Transcript Water Quality Presentation

Introduction
Methods
Lac la Nonne Water Quality
Report 2004
Nutrients, Bacteria and Caffeine
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
Jean-Francois Bouffard, B.I.T.
Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd.
April 16, 2005
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Introduction
• Stream Study
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
– LEPA
– AAFRD (Sarah Depoe)
– AAFC-PFRA (Jason Vanrobaeys)
• Caffeine
– LEPA and Aquality
• Bacteria
– LEPA, ARHA, and Aquality
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Methods
• Stream survey
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
– 8 sites sampled during April 2004
– During spring thaw (April 1st, 5th,
7th, 12th, and 20th)
• Parameters
– Nutrients, bacteria, ions, metals
and pesticides (1 Site)
– Flow gauging
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Methods
• Caffeine
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
– May 21 (composite sampling)
• 11 sites LLN – 3 bottles apiece
• 2 streams
• 2 beaches - Nakamun
– Sept 7 – Follow up on May
sampling – in lake only
• Bacteria
– In lake samples taken with ARHA
during May 11th sampling
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Results
LLN Stream Water Quality Data (TP)
0.9
Introduction
0.8
Methods
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5
Site 6
Site 7
Site 8
0.7
Results
Discussion
(mg/L)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
The Next Steps
0.2
0.1
0
1-Apr-04
5-Apr-04
7-Apr-04
12-Apr-04
20-Apr-04
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Results
LLN Stream Water Quality Results (TN)
Introduction
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5
Site 6
Site 7
Site 8
8
Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
Methods
9
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1-Apr-04
5-Apr-04
7-Apr-04
12-Apr-04
20-Apr-04
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Results
LLN Stream Water Quality Results (E.coli )
500
Introduction
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5
Site 6
Site 7
Site 8
400
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
(CFU/100ml)
Methods
300
200
100
0
1-Apr-04
5-Apr-04
7-Apr-04
12-Apr-04
20-Apr-04
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Results
May 21st, 2004
Sept 7th, 2004
MDL = 0.02 mg/L
MDL = 0.02 mg/L
Majeau Creek
0.02
NA
Nakamun Creek
ND
-
Site 1
ND
-
Site 2
ND
-
Site 3
0.01*
ND
Site 4
ND
-
Site 5
0.01*
ND
Site 6
ND
-
Site 7
ND
-
Site 8
ND
-
Site 9
0.04
ND
Site 10
ND
-
Site Name
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Results
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
Sample Location
Total Coliforms
(CFU)
Fecal Coliforms
(CFU)
Birch Cove
less than 10
less than 10
McFadzen's
10
less than 10
McDonald's Farm
less than 10
less than 10
Kildeer Beach
less than 10
less than 10
Camp Encounter
20
less than 10
Moonlight Bay
less than 10
less than 10
White Rock Beach
less than 10
less than 10
Volunteer Cabin
20
20
Camp Nakamun
At Least 10
less than 10
* Precise quantification could not be done for this sample due to background
growth
All samples were processed as "Suspected Sewage". Coliform Counts were
determined by Membrane Filtration per 100 ml
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Discussion
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
• Nutrients were highest in early
April
• TP and TN exceeded ASWQ
guidelines for the Protection of
Aquatic Life in 100% of the
samples
• NO2-N – 40% compliant
• E.Coli – 91% compliant
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Discussion
TP
TN
NO2-N
E. coli
Guideline:
ASWQG
ASWQG
ASWQG
ASWQG
Protection:
PAL
PAL
PAL
Recreation
0.05 mg/L
1.0 mg/L
0.018 mg/L
200/100 mL
Guideline Value:
n
C
n
C
n
C
n
C
Site 1
4
0
4
0
4
2
4
2
Site 2
4
0
4
0
4
1
4
4
Site 3
4
0
4
0
4
1
4
2
Site 4
5
0
5
0
5
3
5
5
Site 5
5
0
5
0
5
1
5
5
Site 6
5
0
5
0
5
2
5
5
Site 7
4
0
4
0
4
2
4
4
Site 8
4
0
4
0
4
2
4
4
# Samples
35
0
35
2
35
14
35
31
% Compliant
0.00%
0.00%
40.00%
91%
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
AAWQI Index
Site No.
