. 50% MR)

• High in the winter - MR

Data Analysis, Source Assessment, & Monitoring Recommendations Report

Bacteria Concentrations (data from 1999-2008):

• Not correlated with temp, TSS*, turbidity – MR

• Highest for Mpls/St. Paul stormsewer outlets**• 150 samples/4 sites, 1-307,600 MPN E. coli (avg. 6,000)• 290 samples/6 sites, 1-100,000 MPN E. coli (avg. 4,900)

• Exceed with all flow regimes (trend; mix sources)

*Two sites correlated (+ and -)**Not applicable to wq standards

Mississippi River (AUID 07010206-509)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Cumulative Probability (%)

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,00070,00080,00090,000

100,000110,000120,000

January February March April May June July August September October November December E. coli standard

(126 org/100mL)

Highflows

Moist conditions Mid-range flows Dry conditions Lowflows

Literature Review: Summary of Bacteria and Other Parameters

Factors associated with bacterial contamination

• High stormflow (important factor in multiple studies)

• High impervious surfaces

•% rural greater than % forested areas (entire watershed)

• % urban greater than % forested areas (riparian area)

• High water temperature

• Livestock (riparian area) present

• Suspended solids

Literature Review

• Higher sediment moisture correlates with E. coli

• E. coli persistence and distribution enhanced by ditching, higher drainage, and wetland loss

• Settle-able component of bacterial input is highest at beginning of storm events; 1 day of storm loading is equivalent to months to years of dry loading

Literature Review

Phase II – UMR Bacteria TMDL Project

• Conduct Additional Monitoring

Water Quality/Assessment GapsStormwaterWinter MonitoringEnterococci

Phase II – ID Pollutant Source Types

• Microbial Source TrackingContract with UMNSmall number of water samplesPCR technique to quantify potential sources (humans/pets, swine, cattle/ruminants) using Bacteroides

• Fluorometer and Fluoride samplesMeasures fluorescence from laundry detergent brighteners

• Source Assessment (thank you)

Phases II and III –UMR Bacteria TMDL

• Literature Review – BMP effectiveness

• Draft and Final Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Report

• Draft and Final Implementation Plan (Restoration and Protection)

Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL

www.pca.state.mn.us/water/tmdl/project-uppermiss-bacteria.html

2010/2011

E. coli monitoring

• Trib Site

MR Site

2010/2011

E. coli stormwatermonitoring

• Trib Site

MR Site

Water Quality Standards

Aquatic Recreation

(1o and 2o body contact)

Bacteria Standard

Units Notes Assessment

E. coli 126 org per 100 ml

Indicator of pathogenic diseases

Geometric mean of > 5 samples/month(April – October)

UMR Bacteria TMDLMonitoring Report

Southern Sites

Mike Walerak, MPCA

Sampling Frequency

• 5 samples per month over the course of 2 years.

• My goal was 3 the first year and 2 the second

• Did not happen at all sites.

Mississippi @ 61

Mississippi R. @ LD 2

Mississippi R @ 494

Trout Brook

Lilydale Tributary

Miss R. @ Hidden Falls

Shingle Creek

County Ditch 17

Rice Creek

Coon Creek

Coon Rapids Dam

Rum River

Miss @ 169

S006-162

S000-150S002-949

S002-948

S006-147

S002-947S006-163

S003-370

S005-540

S006-148 S000-052

Miss. River @ Hwy 26 Royalton

S000-150

E. coli Results

Little Two River

S006-162

E. coli

Two Rivers

S002-949

E. coli

Spunk Creek

S002-948

E. coli

Miss. River near Sartell Dam

S006-147

E. coli

Watab River

4/19/2010 4/29/2010 5/13/2010 5/25/2010 8/31/2010 9/14/2010 9/28/2010 10/12/2010 10/26/2010

S002-947

E. Coli

Miss. River downstream of Hwy 15

S006-163

E. coli

Miss River @ SH-101 Elk River

S000-052

E. coli Results

Unnamed Creek in Ostego

S006-148

E. coli

Silver Creek

S005-540

E. coli

Johnson Creek

S003-370

E. coli

Identifying and Removing Illicit Source of Bacteria

in Saint Paul

Anna Eleria, Capitol Region WDAnne Weber, City of Saint Paul

May 10, 2011

Illicit DischargeAny discharge to the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) that is not composed entirely of stormwater, except for discharges allowed under a NPDES permit or waters used for firefighting operations. (EPA, 2005)

CRWD Monitoring Program

First started in 2005Components1. SW quality and quantity 2. BMP performanceOver 20 sitesYear-round since 2009Nutrients, sediment, metals and bacteria

East Kittsondale Bacteria Monitoring

2005 & 2006- 13 total samples- Fecal and E. coli- Data Inconclusive

2007 & 2008- E. coli only- MDL = 2420 MPN- 30 total samples- 24 dry weather- 80% DW > 2420 MPN

East Kittsondale Bacteria Monitoring

2009 Intensive Monitoring- Higher dilutions- 2 to 7 times/month- 36 total samples- 30 dry weather

100000

1000000

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35

Sample

L)State Surface WQ Std – 1260cfu/100mL

Add’l 2009 IDDE MonitoringFour Discharge Types1. Sanitary wastewater2. Washwater3. Tap and/or irrigation water*4. Natural water* Flow Chart Method 1. Surfactants 2. Ammonia3. Potassium4. FluorideNo strong, conclusive results – 10 data sets

