water quality monitoring, pollution source tracking and

Water Quality Monitoring, Pollution Source Tracking and Assistance, and Environmental

Education in North Shore Watersheds

Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation 2045 Lakeshore Drive, Rm 339

New Orleans, LA 70122

of 58

INTRODUCTION The Tangipahoa and Tickfaw Rivers are major contributing rivers of the Pontchartrain Basin in Southeast Louisiana. The Tangipahoa River traverses 61 miles in Louisiana and has a watershed measuring 521 mi2. Its watershed covers much of Tangipahoa Parish. Directly west of the Tangipahoa Watershed is the Tickfaw Watershed, covering western Tangipahoa Parish and eastern Livingston and St. Helena Parishes. The Tickfaw River runs 69 miles in Louisiana with a 671 mi2 watershed. Tangipahoa Parish’s largest municipality, the City of Hammond, lies within the Ponchatoula Creek and Yellow Water River, sub-watersheds in the Tickfaw (Figure 1.1). Historically rural in character, the northern portions of the parishes still boast a robust dairy and crop industry. However, Tangipahoa and Livingston Parishes have also been subjected to rapid conversion of agricultural land to sprawling urban development in recent decades, and particularly since the 2005 hurricane season. Tangipahoa Parish’s population increased from 100,602 in 2000 to an estimated 125,412 in 2013 (U.S. Census Bureau, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/22/22105.html). The southern portion of Tangipahoa Parish, and particularly land around the cities of Hammond and Ponchatoula, has seen the majority of this growth. In addition, as family dairies and small farms decline, the properties are being developed into subdivisions and small communities. The still largely agricultural parishes do not have the infrastructure to accommodate this development. With the sprawled and unplanned nature of the development, waste treatment is piecemeal, consisting of everything from municipal plants to individual home systems. Furthermore, historic gaps in the permitting system allowed commercial WWTPs to be built but not permitted to discharge. Consequently, some rivers in these parishes are polluted with fecal bacteria (Figure 1.2). Also, with rapid development, the local rivers are experiencing high sediment loads and pollutants associated with construction activity. Finally, urban activities and agricultural practices release excess nutrients into the waterways. While much has already been accomplished in the Tangipahoa Watershed and Natalbany portion of the Tickfaw Watershed, much work remains. Within the Tangipahoa Watershed, Big Creek remains on the Impaired Waterbodies List for Fecal Coliform. The Tangipahoa River itself remains listed for stormwater pollutants including total dissolved solids and chlorides. Within the Tickfaw Watershed, intensive education of and assistance to wastewater plant owners and operators has yielded decreases in fecal coliform levels on Ponchatoula Creek and Yellow Water River (in and around the City of Hammond); however, most waterways in the Tickfaw Watershed remain impaired for fecal coliform. Also, numerous stormwater pollutants associated with new development are entering the waterways as these watersheds contain the City of Hammond.

of 58

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/22/22105.html

Project Area: Louisiana 8-digit watershed subsegment code(s): Tangipahoa Watershed, 08070205 Tickfaw Watershed, 08070203 TMDL’s (approved or under development): Ponchatoula Creek and Yellow Water River- Fecal Coliform, Dissolved Oxygen, and Nutrients (only known, others are pending) 303(d) listed impairments:

Tangipahoa River- Mercury, Chloride, Dissolved Oxygen, Sulfates, Total Dissolved Solids Big Creek- Fecal Coliform Tickfaw River- Mercury, Total Dissolved Solids, Chlorides, Dissolved Oxygen, Sulfates Natalbany River- Fecal Coliform, Mercury, Dissolved Oxygen

Ponchatoula Creek- Chlorides, Fecal Coliform, Mercury, Nitrate/Nitrite, Phosphorus, Dissolved Oxygen, Total Dissolved Solids Yellow Water River- Chlorides, Fecal Coliform, Dissolved Oxygen, Total Dissolved Solids

Figure 1.2. Ponchatoula Creek, Early in Project

of 58

Project Goal and Objectives Goal: To continue the work begun by LPBF to decrease wastewater and stormwater (point and non-point) pollutants into the Tangipahoa and Tickfaw Watersheds. Objectives: The objectives of this project are to locate and track pollution sources through water quality and land use analyses, to assist and educate those causing the pollution, and to educate the general public about environmental pollution issues; all performed in cooperation with partner state and local agencies. Objective 1: Water quality monitoring on multiple sites within the watersheds to document water quality conditions, locate hotspots, and document improvements to water quality as a result of intervention. Objective 2: Utilizing water quality and land use data, investigate watersheds for pollution sources- including point and non-point. LPBF will refer point source dischargers to LDEQ’s Small Business Assistance Program to assist and address the issues. For non-point sources, LPBF will coordinate with LDEQ and partners for education and assistance. Objective 3: Coordination and dialogue among local, parish, and state agencies, environmental groups, and concerned citizens through monthly meetings of the established Tangipahoa Task Force. This allows the groups to coordinate and work together on environmental issues and programs/projects, educational classes, and media. Project Activities and Deliverables LPBF will implement its Sub-Basin Pollution Source Tracking Program within the Tangipahoa and Tickfaw Watersheds for a 3-year project. The project goal is the achievement of a 25% reduction in fecal coliform and E.coli counts. These decreases are anticipated to decrease nutrient levels as well. LPBF will show in-stream improvements by integrating all aspects of the project, including water monitoring and source tracking; working with LDEQ on point sources; assistance and education for non-point source pollution sources; and extensive public education. Activities will be coordinated through the collaborative effort of the Tangipahoa River Task Force (TRTF), a multi-agency coalition devoted to water quality improvements in the parish. All activities will be performed by the LPBF. Activity 1) Water Monitoring Goal: LPBF will monitor water quality in rivers and tributaries of the targeted watersheds to assess pollution inputs and document outcomes of assistance.

Task 1) Water Quality Monitoring: LPBF will intensively monitor water quality at 20 sites in the Tangipahoa and Tickfaw Watersheds throughout the project. Targeted water quality monitoring serves to document all potential pollution sources (point and non-point sources) in a watershed. In addition, continued monitoring will document the improvement of water quality due to implementation of the program.

of 58

Sites will be monitored bi-weekly for bacteriological indicators, nutrients, and

physiochemical parameters. For the fecal coliform and E.coli analyses, one “grab” sample of 120 ml volume will be taken at each site and analyzed at an LDEQ/EPA-approved laboratory. The laboratory will also analyze the nutrients ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, total nitrogen, total organic carbon, total inorganic carbon, total phosphorus, total phosphate, and alkalinity. The physiochemical parameters of water temperature (ºC), dissolved oxygen (mg/L), specific conductance (µS), pH, and turbidity (NTU) will be monitored in situ at each site. The water monitoring methodology, equipment calibration and upkeep, and data quality assurance will be performed according to Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th Edition (1998) and addressed in the EPA QAPP. Deliverables: Project Quarterly and Final Reports. Also, all project activities and water quality trends/status will be analyzed and summarized in bi-annual reports. Additionally, the TRTF will review data trends regularly. Activity 2) Pollution Source Tracking Goal: LPBF will locate wastewater and stormwater pollution sources (point and non-point sources) within targeted watersheds.

Task 1) Pollution Source Tracking: Utilizing water quality data collected in

Activity 1 and land use data provided by LDEQ (and using LPBF’s GIS capabilities), LPBF will intensively survey targeted watersheds to ascertain land use on a fine scale and locate wastewater and stormwater pollution sources. When point-sources are discovered, LPBF will work with the LDEQ’s Small Business Assistance Program (SBAP). Through the SBAP, the dischargers can become properly permitted if needed and obtain guidance in cleaning their pollution source. For non-point sources, LPBF will work with LDEQ, Tangipahoa Parish, and other partners to find the best solution to the specific issue (including education, state programs, BMP’s, etc.).

Task 2) Education: In addition to the education and assistance provided to non-

point source dischargers, LPBF will work to educate the entire community on water quality issues. a) LPBF will work with local media, newspapers, television, and radio on stories about water quality issues and LPBF’s program; b) LPBF will have informational booths at local festivals and events; c) LPBF will perform educational programs for students and civic groups; and d) LPBF will distribute a brochure to educate homeowners on proper home wastewater plant maintenance with the assistance of the parishes and LDHH. Deliverables: The deliverables for this project are: 1) Documentation on facilities assisted (to be included in reports) and 2) produce media outputs at least twice per year for the entirety of the project. All deliverables will be included in quarterly reports to LDEQ.

of 58

Activity 3) Data Analysis, Quality Assurance, and Reporting Task 1) Data Analysis: The LPBF will utilize Microsoft Excel and the statistical

program JMP (a SAS-based program) to analyze statistical trends. The LPBF’s GIS will be utilized to document the location of wastewater and stormwater (point and non-point) sources. LPBF utilizes and ground-truths GIS maps, digital images (including Landsat TM and DOQQ images), and data layers provided by several government entities as well as creates new data layers based on the program’s findings. LPBF has in-house GIS capabilities, utilizing ESRI ArcView 9.3 with Spatial Analyst extension. LPBF employs a full-time GIS specialist to operate the system and has the technical and knowledge capability to follow the GIS guidelines.

Task 2) Project Quality Assurance: The LPBF maintains an active QA/QC system. The current QMP is entitled Quality Management Plan: Quality Assurance Policies, Procedures, and Management Systems. The QMP was approved by Region 6 on 10/14/10 and its Q-Track # is 09-539. The QAPP for this project is entitled Sub-Basin Water Quality Analysis and Pollution Source Tracking (Tangipahoa and Natalbany Watersheds). The QAPP was approved by Region 6 on 12/15/10 and has a Q-Track # 10-008. LPBF will update its QMP and QAPP annually throughout the course of the project. Updates will be submitted to LDEQ.

Task 3) Reporting: LPBF will submit quarterly progress reports to LDEQ containing all data analyses, maps, and presentations. In addition, LPBF will submit bi-annual data summary and QA reports to LDEQ. At the end of the project, LPBF will submit a final project report. Deliverables: Progress reports quarterly, Data Summary and QA Reports bi-annually (January and July of the year), and EPA-approved updates to the LPBF QMP and QAPP (last quarter of the year).

of 58

Methodology Water Quality Methodology: LPBF performed in situ bi-weekly water quality monitoring of sites within Yellow Water River and Ponchatoula Creek for physiochemical parameters (water temperature, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, turbidity, and pH- Figure 2.1). Grab samples for bacteriological indicators (fecal coliform and E.coli) were also collected at each site (Figure 2.5). A second grab sample was collected at each site and analyzed for a suite of nutrients (nitrate-nitrite-nitrogen, ammonia-ammonium-nitrogen, total nitrogen, total organic carbon, inorganic carbon, phosphate-phosphorus, and alkalinity). In 2014, the monitoring was pared down to meter measurements and fecal coliform analysis at six sites (Figure 2.6). All analyses were conducted at the LELAP-accredited Southeastern University Microbiology Laboratory. Analytical methodology and equipment are included on Table 2 at the end of the chapter. Statistics Methodology: Non-parametric statistical analyses were utilized in the analysis of all water quality data since the assumption of normal distribution could not be made. Distribution was analyzed to ascertain the range of data values for parameters and to examine percentages of samples meeting state water quality regulations (for applicable parameters). Parameters were also analyzed between sites utilizing quartile graphing the Kruskal-Wallis analysis (similar to ANOVA). For sites and parameters where correlation was calculated, Spearman’s Rho was utilized. QA Methodology: On each sampling date, three readings for each physiochemical parameter were taken at each site. The triplicate data is subjected to precision analysis. Precision was expressed as the relative percent difference (RPD).

Figure 2.1. Collecting Meter Measurements at Sites

of 58

RPD = (X1-X2) / X(100) Where X1 and X2 are maximum and minimum sample values from daily triplicate samples

Also, all equipment was maintained according to the operator manuals with all calibrations and maintenance documented. All calibrations were performed according to the operator manual using standard solutions purchased from the instrument manufacturers (standardized against NIST-certified references). All calibrations were performed in accordance with the procedures specified in the analytical methodology commanding their use. The lab utilized in this study, Southeastern Louisiana University’s Microbiology Laboratory (LELAP-accredited) performed its own quality assurance procedures in accordance with their QA documentation. The lab was inspected by LPBF to fulfill quality assurance. Wastewater Source Detection Methodology: Home Wastewater Systems, Inspection and Education- Beginning with the Yellow Water River sub-watershed then transitioning to the Natalbany Watershed, all homes that TDHH has listed as having an individual home wastewater system were systematically visited and the wastewater system inspected (Figures 2.2 and 2.3). During the inspection process, information collected for tracking purposes included: size and type of system, condition of the system (functioning properly or not), street address, and GPS coordinates of the system. When a plant was reported as non-functioning, the inspector noted which components failed and what needed to be repaired. A copy of the inspection form was left with the homeowner who was given 30 days to complete the repairs, at which time a re-inspection of the system was conducted and reported. If repairs were not completed by the third inspection, the information was handed over to the District Attorney’s office and could result in fines. The results were mapped using Arc GIS 10.3 to assess locations of plants, whether plants passed initial inspection, and when plants passed inspection. Information such as issues with the plants was also recorded.

Figures 2.2 and 2.3. Home System Inspections

of 58

Undocumented Source Detection- Utilizing water quality data collected and land use data provided by LDEQ (and using LPBF’s GIS capabilities), LPBF intensively surveyed targeted watersheds to ascertain land use on a fine scale and locate wastewater and stormwater pollution sources. When undocumented point-sources were discovered (Figure 2.4), LPBF worked with the LDEQ’s Small Business Assistance Program (SBAP) to assist the plant owners and correct issues with the plants. Through the SBAP, the dischargers became properly permitted if needed and obtained guidance in cleaning their pollution source. For non-point sources (other than homes), LPBF worked with LDEQ, Tangipahoa Parish, and other partners to find the best solution to the specific issue (including education, state programs, BMP’s, etc.). Database Upkeep Methodology: The main databases and associated triplicate quality assurance databases (for RPD calculation) were recorded in Microsoft Excel and kept up throughout the project. Data was entered by one person and checked for transcription errors by a second person. Data was transferred into the JMP Statistical program for statistical analysis and graphing and into Arc GIS 10.3 for mapping. Finally, data was shared with DEQ for inclusion in the Electronic Data Delivery system.

Figure 2.4 Typical Undocumented Wastewater Discharge

of 58

Figure 2.5. Map of Water Quality Sampling Sites, 2011-2013

of 58

Table 1. Tangipahoa and Tickfaw Water Quality Monitoring Sites, 2011-2013

NAME LAT LONG Site ID Monthly Tickfaw @ LA10 30.824790 -90.637770 TF1

Tickfaw @ Hwy 16 30.686680 -90.643410 TF2

Tickfaw @ 442-441 intersect 30.561110 -90.659610 TF3

Tickfaw @ Hwy 190 30.503540 -90.677010 TF4

Tickfaw @ Hwy 42 30.435200 -90.678260 TF5

Tickfaw @ Hwy 22 (Springfield) 30.377070 -90.550480 TF6

Bi-weekly Big Creek @ LA10 (TRT3) 30.795760 -90.452310 TA1

Tangipahoa River @ Hwy 16 (TR7) 30.729240 -90.484720 TA2

Chappepeela Creek @ Chap. Rd. (TRT9) 30.556690 -90.348090 TA3

Tangipahoa River @ Ponchatoula Beach (TR2) 30.436230 -90.339320 TA4

Bedico Creek @ Traino Landing (TRT12) 30.406290 -90.261650 TA5

Selsers Creek @ Weinberger Rd. 30.420570 -90.413940 SC1

Natalbany River @ 40 (NR9) 30.643060 -90.539160 NR1

Natalbany River @ Hwy 22 (NR3) 30.433640 -90.546030 NR2

Bi-weekly Ponchatoula C. @ Robertson Rd

PC0

Ponchatoula C. @ Old Genesee Rd 30.559460 -90.481180 PC1

Ponchatoula C. @ N. Oaks Park 30.525510 -90.474300 PC2

Ponchatoula C. @ East Hoffman

PC3

Omitted Ponchatoula C. @ West Hoffman (PC Hoff) 30.452430 -90.475860 PC4

Ponchatoula C. @ Hwy 22 (PC2) 30.439660 -90.482940 PC5

Ponchatoula C. @ Wadesborough Rd (PCA) 30.425090 -90.491320 PC6

Yellow Water @ Wardline Rd. (YW4) 30.519060 -90.487340 YW1

Yellow Water @ Hwy 190 (YW 190) 30.505560 -90.507370 YW2

Yellow Water @ Ott (YW Ott) 30.473550 -90.506840 YW3

Yellow Water @ Hwy 22 (YW1) 30.439800 -90.496190 YW4

of 58

Figure 2.6. Map of 2014 Sampling Sites

of 58

Table 2. Analytical Methods and Equipment Used in Project Parameter Method Equipment Dissolved Oxygen Standard Methods for Examination YSI85 S-C-DO-T Meter of Water and Wastewater, 20th Ed. 0-20mg/L range, method 4500-OG ± 0.3mg/L accuracy Temperature Standard Methods for Examination YSI85 S-C-DO-T Meter of Water and Wastewater, 20th Ed. -5 to +65°C range, method 2550B 0.1°C accuracy Specific Standard Methods for Examination YSI85 S-C-DO-T Meter Conductance of Water and Wastewater, 20th Ed. 0 to 4999 µS/cm range, method 2510B ± 0.5% accuracy Turbidity Standard Methods for Examination Hach Portable Turbidimeter of Water and Wastewater, 20th Ed. 0 to 1000 NTU range, method 2130 B 0.01 NTU accuracy pH Standard Methods for Examination YSI 60 pH Meter of Water and Wastewater, 20th Ed. 0 to 14.00 range, method 4500-H+B 0.1pH accuracy Alkalinity Standard Methods for Examination Oakton pH 510 series meter of Water and Wastewater, 21st ed. Brinkman digital buret

Method 2320B, Titration method both 0-20mg/L range and >20 mg/L method used, depending on sample As per Standard method, no general precision statement can be made.

Nitrate/Nitrite Standard Methods for Examination of

Water and Wastewater, 21st ed. SM 4500-NO3 F

Hach DR5000 Spectrophotometer BioTek PowerWave HT Microplate Spectrophotometer 0.1-unlimted range (dilution scheme used for high range samples)

Orthophosphate as P Standard Methods for Examination of

Water and Wastewater, 21st ed. SM 4500-P E

Hach DR5000 Spectrophotometer BioTek PowerWave HT Microplate Spectrophotometer 0.01-unlimted range (dilution scheme used for high range samples) precision: for 0.228 ug/L sample Relative SD =3.03

TOC/IC Standard Methods for Examination of

Water and Wastewater, 20th ed. SM 5310 B

Shimadzu TOC-Vcpn Range: 0.1-unlimited range (dilution scheme for high range samples) precision: 5-10% depending on sample characteristics

TN High Temperature

Combustion/Chemilumenscence Shimadzu TOC-Vcpn, TNM-1 module 0.1-200mg/L precision: CV 3% max

of 58

Ammonia as N Standard Methods for Examination of

Water and Wastewater, 20th ed. SM 4500-NH3 G B

Hach DR5000 Spectrophotometer BioTek PowerWave HT Microplate Spectrophotometer 0.05-unlimited range (dilution scheme used for high range samples)

Fecal coliform Standard Methods for Examination of

Water and Wastewater, 20th ed. SM 9221-E (A1)

detection limit: MPN 2/100ml precision: follows MPN chart in Standard Methods

Escherichia coli Standard Methods for Examination of

Water and Wastewater, 20th ed. SM 9225-C

detection limit: MPN 2/100ml precision: follows MPN chart in Standard Methods

of 58

RESULTS Activity 1 and 3: Water Quality Data Results and Quality Assurance Data Distribution: Distribution analysis of results showed the data were not normally distributed; therefore, nonparametric statistics were utilized in the analysis of the water quality data. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to assess variability among sites (α = 0.05) for multiple populations. This analyses are typically used on surface water data. The data by site is being presented in quartiles, representing the median (center line), 25% and 75% (box), and maximum and minimum values (bars) (Figure 3.1). Outliers were sometimes not included with quartiles. Figure 3.1. Quartiles were used to represent the data collected at each site. The quartiles show the median (line in box), 75% (upper end of box), 25% (lower end of box), minimum value (lower end of line) and maximum value (upper end of line) data points. All Sites Analysis: Overall, the previously established sites were monitored bi-weekly to monthly (Tickfaw sites) for bacteriological indicators, nutrients, and physiochemical parameters. For the fecal coliform and E.coli analyses, one “grab” sample of 120 ml volume was taken at each site and analyzed at an LDEQ/EPA-approved laboratory. The laboratory also analyzed the nutrients ammonia-ammonium-nitrogen (NH3-NH4-N), nitrite-nitrate-nitrogen(NO2-NO3-N), total nitrogen (TN), total organic carbon (TOC), inorganic carbon (IC), phosphate-phosphorus (PO4-P) (all using mg/l), and alkalinity (using mg/L CaCO3). The physiochemical parameters of water temperature (ºC), dissolved oxygen (mg/L), specific conductance (µS), pH, and turbidity (NTU) were monitored in situ at each site. A total of approximately 1350 water quality samples were taken at the Ponchatoula / Yellow Water sites, the Tangipahoa and Natalbany sites, and the Tickfaw sites between January 2011 – December 2014.

of 58

Temperature- All sites show the expected range of temperatures throughout the seasons. Median temperatures between the streams were not statistically different (Kruskal-Wallis, α = 0.05) indicating that no stream had issues with abnormally high temperatures. Finally, all recorded temperatures were below the state standard of 32°C (Figure 3.2). Figure 3.2. All Sites- Temperature By Site

Dissolved Oxygen- Median and even 75% levels of the southernmost sites in the Tangipahoa watershed (TA5- Bedico Creek) and the Tickfaw (TF6) showed the lowest D.O. levels (Figure 3.3). These sites are located in wetland environments and are slower moving. Lower D.O. levels are likely normal for these environments. A Use Attainability Analysis has been completed by LDEQ and is being reviewed by EPA. It is likely that sites such as these will receive lower dissolved oxygen limits (conducive to a wetland environment) in the near future. Figure 3.3. All Sites- Dissolved Oxygen By Site

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

Temp

eratur

e

NR1

NR2

PC0

PC1

PC2

PC3

PC5

PC6

YW1

YW2

YW3

YW4

SC1

TA1

TA2

TA3

TA4

TA5

TF1

TF2

TF3

TF4

TF5

TF6

Site

0

10

15

Stnd

Diss

olved

Oxy

gen

NR1

NR2

PC0

PC1

PC2

PC3

PC5

PC6

YW1

YW2

YW3

YW4

SC1

TA1

TA2

TA3

TA4

TA5

TF1

TF2

TF3

TF4

TF5

TF6

Site

of 58

Specific Conductance- The southernmost site in the Tangipahoa Watershed (TA5- Bedico Creek) shows the greatest specific conductance (Figure 3.4). This is due to interchange of brackish water with Lakes Pontchartrain and Maurepas. Otherwise, Yellow Water River shows a jump in specific conductance (Figure 3.4, blue box). This jump is also observed in a few nutrients (described below) and indicates a major input source. Figure 3.4. All Sites- Spec Cond By Site

pH- All sites were within the state pH standards of a 6-9 range. The only sites that dipped below the range were TA5 and TF6, both southernmost sites on these watersheds, found in wetland environments (Figure 3.5). Figure 3.5. All Sites- pH By Site

Turbidity- Most sites within the Natalbany Watershed (including sites on the Natalbany River, Ponchatoula Creek, and Yellow Water River experienced greater turbidity than the Tangipahoa River (TA sites) and Tickfaw (TF sites) River. In particular, the Tangipahoa River had very low turbidity overall. Of the watersheds, the Natalbany has the densest population and greatest urban area (discussed below). It is likely that some of the turbidity seen was from human activity. In particular, Yellow Water and possibly

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Spec

Con

d

NR1

NR2

PC0

PC1

PC2

PC3

PC5

PC6

YW1

YW2

YW3

YW4

SC1

TA1

TA2

TA3

TA4

TA5

TF1

TF2

TF3

TF4

TF5

TF6

Site

4.5

5

5.5

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9.5

Stnd 2

Stnd 1

pH

NR1

NR2

PC0

PC1

PC2

PC3

PC5

PC6

YW1

YW2

YW3

YW4

SC1

TA1

TA2

TA3

TA4

TA5

TF1

TF2

TF3

TF4

TF5

TF6

Site

of 58

Ponchatoula were dredged for a drainage project during the course of this project. The Tickfaw had a turbidity source at TF4 in some construction that was occurring during monitoring (Figure 3.6). Figure 3.6. All Sites- Turbidity By Site

Ammonia-Ammonium-Nitrogen- When nitrate-nitrite is analyzed in the waterways, the Tangipahoa and Tickfaw Rivers show generally low levels. The Natalbany Watershed (including the Natalbany River, Ponchatoula Creek, and Yellow Water River) and Selsers Creek (SC1) showed overall greater ammonia-ammonium. Ammonia generally rose in the downstream direction on Ponchatoula and Natalbany. In Yellow Water, the ammonia-ammonium jumps between YW1 and YW2. This is likely related to the input that also increased specific conductance and other nutrient levels. Higher NH4-NH3-N was also observed in the lower Tangipahoa watershed / Bedico Creek Landing (TA5). However, the Ammonium-Ammonia stayed below 1.5 mg/l for all sites (Figure 3.7). Figure 3.7. All Sites- NH4-NH3-N By Site

0

100

200

Stnd

Turbi

dity

NR1

NR2

PC0

PC1

PC2

PC3

PC5

PC6

YW1

YW2

YW3

YW4

SC1

TA1

TA2

TA3

TA4

TA5

TF1

TF2

TF3

TF4

TF5

TF6

Site

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

NH4-N

H3-N

NR1

NR2

PC0

PC1

PC2

PC3

PC5

PC6

YW1

YW2

YW3

YW4

SC1

TA1

TA2

TA3

TA4

TA5

TF1

TF2

TF3

TF4

TF5

TF6

Site

of 58

Nitrate-Nitrite-Nitrogen- Among the watersheds, Yellow Water and Ponchatoula Creek showed the greatest nitrate-nitrite-nitrogen levels, increasing in the downstream direction (Figure 3.8). Most notably, these watersheds and Selsers Creek (SC) are within the rapidly urbanizing Ponchatoula and Hammond area (see urban areas map below). They are the ultimate discharge points for numerous home, commercial, and community wastewater plants. Figure 3.8. All Sites- NO3-NO2-N By Site

Phosphate-Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen - Phosphate-Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen for most rivers studied was low, the notable exception being Yellow Water River, which appears to have a large nutrient input between YW1 and YW2 (Figures 3.9 and 3.10). LPBF has identified the industry and will be glad to work with LDEQ on this when nutrient criteria are introduced. Figure 3.9. All Sites- PO4-P By Site

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

NO3-N

O2-N

NR1

NR2

PC0

PC1

PC2

PC3

PC5

PC6

YW1

YW2

YW3

YW4

SC1

TA1

TA2

TA3

TA4

TA5

TF1

TF2

TF3

TF4

TF5

TF6

Site

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

PO4-P

NR1

NR2

PC0

PC1

PC2

PC3

PC5

PC6

YW1

YW2

YW3

YW4

SC1

TA1

TA2

TA3

TA4

TA5

TF1

TF2

TF3

TF4

TF5

TF6

Site

of 58

Figure 3.10. All Sites- TN-N By Site

Alkalinity and Inorganic Carbon - Alkalinity and Inorganic Carbon values in Tangipahoa and Tickfaw rivers were low compared to Ponchatoula Creek, Yellow Water River, and Selsers Creek (Figures 3.11 and 3.12). The latter three are smaller streams in more heavily urbanized areas. Figure 3.11. All Sites- Alkalinity By Site

Figure 3.12. All Sites- IC-C By Site

0

10

20

30

40

50

TN-N

NR1

NR2

PC0

PC1

PC2

PC3

PC5

PC6

YW1

YW2

YW3

YW4

SC1

TA1

TA2

TA3

TA4

TA5

TF1

TF2

TF3

TF4

TF5

TF6

Site

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

Alkali

nity

NR1

NR2

PC0

PC1

PC2

PC3

PC5

PC6

YW1

YW2

YW3

YW4

SC1

TA1

TA2

TA3

TA4

TA5

TF1

TF2

TF3

TF4

TF5

TF6

Site

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

IC-C

NR1

NR2

PC0

PC1

PC2

PC3

PC5

PC6

YW1

YW2

YW3

YW4

SC1

TA1

TA2

TA3

TA4

TA5

TF1

TF2

TF3

TF4

TF5

TF6

Site

of 58

Total Organic Carbon- In general, the Tickfaw (TF) and Tangipahoa sites were low, indicative of natural waterways. Site TA5 showed the greatest TOC. This site is on Bedico Creek, the southernmost tributary of the Tangipahoa River located within a wetland environment. Similarly, the TF sites increase in TOC in the downstream direction, as the riparian zone becomes more flat and wetland. Natalbany, Ponchatoula, Yellow Wtaer, and Selsers all show overall greater TOC levels, which could be indicative of anthropgenic sources. Yellow Water does not appear to have a major input as all four sites are relatively consistent. Ponchatoula Creek shows a jump between PC2 and 3, possibly indicating a source (Figure 3.13). Figure 3.13. All Sites- TOC-C By Site

Fecal Coliform and E.coli Bacteria- Overall, Tangipahoa, Tickfaw, and Natalbany rivers exhibited low fecal coliform and E.coli levels. Among the rivers, Ponchatoula Creek and Yellow Water River exhibited the greatest fecal coliform and E.coli levels (Figures 3.14 and 3.15). More discussion about each individual river is below. According to the 2012 Impaired Waterbodies List:

• The Tickfaw and Tangipahoa Rivers meets PCR for fecal coliform. • The Natalbany does not meet PCR but meets SCR for fecal coliform. • Yellow Water, Ponchatoula, and Selsers do not meet SCR for fecal coliform.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

TOC-

C

NR1

NR2

PC0

PC1

PC2

PC3

PC5

PC6

YW1

YW2

YW3

YW4

SC1

TA1

TA2

TA3

TA4

TA5

TF1

TF2

TF3

TF4

TF5

TF6

Site

of 58

Figure 3.14. All Sites- Fecal Coliform By Site

Figure 3.15. All Sites- E.coli By Site

In summary, Yellow Water River and Ponchatoula Creek show the greatest influences of anthropogenic pollution. The streams show high turbidity, high alkalinity, high nitrate-nitrite-nitrogen, high phosphate, high ammonia, and high fecal coliform levels. These two creeks were targeted by this program to locate and correct sources contributing to the high values. Also of note, Bedico Creek showed low dissolved oxygen, low pH, and high specific conductance- indicative of a swamp with connections to an estuary.

0

1000

1500

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

PCR

SCRFeca

l Col

iform

NR

1

NR

2

PC0

PC1

PC2

PC3

PC5

PC6

YW1

YW2

YW3

YW4

SC1

TA1

TA2

TA3

TA4

TA5

TF1

TF2

TF3

TF4

TF5

TF6

Site

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

E.co

li

NR1

NR2

PC0

PC1

PC2

PC3

PC5

PC6

YW1

YW2

YW3

YW4

SC1

TA1

TA2

TA3

TA4

TA5

TF1

TF2

TF3

TF4

TF5

TF6

Site

of 58

Tickfaw Watershed: Overall, data show the Tickfaw River to be a healthy river. Combining data from all sites tested, dissolved oxygen levels met the state standard (5 mg/l) 92% of the time and fecal coliform met the 400 CFU/ 100 ml water 76% of the time- making it suitable for swimming and other immersion activities (Figure 3.16 a and b). Figure 3.16. Tickfaw River Distributions

a. TF-Fecal Coliform (MPN)

b. TF- Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l)

Anomalies in parameters were mostly observed at the southernmost site T6. This site is located at Highway 22 in Springfield, Livingston Parish and is indicative of the southernmost portion of this watershed- which spreads into a large wetland and enters into Lake Maurepas (a tidal estuary). At site T6:

- Specific Conductance (Figure 3.17b) and alkalinity (Figure 3.17e) was greatest due to interaction with estuarine waters from Lake Maurepas.

- Dissolved oxygen was lower (Figure 3.17a), pH varied but dipped lower than the state standard (Figure 3.17c), and TOC, IC, and TN (Figures 3.17g, d, and f) were nominally higher at this site- all due to the wetland influence.

Figure 3.17. Tickfaw Quartiles by Site 3.17a. TF- Dissolved Oxygen

3.17b. TF- Spec Cond (uS) By Site

0

800

1200

1600

2000

2400

2800

3200

3600

4000

Stnd122, 76%

4, 2%

12, 7%

1, 1%

12, 7%

0, 0%

1, 1%

5, 3%

0, 0%

0, 0%

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Stnd

0, 0%

1, 1%

1, 1%

4, 3%

5, 3%

5, 3%

34, 22%

39, 25%

33, 21%

22, 14%

3, 2%

8, 5%

2

4

6

8

10

12

TF

- D

isso

lved

Oxy

gen (

mg/l)

TF1 TF2 TF3 TF4 TF5 TF6

Site

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

TF

- S

peci

fic

Conduct

ance

(uS

)


Site

of 58

3.17c. TF- pH By Site

3.17e. TF- Alkalinity By Site

3.17g. TF- TOC-C By Site

3.17d. TF- IC-C By Site

3.17f. TF- TN-N By Site

Rises in fecal coliform, E.coli, and turbidity at Site TF4 appear to indicate a source entering the water at that point (Figures 3.18 a, b, and c). However, overall, the Tickfaw is not impaired for these parameters. The 2012 Impaired Waterbodies List showed the Tickfaw to be impaired for Mercury in Fish Tissue and Total Dissolved Solids overall and for dissolved oxygen, chlorides, sulfates, and temperature at the southern end only.

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

TF

- p

H


Site

5

10

15

20

25

30

TF

-Alk

alin

ity


Site

0

5

10

15

20

TF

-TO

C-C


Site

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

TF

-IC

-C


Site

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

TF

-TN

-N


Site

of 58

Figure 3.18a. TF Fecal Col (MPN) By Site

Figure 3.18b. TF E.coli (CFU) By Site

Figure 3.18c. TF Turbidity (NTU) By Site

0

200

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Stnd

TF

-Fecal

Colif

orm

(M

PN

)


Site

0

200

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

STV

TF

-E.c

oli

(CF

U)


Site

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

TF

- T

urbi

dity

(NT

U)


Site

of 58

Tangipahoa, Selsers Creek, Natalbany Watersheds: Distributions calculated on the data collected 2011-2013 indicate that the Tangipahoa River (Sites TA2 and TA4) met dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, and turbidity all met state standards (Figure 3.19a, b, and c). 99% of dissolved oxygen samples collected met the 5 mg/l state standard, 80% of samples were below the single sample maximum of 400 CFU for primary contact recreation, and 93% of samples were below the state standard of 50 NTU for turbidity. Figure 3.19. Tangipahoa River Distributions 3.19a. Diss Oxygen (mg/L)

3.19b. Fecal Col. (CFU)

3.19c. Turbidity (NTU)

Similarly, distributions calculated on the data collected 2011-2013 also indicate that the Natalbany River (Sites NR1 and NR2) met dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, and turbidity all met state standards (Figure 3.20a, b, and c). 89% of dissolved oxygen samples collected met the 5 mg/l state standard, 74% of samples were below the single sample maximum of 400 CFU for primary contact recreation, and 76% of samples were below the state standard of 50 NTU for turbidity. Figure 3.20. Distributions/ All Natalbany Sites 3.20a. Diss Oxygen (mg/L)

3.20b. Turbidity (NTU)

3.20c. Fecal Col (CFU)

