How Much is Enough? Improving Water Quality Through Source Controls KELLI HAMMER LEVY, DIVISION DIRECTOR PINELLAS COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Transcription

1 How Much is Enough? Improving Water Quality Through Source Controls KELLI HAMMER LEVY, DIVISION DIRECTOR PINELLAS COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

2 Overview Water quality monitoring and data analysis Water quality results Possible contributing factors MS4 activity survey results Summary Why is this important? Ongoing efforts

3 Water Quality Monitoring and Data Analysis Stratified random design in open waters (Gulf coast, Tampa Bay, and lakes) and fixed locations in freshwater and tidal streams NPDES permit requirements (Analysis) Hydrologic normalization of loads (Part V.III.B.3.c.) Water quality trends (Part V.B.9) Updated stormwater management plan (Part VIII.B.3.d.)

4 Data Analysis Hired Janicki Environmental to assist with approach and analysis Hydrologic Normalization Normalizes annual nitrogen, phosphorus, and other pollutant loads to annual rainfall estimates Allows us to compare wet years and dry years Sets a baseline for comparing future loads WQ Trends - Kendall Tau time series trend test to assess Nonparametric linear test that is commonly used to assess trends in water quality Test includes corrections for seasonality

5 2013 Trends Decreasing TN (9) Cross Bayou - south Joe s Creek (2) Lake Seminole south Curlew Creek Rattlesnake Creek Smith Creek Alligator Lake Briar Creek

6 2013 Trends Decreasing TP (18) Cross Bayou north and south Lake Seminole north and south Old Tampa Bay (E1-E5) Long Bayou (W5) Boca Ciega Bay (W6-W8) MTB (E6-E7) Riviera Bay Allen s Creek Roosevelt

7 2015 Trends Decreasing TN (22) Cross Bayou north and south Joe s Creek Lake Seminole north and south Rattlesnake Creek Smith Creek Stevenson s Creek Alligator Lake Briar Creek Bishop Creek Seminole Bypass Canal Long Bayou (W5) McKay Creek Spring Branch Lake Tarpon Old Tampa Bay E1-E3, E5) Riviera Bay Roosevelt

8 2015 Trends Decreasing TP (18) Anclote River Cow Branch Cross Bayou north and south Lake Seminole north and south Old Tampa Bay (E1-E3, E4) Long Bayou (W5) Boca Ciega Bay (W6-W7) MTB (E6-E7) Riviera Bay Allen s Creek Roosevelt

9 Overall Trends Updated WQ trend analysis TN : 22 waterbodies vs 9 in 2013 versus 2015 TP : 18 waterbodies Water clarity Measured using Transmissivity Only in lakes and estuarine waters

10 Potential Contributing Factors Reductions in atmospheric nitrogen and phosphorus contributions Lower rainfall (reduced loads) Water quality improvement projects Stormwater maintenance practices Education and outreach Fertilizer ordinance

11 Atmospheric Sources and Rainfall Old Tampa Bay Atmospheric TN Plot ( ) No Annual Trend Increasing wet season rainfall Avg Annual trend Rainfall Source: D. Tomasko Old Tampa Bay Atmospheric TP Plot ( )

12 MS4 Activity Survey Surveyed all 24 Co-Permittees and City of St. Petersburg (Adjacent Phase I MS4) Water quality improvement practices from Street sweeping Capital and other WQ improvements Pipe and structure cleaning Public education and outreach Looked for trends over time and watershed specific changes

13 Results: Street Sweeping MS4 s provided ranges and some site specific data between ranges Did behavior change County-wide? No, but we did have some improvements!! < 4 cycles a year 12.50% % % % 2 Four cycles a year 29.17% % % % 4 Between 5-8 cycles a year 4.17% % % % 3 Between 9-12 cycles a year 50.00% % % % 12 >12 cycles a year 4.17% % % % 3 Other (please specify)

14 Areas of Increased Sweeping Cycles Results: Street Sweeping 2013: No change 2014: Safety Harbor increased from 9-12 to >12 cycles 2015: No change 2016: Seminole and Pinellas Park moved from 4 to 5-8 cycles Cities of Clearwater (4) and Dunedin(5-8) moved to 9-12 cycles Gulfport 9-12 to >12 cycles

15 Results: Capital Projects and Other Water Quality Improvements Most jurisdictions averaged 0-1 project per year (84-92%) Most capital projects were small and associated with a roadway or flood control project. Exceptions Lake Seminole, Lake Tarpon, and Silver Lake Most common type: Inlet baskets, baffle boxes, CDS units Removes solids Effectiveness depends on maintenance Number of projects reported (some spanned multiple-years) Hard to assess true impact on water quality

16 Results: Pipe and Structure Maintenance Permit requires a minimum of 10% per year Number of Jurisdictions % 13% 16% 20% 25% 50% 60% 64% 75% 92% 100% % of Pipes and Structures Maintained per Year

17 Results: Education Reported topics of increased activities: Grass clippings, fertilizer, only rain down the drain, scoop the poop, increased training of in-house staff, and added dedicated staff. 25 Number of Jurisdictions No change Increased Decreased

18 Fertilizer Ordinance County-wide ordinance adopted in January 2010 No application of N or P June 1- Sept 30 (rainy season) Provisions effective in 2011: No N or P fertilizer can be on shelves, sold at retail, or used during rainy season Outside of rainy season no P fertilizer; N must be at least 50% SRN All applicators must be GI-BMP certified AND registered with the County All landscapers must be L-BMP certified AND registered with the County Strong education and training components Consistent compliance program Outstanding collaboration amongst partners

19 2015 Trends

20 Summary Water quality improvements are spatially dispersed; not just one area of the county Water quality improvements are across jurisdictional boundaries Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen and phosphorus shows no trend in recent years Pinellas County has no agriculture, septic areas are isolated, minimal industrial sources, AWT surface water discharges, and reuse areas have not dramatically changed

21 Summary Capital improvements implemented from were typically associated with road or flood control projects; primarily CDS units, baffle boxes, and inlet baskets Maintenance practices and educational programs are stable with some increases in level of service, but not county-wide. More assessment needed. County-wide fertilizer ordinance and associated training, outreach, and compliance is the one program that may help explain the results. o Huron River (Lehman, et. al., 2010) o TMDL requiring 50% TP load reduction o Ann Arbor, MI banned phosphorus fertilizers in 2006 o WQ monitoring and reporting for three years post implementation o Statistically significant reductions in river P concentrations observed after year one followed by a decreasing trend during the next two years. o Conclusion: There is little doubt that the jurisdiction of Ann Arbor, MI is contributing less non-point source P to the Huron River than it did before implementation of its lawn fertilizer ordinance.

22 Why is this important? Joe s Creek TMDL Pinellas County s #1 ranked TMDL Required reductions: 49% for both TN and TP TMDL implementation plan submitted June 2017 In partnership with City of St. Petersburg and Kenneth City Estimated cost to implement plan: $1.3M Joe s Creek met numeric nutrient criteria for last 3 years Joe s creek scheduled to be delisted for TN and TP Result: Cost savings of $1.3M

23 Ongoing Efforts Continues refinement of hydrologic normalization modeling so that we can effectively monitor change Continue annual water quality trend assessments Online water quality report card to share the news Continue all MS4 efforts, go team!! Deeper look at maintenance and capital data Continued implementation of the fertilizer and landscape management program!!!

24 Questions? KELLI HAMMER LEVY, VISIT US ON FACEBOOK: PINELLAS COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS