Rethinking Stormwater Pond Nutrient Removal Perry Forster, David Austin, Roger Scharf, Jason Carroll, Mark Enochs Minnesota Water Resources Conference. October 16, 2012

Project Location: Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District

Nutrient management: • Reduce internal & external TP

contributions • Requires accurate

determination of stormwater pond TP contributions Modeled

versus Measured

Study genesis: Lake restoration projects

District Goals:

• Improve lake water quality

• Remove lakes from Impaired

Waters List

• Do ponds settle and keep particulate-P? → Models OK

• Does particulate-P solubilize enough to impair pond

nutrient removal performance? → Models problematic

• Findings: 2010-2012

• Conclusions

Stormwater pond study

Standard concept of stormwater pond performance

Stormwater Stormwater P0

P30 P10 P50 P80

Example1,2: P8 Model predicts nutrient performance by settling of particulate-P

Soluble Phosphorus

1) Walker, W.W., 1987. Phosphorus removal by urban runoff detention basins. Lake and Reservoir Management 3, 314-326. 2) Palstrom, N., Walker, W.W, 1990. The P8 urban catchment model for evaluating nonpoint source controls at the local level. Enhancing states’ lake management programs, US EPA, Washington, DC.

Problem statement: Does settled P stay in ponds?

Stormwater flush

Stormwater flush

TPS + P0

PO4 Algae TPS

sediments

• Flushing of high inter-storm TP concentration would impair performance

• Our study compares pond TP contributions: Modeled versus measured

• First a quick look at biogeochemistry … mechanisms are important

TP discharge = soluble-P + solubilized-P

The sulfur cycle in P-solubilization

H2S detected Strong H2S Hypolimnion of Lake

Ann, Chanhassen, MN

Apr-Oct 2010

No temperature correction. Add ~ 50 mV for standard conditions (25oC).

D.O. gone

SO42- loss associated with previous slide

H2S detected Strong H2S

Ingvorsen, K., J. G. Zeikus, et al. (1981). "Dynamics

of Bacterial Sulfate Reduction in a Eutrophic Lake."

Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 42(6): 1029-1036.

COOL, SHALLOW SEDIMENTS H2S

O2

• High redox above sediments • Sediment organic content → low influence

WARM, SHALLOW SEDIMENTS H2S

O2

• Low redox above sediments • Sediment organic content → high influence

Temperature dependence of sulfate reduction

Peak

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

Cha

n 3.

34Ke

rber

Lym

anEP

823

AC

han

3.18

Zim

mer

man

Che

stnu

t

Nea

r Mou

ntai

nC

han.

2.1

2

Woo

dbrid

geC

han.

2.2

1

Mitc

hell

TP, m

g/L

Findings 2010-2011: “Good” &“Bad” Ponds

9 6 9 6 7 7 7 9 6 3 6 n = 6

Assumed soluble TP 150 µg/L

TP concentrations are from ponds sampled between rain events

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

6.17 0.73 2.64

P8, lbsMeasured, lbs

TP, l

bs

Precipitation, in

Pond 2.12 (2010) Woodbridge Pond (2011)

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

3.83 1.4 0.94 0.57

P8, lbsMeasured, lbs

TP, l

bs

Precipitation, in

•Measured TP is taken from concentrations sampled between rain events.

•Concentrations are then multiplied by P8 generated flows to obtain measured loads.

“Bad” ponds: P-solubilization important – TP released from sediments up to 1,500 μg/L between storms

– Downstream TP mass contributions high: 59 - 11,284% more than P8)

“Good” ponds: Settling predicts performance

How to tell the difference?

– Sample all ponds? - Idea is impractical – Findings suggested simpler method to find “bad” ponds

2010-2011 Overview

2010 bad ponds

Rapid Assessment Protocol Tool

Field AssessmentPond:

Staff:

Date: Time:

Current Weather (temp., wind, cloud cover, precip.):

Precipitation over previous 5 days:

Wet or Dry Year, in general:

Pond Silted In:

Total Phosphorous, surface concentration: None to date

Quick Depth Measurements:

complete 5 quick measurements (nearest 1/2 foot) up to 3 feet

1 2 3 4 5

Pond Max Depth:

Pond Mean Depth:

Place a "X" below the appropriate category for each element below:Dominated by Macrophytes: < 25% 25-50% 50-75% >75%

X

General Smell: none weak moderate strong

X

Water Color: clear brown light green dark green

X

Bubble Release from Sediments: no few lots

X

Sediment Color: brown dark brown black

X

Sediment Smell (H2S): none weak moderate strong

X

Vegetation: dediduous tree canopy prairie grasses mowed grasses impervious

X X

Likelihood for P-Mobilization:

no

previously wet, becoming dry

No

High

Mitchell Wetland

JC & RS

8/11/2011 11:30

75, sunny, calm winds

Conditional formatting calculates score and

likelihood of P-mobilization between storms.

Preliminary Results: 2010 and 2011 TP vs. RAP Score

0.0000.1000.2000.3000.4000.5000.6000.7000.8000.900

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Mea

n To

tal P

, mg/

L

RAP Score

2011 2010 TP Reference

2012 Study

• 2010-2011 results statistically weak

• Needed more ponds to test RAP and overall hypothesis

• 2012 about 60 ponds sampled in Eden Prairie, Chanhassen,

Minnetonka, Bloomington, Shorewood – District funded 4 samples June-September each pond

– District trained cities to take RAP score and TP samples.

– Cities: dedicated, hard work that made the study possible!

– District QA/QC 2012

– District statistical analysis planned for 2013

2012 Raw Data – Inter-storm pond TP concentrations

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

TP, m

g/L

RAP Score 150 μg/L NURP soluble TP mean

280 μg/L NURP soluble TP 90th percentile

Preliminary statistical analysis of 2012 results

RAP *Athayde, D.N., Shelly, P.E., Driscoll, E.D., Gaboury, D.,

G., B., 1983. Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff

Program: Volume I - Final Report. In: Water Planning

Division., U.S.E.P.A., Washington, DC.

NURP* Soluble P

concentrations (µg/L):

Median: 130-170

90th percentile: 230-300

Next actions

• Statistical analyses:

– Refine RAP: ANOVA, factor weighting, significance

– Define pond populations: Are there meaningful pond categories?

• Pond improvement pilot program

Study conclusions to date

• Inter-storm phosphorus solubilization is substantial in some ponds

• RAP-P method appears to identify worst ponds

• TMDL implications?

• Method may assist evaluation of pond improvements

– SAFL iron filter: very promising technology

– Alum microfloc: Dick Osgood’s work at Regions Walk Pond (Shorewood)

– Other candidate methods

– Consider shifting from BMP to BAT view of stormwater ponds

Questions?

Further reading

Exploring the Limits of Asian Carp eDNA as

a Genetic Surveillance Tool

Lorin K. Hatch1, Kelly Baerwaldt2, Richard Lance2, Duane Chapman3, Jon J. Amberg4, Edward Perkins2, Meredith Bartron5,

Edmond Russo2

Minnesota Water Resources Conference 16-17 October 2012

1HDR Engineering, Inc., 2US Army Corps of Engineers, 3USGS-CERC, 4USGS-UMESC,

5USFWS-NEFC

eDNA: What is it?

Environmental DNA (eDNA): DNA from an organism detected in non-biological samples soil, air, and water

GOOD (Asian carp): sensitive, powerful, quick to collect samples, has been audited by EPA, easily modified, simple concept

BAD (Asian carp): Origin: unknown vectors, unknown shedding rates, unknown degradation

rates

Monitoring: depth to collect water, best location for collecting, best sampling scheme unknown

Processing: requires very good lab practices, time consuming, poor extraction efficiency, contamination issues, effects of inhibitors, cannot infer population size in sample

Literature on threatened/endangered/rare aquatic populations Bullfrogs, whales

eDNA is a recognized tool for monitoring populations in a variety of fields including monitoring for invasive species Zebra mussels, Asian carp

Though we don't have all the answers, it does provide useful information to guide implementation of other monitoring tools and to inform management decisions

So if we don’t know what eDNA means, why are we using it?

3

Monitoring and Rapid Response Plan eDNA Sampling Strategy

eDNA: genetic surveillance tool identified in 2012 ACRCC MRRP

MRRWG views positive eDNA results as an indicator of the possible presence of live Asian carp

2012 Monitoring Sites (60 samples/site):

Chicago Lock

North Shore Channel

Little Calumet River

Lake Calumet

2012 Results to date (as of 11 September)

Lake Calumet: 37 positive for silver carp

Little Calumet River: 3 positive for silver carp

North Shore Channel: 17 positive for silver carp

All negative for bighead carp

North Shore Channel 0 of 171 positive: bighead carp 17 of 171 positive: silver carp

2012 sampling period: Total Samples Collected and Processed: 825 Above Barrier Positive for Bighead Carp: 0 Above Barrier Positive for Silver Carp: 80

Lake Calumet 0 of 312 positive: bighead carp 37 of 312 positive: silver carp

Little Calumet River 0 of 171 positive: bighead carp 3 of 171 positive: silver carp

Justification for how we have designed ECALS Improve our understanding of factors contributing to positive or negative eDNA

results

Assessing alternate vectors for eDNA transport

Improving laboratory methods

Learning about impacts to DNA persistence

Calibrating tool: understanding of different AC loading levels

Ensuring that the laboratory methods are repeatable and consistent

Outcomes will improve our response to Asian carp eDNA results to be more efficient and effective

ECALS is designed to address many of the unknowns associated with this tool to increase its application for management

Resulting methods and products will be integrated into the MRRP

Environmental DNA Calibration Study (ECALS)

5

USACE-USGS-USFWS

10/30/2012 6

INTERAGENCY PARTICIPATION: USACE-ERDC: Vicksburg, MS USACE-LRD: Rock Island, IL & Cincinnati, OH USGS-UMESC: La Crosse, WI USGS-CERC: Columbia, MO USFWS-NEFC: Lamar, PA USFWS-Region 3: Bloomington, MN

Grass carp in Chicago Chinatown

Project Goal/Objectives ECALS

ECALS Goal: Improve understanding of eDNA results

Three Main Objectives:

Vectors: Investigate viable alternate sources of eDNA, assign probability to sources

Markers: qPCR, improve efficiency of sampling and processing, population estimate

Calibration: influence of environmental variables, shedding/loading rates, degradation rates, model eDNA transport in CAWS

How did it get there? Vectors (likelihood of each source)

How long has it been there? Loading Studies (shedding rate according to AC size, population number,

diet, spawning)

Degradation Studies (influence of temperature, light, etc.)

Hydromodel (water transport of eDNA from origin)

How can we improve eDNA as a tool? Markers (improved specificity, improved sensitivity, infer population size)

qPCR and sampling/processing methods (faster and cheaper, QAPP)

Consider a positive hit for silver carp eDNA in Lake Calumet…

8

Assess potential vectors of DNA distribution

Conceptual and Probabilistic model

Storm sewers

Carcass deposition

Sediment

Vessels (barges, recreational, agency)

Hull transport

Gear contamination

Piscivorous birds

Cormorant telemetry study (ERDC)

Cormorant /Pelican/Eagle lab study (USGS)

Vectors

10/30/2012 9

Results to Date: Vectors

Storm sewer experiments NOV 2011, JUN 2012 Chinatown experiments

YES, DNA can be transported via storm sewer and detected in eDNA samples

Results indicate signal at least one week later

Birds: feeding trials USGS working with Brookfield Zoo (Chicago -

pelicans, cormorants) and National Eagle Center (Wabasha - bald eagles)

Birds are fed silver carp diet then feces processed to detect presence of silver carp DNA

Eagles fed silver carp on June 25: eDNA found in feces more than 5 days after eating carp

Silver carp DNA detectable in feces 18 days post-deposit (with up to 160 F temperatures)

Double-crested Cormorants tagged with satellite transmitters; will be tracked through October Baker’s Lake (Barrington, IL): 15 Birds

TNC Emiquon Preserve (south of Peoria, IL): 15 Birds

Vectors: Piscivorous Birds Telemetry Study

11

6 Birds have remained close to the Lake Some have had large movements [>40 mi]

2 Birds moved to Canada

3 Birds moved east and spend time along Lake Michigan coast

One bird moved south to Lake Renwick

Baker’s Lake

10/30/2012 12

TNC Emiquon Preserve

10/30/2012 13

8 Birds have remained close to the Lake Some have had large movements [>40 mi]

2 Birds moved east close to Davenport, IA; another close to Springfield, IL

1 Bird moved east to Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN

2 Birds moved south to MO; one to St. Louis, the other to Jefferson City, MO

Large movements through the region

1 Bird moved far south and is now in MS About 65 mi north of Vicksburg!

Birds exhibited wide range of movements

Local movements to over 800 miles

Cloacal swabs also procured from each bird

Several positive for eDNA at Baker’s Lake

Summary: Cormorant Telemetry

10/30/2012 14

Vectors: What’s next?

A Probabilistic Model will facilitate Inference from eDNA Monitoring Data

Multiple potential sources and vectors of Asian carp eDNA in the CAWS confound inferences from eDNA monitoring results.

The probabilistic model will take the form of a Bayesian network that integrates various lines of evidence, including recent and ongoing ACRCC supported research efforts, to estimate:

The probability that each of the potential sources and vectors of eDNA in the CAWS is, in fact, an actual source of eDNA.

The probability that Asian carp are present in the CAWS given the evidence from eDNA monitoring studies and other lines of evidence.

GOAL: develop a model that is transferable to other locations along the Asian carp invasion front.

Vectors: What’s next?

Commercial fishing gear experiments

eDNA-contaminated nets may transfer eDNA from Asian carp-infested waters to the CAWS

Barge movements

Barges/boats from Asian carp-infested waters may transfer eDNA to the CAWS

Sediments

Sediments may act as a sink or source of eDNA (e.g. resuspension events)

Mud to Parks program

Dredging of Asian carp-infested waters and transport of sediments to CAWS may transfer eDNA

Markers

17

Sequence mitochondrial DNA genomes

First mitogenomic sequencing attempt looks good -- so far

10 silver carp and 4 bighead carp initial sequencing partially complete

Goal: 30 per species, samples from multiple locales

Develop qPCR marker

First two new markers being tested for accuracy and sensitivity

Look promising

Goal – suite of markers providing additional detection power, added info on sample age and population structure

Markers: Extraction methods

10/30/2012 18

Preliminary results (USGS): • Both markers were similarly sensitive • Qiagen kit appears to have improved DNA extraction efficiency (also cheaper)

After round-robin testing, may result in next change to QAPP

Optimized Sampling Protocol Experiment

Conducted in November and June 40 comparative samples for 3 methods

Validated surface sampling protocol Mid-column, lower column samples not as likely

to produce positive hits

Promising sieve-based field filtering results, tested centrifugation of samples (vs. filtering)

Extraction protocols

Field still using QAPP filtering protocol

Lab studies using centrifuging protocol

Results to Date: Calibration

10/30/2012 19

Alternative Extraction Protocols

20

USGS Centrifuging: - yields more DNA per volume sample - reduces sample processing time - reduces sample storage space

Conclusion: centrifuging used for lab samples. Still validating for field samples.

ERDC: Tested sieve filtering at different depths vs. surface grab samples (UND method). Conclusions: Surface sampling validated, but sieve sampling collected more eDNA (with more water). Study repeated in June with centrifuging added.

eDNA Methodology

eDNA Quality Assurance Project Protocol (QAPP) updated: MAY 2012 Incorporate processing improvements from ECALS

Decrease processing time by 2 days, save $4K/batch

Vessel protocols (vectors) Objective: no AC moving upstream over barrier on

vessels to eliminate potential to distort eDNA results

USACE protocol for lock staff implemented

Guidelines for commercial and recreational vessels

QAPP and Vessel Guidelines available on www.asiancarp.us

2012 Incidents of Asian Carp transported on upstream-bound barges

12 April Silver carp on barge at mouth of Calumet River Reported by City of Chicago

10 April Two silver carp on deck of tow at Lockport Lock and Dam Reported by Pat Wharry, Lockmaster

8 June Silver carp on TWO barges locking upstream at Brandon Road Lock and Dam Reported by Steve Koenig, Lockmaster

USFWS Transition in 2013

La Crosse Fish Health Center (WI)

Capacity: process at least 120 samples per week, emphasis on samples from the CAWS and other potential Great Lakes hotspots

July 2012: FWS hired lead geneticist

Nov 2012: FWS completes construction of the eDNA lab

August 2012 - April 2013: Transition of methodology

May 2013: USFWS lab up and running and ready to process eDNA samples, USACE remains on team for support and consulting

GOOD: sensitive, powerful, quick to collect samples, has been audited by EPA, easily modified, simple concept, faster,

efficient, reliable, known vectors and background signals,

known shedding, infer population size, degradation rate and

method of degradation (infer recency)

BAD:

Origin: unknown vectors

Monitoring: best sampling scheme unknown

Processing: requires very good lab practices, effects of inhibitors

Impact of ECALS

THANK YOU

Jon Amberg Duane Chapman Mark Gaikowski

Katy Klymus Sunnie McCalla Cathy Richter

Meredith Bartron Shannon Jilian Kurt Schilling

Kelly Baerwaldt Matthew Carr

Mike Channell Christine Edwards Heather Farrington

Richard Fischer Xin Guan

USACE

For more information please visit www.asiancarp.us/ecals

Michael Guilfoyle Jack Killgore

Richard Lance Edward Perkins Edmund Russo

David Schulenberg Martin Schultz David Smith

USGS USFWS

Lorin Hatch Lorin.Hatch@hdrinc.com