Fecal Coliform Hot Spots Monitoring

1
Fecal Coliform Hot Spots Monitoring

• Stacie Greco
• Senior Environmental Specialist
• Alachua County Environmental Protection
  Department

2
Alachua County Environmental Protection
Department (ACEPD)

• Pollution Prevention
• Petroleum Clean-up
• Storage Tanks Compliance
• Hazardous Waste Collection
• Contaminated Sites Review
• Natural Resources
• Environmental Planning
• Environmental Review
• Land Conservation (Alachua County Forever)
• Water Resources
• Hazardous Materials Management
• Water Quality and NPDES Compliance

3
Water Quality Monitoring Programs

• What are the goals of the program?
• Regulatory standards
• Timeline- short term/long term
• Budget constraints
• Quality assurance (QA/QC)

4
Fecal Coliform

• Bacteria originating from the digestive track of
  warm blooded animals
• Indicator of fecal pollution and disease causing
  organisms
• State fecal coliform standard for Class III
  waters- one time maximum of 800 CFU/100ml nor
  exceed 400 CFU/100 ml in 10 of the samples

Giardia
E. Coli
5
Fecal Coliform TMDLs
6
Regulatory BackgroundTotal Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs)
7
Sources of Fecal Coliform

• Failing septic systems
• Leaks and overflows from sanitary sewer systems
• Illegal discharges of sanitary waste
• Pet wastes
• Wildlife
• Re-growth in sediments

8
Microbial Hot Spots Monitoring

• Goal Locate and identify sources of increased
  fecal coliform bacteria.

9
Fecal Coliform Data June 2004 June 2007
10
Hot Spots Monitoring Plan

• Step 1 Narrow in on hot spot locations with
  inexpensive indicators (2005)
• Step 2 Identify sources of fecal coliform as
  human or non-human (2006 2007)
• Step 3 Investigate the role of wildlife (2007)
• Step 4 Explore the role of internal sources in
  the sediments (2006 2008)

11
Fluorescent Whitening Agents (FWAs)

• Intensely fluorescent dyes in laundry soap
• make your whites whiter and your brights
  brighter
• Their presence in surface waters indicates
• failing septic systems,
• failing wastewater collection infrastructure,
• illicit discharges, or
• use of surface waters for washing laundry

12
FWA Sample Locations
13
FWAs Monitoring Plan

• Samplers were deployed at 41 sampling sites

• Field Parameters were recorded (pH, temp, DO,
  conductivity, and turbidity)
• Fecal coliform samples were collected
• Flow was measured

14
FWAs Monitoring Plan

• Each sampler was left out for 7 days
• FWAs, if present, will adsorb to the cloths
• The results are a composite and reflect the
  conditions over the 7 day period

15
FWAs Results

• FWAs were absent from all of the sites except the
  following

• SWB331 is downstream of the GRU Main St.
  wastewater treatment plant (WWTP)
• LHATWALDO is downstream of the Brittany Estates
  WWTP

16
FWAs Discussion

• Inexpensive
• Composite results
• Issues with qualitative analysis
• Limited sensitivity
• Interference by dissolved organics
• Sedimentation
• Surface growth on the samplers
• photodegradation

17
2006 Alternative Indicators

• Three week sampling plan
• 25 sites were sampled for microbial indicators
  once per week for 3 consecutive weeks.
• FWA samplers were left out for 7 days
• Samples were archived
• QA/QC-
• Field blank samples for each week
• Wastewater also collected for each week

18
2006 Alternative Indicators

• E. coli concentrations have been shown to
  correlate with increased risk of gastroenteritis
  in recreational water users
• Enterococcus commonly used as an indicator in
  marine waters.
• Clostridium Perfringins is commonly used in
  Europe and Hawaii

19
2006 Alternative Indicators

• Sites were located concentrated in hot spots

20
2006 Alternative Indicators
21
Archived Samples-Microbial Source Tracking

• Methods to detect and differentiate sources of
  fecal pollution.
• Host specific human specific molecular markers
• Enterococcus (esp)
• Bacteroides spp.
• Polyomavirus
• 4 out of 13 samples were positive for at least
  one human marker

22
Alternative Indicators Discussion

• Alternative indicators did not provide enough
  additional source information to justify costs
• Storm events made the data difficult to interpret
• Repeated sampling needed to verify MST results
• Jury still out on FWAs as an indicator

23
2007 Microbial Source Tracking

• Sampled 29 sites for three consecutive days for
  fecal coliform
• Analyzed for 3 human specific markers and
  measured flow on day two
• Put FWA samplers out on day one and collected on
  day three
• Collected sediment samples for general
  Bacteroides spp (not human specific)
• All sites were under baseflow conditions

24
Microbial Source Tracking Interpretation

• Bacteroides spp. does not persist in the
  environment so is indicative of recent
  contamination.
• Enterococcus (esp) is not normally detected in
  septic effluent- so its presence is indicative of
  a non-septic source
• Triple positive is a very strong human signature

25
Microbial Source Tracking Discussion
26
2007 Microbial Source Tracking Discussion

• FWAs were not a good screening tool for MST -18
  sites were positive for markers but negative for
  FWAs
• Sediments may be a source of bacteria, but
  difficult to correlate with the water column
• Frequency of MST not sufficient to identify
  trends
• Appears to be human and non-human sources
• MST is very expensive and still evolving

27
Wildlife Survey
28
Future Studies

• Hot Spots Partnership
• Pet waste outreach campaign
• Detailed creek walks with attention to stormwater
  outfalls
• Sampling sediment traps for fecal indicators

29
Questions?
30
Alachua County Opportunities

• Internships https//myalachuacounty.us/internship
  s/positions.aspx
• Thesis topics/Research
• Water Resources Website
• http//www.alachuacounty.us/government/depts/epd/w
  aterquality/