2009 East Kittsondale Flow

Rainfall

Sewer FungusObservations since 2008Feathery colonies of bacteriaGrows in the presence of untreated sewage or domestic wastewater

August 4, 2009

October 28, 2009

December 22, 2009

East Kittsondale Bacteria Investigation

City of St. Paul and Bay West

East Kittsondale Bacteria Investigation

Reviewed storm sewer and land use mapping

Conducted field survey

Selected locations to collect surface samples at discharge points into the main sewer during dry weather

Field measurements for DO, pH, temperature, conductivity and turbidity

Sampling & Lab IssuesSite accessibility issues with surface sampling

Low base flow at some sites

November 2009 samples were not diluted at MDH lab resulting in 3 sites reported at the maximum detection limit of > 2,400 (MPN/100ml).

May 2010 sampling conducted in main line sewer

Detection and EliminationCity staff visually inspected manholes and then televised the sewer to isolate the source.

City dye tested the building fixtures to determine the exact connections to the storm sewer.

Source was a direct sanitary connection to the storm sewer.

Property owner was notified and corrective actions were taken.

2010 East Kittsondale Bacteria Monitoring

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

1/11/1

3/18/1

4/29/1

/105/1

5/25/1

/106/8

/106/1

6/17/1

7/1/10

7/15/1

/108/6

/108/1

8/25/1

9/28/1

/12/10

State Surface WQ Std – 260cfu/100mL

Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL

Source Assessment

Impairments Addressed in this Project

1 - Study Area• Source categories• Bacteria produced per source – based on bacteria production

2 - Contributing Areas• Drainage areas, excluding upstream areas separated by a

boundary condition• Incorporation of more detailed source assessment

Source Assessments (Two Geographic Scales)

Study Area Source Assessment: summarized by HUC-10 watersheds

Example HUC-10 Source Assessment Summary

Draft Source Category* Bacteria ProducedLivestock L/M/H

Humans L/M/H

Wildlife L/M/H

Pets L/M/H

*GIS layers of source categories will be made available to stakeholders

Contributing Areas

Based on DNR Catchments

Will not include the drainage area upstream of boundary condition• Reaches that are meeting E. coli standards• Lake or other water body at the pour point of DNR Catchment

Bassett Creek Contributing Area

Contributing Areas

Impaired Mississippi River reaches• Direct drainage area (based on DNR Catchments)• Will not include the drainage area of tributaries that are meeting E.

coli standardsImpaired tributaries (directly adjacent to river)• If there is a current or planned TMDL study, will not be included in

this project (e.g. Sauk, Crow, Minnehaha Ck)• If there is not a current or planned TMDL study, will be included in

this project (e.g. Spunk Ck, Bassett Ck)• Some trib impairments not yet known (will be assessed after 2011

monitoring)Impaired water courses not directly adjacent to river• Will not be included in this project

Contributing Area Source Assessment: For each impaired AUID

Contributing Area Source Assessment

Example Contributing Area Source Assessment Summary

Draft Source Category* Bacteria Produced

Bacteria Delivered to Impaired Waterbody

Livestock – feedlots (manure mgmnt, land application) L/M/H L/M/H

Livestock - grazing L/M/H L/M/H

Livestock - hobby farms L/M/H L/M/H

Humans – WWTF (effluent, CSO, SSO, land application of biosolids) L/M/H L/M/H

Humans – septics (land application of septage) L/M/H L/M/H

Wildlife (urban, rural) L/M/H L/M/H

Pets L/M/H L/M/H

Illicit Discharges L/M/H L/M/H

*GIS layers of source categories will be made available for stakeholders

Within contributing areas only• By location (e.g. select subwatersheds, feedlots in close

proximity to waterbodies)• By source category (e.g. wildlife)• By delivery mechanism (e.g. impervious surfaces)

Priority Management Zones (PMZs)

Microbial source tracking

Bacteroides Bacteria – indicator of fecal contaminationAnaerobic – indicate recent fecal contamination

Genetic markers specific to the host of the bacteria

Pilot studyMike Sadowsky: U of MN Dept of Soil, Water, and Climate, and BioTechnology Institute

• Ruminants (e.g. cattle, deer)• Swine• Humans and pets

All monitoring sites

Upper study area

Middle study area

Lower study area

6 5 1 . 7 7 0 . 8 4 4 8 / w w w . e o r i n c . c o m

Thank you

Next Steps for Stakeholders: UMR Bacteria TMDL

Potential Stakeholder MonitoringMore sites, other parameters (fluoride), stormwater events, winter samplingMay be able to cover lab analysis costsWrap up sampling by end of 2011

Review/Input (2011-2012)Summary of Data (new listings?)Source Assessment – 2 scalesBMP Lit ReviewLoad Duration CurvesDraft TMDL Elements

Crow Wing River Watershed

Upper Mississippi River Basin

Map of Minnesota’s Basins

Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL Project

Documents