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

1, 1%

2, 2%

18, 14%

30, 23%

40,

29, 22%

7, 5%

2, 2%

1, 1%

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

104, 80%

8, 6%

3, 2%

0, 0%

10, 8%

0

50

100

150

200

107, 83%

13, 10%

3, 2%

5, 4%

0, 0%

0, 0%

0, 0%

1, 1%

2

4

6

8

10

12

Stnd

2, 2%

3, 2%

9, 7%

25, 19%

30, 23%

24, 19%

24, 19%

10, 8%

0, 0%

2, 2%

0

100

150

200

250

Stnd

44, 34%

51, 40%

21, 16%

3, 2%

2, 2%

2, 2%

3, 2%

0, 0%

0, 0%

2, 2%

1, 1%

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

2400

2800

3200

3600

4000

98, 76%

7, 5%

7, 5%

0, 0%

8, 6%

0, 0%

0, 0%

6, 5%

0, 0%

0, 0%

of 58

When comparisons are made among the sites,TA5, most downstream Tangipahoa site in Bedico Creek, shows lowest dissolved oxygen (Figure 3.21a) and pH (Figure 3.21b) levels and the highest specific conductance levels (Figure 3.21c). This creek is within a wetland and experiences slowed flow and interaction with the brackish waters of Lakes Pontchartrain and Maurepas. Among the sites, Selsers Creek was shown to be high in the parameters of NO3-NO2, PO4-P, alkalinity, TN-N, and IC-C. As this monitoring was performed to assist Capital RC&C in implementing their WIP, these results have been and will be shared with them. Figure 3.21. Between Site Comparisons, Tangipahoa, Natalbany, and Selsers 3.21a. Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) By Site

3.21c. Specific Cond (uS) By Site

3.21b. pH By Site

3.21d. Turbidity (NTU) By Site

3.21e. NO3-NO2-N (ppm) By Site

3.21g. PO4-P (ppm) By Site

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

St StndDis

so

lve

d

Oxyg

en

(m

g/L

)

NR1 NR2 SC1 TA1 TA2 TA3 TA4 TA5

Site

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Sp

ecific

Co

nd

ucta

nce

(u

S)


Site

5.5

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

St Stnd 1

pH


Site

0

25

75

100

125

150

Stnd

Tur

bidi

dty

(NT

U)


Site

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

NO

3-N

O2

-N (

pp

m)


Site

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

PO

4-P

(p

pm

)


Site

of 58

3.21i. Alkalinity By Site

3.21f. TOC-C By Site

3.21h. IC-C By Site

3.21j. TN-N By Site

Bacteria Analysis- Among the sites, Site TA1 in Big Creek (tributary of the Tangipahoa) showed the greatest bacteria counts. This river is listed as impaired for SCR for fecal coliform on the 2012 Impaired Waterbodies List due to inputs from dairies. However, data from this project shows that Big Creek would actually meet SCR standards (Figure 3.22a). The status of Big Creek may need to be re-examined. In 2014, LPBF was invited to work with a task force to address dairy issues (described below). Site SC1 in Selsers Creek also exhibited high fecal coliform and E.coli (Figure 3.22b). Capital RC&D has written the WIP to address nonpoint source wastewater issues in this watershed. Figure #. Fecal Coliform and E.coli in Tangipahoa, Natalbany, and Selsers Watersheds3.22a. Fecal Coliform (CFU) By Site

3.22b. E.coli (CFU) By Site

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Alk

alin

ity


Site

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

TO

C-C


Site

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

IC-C


Site

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

TN

-N


Site

0

800

1200

1600

2000

2400

2800

3200

St Stnd

Feca

l

Colif

orm

(C

FU

)


Site

0

800

1200

1600

2000

2400

2800

3200

EPA level

E.c

oli

(CF

U)


Site

of 58

Ponchatoula Creek and Yellow Water: Distributions calculated on the data collected 2011-2013 indicate that Ponchatoula Creek met dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform (SCR), pH, and turbidity all met state standards (Figure 3.23a, b, c, and d). 83% of dissolved oxygen samples collected met the 5 mg/l state standard, 81% of samples were below the single sample maximum of 2000 CFU for secondary contact recreation, 78% of samples were below the state standard of 50 NTU for turbidity, all samples met for pH. Figure 3.23. Distributions for Ponchatoula Creek Data 3.23a. P.C. Dissolved Oxygen

3.23c. P.C.Turbidity

3.23b. P.C. Fecal Coliform

3.23d. P.C. pH

Distributions calculated on the data collected 2011-2013 indicate that Yellow Water River met dissolved oxygen, pH, and turbidity all met state standards (Figure 3.24a, b, c, and d). 99% of dissolved oxygen samples collected met the 5 mg/l state standard, 70% of samples were below the single sample maximum of 2000 CFU for secondary contact recreation, 80% of samples were below the state standard of 50 NTU for turbidity, nearly all samples met for pH.

2

4

6

8

10

12

Stnd

1, 0%

9, 3%

9, 3%

37, 11%

51, 16%

54, 16%

69, 21%

50, 15%

34, 10%

10, 3%

2, 1%

2, 1%

0

100

200

300

400

500

255, 78%

51, 16%

13, 4%

6, 2%

1, 0%

1, 0%

0, 0%

0, 0%

0, 0%

1, 0%

0

800

1200

1600

2400

2800

3200

Stnd

Stnd 2

185, 56%

31, 9%

26, 8%

0, 0%

26, 8%

3, 1%

4, 1%

20, 6%

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

3, 1%

8, 4%

26, 12%

47, 21%

53, 24%

40, 18%

24, 11%

10, 5%

8, 4%

2, 1%

0, 0%

1, 0%

of 58

Figure 3.24. Distributions for Yellow Water River Data 3.24a. Y.W. Dissolved Oxygen

3.24c. Y.W. Fecal Coliform

3.24b. Y.W. Turbidity

3.24d. Y.W. pH

When parameters were compared among sites, sites on Ponchatoula Creek had lower dissolved oxygen that picked up when Ponchatoula and Yellow Water confluence (PC6) (Figure 3.25a). All sites met state standards for pH (Figure 3.25b and generally about 75% of samples met for turbidity. As stated before, specific conductance (Figure 3.25e), Phosphate-Phosphorus (Figure 3.25i), and Total Nitrogen (Figure 3.25l) all exhibit a large jump between TW1 and YW2, indicating a large input. Of note, the fecal coliform input does not rise between the sites (Figure 3.25a) so where there is an input, it is not a fecal pollution issue. Nitrate-nitrite-nitrogen (Figure 3.25g), alkalinity (Figure 3.25k) and inorganic carbon (Figure 3.25j) both generally indicate an increase in the downstream direction. Finally, Total Organic Carbon (Figure 3.25h) and Ammonia-Ammonium-Nitrogen were relatively stable in the streams.

4

6

8

10

12

14

Stnd

1, 0%

3, 1%

17, 7%

63, 24%

70,

49, 19%

28, 11%

18, 7%

5, 2%

4, 2%

1, 0%

0

800

1600

2400

3200

4000

4800

5600

Stnd

Stnd 2

80, 31%

29, 11%

25, 10%

0, 0%

46, 18%

1, 0%

5, 2%

33, 13%

0, 0%

0, 0%

0, 0%

0, 0%

14, 5%

0, 0%

0, 0%

0

100

200

300

400

500

Stnd208, 80%

36, 14%

7, 3%

3, 1%

1, 0%

1, 0%

2, 1%

1, 0%

1, 0%

0, 0%

5

6

7

8

9

1, 1%

0, 0%

1, 1%

4, 2%

25, 14%

89, 48%

54, 29%

5, 3%

3, 2%

2, 1%

of 58

Figure 3.25. Between-Site Analyses for Ponchatoula and Yellow Water Sites3.25a. PC & YW Temp By Site

3.25c. PC & YW D.O. By Site

3.25e. PC & YW Spec Cond By Site

3.25b. PC & YW pH By Site

3.25d. PC & YW Turbidity By Site

3.25f. PC & YW NH3-NH4-N By Site

10

15

20

25

30

35

Tem

p

PC

0

PC

1

PC

2

PC

3

PC

5

PC

6

YW

1

YW

2

YW

3

YW

4

SIte

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

D.O

.

PC

0

PC

1

PC

2

PC

3

PC

5

PC

6

YW

1

YW

2

YW

3

YW

4

SIte

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Spe

c C

ond

PC

0

PC

1

PC

2

PC

3

PC

5

PC

6

YW

1

YW

2

YW

3

YW

4

SIte

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

pH

PC

0

PC

1

PC

2

PC

3

PC

5

PC

6

YW

1

YW

2

YW

3

YW

4

SIte

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

Tur

bidi

ty

PC

0

PC

1

PC

2

PC

3

PC

5

PC

6

YW

1

YW

2

YW

3

YW

4

SIte

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

NH

4-N

PC

0

PC

1

PC

2

PC

3

PC

5

PC

6

YW

1

YW

2

YW

3

YW

4

SIte

of 58

3.25g. PC & YW NO3-NO2-N By Site

3.25i. PC & YW PO4-P By Site

3.25k. PC & YW Alkalinity By Site

3.25h. PC & YW TOC-C By Site

3.25j. PC & YW IC-C By Site

3.25l. PC & YW TN-N By Site

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

NO

3

PC

0

PC

1

PC

2

PC

3

PC

5

PC

6

YW

1

YW

2

YW

3

YW

4

SIte

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

PO

4-P

PC

0

PC

1

PC

2

PC

3

PC

5

PC

6

YW

1

YW

2

YW

3

YW

4

SIte

0

50

100

150

200

Alk

alin

ity

PC

0

PC

1

PC

2

PC

3

PC

5

PC

6

YW

1

YW

2

YW

3

YW

4

SIte

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

TO

C-C

PC

0

PC

1

PC

2

PC

3

PC

5

PC

6

YW

1

YW

2

YW

3

YW

4

SIte

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

IC-C

PC

0

PC

1

PC

2

PC

3

PC

5

PC

6

YW

1

YW

2

YW

3

YW

4

SIte

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

TN

-N

PC

0

PC

1

PC

2

PC

3

PC

5

PC

6

YW

1

YW

2

YW

3

YW

4

SIte

of 58

Among the sites, Ponchatoula Creek sites appear to be meeting Secondary Contact Recreation for fecal coliform, while a couple of Yellow Water Sites are still high (Figure 3.26a&b). 3.26a. PC & YW Fecal Coliform by Site

3.26b. PC & YW Ecoli By Site

To further analyze fecal coliform counts seen on Yellow Water River, the median values by date were graphed. Overall, there were 65 sampling dates 2011-2013. The median fecal coliform value was calculated and graphed for each date (Figure 3.27). Of the 65 sample dates, 49 dates (75%) met secondary contact recreation standards and 16 (25%) did not. Of the 16 dates that did not meet, eight of the dates were in 2011, four were in 2012, and four were in 2013, indicating that while spikes do still occur, the water quality has improved overall.

0

1000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Stnd

FC

PC0

PC1

PC2

PC3

PC5

PC6

YW1

YW2

YW3

YW4

SIte

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Ecol

i

PC0

PC1

PC2

PC3

PC5

PC6

YW1

YW2

YW3

YW4

SIte

of 58

Figure 3.27. Median Fecal Coliform by date in Yellow Water River

The fecal coliform analysis was then extended to LPBF’s entire collection of data (2006-2013) to examine long term patterns (final 2014 data was not yet available). This analysis revealed that most sites met secondary contact limits (75% samples < 2000 MPN) most years. Two sites on Yellow Water River (YW2 and YW3) did not meet limits in the early years, yet are showing improvement by the end of the study (Figure 3.28). Sites YW2 and YW3 had only ~45% of samples meeting SCR in 2006, yet by 2012 both had 82% meeting. 2010 had too few data. Figure 3.28. Percentage of Fecal Coliform Samples under 2000 MPN by Year YW1 YW2 YW3 YW4 PC5 PC6

# Samp

% < 2000

# Samp

% < 2000

# Samp

% < 2000

# Samp

% < 2000

# Samp

% < 2000

# Samp

% < 2000

2006 21 86% 29 45% 27 44% 19 74% 19 84% 8 88% 2007 23 91% 44 49% 44 67% 23 83% 23 91% 23 91%

2008 25 96% 42 69% 41 41% 25 96% 25 96% 25 96%

2009 22 86% 41 76% 41 59% 24 79% 24 83% 24 83%

2011 23 61% 23 61% 23 65% 23 57% 23 74% 23 74%

2012 22 82% 22 82% 22 82% 22 68% 22 86% 22 86%

2013 20 60% 18 67% 20 80% 20 75% 16 81% 16 81%

of 58

Finally, since a high increase was observed in phosphate-phosphorus and total nitrogen in YW2, the data was displayed by date and a trend line fitted to indicate the general pattern of the data. Phosphate-phosphorus remained relatively stable throughout while total nitrogen displayed a general decreasing trend (Figure 3.29). Figure 3.29. Site YW2- PO4-P and TN-N by Date with Trend Line Fitted

of 58

Quality Assurance Data: Triplicate measurements were taken on each sampling date for the meter parameters of dissolved oxygen, temperature, and specific conductance. Very few samples were outside of the relative percent difference goals (Table 3.1) meaning that data completeness goals for the project were met. Table 3.1. Relative Percent Difference Values for Sampling Parameters Ponchatoula Creek and Yellow Water

Dissolved Oxygen Temperature Specific Conductance

Year # of Samples RPD > 10% # of Samples RPD > 5% # of Samples RPD > 5% 2011 217 0 223 0 223 0 2012 217 0 207 0 207 1 2013 186 0 186 0 186 0

Tangipahoa River, Natalbany River, Selzers Creek



Tickfaw River



The meters were also maintained and calibrated as per the QAPP to assure quality data. The Calibration and Maintenance record is in Appendix.

of 58

Activity 2- Wastewater Plant/ Home Plant Assistance and Education Wastewater Plant Assistance Home Systems: In January 2013, LPBF shifted its pollution source tracking focus to assisting home wastewater systems in the Yellow Water then Natalbany watersheds. In total, LPBF has inspected 694 home wastewater systems as of November 2014. The systems fell into two categories: Aerated Treatment Units (ATUs) and Septic Systems. ATUs oxygenate the wastewater, allowing aerobic bacteria to break down the waste. Septic systems use anaerobic bacteria to break down waste. 509 (73%) of the systems were ATUs and 185 (27%) were septic systems. Most of the systems treated a maximum of 500 gallons per day (gpd) with a few that had greater capacity. Inspections were only done on the ATUs and plants were inspected whether the homeowner was present or not. If the homeowner was home, some systems could be repaired on site (ROS on maps). Septic system inspection does not fall under TDHH so LPBF was able to identify and locate but not inspect home septic systems. Of the 509 ATUs inspected, 211 (41%) were considered unsatisfactory and failed initial inspection. This is slightly lower than the EPA national average of 50% failure rate. Of the 211 failed systems, 172 (82%) failed because the aerators were not plugged in or were not functioning. 18 (9%) of the failed systems indicated that the aerator was on but did not pump air to the tank and needed repair. 16 (8%) of the homes had no aerator. Although the septic systems could not be inspected, the size of system, condition of the system, and GPS coordinates were collected. In general, septic systems were found to be in poorly functioning or non-functioning condition. Figures 3.30 through 3.33 show home system data broken down by upper and lower watersheds. The first map shows the initial condition the home system was found (pass/fail). The second map shows the “current” status as of November 2014. The vast majority of the “failed” sites were able to pass In addition to the inspections of the home systems, LPBF and TDHH also distributed over 1500 of an LPBF-produced brochure to homeowners. This brochure helps homeowners identify the parts to their wastewater system, if their system might be malfunctioning, how often to pump it, and what materials should not go in it. It also provides contact information for assistance. During the course of the project, LPBF and Capital RC&D produced a sticker for the front of the brochure stating how much it costs to run a home system (less than $5 per month) compared to the cost of a system clean out (up to $600). This was done in response to a common concern being raised that the home systems were expensive to run.

of 58

Figure 3.30. Home Wastewater Treatment Plants in the Lower Yellow Water River and Natalbany Watersheds- including Pass/Fail INITIAL Inspection and DHH list of homes

of 58

Figure 3.31. Home Wastewater Treatment Plants in the Lower Yellow Water River and Natalbany Watersheds- including Pass/Fail CURRENT Inspection and DHH list of homes

of 58

Figure 3.32. Home Wastewater Treatment Plants in the Upper Yellow Water River and Natalbany Watersheds- including Pass/Fail INITIAL Inspection and DHH list of homes

of 58

Figure 3.33. Home Wastewater Treatment Plants in the Upper Yellow Water River and Natalbany Watersheds- including Pass/Fail CURRENT Inspection and DHH list of homes

of 58

Land Use and Undocumented Wastewater Sources: LPBF located pollution sources in the field while assisting the home systems and through field reconnaissance days, performed watershed land use reconnaissance, and worked to obtain GIS data layers for Tangipahoa Parish. LPBF performed field reconnaissance of land use documenting land use, taking

pictures and GPSing sites, and putting that data into a GIS map to compare to LDEQ land use maps. This will help understand potential contributions from different land use types.

LPBF met with Tangipahoa Parish’s GIS department to obtain data layers. They do not have the data layers needed (like subdivisions and areas on community wastewater treatment). LPBF will work to create these layers. LPBF also obtained Tangipahoa’s 911 homes data layer.

LPBF obtained GIS land use data from LDEQ and utilized our in-house GIS capabilities to assess the data. We broke down land use classifications by HUC 12’s to understand the source of non-point pollutants (Figure 3.34). LPBF also performed ground truthing of the GIS data to associate on-the-ground pollution to different land use types. The LPBF Pollution Source Tracker Ronny Carter, looked for sources going into the Ponchatoula and Yellow Water watersheds. Upon finding a suspect (potentially undocumented) source, Ronny worked with LDEQ’s Small Business Small Community Assistance Program (SBSCAP) to locate the potential source and SBSCAP worked to get the facility permitted and into DEQ compliance. During the course of the project, LPBF located 184 suspect/ undocumented discharges empting into area ditches and streams, which we shared with SBSCAP. These discharges were commercial wastewater plants that were permitted to be built by the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, but were never permitted to discharge into waters of the state by LDEQ. As such, these systems were not in the DEQ LPDES permitting system, did not produce Discharge Monitoring Reports, and were never inspected by DEQ (Figure 3.35). Of the 184 plants, 84 (46%) had the ability to disinfect and 95 (52%) did not. Of the 84 that had the ability to disinfect, 6 (7%) were using it. So, overall, of the 184 undocumented discharges located, only 6 (3%) were actually disinfecting their effluent. Other common problems seen in these plants were a) broken aerators (164 or 89% of the 184 plants), b) issues with the collection system (159 or 87% of the 184 plants, and c) sludge build up (144 or 78% of the 184 plants) (Figure 3.35). Finally, near the end of the project, in November 2014, LDEQ conducted a sweep of the Yellow Water Watershed to locate all undocumented commercial wastewater systems. With many of the previously unaccounted for wastewater sources now repaired, in the system, and being tested, a major source of wastewater entering these waterways has been corrected.

of 58

Figure 3.34. Land Use in Tangipahoa Parish (Red Indicates Urban)

of 58

Figure 3.35. Undocumented Sources Discovered During Project

of 58

Other Source Pollution Activities: Dairy Lagoon Task Force An issue that arose during the course of the project was renewed interest in the dairy waste lagoons. Over the years, many of these lagoons have fallen onto disrepair and some are inadvertently discharging. LPBF was invited to join a task force to look for solutions to this problem. LPBF participated on a state task force to deal with dairy lagoon issues. The task force was headed by the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry and included members from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, Tangipahoa Parish, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Over a series of meetings, the task force put together a plan of action to assist the dairy farmers in cleaning, repairing, and updating their dairy lagoons. In the summer of 2014, Tangipahoa Parish received some funding through EPA’s Pontchartrain Restoration Program to implement lagoon cleanouts. At this time we are working with Tangipahoa Parish and Mike Strain, Commissioner of Agriculture, to comprise a priority list based on the most urgent need for assistance.

Litter Pick Up on Ponchatoula Creek

LPBF coordinated with a local citizen, Captain Brandon Carter, and Tangipahoa Parish to perform litter clean-ups (by boat) on Ponchatoula Creek. On April 5, 2014, we performed the first litter clean-up day on Ponchatoula Creek. We had seven boats and fourteen people. The Tangipahoa Parish Government supplied us with 3 trailers to store and transport approximately 2.1 tons of litter and twenty-three tires to the parish landfill Figure 3.36). A subsequent litter clean-up was coordinated and took place on April 28, 2014. Finally, LPBF helped Captain Hayes coordinate a third clean-up of lower Ponchatoula Creek on September 27, 2014, by coordinating with Tangipahoa Parish for trailers and trash bags. On the day of the event, Captain Hayes was assisted by a group of students from Ponchatoula High School. The group collected two trailer loads on trash including fourteen tires (estimated weight > 2,500 lbs) (Figure 3.37). The students also applied for a $10,000.00 grant to purchase trash collection booms for the creeks. Finally, Parish President, Mr. Gordon Burgess took a boat ride with Captain Hayes to assess the litter issues and clean up on Ponchatoula Creek.

Ronny is also assisting Captain Hayes in devising a trash trap for Ponchatoula Creek. Currently, this device is in place and functioning very well. In our estimation, Ponchatoula Creek is cleaner than it has been in 20+ years.

of 58

Figure 3.36. April 5th Clean-Up on Ponchatoula Creek

Figure 3.37. September 14th Clean Up on Ponchatoula Creek

of 58

Education Activities: Throughout the course of the project, LPBF staff participated in regular education events in relation to this project. The following details education/outreach and volunteer activities by quarter. Jan – Mar 2011-

• Ronny Carter spoke to Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) operators on this program, stressing that he was tracking all potential pollution sources into the watersheds.

• Andrea spoke at the Louisiana Solid Waste Association’s 31st Annual Environmental Conference on the watershed approach to improving water quality, using the Tangipahoa example frequently.

Apr-Jun 2011-

• Andrea and Ronny spoke at the Capital Region of Wastewater Professionals meeting on April 13th- describing our program and educating the operators on TMDL’s.

• LPBF participated in the LDEQ SWAT wastewater training held on April 14th in St. Tammany Parish (but also covering Tangipahoa Parish)

• Ronny Carter manned the education tent and spoke to citizens about the program at LPBF’s “Back to the Beach” festival, which draws an estimated audience of 6,000-8,000 people.

July – Sept 2011 –

• LPBF sponsored the International Coastal Clean-Up “Beach Sweep”. Oct-Dec 2011-

• Andrea presented the source-tracking and watershed plan programs at the Basics of the Basin Conference in October.

Jan – Mar 2012-

• Andrea presented data from this program at the LPBF Board of Director’s meeting, open to the public.

• Andrea presented the data to the Tangipahoa Task Force, the water quality stakeholder group for the parish.

• LPBF and the Land Trust for Southeast LA also planned a meeting (for April) with Tangipahoa’s Drainage District to discuss more environmentally friendly stream clearing methods.

• LPBF volunteers worked a north shore boat and outdoor show on March 16-18. We educated the community about opportunities to access the waters of the Pontchartrain Basin.

Apr-Jun 2012-

• Andrea presented data from this program at the LWEA Conference in New Orleans

of 58

• LPBF and the Land Trust for Southeast LA had a meeting with Tangipahoa’s Drainage District to discuss more environmentally friendly stream clearing methods.

Jul-Sep 2012-

• August 14, 2012 10:00am Keep Hammond Beautiful Meeting • August 18, 2012 8:00 am Keep Hammond Beautiful Clean Up

Martin Luther King Park- approx. 30 adults & children

• Sept 11, 2012 10:00am Keep Hammond Beautiful Meeting • Sept 11, 2012 6:00pm Tangi Clean meeting • Sept 25, 2012 11:00am DC Reeves School 3rd & 4th grade

156 students total litter and watershed education

Oct – Dec 2012- Education:

• Trafton Academy, October 22 @ 9:00-10:15 4th - 6th grade, 57 students • Champ Cooper, November 9th @ 11:00-12:00 7th & 8th, 46 students • Hammond Eastside Elem, December 7th @ 10:00-11:00 5th and 6th, 120

students Volunteer Groups:

• Leah Latiolais training Tangi Clean volunteer Tamara Indest to expand education efforts in hopes of visiting more schools.

• Leah participated in Keep Hammond Beautiful (KHB) meetings and a clean-up. KHB meetings were held Nov 13th and Dec 11th. KHB Clean-up was December 1st with 20 volunteers and 44 bags of trash.

Jan – Mar 2013-

• Leah participated in Trash Bash held on March 23, 2013 by Keep Hammond Beautiful at Cate Square Park in Hammond.

Apr-Jun 2013-

• Leah participated in Keep Hammond Beautiful Meeting 4/9/2013, • Leah participated in Keep Hammond Beautiful Clean up 6/15/2013- 35

volunteers with 86 bags • Leah participated in Tangi Clean Trash Bash 4/20/2013, 6/8/2013- 12 volunteers

and 34 bags of trash • Ronny Carter spoke to a group of operators at an 8 hour class in Denham

Springs, on May 8th about the requirements of a 500gpd, 700gpd, and a 1000gpd home sewer system aerator.

July – Sept 2013

• None this quarter- many groups out for summer.

of 58

Oct – Dec 2013- • Ronny presented the program and information about LPBF’s program to the

Capital Region of the Louisiana Conference on Water Supply, Sewerage, and Industrial Wastes, Inc. in October.

• Andrea and Ronny began contact and began coordinating with a local citizen to perform a litter pick-up on Ponchatoula Creek (using boats) in spring 2014.

Jan- Mar 2014-

• Andrea and Ronny coordinated with a local citizen and Tangipahoa Parish to perform a litter clean-up on Ponchatoula Creek on April 5th.

• Andrea and Ronny also met with several state agencies and governmental groups in regards to dairy issues in Tangipahoa Parish. LPBF is participating on a dairy task force and will be contributing our data and expertise on source tracking to the issue.

Apr-Jun 2014-

• On April 9, 2014, Ronny attended the Capital Region meeting in Ponchatoula, La. He addressed the Board of Directors on the subject of TMDL’s. There were approximately 33 operators in attendance.

• On June 11, 2014, Ronny performed an educational presentation for the Capital Region of the Louisiana Conference where he spoke on the proper sizing of aerators for home sewer systems.

Jul-Sept 2014-

• On August 13, 2014 Ronny spoke at the Capital Region of the Louisiana Conference concerning proper permitting of a commercial sewer treatment plant. There were approximately 41 operators in attendance.

Oct-Dec 2014-

• On October 08, 2014 Ronny spoke at the Capital Region’s 2 hour class in Ponchatoula La. The subject was new testing parameters and procedures .There were approximately 30 operators in attendance.

• On December 10, 2014 Ronny spoke at the Capital Region’s 2 hour class in Ponchatoula La. The subject was new testing parameters. There were approximately 30 operators in attendance.

HONORS: At the June 11, 2014 meeting of the Capital Region of the Louisiana Conference, Ronny was honored with an award for appreciation and dedicated support for his contributions to the wastewater industry.

of 58

Summary

Water Quality Overall, the Tickfaw and Tangipahoa Rivers appear to be healthy. The rivers overall had good fecal coliform, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity levels. They were not high for any particular parameter. Southernmost sites in the Tangipahoa and Tickfaw watersheds showed the lowest D.O. levels. These sites are located in wetland environments and are slower moving waters. Lower D.O. levels are likely normal for these environments as the sites also showed low pH, higher ammonia-ammonium-nitrogen, and high specific conductance- indicative of a swamp with connections to an estuary. A Use Attainability Analysis has been completed by LDEQ and is being reviewed by EPA. It is likely that sites such as these will receive lower dissolved oxygen limits (conducive to a wetland environment) in the near future. Yellow Water River and Ponchatoula Creek, and to some extent the Natalbany River (into which they flow), show the greatest influences of anthropogenic pollution based on data collected through this project. The streams show higher turbidity, alkalinity, nitrate-nitrite-nitrogen, phosphate-phosphorus, ammonia-ammonium nitrogen, alkalinity, inorganic carbon, and fecal coliform levels. In Yellow Water, the ammonia-ammonium-nitrogen, phosphate-phosphorus, and specific conductance jumped between YW1 and YW2, however, fecal coliform did not jump. This is most likely due to one large treated wastewater source that LPBF has located. Both Yellow Water and Ponchatoula, however, met the state standard for dissolved oxygen (5 mg/l) and for fecal coliform secondary contact recreation (75% samples <2000 CFU/ 100 ml water). Further analysis of the Ponchatoula Creek and Yellow Water fecal coliform data show that while spikes do still occur, less exceedances of the SCR standard were observed between the beginning and end of the project for Yellow Water. Also, SCR standard exceedances were examined for 2006-2013, Ponchatoula Creek met state standards and Yellow Water showed improvements. These water quality improvements have also been observed by LDEQ’s Integrated Report (Impaired Waterbodies List) as the draft 2014 IR has both creeks removed for SCR fecal cooiform impairment. Given these analyses and the draft 2014 IR, LPBF feels as though we have met the goal of this project to reduce fecal coliform in Natalbany Waterways. Wastewater Source ID and Correction The reductions in fecal coliform counts came from the work to reduce and eliminate non-point and undocumented sources entering the watersheds and educate citizens. Throughout the course of the project, nearly 700 home systems were inspected through LPBF’s association with the Tangipahoa Department of Health and Hospitals. An sdditional184 undocumented wastewater sources were located and turned over to LDEQ’s Small Business Small Community Assistance Program. In addition, LPBF

of 58

assisted with other stormwater issues, dairy issues, and clean ups of Ponchatoula Creek while performing education throughout the project. Inspections of home wastewater systems showed that most are in need of repair and many homeowners are in need of education about their system. Of the over 500 aerated treatment units inspected, almost half had broken or non-functioning aerators. Without a properly functioning aerator, the system could not treat the waste. It is estimated that in repairing the systems, a maximum of over 100,000 gpd of water has been cleaned. This water is discharging either directly or indirectly into the targeted waterways. As an additional component of the inspection process, LPBF educated the homeowners about the functionality of their plant. The homeowners were also given an LPBF-produced brochure with information pertaining to the upkeep and maintenance of the system. In about 50% of the homes visited, the homeowner was available for the inspection and could be educated on their system. If the homeowner was not available for the inspection, LPBF inspected the system and left the inspection form at the home. The TDHH phone number was provided on the form if further education/assistance was needed. Meeting TMDLs Since Yellow Water River and Ponchatoula Creek were impaired for secondary contact, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) calculated the reduction in fecal coliform load that would be needed for these streams to achieve primary contact/ swimming standards (no more than 25% of samples exceed 400 MPN in a year) in a “Total Maximum Daily Load” (TMDL) (USEPA, 2012). The calculated load reductions are steep, with both streams requiring greater than a 90% reduction in seasonal fecal coliform loads to achieve the TMDL (Table 4.1). Table 4.1. Summary of TMDL loads and reductions

Natalbany River, 040503

Yellow Water, 040504

Ponchatoula River, 040505

Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Flow (cfs) 306.45 447.17 37.29 54.41 122.35 178.53

Av. Conc (cfu/100 ml) 1325 2945 3104 4883 3212 3687

Av. Load before Reduct (cfu/d) 9.94E+12 3.22E+13 2.83E+12 6.50E+12 9.61E+12 1.61E+13

Av. Load after Reduct (cfu/d) 4.97E+12 4.03E+12 3.78E+11 4.33E+11 7.69E+11 2.01E+12 percent reduction 50% 87.5% 86.7% 93.3% 92% 87.5%

Through continued pollution source tracking and water quality monitoring, the ultimate goal of this program is to have Yellow Water River and Ponchatoula Creek removed from the Impaired Waterbodies (303d) list for fecal coliform and to eventually meet the fecal coliform loads set forth in the TMDL. LPBF will continue to work with Tangipahoa Parish, the City of Hammond, and state agencies to accomplish this goal.

of 58

APPENDIX: Calibration and Maintenance for PC, YW, TA, NR, SC and TF monitoring program Date Action Performed 1/14/2011 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water 1/14/2011 DO tip changed 1/14/2011 pH Solutions changed 2/2/2011 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water 2/2/2011 pH Solutions changed 2/2/2011 Turbidity checked with secondary standards 2/7/2011 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water 2/7/2011 pH Solutions changed 2/9/2011 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water 2/9/2011 pH Solutions changed 2/16/2011 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water 2/16/2011 pH Solutions changed 2/16/2011 Turbidity checked with secondary standards 3/2/2011 DO tip changed 3/7/2011 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water 3/7/2011 DO tip changed 3/7/2011 pH Solutions changed 3/16/2011 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water 3/16/2011 pH Solutions changed 3/16/2011 Turbidity checked with secondary standards 3/23/2011 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water 3/23/2011 pH Solutions changed 3/23/2011 Turbidity checked with secondary standards 3/30/2011 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water 3/30/2011 pH Solutions changed 3/30/2011 Turbidity checked with secondary standards 4/13/2011 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water 4/13/2011 DO tip changed 4/13/2011 pH Solutions changed 4/13/2011 Turbidity checked with secondary standards 4/26/2011 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water 4/26/2011 pH Solutions changed 4/26/2011 Turbidity checked with secondary standards 5/1/2011 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water 5/1/2011 DO tip changed 5/1/2011 pH Solutions changed 5/1/2011 Turbidity checked with secondary standards 5/2/2011 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water 5/2/2011 pH Solutions changed 5/4/2011 Turbidity checked with secondary standards

of 58

5/16/2011 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water 5/16/2011 DO tip changed 5/16/2011 pH Solutions changed 5/16/2011 Turbidity checked with secondary standards 6/1/2011 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water 6/1/2011 DO tip changed 6/1/2011 pH Solutions changed 6/1/2011 Turbidity checked with secondary standards 6/6/2011 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water 6/6/2011 DO tip changed 6/6/2011 pH Solutions changed 6/6/2011 Turbidity checked with secondary standards 6/7/2011 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water 6/7/2011 pH Solutions changed 6/22/2011 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water 6/22/2011 pH Solutions changed 6/22/2011 Turbidity checked with secondary standards 7/5/2011 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water 7/5/2011 DO tip changed 7/5/2011 pH Solutions changed 7/6/2011 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water 7/6/2011 pH Solutions changed 7/6/2011 Turbidity checked with secondary standards 8/2/2011 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water 8/2/2011 pH Solutions changed 8/2/2011 Turbidity checked with secondary standards 8/31/2011 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water 8/31/2011 DO tip changed 10/26/2011 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water 10/26/2011 pH Solutions changed 10/31/2011 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water 10/31/2011 DO tip changed 10/31/2011 pH Solutions changed 10/31/2011 Turbidity checked with secondary standards 11/30/2011 Turbidity checked with secondary standards 1/3/2012 DO tip changed 1/3/2012 Turbidity checked with secondary standards 1/25/2012 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water 1/25/2012 DO tip changed 1/25/2012 pH Solutions changed 1/25/2012 Turbidity checked with secondary standards 2/3/2012 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water 2/3/2012 Turbidity checked with secondary standards 2/8/2012 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water

of 58

2/8/2012 pH Solutions changed 2/8/2012 Turbidity checked with secondary standards 2/13/2012 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water 2/13/2012 pH Solutions changed 2/13/2012 Turbidity checked with secondary standards 3/8/2012 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water 3/8/2012 DO tip changed 3/8/2012 pH Solutions changed 6/20/2012 DO tip changed 6/26/2012 DO tip changed 7/13/2012 DO tip changed 9/19/2012 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water 9/19/2012 DO tip changed 9/21/2012 DO tip changed 10/31/2012 DO tip changed 10/31/2012 Turbidity checked with secondary standards 11/14/2012 DO tip changed 11/14/2012 Turbidity checked with secondary standards 12/12/2012 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water 12/12/2012 DO tip changed 1/23/2013 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water 1/23/2013 DO tip changed 1/23/2013 pH Solutions changed 1/23/2013 Turbidity checked with secondary standards 2/6/2013 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water 2/6/2013 DO tip changed 2/6/2013 pH Solutions changed 2/6/2013 Turbidity checked with secondary standards 2/27/2013 DO tip changed 3/13/2013 DO tip changed 4/10/2013 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water 4/10/2013 DO tip changed 4/17/2013 DO tip changed 5/20/2013 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water 5/20/2013 DO tip changed 6/5/2013 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water 6/5/2013 DO tip changed 7/11/2013 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water 7/11/2013 DO tip changed 7/11/2013 pH Solutions changed 7/11/2013 Turbidity checked with secondary standards 7/17/2013 DO tip changed 7/17/2013 pH Solutions changed 7/31/2013 Turbidity checked with secondary standards

of 58

8/7/2013 DO tip changed 9/10/2013 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water 9/10/2013 DO tip changed 9/10/2013 pH Solutions changed 9/10/2013 Turbidity checked with secondary standards 9/19/2013 DO tip changed 9/25/2013 DO tip changed 10/2/2013 Conductivity/Salinity checked against distilled water 10/2/2013 pH Solutions changed 10/29/2013 DO tip changed 12/4/2013 DO tip changed

of 58

water quality monitoring, pollution source tracking and

Documents