Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Logo

Minnesota Stormwater Manual

Difference between revisions of "Bacteria in stormwater"

(Created page with "{{alert|This page is in development|alert-under-construction}} File:Dog waste sign.PNG|right|thumb|300 px|alt=This image shows a dog waste sign|<font size=3>Dog waste sign<...")
 
m
 
(73 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
{{alert|This page is in development|alert-under-construction}}
+
[[File:Dog waste sign.PNG|right|thumb|200 px|alt=This image shows a dog waste sign|<font size=3>Dog waste sign</font size>]]
  
−
[[File:Dog waste sign.PNG|right|thumb|300 px|alt=This image shows a dog waste sign|<font size=3>Dog waste sign</font size>]]
+
In water quality monitoring, specific disease-producing (pathogenic) organisms are not easily identified. Testing for them is difficult, expensive, and time-consuming. Instead, fecal coliforms and Escherichia coli (E. coli), two closely related bacteria groups, can indicate the presence of pathogens. Fecal coliform and E. coli found in Minnesota rivers and streams may come from human, pet, livestock, and wildlife waste and are more common in heavily populated or farmed areas. Bacteria may reach surface water through malfunctioning or illicit septic system connections, urban stormwater, manure spills or runoff, and more ([https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/bacteria Minnesota Pollution Control Agency website], accessed January 25, 2018).
  
−
This page provides information on bacteria in urban stormwater, including a discussion of sources of bacteria and management strategies for minimizing bacteria loading from urban stormwater runoff to surface water.
+
Below are links to pages in this manual that address bacteria in stormwater runoff.
  
−
==Source and concentrations of bacteria in urban stormwater==
+
*[[Overview and management strategies for bacteria in stormwater]]
 +
*[[Guidance for meeting bacteria TMDL MS4 permit requirements]]
 +
*[[Checklist for bacteria source inventory]]
 +
*[[Support document for Checklist for bacteria source inventory]]
  
−
{| class="wikitable"
+
==References==
−
|-
+
*Bannerman, R.T., Owens, D.W., Dodds, R.B., and Hornewer, N.J.. 1993. [https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70157531 Sources of pollutants in Wisconsin stormwater]. Water Science Technology, v. 28, no. 3-5, p. 241–259.
−
! Land use !! Median (mg/L) !! Minimum (mg/L) !! Maximum (mg/L) !! Number of observations
+
*Burnhart, Matt, (undated). ''Sources of bacteria in Wisconsin stormwater: Madison, WI''. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 34 p.
−
|-
+
*Law, N.L., DiBlasi, K., and U. Ghosh  2008.  [https://www.worldsweeper.com/Street/Studies/CWPStudy/CBStreetSweeping.pdf Deriving Reliable Pollutant Removal Rates for Municipal Street Sweeping and Storm Drain Cleanout Programs in the Chesapeake Bay Basin]. Center for Watershed Protection.
−
| Commercial ||  ||  ||  ||
+
*McLellan, S.L., E. Jensen Hollis. 2006. [https://www.mmsd.com/application/files/9614/8475/4276/BSTF_PhaseI_Volume3_report.pdf Bacteria Sources and Fate Report]. Bacteria Source, Transport and Fate Study - Phase 1, Volume 3.122 p.
−
|-
+
*Sartor, J.D., and Gaboury, D.R.. 1984. ''Street sweeping as a pollution control measure—Lessons learned over the past ten years''. Science of the Total Environment. v. 33, p. 171–183.
−
| Industrial ||  ||  ||  ||
+
*Sawyer, C.B., J.C. Hayes, and W.R. English. 2010. [https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41114%28371%29329?src=recsys& Characterization of Escherichia Coli for Sediment Basin Systems at Construction Sites]. World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2010, May 16-20, 2010 | Providence, Rhode Island, United States.
−
|-
+
*Schueler, T. 2000. [http://www.myxyz.org/phmurphy/dog/Article17Microbes.pdf Microbes and Urban Watersheds: Concentrations, Sources, & Pathways]. Watershed Protection Techniques. 3(1): 554-565
−
| Residential ||  ||  ||  ||
+
*Selbig, W.R. and R. T. Bannerman. 2007. [http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5156/#a Evaluation of Street Sweeping as a Stormwater-Quality-Management Tool in Three Residential Basins in Madison, Wisconsin]. USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5156.
−
|-
+
*A. Selvakumar, and M. Borst. 2006. Variation of microorganism concentrations in urban stormwater runoff with land use and seasons. J Water Health, 4, 109-124.
−
| Open space ||  ||  ||  ||
+
*Sutherland, R. 2011. [http://digital.stormh20.com/publication/?i=58245&article_id=611555&view=articleBrowser&ver=html5#{%22issue_id%22:58245,%22page%22:%2222%22} Street Sweeping 101]. Stormwater. January-February 2011.
−
|}
+
*Tiefenthaler, L., E. D. Stein, and K.C. Schiff. 2011. [https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c9cb/762a7c1091d658bea1240dc92b2153a3e668.pdf Levels and patterns of fecal indicator bacteria in stormwater runoff from homogenous land use sites and urban watersheds]. Journal of Water and Health. Vol 09.2:279-290.
 +
*United States Geological Survey. 1998. [https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri984158/pdf/wri98-4158.pdf Urban Stormwater Quality, Event-Mean Concentrations, and Estimates of Stormwater Pollutant Loads, Dallas-Fort Worth Area, Texas, 1992–93]. Water-Resources Investigations Report 98-4158.
 +
*Urban Water Research Council. 2014. [http://www.asce-pgh.org/Resources/EWRI/Pathogens%20Paper%20August%202014.pdf#%5B%7B%22num%22%3A680%2C%22gen%22%3A0%7D%2C%7B%22name%22%3A%22XYZ%22%7D%2C70%2C720%2C0%5D Pathogens in Urban Stormwater Systems]. UWRRC Technical Committee Report. 289 p.
 +
*Waschbusch, R.J., Selbig, W.R., and Bannerman, R.T.. 1999. [https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri994021 Sources of phosphorus from two urban residential basins in Madison, Wisconsin, 1994–95.] U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4021, 47 p.
 +
*Wu, J., S. C. Long, D. Das, and S. M. Dorner. 2011. [https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0a3c/772b3e250b21a66668ef012206a32a0d0d07.pdf Are microbial indicators and pathogens correlated? A statistical analysis of 40 years of research]. Journal of Water and Health. 09.2:265-278.
 +
*Zarriello, P. J., R. F. Breault, and P. K. Weiskel. 2002. [https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri024220/pdfs/wrir024220.pdf Potential Effects of Structural Controls and Street Sweeping on Stormwater Loads to the Lower Charles River, Massachusetts]. Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4220. 50 p.
  
−
==Meeting bacteria water quality targets==
+
[[Category:Level 2 - Pollutants/Bacteria and pathogens]]
−
Information on this page can be used to help meet water quality targets. Water quality targets are established for various purposes including meeting Clean Water Act (CWA) requirements, meeting local water quality goals or requirements, and meeting non-regulatory targets. CWA requirements include antidegradation, TMDL limits, and NPDES permit requirements. Each of these are described below.
 
−
 
 
−
{{alert|Note that information presented in the Stormwater Manual can be used to meet NPDES permit requirements. This includes information on all BMPs discussed in the Manual unless otherwise noted. Check with MPCA's Stormwater Program for applicability of information not contained in the Manual, including BMPs and BMP credits.|alert-info}}
 
−
 
 
−
===Antidegradation===
 
−
 
 
−
===Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)===
 
−
 
 
−
==Stormwater management for bacteria==
 
−
[[File:Watershed scale stormwater treatment train.PNG|thumb|300px|alt=photo illustrating a watershed scale treatment train approach using a multi-BMP approach to managing the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff.|<font size=3>Watershed scale stormwater management approach using a multi-BMP approach to managing the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff. The BMP sequence starts with pollution prevention and progresses through source control, on-site treatment, and regional treatment before the runoff water is discharged to a receiving water. On-site and regional practices treat stormwater runoff and can be incorporated into a stormwater treatment train.</font size>]]
 
−
 
 
−
Management of urban stormwater to control or reduce bacteria concentrations and loading should focus on identifying the most important sources and employing specific practices to address those sources. If significant reductions in bacteria loading are required or desired, a [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Using_the_treatment_train_approach_to_BMP_selection treatment train approach] should be utilized. The treatment train approach for bacteria focuses on implementing the following hierarchy of practices:
 
−
*pollution prevention and source control
 
−
*pre-treatment for structural BMPs
 
−
*infiltration
 
−
*settling
 
−
*filtration
 
−
 
 
−
===Construction stormwater===
 
−
 
 
−
===Pollution prevention and source control===
 
−
These practices reduce the amount of bacteria generated or remove bacteria prior to it being entrained in runoff. These are summarized below for residential, municipal, and industrial sources.
 
−
 
 
−
====Prevention practices for residential areas====
 
−
The following table summarizes residential prevention practices that are effective at reducing bacteria concentrations. The table indicates the relative effectiveness of each practice and provides a short description of the practice. Bacteria removal efficiencies are not established for these BMPs.
 
−
 
 
−
{{:Residential prevention practices for TP}}
 
−
 
 
−
====Prevention practices for municipalities====
 
−
The following table summarizes municipal prevention practices that are effective at reducing bacteria concentrations. The table indicates the relative effectiveness of each practice and provides a short description of the practice.  Bacteria removal efficiencies are not established for these BMPs.
 
−
 
 
−
{{:Municipal prevention practices for TP}}
 
−
 
 
−
====Prevention practices for industrial sources====
 
−
The following table summarizes industrial prevention practices that are effective at reducing bacteria concentrations. The table indicates the relative effectiveness of each practice and provides a short description of the practice. Bacteria removal efficiencies are not established for these BMPs.
 
−
 
 
−
{{:Industrial prevention practices for TP}}
 
−
 
 
−
====Street sweeping====
 
−
 
 
−
Several articles in the literature present results from street sweeping studies. Examples include the following.
 
−
*[http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5156/#a Selbig and Bannerman] (2007) discuss changes in pollutant loading for regenerative-air, vacuum-assist, high-frequency broom, and low-frequency broom sweeping practices.
 
−
*[https://www.worldsweeper.com/Street/Studies/CWPStudy/CBStreetSweeping.pdf Law et al.] (2008) found for a given set of assumptions and sweeping frequencies, it is expected that the range in pollutant removal rates from street sweeping for total solids was 3 to 8 percent, with the lower end representing monthly street sweeping by a mechanical street sweeper and the upper end the pollutant removal efficiencies using regenerative air/vacuum street sweeper at weekly frequencies.
 
−
*[http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5156/#a Sutherland] (2011) provides a comprehensive summary of street sweeping, including information on effectiveness of different sweepers and factors affecting the performance of street sweeping.
 
−
 
 
−
===Pretreatment===
 
−
Pretreatment is needed to protect infiltration and filtration BMPs from the build-up of trash, gross solids, and particulate matter. When the velocity of stormwater decreases, sediment and solids drop out. If pretreatment is not provided, this process will occur in the infiltration or filtration cell, resulting in long-term clogging and poor aesthetics. Therefore, pretreatment is a required part of the design for infiltration and filtration BMPs. There are three typical methods for pretreatment: vegetated filter strips (VFS), forebays, and vegetated swales. These are discussed in the section on [[Pretreatment|pretreatment]].
 
−
 
 
−
===Infiltration===
 
−
Infiltration practices are structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to capture stormwater runoff and allow the captured water to infiltrate into soils underlying the BMP. Infiltration BMPs are designed to capture a particular amount of runoff. For example, the construction stormwater permit requires that post-construction BMPs capture the first inch of runoff from new impervious surfaces, assuming there are no constraints to infiltration. BMPs designed to meet the construction stormwater permit are required to infiltrate captured water within 48 hours, with 24 hours recommended when discharges are to a trout stream.
 
−
 
 
−
Bacteria removal is assumed to be 100 percent for all water that infiltrates.  Any water bypassing the BMP does not receive treatment.  Examples of infiltration BMPs, with links to appropriate sections in the Manual, include the following.
 
−
*[[Infiltration]] (infiltration basin, infiltration trench, dry well, underground infiltration)
 
−
*[[Bioretention|Bioinfiltration]] (rain garden or bioretention with no underdrain)
 
−
*[[Permeable pavement]]
 
−
*[[Trees|Tree trench/tree box]]
 
−
*[[Swales|Swales with a bioinfiltration base]]
 
−
 
 
−
Additional BMPs that result in infiltration include [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Stormwater_and_rainwater_harvest_and_use/reuse stormwater and rainwater harvest with irrigation] and [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Turf#Recommended_credits_for_impervious_surface_disconnection impervious surface disconnection]. For these BMPs infiltration typically occurs into turf or other vegetated areas. Disconnection of impervious surface does not qualify for credits for meeting the [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Construction_stormwater_permit Construction Stormwater permit]. Harvest BMPs do qualify for credit because they capture an instantaneous volume of water.
 
−
 
 
−
The links above take you to the main page for each BMP. Each BMP section has a page on pollutant credits. These [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Category:Calculating_credits credit pages] provide information on runoff volume and pollutant removal for the BMP, including credits that can be applied to meet a performance goal such as a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).
 
−
 
 
−
In soils where there are constraints on infiltration, BMPs may be designed with underdrains. Unless the BMP is lined, some water will infiltrate through the bottom and sides of the BMP. Bacteria removal for the portion of captured runoff that infiltrates is 100 percent. Water draining to the underdrain undergoes some treatment. These BMPs are discussed in more detail in the filtration section below.
 
−
 
 
−
===Settling practices===
 
−
{{alert|Note that we refer to constructed ponds and constructed wetlands in this section. Natural ponds and wetlands are not stormwater treatment practices and are therefore not included in this discussion.|alert-info}}
 
−
 
 
−
If prevention, source control and infiltration practices cannot fully meet protection or restoration targets for stormwater, settling and filtration practices may be used. Settling practices include constructed [[Stormwater ponds|stormwater ponds]], including [[types of stormwater ponds|variants]], and [[Stormwater wetlands|constructed stormwater wetlands]], including [[types of stormwater wetlands|variants]]. [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Flow-through_structures_for_pre-treatment Manufactured devices] and [[Pre-treatment|forebays]] are both settling practices but are primarily used for [[Pre-treatment|pretreatment]].
 
−
 
 
−
Information on design, construction, operation and maintenance, credits, and other characteristics of these BMPs can be found on the main pages for [[Stormwater ponds|constructed stormwater ponds]] and [[stormwater wetlands|constructed stormwater wetlands]].
 
−
 
 
−
===Filtration practices===
 
−
Filtration practices are typically used when infiltration practices are not feasible, such as areas with low infiltration soils or shallow bedrock (see section on [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Stormwater_infiltration infiltration constraints]. Filtration practices include [[Bioretention|bioretention with underdrains]], [[Filtration|media filters]], and [[Filtration|swales]].  [[Vegetated filter strips]] are often used as a [[Pretreatment|pretreatment]] practice.
 
−
 
 
−
Information on design, construction, operation and maintenance, credits, and other characteristics of these BMPs can be found on the main pages for [[Filtration|media filters and swales]], [[Green roofs|green roofs]], and [[Bioretention|bioretention]].
 

Latest revision as of 19:36, 27 December 2022

This image shows a dog waste sign
Dog waste sign

In water quality monitoring, specific disease-producing (pathogenic) organisms are not easily identified. Testing for them is difficult, expensive, and time-consuming. Instead, fecal coliforms and Escherichia coli (E. coli), two closely related bacteria groups, can indicate the presence of pathogens. Fecal coliform and E. coli found in Minnesota rivers and streams may come from human, pet, livestock, and wildlife waste and are more common in heavily populated or farmed areas. Bacteria may reach surface water through malfunctioning or illicit septic system connections, urban stormwater, manure spills or runoff, and more (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency website, accessed January 25, 2018).

Below are links to pages in this manual that address bacteria in stormwater runoff.

References

Retrieved from "https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Bacteria_in_stormwater&oldid=65110"

This page was last edited on 27 December 2022, at 19:36.