E.Coli Resources for Municipal Stormwater Management:

Resource Docs:

• EPA TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL) DECISION RATIONALE TMDL: Jordan River Watershed E. Coli TMDLs

PET WASTE DISPOSAL AND PET CONTROL ORDINANCES

Salt Lake County data show that pet waste is a major contributor to E.coli in the Jordan River Watershed. Municipal pet waste control programs may be an effective means of reducing E.coli. Elements of pet waste control programs may include:

• Providing park and trail signs regarding pet waste disposal requirements and leash laws.

• Providing disposal cans at conveniently spaced intervals on trails and in open space areas. Some communities allow advertising on signs placed at pet waste bag dispensers and disposal cans to partially offset the cost (e.g., Scoop The Poop).

• Providing and properly maintaining off-leash dog parks, preferably at locations that do not directly drain to receiving waters. Improperly maintained dog parks can become a source of FIB (fecal indicator bacteria), rather than a stormwater control, if not properly managed.

• Allowing natural riparian buffers to grow alongside streams to dissuade pet access.

• Providing educational materials regarding the impact of improperly disposed pet waste. These materials can be made available in locations such as pet stores, animal shelters, veterinary offices, and other sites frequented by pet owners.

• Enforcing pet waste ordinances and leash laws (or developing them, if they do not exist). While most communities have pet waste ordinances “on the books”, enforcement of these ordinances may not routinely occur in many communities. In areas with significantly elevated FIB, allocation of resources to park and open space rangers to enforce pet waste disposal controls and leash laws may be needed.

  Effectiveness of pet waste control programs is not well documented in terms of instream responses to implementation of such programs although several surveys and reports exist that attempt to quantify behavioral change associated with such programs. For example, the Phase I Report for the San Diego River Kelp and Dog Waste Management Plan for Dog Beach and Ocean Beach found that public compliance with the “scoop the poop” policy was highly dependent on awareness of the policy and availability of waste disposal bags and trash cans (Weston 2004). Public surveys in the City of Austin indicated their educational campaign resulted in a nearly 10% improvement in the number of pet owners who claim to regularly pick up waste (City of Austin 2008). Studies in San Diego have shown that installation of pet waste stations has resulted in a nearly 40% reduction in the total amount of pet waste in city parks (City of San Diego 2011)

BIRD CONTROL

Birds are a common source of FIB. In particular, geese are considered a public nuisance due to large populations, creating large amounts of feces, especially in open-space areas (e.g., parks, playing fields, ponds) (Manny et al. 1975, French and Parkhurst 2009, Bowen and Valiela 2004, Kear 1963). Clark (2003) reported that non-migratory Canada geese increased eight-fold in a 20-year period (1980s to early 2000s) in North America. Pigeons, blackbirds, starlings, ducks, and other birds also can pose similar problems when they roost on public buildings and bridges. Birds aredocumented sources of elevated FIB in many studies. Examples include research by Alderisio and Deluca (1999), Stoeckel (2010), Kolb and Roberts (2009), Kirschner et al. (2004), Shergill and Pitt (2004), Hussong et al. (1979), Fleming and Fraser (2001) and many others. For this reason, a fairly detailed discussion of potential control strategies for birds follows, since most urban areas are expected to have at least some contribution of FIB from birds.

The University of Nebraska at Lincoln (2010), USDA APHIS (1994a&b, 2003), the Internet Center for Wildlife Damage Management (www.icwdm.org) and others provide guidance on control strategies for geese. Canada geese are protected by federal and state laws. While it is illegal to intentionally kill a wild goose (other than during licensed hunting seasons) or to harm nesting geese and eggs without a permit, there are a number of methods used to discourage geese from congregating in specific areas. Non-lethal control activities do not require federal or state permits, and most non-lethal activities can be conducted throughout the year, except using trained dogs for hazing. Any activities that result in handling, damage, or destruction of geese, their eggs or nests require permits (CPW 2014).

Effective geese control often requires early detection of the problem, persistence, and use of multiple methods (CPW 2014). High densities of resident Canada geese are common in Salt Lake County parks and ponds.

The list below summarizes measures that have been used for geese control, followed by additional discussion of several of these measures. Overall, USDA APHIS (2009) recommends that the most efficient and effective way to manage resident geese is to harass them before nests are built. If this is not possible, nest destruction and egg oiling are the best options.

Technique

Public Education

Discontinuance of feeding

Habitat modification

Porcupine wires (for roosting waterfowl and pigeons)
Eliminate shorelines, islands, peninsulas (in constructed waterbodies) String wire lines or place Mylar tape grids above roosting and pond areas Fence barriers
Vegetative barriers (taller grasses)
Rock barriers
Floating plastic balls (may wash away during storms)
Reduce or eliminate mowing (adjacent to waterbodies)
Place walking path near water
Place playing fields away from water

Deterrence Measures (may have short-term effectiveness)
Sprinklers and motion-detected activated sprayers
Pyrotechnics
Sonic Devices: ultrasonics, distress calls, sirens, horns whistles, propane cannons

Active Visual Deterrents: strobe lights, lasers, light beams
Passive Visual Deterrents: "eye-spot" balloons or kites, flags, scarecrows, floating predator decoys (benefits may be temporary, as waterfowl may habituate over time)

Dispersion Measures

Dogs
Swans (can also be a source of FIB) Falcons (often impractical to maintain) Radio-controlled aircraft or boats

Chemical Repellents (methyl anthranilate)

Reproductive Controls

Removing nesting materials (before egg laying) Oil/addle/puncture eggs (during incubation)
Replace eggs with dummy eggs
Sterilization (oral contraception or surgical neutering)

Removal

Relocate (may not be effective)
Various lethal measures (e.g., hunts, kill permits)

July 2016 Colorado E. coli Toolbox 52

Questions remain as to the long-term benefits of various control measures; however, several case studies suggest that combinations of these control measures can be successful in reducing FIB concentrations (e.g., NYCDEP 2014, Swallow 2010).

The USDA has developed control strategies for other bird species, including pigeons (Williams and Corrigan 1994), blackbirds (Dolbeer 1994), and swallows (Salmon and Gorenzel 2005), as a few examples. Of these birds, pigeons are often a dominant concern in urban areas. Measures listed as alternatives by the USDA-APHIS for pigeons are summarized in Table 10. Some of these measures would not be expected to be appropriate in urban areas (e.g., shooting, certain toxicants).

In summary, birds can contribute substantially to FIB loading to receiving waters, posing challenges to attainment of numeric water quality limits for FIB. The extent of the impact of birds and the success of control measures varies based on site-specific conditions. A variety of source control measures have been developed by state and federal agencies to help manage the impacts of birds. These measures typically require on-going attention and the effectiveness of these measures may vary over time and require adjustments to reduce the likelihood of habituation to the technique

Other Resources: