MEETING NOTES of the

STORMWATER STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SSAC) Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government (LFUCG)

Date of Meeting: August 31, 2017 (Meeting #29) Time of Meeting: 9:00 a.m. Location of Meeting: Division of Water Quality

Tate Building – North Elkhorn Conference Room

Attendees: COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Derek Adams – Kentucky Transportation Cabinet District 7 Richard Archer – Federal Facilities, VA Medical Center Eileen Burk – Kentucky American Water Company (for David Shehee) Jim Conner – Cane Run Watershed At-Large Michael Galavotti – Friends of McConnell Springs Jim Griggs – Boone Creek Watershed At-Large Amanda Gumbert – Friends of Cane Run Jeff Harris – Fayette County Public Schools Brian Hayes – LFUCG Division of Engineering (for Doug Burton) Don Hill – Fayette County Neighborhood Council Andi Johnson – Commerce Lexington Kevin Lewis – University of Kentucky Tom Martin – LFUCG Division of Planning (for Jim Duncan) Carolyn Plumlee – LFUCG Planning Commission Angela Poe – LFUCG Division of Environmental Services (for Susan Plueger) Ashley Smith – Fayette Alliance (for Susan Speckert) Scott Smith – Commerce Lexington, Smith Management Group Amy Sohner – Bluegrass Greensource

LFUCG REPRESENTATIVES & OTHER ATTENDEES Doug Baldwin – LFUCG Division of Water Quality Bob Brashear – University of Kentucky Jennifer Carey – LFUCG Division of Water Quality Steve Evans – Third Rock Consultants, LFUCG MS4 Program Management Kyle Hager – Bluegrass Greensource Gabe Hensley – LFUCG Division of Water Quality Steven Hoagland – Tetra Tech, LFUCG MS4 Program Management Becky Irwin – LFUCG Division of Water Quality Greg Lubeck – LFUCG Division of Water Quality Demetria Mehlhorn – LFUCG Division of Environmental Services Theresa Owen – LFUCG Division of Water Quality Joyce Probus – LFUCG Division of Water Quality Jennifer Shelby – Third Rock Consultants, LFUCG MS4 Program Management Dawn Shroyer – GRW Brian Stephens – Ball Homes Barry Tonning – Tetra Tech, LFUCG MS4 Program Management Richard Walker – Tetra Tech, LFUCG MS4 Program Management

Opening Remarks Scott Smith called the meeting to order at 9:03 a.m. With reference to the bacteria sources to be reviewed at today’s meeting, he told the group that a teaspoon of soil has more microbes than there are people on Earth—more than 6 billion. There are 362 trillion pounds of soil on earth. Approval of 6/2/17 Minutes Don Hill moved to approve the minutes as written, seconded by Amy Sohner, and the motion passed. Focusing on TMDLs and Impaired Waters: Perspectives on Bacteria Sources in Fayette County Jennifer Carey told the group that this meeting is the third in our series of meetings to evaluate pathogen levels in our streams and creeks, and to prioritize strategies and actions to address bacteria sources in Fayette County, including how the city may best allocate its resources. The March meeting served as an opportunity to review the sources of bacteria pollution and rank the contributions of each source, the June meeting focused on ways to address human sources of bacteria, and today’s meeting will look at BMPs to address animal sources of bacteria. Ms. Carey reviewed the requirements in our MS4 Permit:

– make progress toward achieving wasteload allocations – identify impaired stream segments and locate MS4 outfalls – evaluate discharges of pollutants of concern, focus on urban stormwater – propose BMPs to reach the goals for reducing TMDLs, along with an implementation schedule – evaluate BMPs for new or expanded discharges to the MS4 – monitor impaired waters for stormwater pollutants – modify the SWQMP to include effective BMPs

Ms. Carey provided a map of impaired stream segments in Fayette County. Review of Survey Results Ranking BMPs to Address Human Sources of Bacteria Steve Evans summarized strategies to address prioritized problems based on SSAC survey results, beginning with private lateral lines, package plants, and septic systems. A September 27th hearing will address permit renewals for two package plants that are currently exceeding their permit limits. Mr. Smith and Mr. Evans discussed current issues with package plants in Fayette and Scott Counties with regard to failing infrastructure in trailer parks. The top priorities for private sanitary laterals were:

– development of an incentive program to cost share lateral line replacements, – review and update smoke testing, LexCall, and other databases, – identify priority areas for demonstration projects.

For package wastewater treatment plans, the top priorities were: – crate a venue for the SSAC and citizen groups to encourage KDOW compliance and enforcement

action for violations – Look for opportunities to help connect package plant areas to public sewers

Septic system top priorities were: – update maps without sewer connection in cooperation with LFCHD – update / formalize LFUCG’s relationship with LFCHD regarding septic systems – support LFCHD by funding a septic system inspection program – research options for financial assistance for low income property owners to tap-on

Potential BMPs to Address Animal Sources of Bacteria Mr. Evans continued a review of animal bacteria sources. Mr. Smith inquired about the source of the data presented. Mr. Evans indicated that he used data from the American Society of Civil Engineers, along with national literature and local results.

Barry Tonning discussed strategies to manage bacteria, focusing on controlling sources versus treating or removing the pollutant. He provided a list of BMPs assessed for their ability to reduce bacteria levels, noting their effectiveness in targeted areas. Available land and costs of operation and maintenance are barriers to implementation, and treatment success varies widely among the BMPs. Ms. Carey added that while some of the BMPs included in the handout are not successful at reducing bacteria, they are useful in reducing other pollutants, e.g., nitrogen, phosphorous, sediment. Group Discussion on BMPs to Address Animal Sources Tom Martin questioned that with waterfowl are we really changing our pollution or simply moving it to another area? Whether they congregate near a pond or a creek, the birds are still eating and creating waste. Mr. Tonning said there are Federal programs to euthanize geese. Survey to Rank BMPs to Address Animal Sources Mr. Tonning explained the survey and asked the group to complete their ballots. Angela Poe noted that we have a shortcoming in that the public will pick up after their pets in public places, but encouraging pet waste pick up in the pet owner’s yard will be LFUCG’s next education push. Mr. Tonning reviewed each section of the survey, and emphasized that the city will use this information to plan for BMP implementation. Nominations for Remaining Vacant Watershed At-Large Seats Ms. Carey noted that two watersheds need representatives: North Elkhorn and South Elkhorn. Topics for Next Meeting

– Review Today’s Survey Results – Update on MCMs 1 & 2, including a report from Bluegrass Greensource – No “P” on My Lawn – Engage Birds Unlimited on Waterfowl Management

Announcements Ms. Carey showed the group a photo from the Herald-Leader of a permanent mural depicting native plants at Gardenside Park, which was part of an Incentive Grant project, and a photo from Scott County-Fayette County Field Day, where Steve Evans was giving a presentation. Ms. Carey told the group that today is Steve Evan’s last day at Third Rock Consultants, and tomorrow will be his first day at the Kentucky Water Resources Research Institute at UK. He will continue with the SSAC representing KWRRI.

– West Hickman Watershed Council –

o September 7, 9:30-11 a.m., Tates Creek Golf Course Ballroom, 1400 Gainesway Drive o 6 p.m.-7:30 p.m.,Veterans Park Elementary, 4351 Clearwater Way o September 12, 6 p.m.-7:30 p.m., Julius Marks Elementary, 3327 Pepperhill Drive

– Cane Run Watershed Festival – Saturday, 9/16, 11:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. – Public Hearing for Spindletop and Ponderosa Trailer Parks – Wednesday, 9/27/17, 6:00 p.m. – SESWA Annual Conference in Louisville – 10/11 – 10/13 – Water Quality Fees Board Meeting – Thursday, 10/12, 9:00 a.m. – WFMP Volunteer Appreciation & Monitoring Results Review Reception – Friday, 10/20, 3:00 – 5:00

p.m. – State of Our Watersheds: MS4 Annual Training, Environmental Quality and Public Works Committee

– Tuesday, 11/14, 1:00 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 10:27 a.m.

  1 of 2 

Bacteria Treatment BMPs:  Summary Statistics for Fecal Coliform Studies in BMP Database 

 

 

 

  2 of 2 

Bacteria removal data for E. coli studies

 Hypothesis testing results to assess significant differences between inflow and outflow 

fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) concentrations for various BMPs 

 

Source:  Pathogens in Urban Stormwater Systems, prepared by the Urban Water Resources Research Council’s 

Pathogens in Wet Weather Flows Technical Committee Environmental and Water Resources Institute, 

American Society of Civil Engineers, with support from the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Denver, 

CO, and the Urban Watersheds Research Institute. 

Lexington‐Fayette Urban County Government 

MS4 Program 

Stormwater Stakeholder Advisory Committee 

 

Informal Survey Regarding Bacteria Reduction Strategies 

The table below lists strategies and actions to address bacteria sources in Fayette County.  LFUCG is required 

to address these sources to comply with its KDOW‐issued stormwater discharge permit.  The survey table is 

designed to capture your priorities within each of the four bacteria source categories listed:  Domestic Pets, 

Urban Waterfowl, Other Urban Wildlife, and Livestock.  The table also lists the relative costs associated with 

each strategy / action, using dollar signs as general indicators of annual costs to the LFUCG.  The more dollar 

signs, the greater the relative cost – see the asterisk note regarding cost information below the table. 

Please rank the strategies in each of the categories in numerical order, starting with “1” for your top 

preference in each of the four categories.  List your second, third, etc. priorities by numbering them 

consecutively.  Note that the survey continues on the back of this page.  Thanks. 

TMDL Strategies / Actions Relative Cost* 

Your Priority Ranking 

Domestic Pets:  Rank Your Priorities from 1 to 6 

A. Conduct surveys to better understand pet ownership patterns and pet owner waste practices at home and on walks. 

$  

B. Perform targeted observations to identify heavy pet use areas, waste pick‐up practices, and the presence of signage and disposal facilities. 

$  

C. Identify, characterize, and address outdoor pet facilities (e.g., kennels, groomers, vet clinics) with possible waste management challenges. 

$  

D. Identify popular dog walk routes near ditches, channels, and streams for potential installation of vegetated buffer areas. 

$  

E. Continue the current level of pet waste pickup education and outreach efforts. 

$  

F. Significantly increase pet waste pickup education and outreach efforts (e.g., promotional campaigns, signs, waste containers, ordinance enforcement publicity, etc.). 

$$  

Urban Waterfowl:  Rank Your Priorities from 1 to 4 

A. Develop and implement a targeted education, outreach, and training program for homeowner associations and pond managers on measures to deter resident waterfowl populations at ponds. 

$  

B. Implement and evaluate waterfowl deterrent measures at selected ponds, such as habitat alteration, no‐feeding signage, noisemakers, string/wire grids, sprinklers, use of trained dogs, etc. 

$$  

C. Support goose removal operations at targeted ponds with agreeable owners. 

$$  

D. Support a program to target and treat goose nests and eggs to reduce goose reproduction rates. 

$  

TMDL Strategies / Actions Relative Cost* 

Your Priority Ranking 

Other Urban Wildlife:  Rank Your Priorities from 1 to 5 

A. Identify bridges currently housing bird roosts / nests for retrofitting with wire, nets, spikes, and other deterrent measures. 

$  

B. Implement a program to promote redirection of roof downspouts to vegetated areas, to minimize bird droppings and animal scat from entering the storm drainage system. 

$$  

C. Review existing waste and dumpster ordinances to identify and address any shortcomings regarding nuisance animal issues (e.g., covers for food waste dumpsters in Section 16‐4.1(d)). 

$  

D. Increase compliance with and enforcement of dumpster and trash management ordinances to deter rats, raccoons, and other animals. 

$  

E. Identify and address priority problem areas where animals are accessing and/or dwelling in stormwater pipes and ditches. 

$  

Livestock:  Rank Your Priorities from 1 to 3 

A. Partner with recognized agricultural agencies and organizations to identify and address farm‐based livestock bacteria “hot spots” in or near urban areas. 

$$  

B. Evaluate the development and implementation of an incentive grant program that targets livestock bacteria “hot spot” areas. 

$$$  

C. Identify, characterize, and address animal facilities with possible waste management challenges in or near urban areas, such as large animal vet clinics, horse farms, stables, urban livestock (e.g., chickens), etc. 

$  

*Key to “Relative Cost” column:  $ = less than $75k per year; $$ = $75k to 250k per year; and 

$$$ = greater than $250k dollars per year.  (Note that these are rough estimates.) 

 

Name / Organization (Optional):  _______________________________________________________________ 

 

If you wish, please provide relevant comments or suggestions below.  Thank you.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

West Hickman Watershed Council

Improve water quality in your community. Sample, plan, clean up, and plant!

Thursday, September 7, 6pm-7:30pmVeterans Park Elementary

4351 Clearwater Way

Thursday, September 7, 9:30am-11amTates Creek Golf Course Ballroom

1400 Gainesway Drive

Tuesday, September 12, 6pm-7:30pmJulius Marks Elementary

3277 Pepperhill Drive

Join us for one of three meetings:

For more information, email LiveGreen@LexingtonKY.govor visit LexingtonKY.gov/LiveGreen.

Stormwater Stakeholder

Advisory Committee

August 31, 2017

August 31, 2017

Meeting Agenda

Approval of 6/2/17 MinutesFocusing on TMDLs and Impaired Waters: Perspectives on Bacteria Sources

– Review of Bacteria Sources Survey Results– Review of Survey Results Ranking BMPs to Address Human Sources– Potential BMPs to Address Animal Sources– Group Discussion on BMPs to Address Animal Sources – Survey to Rank BMPs to Address Animal Sources– Next Steps

Nominations for Remaining Vacant Watershed At-Large SeatsTopics for Next MeetingAnnouncements

Focusing on LFUCG’s MS4 Permit

Requirements

for

TMDLs and Impaired Waters

Stormwater Stakeholder Advisory Committee

August 31, 2017

What are LFUCG’s MS4 Permit

Obligations Regarding TMDLs and

Impaired Waters?

1. …permittee shall make progress toward achieving assigned wasteload allocations (WLAs) by demonstrating through the implementation of structural and nonstructural best management practices and other program activities that are targeted at TMDL-related pollutants within watersheds that discharge to a waterbody with an adopted TMDL…

2. …permittee shall identify the impaired stream segment(s) and/or tributaries to those impaired stream segments and the location of all known MS4 major outfalls discharging a pollutant of concern under the TMDL to those segments or occurring within those segments…

3. …permittee shall evaluate the discharge load associated with the identified MS4 major outfalls for the pollutant, including monitoring, reporting and/or otherwise, at issue…

4. …permittee shall consider and propose applicable and appropriate Best Management Practices for its MS4 to reach the wasteload goal of the TMDL, and a schedule of implementation for those Best Management Practices…

What are LFUCG’s MS4 Permit

Obligations Regarding TMDLs and

Impaired Waters?

5. …permittee shall evaluate its Best Management Practices in the SWQMP with respect to any new or expanded MS4 discharges for pollutants of concern that substantially change the discharge to impaired waterbodies listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list in the Division of Water publication entitled, “2012 Integrated Report to Congress on the Condition of Water Resources in Kentucky Volume II. 303(d) List of Surface Waters” to assess their effectiveness in minimizing pollution to such impaired waterbodies…

6. …permittee shall monitor the impaired waters for those pollutants attributed to stormwater sources for at least 3 storm events during the permit term…

7. …permittee shall modify its SWQMP as necessary and appropriate to improve the effectiveness of the BMPs…

What else does LFUCG’s MS4 Permit say

about TMDLs and Impaired Waters?

• … nothing herein shall prevent the permittee from pursuing a variance or exceptions based upon a use attainability analysis or the criteria for exceptions set forth in 401 KAR 10:031 …

• …applicable limitations, conditions and requirements contained in the TMDL are also to be addressed in the SWQMP…

• …If a TMDL is approved for any impaired waterbody into which discharges from the MS4 cause or contribute to water quality impairment(s), KDOW will review the TMDL and applicable wasteload allocation(s) to determine whether the TMDL includes requirements for control of stormwater discharges. If current discharges from the MS4 are not meeting TMDL allocations, KDOW will notify the permittee of that finding and may require that the SWQMP identified in Part II be modified, in accordance with Part III.F. of this permit relating to Reopening the Permit for major modifications, to include any applicable and appropriate BMPs to implement the TMDL within a reasonable timeframe…

What else does LFUCG’s MS4 Permit say

about TMDLs and Impaired Waters?

• … The requirements of this section apply only to the permittee’s MS4 discharges to receiving waters with adopted or established TMDLs and associated allocations. It is the intent of this section to ensure that pollutant discharges for those parameters listed in the TMDL are reduced to the MEP through the implementation of the permittee’s SWQMP…

Are there approved TMDLs for

Fayette County? Is this applicable?

• YES!• 3 focused on pathogens – covering 5 of Fayette County’s watersheds

Are there impaired waters in

Fayette County? Is this applicable?

• YES!• Impaired stream segments for primary and secondary contact recreation (pathogens!)• Impaired stream segments for warmwater aquatic habitat

Designated Beneficial Uses

Antidegradation Policies & Procedures

Narrative & Numeric Criteria

The Magnitude of Bacteria

• E. coli is an Indicator Microorganism

• What is an Indicator Microorganism?• GOLDEN RULE: The indicator must be present when pathogens are present and

absent when pathogens are absent• Originate in the digestive tract of humans / warm-blooded animals - • It should persist longer than pathogens outside of the intestine - • It should not be pathogenic itself (oops . . . O157:H7) -

• It should occur in high numbers - • Be easily, quickly, inexpensively, and reliably identified and counted - , , ,

and

LFUCG Sanitary Sewers• Collection System• Pump Stations• Wastewater Treatment Plants

LFUCG Urban Stormwater• Home Lateral Lines• Pet Waste• Waterfowl / Birds• Other Urban Wildlife• Homeless Camps• Dumpsters, Porta‐Potties• Biofilms, Sediments

Other Fayette County Wastewater• Septic Systems• Package Treatment Plants

Fayette County Agriculture• Cattle Farms• Horse Farms• Other Livestock Operations

Fayette County Wildlife• Deer, Other Mammals, and Birds

US District Court Consent Decree

KY DOW LFUCG MS4 Permit

Bacteria Sources and Regulatory Oversight

Topics we’ll cover• SSAC Survey on Managing Human Bacteria

• Review of Animal Bacteria Sources• Survey Recap on Animal Bacteria Sources• Bacteria Source Controls vs Treatment• Common Source Control Practices• SSAC Survey on Prioritizing BMP Strategies

Review of LFUCG’s bacteria control requirements from KDOW

• Reduce bacteria to the maximum extent practicable through the implementation of structural and nonstructural best management practices

(From the LFUCG Stormwater Quality Management Program)

Recap of Human Bacteria Sources and SSAC-Prioritized Management Practices

• Private lateral lines – sewer pipes between buildings and public collection lines

• Septic systems – septic tanks discharging to soil infiltration areas

• Package plants – small privately operated sewage treatment facilities

How were the choices prioritized?

• LFUCG used the SSAC surveys to identify clearly preferred approaches for managing human sources of bacteria

Private Sanitary Lateral Lines1. Develop an incentive program to cost-share

lateral line replacements2. Review and update smoke testing, LexCall,

other high-risk lateral line targeting databases3. Identify priority areas for possible

demonstration project sites4. Propose an LFUCG ordinance requirement to

verify lateral lines aren’t leaking (e.g., at the time of property sale)

5. Implement demonstration lateral line replacement projects in high priority areas

Package Wastewater Treatment Plants

1. Create a venue for the SSAC and citizen groups to encourage KDOW compliance and enforcement action when package plant discharges violate KPDES permits

2. Identify opportunities to provide non-financial support to package plant service areas seeking connection to public sewer

3. Develop an approach for the SSAC and citizen groups to review package plant discharge reports (DMRs)

Septic Systems1. Update the unsewered parcel maps and lists,

using DWQ and LFCHD data2. Update and formalize the relationship between

DWQ and LFCHD (identify key DWQ contacts for LFCHD)

3. Provide DWQ support for LFCHD periodic or time-of-sale voluntary septic system inspections

4. Research options for a financial assistance programs for low income property owner tap-ons

Septic Systems5. Target groups of septic systems for tap-on

when doing nearby sewer infrastructure work6. Propose an LFUCG ordinance requiring

periodic or time-of-sale septic system inspections

7. Provide targeted information to the real estate industry and home lenders on septic system disclosure, etc.

8. Provide support from DWQ for LFCHD-sponsored system owner education (brochures, mailings, etc.)

Summary of Animal Bacteria Sources and

Relative Magnitude

Bacteria Output

by Animals

Animal TypesE. coli Daily Load

MPN/Animal/Day (x 1,000)PetsCat 33,200Dog 84,900

Urban Waterfowl Duck 139,000Goose 30,200

Other Urban WildlifeRat 536Beaver 15,000Raccoon 7,500Deer 30,000Songbird 39.3

AgriculturalCattle 225,000Horses 25,100

Other Animal Sources

Pets

2015-2016 American Pet Products Association National Pet Owners Survey 44% households own dogs – average of 1.43 35% households own cats – average of 2.0

Fayette County About 124,000 households

= 78,000 dogs and 87,000 cats= ~18 tons of pet waste/day

30-40% dog owners do not pick up waste Dogs = Est. 2,400 trillion E. coli/year outside Generally 10% or less of original dies-off in 1-2

days but results vary with conditions.

Birds

2015 Audubon Society Christmas Bird Count

17,934 birds from 77 species

400 geese & 600 ducks

360 trillion E. coli/year 2.4 trillion from

songbirds

46 trillion from geese

310 trillion from ducks

Pigeon droppings on South Broadway in 2015. Photo by Pablo Alcala | Lexington Herald-Leader

44 Retention Ponds with

Large Wildfowl Populations

Mammals

Deer (245 harvested in Fayette County in 2015)

Squirrel

Beaver

Raccoon

Muskrat

Skunk

Coyote

Agriculture

USDA Ag Statistics 14,000 Cattle (2015) 11,000 Horses (2012)

Pasture Runoff: 13,000 trillion E. coli/year: 12,000 trillion from cattle and 1,000 trillion from horses

In-Stream 180 trillion E. coli/year through direct stream inputs

Manure Applied to Fields 2,300 trillion E. coli/year

Total = Approximately 15,000 trillion/year Die-off rates would reduce totals, but much less so than for dogs/cats One study estimates 200 days until die-off in cow patties, with a non-

linear pattern

Exercise Caution!

Numbers are Estimates from Available Data

Consider assumptions and variables in estimates

Agricultural and pet waste projections are larger than occurring. Represent potential load.

No estimates currently feasible from some sources

Evaluate the overall risk – how much is reaching the waterways? Difficult to say . . .

Increased data collection can help to refine

The Big Picture: A Summary

Problems

Wet weather - 55%-100% above criteria

Dry weather - 15%-55% above criteria

Load Estimates from Potential Sources

Dog Waste – 2,400 trillion/year (die-off to ≤10% after 1-2 days)

Livestock – 15,000 trillion/year (depending on manure management, slower die-off than pet waste)

Birds – 350 trillion/year

Review of the June SSACSurvey Results on the

Relative Contributions of Animal Bacteria Sources

SSAC Animal Bacteria Survey

Category All MemberNon-

MemberHuman 51.3 48.55 56.7Sanitary Sewer System 23.4 22.5 25.1Private Lateral Lines 15.3 15.5 15Other Human Waste 12.6 10.55 16.6Animal 39.1 40.4 36.4Domestic Pets 10.3 10.6 9.8Urban Waterfowl 9.4 9.6 9Other Urban Wildlife 4.2 4.45 3.8Livestock 15.1 15.75 13.8Environmental / Other 9.7 11.05 6.9Litter and Dumpsters 4.4 5.5 2.25Bed Sed. / Slimes / Biofilms 5.3 5.55 4.65

SSAC Survey: Percent of Resources to Devote

Category All Member Non-Member

Human 64.7 63.6 66.9Sanitary Sewer System 27.4 27.8 26.7Private Lateral Lines 23.5 21.6 27.6Other Human Waste 13.8 14.3 12.7Animal 27.0 26.3 28.3Domestic Pets 8.7 8.3 9.4Urban Waterfowl 6.1 5.2 8.1Other Urban Wildlife 1.5 1.6 1.4Livestock 10.7 11.3 9.4Environmental / Other 8.4 10.1 4.8Litter and Dumpsters 6.6 8.2 3.4Bed Sed. / Slimes / Biofilms 1.7 1.9 1.3

Approaches for Managing Animal Bacteria: Source Controls vs Treatment

Bacteria BMP Strategies: Sources

• Domestic Pets– Dogs and Cats

• Urban Waterfowl– Geese and Ducks

• Other Urban Wildlife– Raccoons, Possum, etc.

• Livestock– Cattle and Horses

Managing bacteria: strategies

• Control the sources– Identify, quantify, reduce animal wastes

• Pros: Can work well, less expensive• Cons: Long-term, intensive, sustained effort

• Treat/remove the pollutant– Construct/install bacteria treatment BMPs

• Pros: Ability to target significant source areas• Cons: Expensive, bacteria removal record spotty

Bacteria Treatment:

Structural Practices and Facilities to Remove or

Inactivate Bacteria

Bacteria Treatment BMPs• Processes include

inactivation/die-off, predation, filtration, sedimentation, sorption, chemical inactivation

• Can work well in targeted areas• Available land often an issue• Capital, O&M costs can be high• Treatment success highly variable

Premier research publication on dealing with municipal

bacteria sources

Removal data for E. coli

Common Source Control Practices for Pet, Waterfowl, Wildlife, and Livestock Waste

Strategies for Bacteria Reduction

Waterfowl Management Techniques

Pet Waste Control Measures

• Education and outreach• Leash ordinance, signs• Bag dispensers / waste cans• Pooper scooper enforcement• Dog parks with buffers• Veg. buffers along streams• Investigation of animal/pet

confinement facilities

LFUCG Pet Ordinances• Section Sec. 4-23.1 of the LFUCG Code of

Ordinances requires removal of animal waste from public walks, streets, recreation areas, and private property belonging to others.

• Those who fail to remove pet waste from public walks, streets, recreation areas, or private property belonging to others are subject to a $50 fine for each violation.

LFUCG Pet Requirements• All dogs and cats in Fayette County must

be licensed annually through the Lexington-Fayette Animal Care and Control Center, beginning at 6 months of age, with rabies vaccinations at 4 months.

• All dogs in Fayette County must be on a leash, behind a fence, or on the dog owner’s property under the owner’s supervision at all times when outside.

LFUCG Pet Requirements• Dogs cannot run-at-large, even under voice

command, and they must wear their current license and rabies tags at all times.

• There are four dog parks in Fayette County where dogs can run off-leash in designated areas: Masterson Station Park, Jacobson Park, Coldstream Park, and Wellington Park.

• The Animal Care and Control Center receives and cares for around 7,000 stray, abandoned, and relinquished pets each year.

Urban Wildlife Source Reduction• Modify habitat, reduce

food sources (dumpsters, trash cans, restaurants)

• Install grates to block animals from storm drain inlets and outlets

• Keep storm drains clean• Trap and relocate wildlife

Livestock waste management BMPs

Most work equally well for cattle and horses

Very good system of BMP targeting and implementation in Fayette County

Livestock exclusion from streams

Via fencing and alternative water/shade Development of vegetated buffers along streams

Management of large quantities of waste where livestock are confined

Siting facilities away from the drainage system

Collecting and land‐applying manure

Manure storage under sheds, tarps, etc.

Recommended control approach

• Identify the primary sources– e.g., goose ponds, pet areas

• Institute source controls– Infrastructure, non-structural

• Assess remaining sources– e.g., raccoons, bird roosts, etc.

• Implement targeted BMPs– Deterrence, infiltration, detention, etc.

Today’s SSAC Survey:

How Would You Prioritize Lexington's Animal Bacteria

Management Practices?

Domestic Pets (dogs & cats)A. Conduct surveys to better understand pet

ownership patterns and pet owner waste practices at home and on walks.

B. Perform targeted observations to identify heavy pet use areas, waste pick-up practices, and the presence of signage and disposal facilities.

C. Identify, characterize, and address outdoor pet facilities with possible waste management challenges.

Domestic Pets (dogs & cats)

D. Identify popular dog walk routes near ditches, channels, and streams for potential installation of vegetated buffer areas.

E. Continue the current level of pet waste pickup outreach and education efforts.

F. Significantly increase current pet waste pickup outreach and education efforts (e.g., promotional campaigns, signs, waste containers, ordinance enforcement publicity, etc.).

Complete relevant survey section

Urban Waterfowl (geese & ducks)A. Develop and implement a targeted

education, outreach, and training program homeowner associations and pond managers on measures to deter resident waterfowl populations at ponds.

B. Implement and evaluate waterfowl deterrent measures at selected ponds, such as habitat alteration, no-feeding signage, noisemakers, string/wire grids, sprinklers, use of trained dogs, etc.

Urban Waterfowl (geese & ducks)

C. Support goose removal operations at targeted ponds with agreeable owners.

D. Support a program to target and treat goose nests and eggs to reduce goose reproduction rates.

Complete relevant survey section

Other Urban Wildlife

A. Identify bridges currently housing bird roosts / nests for retrofitting with wire, nets, spikes, and other deterrent measures.

B. Implement a program to promote redirection of roof downspouts to vegetated areas, to minimize bird droppings and animal scat from entering the storm drainage system.

Other Urban WildlifeC. Review existing waste and dumpster

ordinances to identify and address any shortcomings regarding nuisance animal issues (e.g., covers for food waste dumpsters in Section 16-4.1(d)).

D. Increase compliance with and enforcement of dumpster and trash management ordinances to deter rats, raccoons, and other animals.

E. Identify and address priority problem areas where animals are accessing and/or dwelling in stormwater pipes and ditches.

Complete relevant survey section

Livestock (cattle, horses, etc.)A. Partner with recognized agricultural agencies

and organizations to identify and address farm-based livestock bacteria “hot spots” in or near urban areas.

B. Evaluate the development and implementation of an incentive grant program that targets livestock bacteria “hot spot” areas.

C. Identify, characterize, and address animal facilities with possible waste management challenges in or near urban areas, such as vet clinics, horse farms, stables, urban livestock, etc.

Complete relevant survey section

Next Steps

1. Review Today’s Survey Results2. Draft TMDL Implementation Strategy, including BMP Implementation Schedule3. Submit to KDOW for review / comment

Nomination / Election of

Watershed At-Large Seats

North ElkhornSouth Elkhorn

Topics for Next Meeting

1. Review Today’s Survey Results2. “No P on My Lawn!” – Stormwater Quality Projects Incentive Grant3. Update on MCMs 1 & 2, including a report from Bluegrass Greensource

Future Meeting Topics:• LFCHD Epidemiology Studies• Update on Incentive Grant Projects

Announcements

West Hickman Watershed Council – see handoutCane Run Watershed Festival – Saturday, 9/16, 11:00a-3:00pPublic Hearing for Spindletop and Ponderosa Trailer Parks –Wednesday, 9/27, 6:00pSESWA Annual Conference in Louisville – 10/11-10/13Water Quality Fees Board Meeting – Thursday, 10/12, 9:00aWFMP Volunteer Appreciation & Monitoring Results Review Reception – Friday, 10/20, 3:00p-5:00p