Hillsborough RiverHillsborough RiverFecal Coliform BMAPFecal Coliform BMAP

ProcessProcess

Oct. 22, 2008Oct. 22, 2008

What is a BMAP?What is a BMAP?

““Basin Management Action Plan”Basin Management Action Plan”

Developed by FDEP and local Developed by FDEP and local stakeholders, to identify the projects stakeholders, to identify the projects that will be carried out to reduce that will be carried out to reduce pollutant loads and achieve the pollutant loads and achieve the water quality goals established by a water quality goals established by a TMDLTMDL

What is a TMDL ?What is a TMDL ?

TMDL = Total Maximum Daily Load. The maximum TMDL = Total Maximum Daily Load. The maximum amount (“load”) of a given pollutant that a waterbody amount (“load”) of a given pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standardscan receive and still meet water quality standards

WQ standards include a waterbody’s designated use WQ standards include a waterbody’s designated use (e.g., water supply, shellfish harvesting, wildlife (e.g., water supply, shellfish harvesting, wildlife habitat & recreational use) and the WQ criteria for habitat & recreational use) and the WQ criteria for that designated usethat designated use

TMDLs are developed for “impaired” waterbodies – TMDLs are developed for “impaired” waterbodies – ones that are not currently meeting WQ standards –ones that are not currently meeting WQ standards –and provide WQ goals to guide future management and provide WQ goals to guide future management activitiesactivities

Current fecal coliform BMAP areas (“WBIDs”)Current fecal coliform BMAP areas (“WBIDs”)in the Hillsborough River watershedin the Hillsborough River watershed

Hillsborough RiverHillsborough RiverBMAP waterbodiesBMAP waterbodies

All are Class III waters (designated uses = All are Class III waters (designated uses = wildlife habitat and human recreation)wildlife habitat and human recreation)

All have been designated as impaired for All have been designated as impaired for fecal coliforms and have TMDLsfecal coliforms and have TMDLs

Existing State criteria for fecal coliforms:Existing State criteria for fecal coliforms: Should not exceed 400 CFU/100 mL in more Should not exceed 400 CFU/100 mL in more

than 10% of samplesthan 10% of samples Should not exceed 200 CFU/100 mL as a Should not exceed 200 CFU/100 mL as a

monthly averagemonthly average Should never exceed 800 CFU/100mLShould never exceed 800 CFU/100mL

Benefits and drawbacks of coliformsBenefits and drawbacks of coliformsas water quality indicatorsas water quality indicators

Coliform bacteria have been used as relatively Coliform bacteria have been used as relatively inexpensive indicators of potential fecal contamination inexpensive indicators of potential fecal contamination of water since the late 1800s. When present at high of water since the late 1800s. When present at high concentrations, useful for detecting contamination of concentrations, useful for detecting contamination of surface or groundwater by untreated or minimally-surface or groundwater by untreated or minimally-treated sewage.treated sewage.

But, in tropical and sub-tropical areas, fecal coliforms But, in tropical and sub-tropical areas, fecal coliforms and other bacterial indicators can grow in soils and on and other bacterial indicators can grow in soils and on vegetation, producing “false-positive” monitoring vegetation, producing “false-positive” monitoring resultsresults

Can also produce “false-negative” results – e.g., under Can also produce “false-negative” results – e.g., under certain conditions pathogenic viruses and protozoa certain conditions pathogenic viruses and protozoa ((GiardiaGiardia or or CryptosporidiumCryptosporidium) can survive longer than ) can survive longer than fecal coliforms in waterfecal coliforms in water

Issues with existing indicatorsIssues with existing indicators

Recent studies have confirmed relationships between Recent studies have confirmed relationships between sewage-associated enterococci concentrations and sewage-associated enterococci concentrations and human health risk in marine waters (WHO 2003, NRC human health risk in marine waters (WHO 2003, NRC 2004)2004)

In fresh waters, correlations between indicator (e.g., In fresh waters, correlations between indicator (e.g., fecal coliforms, enterococci, fecal coliforms, enterococci, E. coliE. coli) concentrations and ) concentrations and health risk are present but highly variablehealth risk are present but highly variable

In tropical and sub-tropical regions, the indicators have a In tropical and sub-tropical regions, the indicators have a number of potential environmental sources that don’t number of potential environmental sources that don’t pose human health riskpose human health risk

A recent Tampa Bay study (Rose et al. 2001) A recent Tampa Bay study (Rose et al. 2001) recommended continued use of fecal coliforms and recommended continued use of fecal coliforms and enterococci as WQ indicators in this region, but with enterococci as WQ indicators in this region, but with cautioncaution

How to address the shortcomings ?How to address the shortcomings ?

NRC (2004) recommends that better indicators NRC (2004) recommends that better indicators (more highly correlated with human health risk) be (more highly correlated with human health risk) be developed, based on modern molecular and developed, based on modern molecular and microbiology techniques microbiology techniques

EPA (and other organizations) currently working to EPA (and other organizations) currently working to do sodo so

Until that happens, the WHO (2000, 2003) Until that happens, the WHO (2000, 2003) recommends that, for recreational waters, recommends that, for recreational waters, managers use the “Annapolis protocol”, which managers use the “Annapolis protocol”, which combines bacterial indicator counts with on-site combines bacterial indicator counts with on-site assessments of potential pathogen sources and the assessments of potential pathogen sources and the health risk they posehealth risk they pose

““Annapolis protocol” approach (WHO 2003)Annapolis protocol” approach (WHO 2003)

Geometric mean fecal coliform counts vs. Geometric mean fecal coliform counts vs.

exceedances of 400 CFU criterion (EPC data)exceedances of 400 CFU criterion (EPC data)

y = 1328x2 + 194.94x + 47.142

R2 = 0.9757

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percentage of fecal coliform samples exceeding 400 CFU/100 mL

Fec

al c

olif

orm

geo

met

ric

mea

n (

CF

U/1

00 m

L)

Geometric mean enterococci counts vs. Geometric mean enterococci counts vs. exceedances of 400 CFU criterion (EPC data)exceedances of 400 CFU criterion (EPC data)

y = 2140.4x2 + 262.91x + 113.3

R2 = 0.7442

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of fecal coliform samples exceeding 400 CFU/100 mL

En

tero

cocc

i g

eom

etri

c m

ean

(C

FU

/100

mL

)

Indicator bacteria counts andIndicator bacteria counts andhuman health riskhuman health risk

How to incorporate these ideasHow to incorporate these ideasinto fecal coliform BMAPs ?into fecal coliform BMAPs ?

Use the EPC fecal coliform monitoring data Use the EPC fecal coliform monitoring data as a screening tool, to identify and as a screening tool, to identify and prioritize locations for management prioritize locations for management attentionattention

In the impaired WBIDS, use information In the impaired WBIDS, use information from “contaminant source surveys” (CSS) from “contaminant source surveys” (CSS) to supplement the bacterial data and to supplement the bacterial data and estimate potential health risk of local estimate potential health risk of local sourcessources

Use the “Annapolis protocol” approach to Use the “Annapolis protocol” approach to combine the information and guide combine the information and guide management responsesmanagement responses

CSS assessment categoriesCSS assessment categories(likelihood of fecal contamination(likelihood of fecal contamination

posing human health risks)posing human health risks)

Very LowVery Low: No visual evidence of potential sources of human pathogens; : No visual evidence of potential sources of human pathogens; natural environment; no or minimal anthropogenic land uses; wildlife natural environment; no or minimal anthropogenic land uses; wildlife present (any density)present (any density)

LowLow:: Low density agricultural and residential sources, including pets, Low density agricultural and residential sources, including pets, livestock (without direct access to surface waters), or poultry operations; livestock (without direct access to surface waters), or poultry operations; residences on septic systemsresidences on septic systems

ModerateModerate: Urban stormwater sources (including pet waste) present; : Urban stormwater sources (including pet waste) present; well-functioning wastewater infrastructure (both sewer and septic); well-functioning wastewater infrastructure (both sewer and septic); episodic/low volume sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) reaching surface episodic/low volume sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) reaching surface waters; moderate-density livestock with little direct access to surface waters; moderate-density livestock with little direct access to surface waters; Class A residual and/or septage spreading areas may be presentwaters; Class A residual and/or septage spreading areas may be present

HighHigh: Major stormwater outfalls present; history of failing wastewater : Major stormwater outfalls present; history of failing wastewater infrastructure (central sewer or onsite systems); episodic or chronic/high infrastructure (central sewer or onsite systems); episodic or chronic/high volume SSOs reaching surface waters; concentrated livestock without volume SSOs reaching surface waters; concentrated livestock without direct access to surface waters; residual/septage spreading (Class B)direct access to surface waters; residual/septage spreading (Class B)

Very HighVery High: Current failing wastewater infrastructure; chronic/high : Current failing wastewater infrastructure; chronic/high volume SSOs reaching surface waters; concentrated livestock with direct volume SSOs reaching surface waters; concentrated livestock with direct access to surface waters; evidence of direct sewage inputs (e.g., access to surface waters; evidence of direct sewage inputs (e.g., confirmed illicit discharges)confirmed illicit discharges)

Combined rating (“Annapolis protocol”) approachCombined rating (“Annapolis protocol”) approach

Potential relevance to RAMP ?Potential relevance to RAMP ?

Despite their drawbacks, the existing bacterial Despite their drawbacks, the existing bacterial indicators (e.g., fecal coliforms, enterococcus, indicators (e.g., fecal coliforms, enterococcus, E. E. colicoli) will continue to be used for federal and state ) will continue to be used for federal and state regulatory purposes until better indicators are regulatory purposes until better indicators are developed and adopted. That process could take a developed and adopted. That process could take a number of years.number of years.

None of the existing indicators are included in the None of the existing indicators are included in the RAMP program, which may complicate data RAMP program, which may complicate data comparisons in WBIDs monitored by more than one comparisons in WBIDs monitored by more than one programprogram

RAMP may wish to consider adding one or more of RAMP may wish to consider adding one or more of the bacterial indicators to its parameter list, to the bacterial indicators to its parameter list, to provide quantitative information on inter-laboratory provide quantitative information on inter-laboratory comparability of the available monitoring data comparability of the available monitoring data

Some references…Some references…

EPA. 2007. Report of the experts scientific workshop on critical EPA. 2007. Report of the experts scientific workshop on critical research needs for the development of new or revised research needs for the development of new or revised recreational water criteria. EPA 823-R-07-006. Washington, DCrecreational water criteria. EPA 823-R-07-006. Washington, DC

National Research Council. 2004. Indicators for waterborne National Research Council. 2004. Indicators for waterborne pathogens. National Academy Press, Washington, DCpathogens. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

Rose, J.B., Rose, J.B., et al.et al. 2001. Healthy beaches Tampa Bay: 2001. Healthy beaches Tampa Bay: Microbiological monitoring of water quality conditions and public Microbiological monitoring of water quality conditions and public health impacts. Tampa Bay Estuary Program Technical Report health impacts. Tampa Bay Estuary Program Technical Report #03-01. TBEP. St. Petersburg, FL#03-01. TBEP. St. Petersburg, FL

World Health Organization. 2003. Guidelines for Safe World Health Organization. 2003. Guidelines for Safe Recreational Water Environments. Volume 1: Coastal andFresh Recreational Water Environments. Volume 1: Coastal andFresh Waters. WHO, Geneva, SwitzerlandWaters. WHO, Geneva, Switzerland