upper mississippi river bacteria tmdl project
TRANSCRIPT
Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL Project
Phil VotrubaProject Manager, MPCA
Barb PeichelProject Manager, MPCA
UMR Bacteria TMDL Meeting, 5/10/11
wq-iw8-08p
Min
neso
ta P
ollu
tion
Con
trol A
genc
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
Min
neso
ta P
ollu
tion
Con
trol A
genc
y
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.
Min
neso
ta P
ollu
tion
Con
trol A
genc
yProject Scope
Notes
Bacteria Impairments within project scope –2008 Inventory
Min
neso
ta P
ollu
tion
Con
trol A
genc
y
WHY?
Min
neso
ta P
ollu
tion
Con
trol A
genc
y
Min
neso
ta P
ollu
tion
Con
trol A
genc
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 (%)
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,00070,00080,00090,000
100,000110,000120,000
E. c
oli (
billi
on o
rg/d
)
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
Sites
• Trib Site
MR Site
2010/2011
E. coli stormwatermonitoring
Sites
• 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
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
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
mg/
L
Date
S000-150
E. coli Results
126
Little Two River
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
mg/
L
Date
S006-162
E. coli
126
Two Rivers
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
mg/
L
Date
S002-949
E. coli
126
Spunk Creek
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
mg/
L
Dates
S002-948
E. coli
126
Miss. River near Sartell Dam
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
mg/
L
Date
S006-147
E. coli
126
Watab River
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
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
mg/
L
Dates
S002-947
E. Coli
126
Miss. River downstream of Hwy 15
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
mg/
L
Date
S006-163
E. coli
126
Miss River @ SH-101 Elk River
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
E. c
oli m
g/L
Date
S000-052
E. coli Results
126
Unnamed Creek in Ostego
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
mg/
L
Date
S006-148
E. coli
126
Silver Creek
0
50
100
150
200
250
mg/
L
Date
S005-540
E. coli
126
Johnson Creek
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
mg/
L
Date
S003-370
E. coli
126
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
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35
Sample
E. C
oli (
cfu/
100m
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
Flow
Level
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
1
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
1,000,000
1/11/1
02/1
1/10
3/18/1
04/1
2/10
4/29/1
05/6
/105/1
9/10
5/25/1
06/3
/106/8
/106/1
4/10
6/17/1
06/2
5/10
7/1/10
7/15/1
08/5
/108/6
/108/1
0/10
8/25/1
09/2
3/10
9/28/1
010
/12/10
11/2/
1012
/8/10
Date
E. C
oli (
MPN
/100
mL)
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
rates
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