|
|
| (45 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). |
| | | | |
| − | In water quality monitoring, specific disease-producing (pathogenic) organisms are not easily identified. Testing for them is difficult, expensive, and time-consuming. Instead, fecal coliform and E. coli, two closely related bacteria groups, can indicate the presence of pathogens. Fecal coliform and E. coli found in Minnesota rivers and steams 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).
| + | Below are links to pages in this manual that address bacteria in stormwater runoff. |
| | | | |
| − | 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. Note that the focus is on bacteria because bacteria are used as a surrogate for assessing potential contamination by pathogenic microorganisms. A short section on this page specifically discusses pathogens and their relationship to indicator bacteria.
| + | *[[Overview and management strategies for bacteria in stormwater]] |
| − | | + | *[[Guidance for meeting bacteria TMDL MS4 permit requirements]] |
| − | ==Source and concentrations of bacteria in urban stormwater==
| + | *[[Checklist for bacteria source inventory]] |
| − | Ultimately the source of bacteria in urban stormwater is animal waste. Identifying the specific source is more challenging and likely varies with location and land use. Typical sources include domestic pets and wildlife, particularly birds. Sources of bacteria to receiving waters include urban stormwater runoff, leaking sewer lines, sewer overflows, septic systems, landfills, marinas and pumpout facilities, poorly operating packing plants, and other illicit discharges.
| + | *[[Support document for Checklist for bacteria source inventory]] |
| − | | |
| − | Some general observations from the literature are summarized below.
| |
| − | *Fecal coliform levels are considerably lower (about 90 percent lower) in runoff that occurs in winter compared to summer months
| |
| − | *Bacteria levels can increase sharply during snowmelt events
| |
| − | *Bacteria concentrations in runoff increase as percent imperviousness increases up to about 20 percent impervious, but are unaffected by further increases in impervious surfaces
| |
| − | *Residential lawns, driveways, and streets are the major source areas for bacteria, while rooftops and parking lots are usually smaller source areas. Irrigated lawns, in particular, are high contributors
| |
| − | *[https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Bacteria_in_stormwater#References Sartor and Gaboury] (1984) reported nearly 92 percent of the bacteria originated from streets in the residential-institutional land-use site, whereas only about 33 and 19 percent of the bacteria originated from streets in the industrial and commercial land-use sites
| |
| − | *[https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Bacteria_in_stormwater#References Bannerman et al.] (1993) reported that 78 percent of the fecal coliform bacteria load for one of the same residential land-use study subbasins studied by [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Bacteria_in_stormwater#References Waschbusch et al.] (1999) originated from streets
| |
| − | *In areas with pet waste ordinances and education, pet wastes are likely to be a minor contributor to bacteria ([https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Bacteria_in_stormwater#References Burnhart]) | |
| − | | |
| − | Sewage typically contains fecal coliform concentrations in excess of one million most probable number per 100 milliliter (MPN/100 ml). This is about two orders of magnitude greater than urban stormwater concentrations. General indicators of bacteria sources include the following.
| |
| − | *Higher concentrations in baseflow compared to stormwater runoff indicate sewage or other illicit discharges
| |
| − | *Elevated concentrations in winter indicate sewage or other illicit discharges
| |
| − | *Elevated concentrations during dry weather conditions indicate sewage or other illicit discharges or runoff from lawn irrigation
| |
| − | *Very high concentrations indicate sewage or other illicit discharges
| |
| − | | |
| − | A complicating factor is that bacteria can survive and grow both within the storm sewer system and within receiving waters. Growth within the storm sewer systems includes both the surface and subsurface conveyances. For example, coliform bacteria also have been found to survive and grow in moist soils and leaf piles. A recent study in Minneapolis indicated that catch basins are an important source, largely as a result of growth within the catch basin.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The following table provides a summary of data from the literature. Maximum concentrations are included to illustrate the tremendous variability that may occur in bacteria concentrations. The values represent a compilation of data from several sources (see [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Bacteria_in_stormwater#References references at the bottom of this page]).
| |
| − | | |
| − | {| class="wikitable"
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | ! Land use !! Median (MPN/ml) !! Maximum (MPN/ml)
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | | Commercial || 6900 || 350000
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | | Industrial || 9700 || 290000
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | | Residential || 20000 || 600000
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | | Rooftop || 1250 ||
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | | Open space || 4500 ||
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | | Forested || < 100 ||
| |
| − | |}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Meeting bacteria water quality targets==
| |
| − | 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===
| |
| − | Water quality standards include an antidegradation policy and implementation method. The water quality standards regulation requires States and Tribes to establish a three-tiered antidegradation program to protect existing water quality and water uses in receiving waters (see [http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/adeg.cfm]).
| |
| − | | |
| − | There are no specific antidegradation requirements applicable to bacteria. Compliance with [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/MS4_PART_III.STORMWATER_POLLUTION_PREVENTION_PROGRAM_%28SWPPP%29#5._Post-Construction_Stormwater_Management Minimum Control Measure (MCM) 5] of the MS4 permit constitutes compliance with antidegradation requirements. The permit requires no net increase in discharges of volume, total phosphorus (TP) and total suspended solids (TSS) for new development, while a reduction in these are required for redevelopment projects covered under the permit. Practices that [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=BMPs_for_stormwater_infiltration infiltrate] or [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Stormwater_and_rainwater_harvest_and_use/reuse capture and reuse stormwater runoff] are typically used to meet these permit requirements because they help meet the volume requirements. Reductions in volume and/or TSS loads would typically be associated with reductions in bacteria loads.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)===
| |
| − | [[File:Bacteria impairments.jpg|300px|thumb|alt=image of bacteria impairments|<font size=3>Map showing 2016 U.S. EPA-approved stream and river stretches impaired for either e coli or fecal coliforms.</font size>]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | The 2018 draft impaired water list includes 7 beach impairments for e coli, 304 river or stream stretches impaired for e coli, and 53 river or stream stretches impaired for fecal coliforms. Click [https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/minnesotas-impaired-waters-list here] to link to MPCA's impaired waters website. A map illustrating U.S. EPA-approved listings for e coli and fecal coliforms is shown on the right.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The MS4 permit requires permittees to demonstrate progress toward meeting applicable Wasteload Allocations in U.S. EPA-approved TMDLs. General information on meeting TMDL requirements in NPDES permits is found [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/MS4_PART_III.STORMWATER_POLLUTION_PREVENTION_PROGRAM_%28SWPPP%29#E._Discharges_to_Impaired_Waters_with_a_USEPA-Approved_TMDL_that_Includes_an_Applicable_WLA here], while reporting requirements are found [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Guidance_for_completing_the_TMDL_reporting_form#TMDL_requirements_in_stormwater_permits here]. Below is additional information that may be useful.
| |
| − | *[http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Forms_and_guidance_for_TMDLs Forms and guidance for TMDLs]: includes information on completing the TMDL Annual Report form and other guidance documents.
| |
| − | *Information on modeling, including [[Available stormwater models and selecting a model]] and [[Detailed information on specific models]]. | |
| − | *[[Information on pollutant removal by BMPs]]. Pollutant removal information is limited to structural BMPs. Each BMP included in the manual also has a [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Category:Calculating_credits section on credits], which provides useful information for determining pollutant removal for TP for that BMP.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Permittees with required reductions in bacteria loading should consider implementing a [[Using the treatment train approach to BMP selection|treatment train approach]], which is discussed in greater detail below.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==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 bacteria}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ====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 bacteria}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ====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 bacteria}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ====Street sweeping====
| |
| − | Several articles in the literature present results from street sweeping studies. Examples include the following.
| |
| − | *[https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri024220/pdfs/wrir024220.pdf Zarriello et al.] (2002) estimated street sweeping reduced bacteria loads to the Lower Charles River in Massachusetts by 7 to 17 percent. Removal rates were 5 percent for wet vacuum, 20 percent for regenerative air, and 50 percent for dry vacuum sweepers.
| |
| − | *[http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5156/#a Selbig and Bannerman] (2007) discuss changes in debris loading for regenerative-air, vacuum-assist, high-frequency broom, and low-frequency broom sweeping practices. However, bacteria is not discussed.
| |
| − | *[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]].
| |
| | | | |
| | ==References== | | ==References== |
| Line 140: |
Line 14: |
| | *Burnhart, Matt, (undated). ''Sources of bacteria in Wisconsin stormwater: Madison, WI''. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 34 p. | | *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. | | *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. |
| | + | *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. | | *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. |
| | + | *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 | | *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 |
| | *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. | | *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. |
| − | *Sutherland, R. 2011. [http://www.stormh2o.com/SW/Articles/Street_Sweeping_101_13382.aspx Street Sweeping 101]. Stormwater. January-February 2011. | + | *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. |
| | + | *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. | | *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. | | *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. | | *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. | | *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. |
| | + | |
| | + | [[Category:Level 2 - Pollutants/Bacteria and pathogens]] |