AAWQI Nutrient
Sub Index
Score
Ranking
1
24.5
Poor
2
17.0
Poor
3
13.3
Poor
Discussion
4
53.3
Marginal
The Next Steps
5
15.6
Poor
6
23.0
Poor
7
19.7
Poor
8
8.8
Poor
Introduction
Methods
Results
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Discussion
• Typical of other Alberta Streams
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
– CAESA/AESA study 1996-2003
– Lac la Nonne watershed
considered to have moderate Ag
intensity
(Anderson, A-M, S.E.Cooke and N. MacAlpine. 1999)
The Next Steps
– Other watersheds of similar Ag
intensity produce similar results
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Discussion
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
• Bacteria showed decreasing
trend
• High counts at Site 1 and 3
indicate recent fecal
contamination
• Trace exact source using
Microbial Source Tracking
techniques
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Discussion
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
• Only 1 pesticide (2-4, D) was
detected
– Extremely low levels
– Toxic to fish at much higher levels,
minimal effect on humans
• Change timing of sample
collection
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Discussion
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
• The detection of caffeine in Lac
la Nonne confirms that human
sewage is entering the lake
• Possible sources include
– Older/leaky septic systems
– Illegal dumping/release of septage
– Improperly placed outhouses
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
The Next Step
• Minimize runoff
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
– Preserving riparian areas
– Restore wetlands
• Accurate nutrient budget
– Debate over sources of nutrients
• 57% from cleared lands (Mitchell and
Prepas, 1991)
– Uncertain other sources
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
The Next Step
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
• Investigation into sources of
human sewage
– Septic tank inspections
• Continue monitoring as a
deterrent
• Probably the easiest source of
nutrients to control
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
The Next Step
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
• Complete and thorough State of
the Watershed Report
– Moose Lake, Lac la Biche, etc.
• Watershed Management Plan
under Alberta Water Act
• Continue education and
outreach
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Acknowledgements
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
• LEPA and the volunteers who
made all the sampling happen
• Jason Vanrobaeys – PFRA
• Sarah Depoe – AAFRD
• Jay White - Aquality
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Thanks!
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Prediction
Introduction
Methods
Results
Conclusion
The Next Steps
• Avg daily urine prod =1.4L
• Avg urine caffeine conc = 1500
µg/L
• Adult urine caffeine production =
2100 µg
• Avg urination freq = 5x daily
• Volume of flush = 9.8 L= 49
L/Day
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Prediction
Introduction
Methods
Results
Conclusion
The Next Steps
Adult caffeine produced per day
Total amount of water
=
2100 µg caffeine
50.4 L
=
= 42 µg/L (Predicted)
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Prediction
• Detection level = 0.02 µg/L
Introduction
Methods
• Predicted conc. = 42 µg/L
Results
Conclusion
The Next Steps
• Possible to detect caffeine
diluted up to 2100 times!
Fecal Contamination Issues
• Human and animal feces contain high levels of
nutrients
• Nutrients limited in aquatic systems
– Phosphorus
– Nitrogen
• Contains several pathogens which can be fatal
to humans and others (contact or ingestion)
Effect of Excess Phosphorus
• Primary Impacts
– Excessive macrophyte
growth
– Algal blooms
– Negative impact on
livestock
Fecal contamination is a public health
risk
– Drinking water contamination, contact
recreation, harvest of irrigated foods
‘Water contaminated with human feces are generally
regarded as a greater risk to human health, as they are
more likely to contain human-specific enteric pathogens’
T. Scott et al. 2002
Pathogen Class
Examples
Disease
Bacteria
Shigella spp.
Salmonella spp.
Salmonella typhi
Vibrio cholerae
EnteropathogenicEscherichia coli
Yersina spp.
Campylobacter jejuni
Bacilary disease
Salmonellosis (gastroenteritis)
Typhoid fever
Cholera
A variety of gastroenteric diseases
Haemolytic Uretic Syndrome
Yersiniosis (gastroenteritis)
Campylobacteriosis (gastroenteritis)
Viruses
Hepatitis A Virus
Norwalk Virus
Rotaviruses
Polioviruses
Coxsackie viruses
Echoviruses
Reoviruses
Astroviruses
Calciviruses
Infectious hepatitis
Acute gastroenteritis
Acute gastroenteritis
Poliomyelitis
“Flu-like” symptoms
“Flu-like” symptoms
Respiratory infections, gastroenteritis
Epidemic gastroenteritis
Epidemic gastroenteritis
Protozoa
Entamoeba histolytica
Giardia lambilia
Cryptosporidium spp.
Balantidium coli
Toxoplasma gondii
Amebiasis (amoebic dysentery)
Giardiasis (gastroenteritis)
Cryptosporidiosis (gastroenteritis)
Balantidiasis (gastroenteritis)
Toxoplasmosis
Nematodes
(Roundworms)
Ascaris lumbricoides
Trichuris trichiura
Ascaris suum
Toxocara canis
Necator americanus
Digestive and nutritional imbalances, abdominal pain,
vomiting, restlessness
Abdominal pain, diarrhea, anemia, weight loss
Symptoms such as coughing, chest pain and fever
Fever, abdominal discomfort, muscle aches, neurological
symptoms
Hookworm disease, anemia
Cestodes
(Tapeworms)
Taenia spp.
Hymenolepsis nana
Nervousness, insomnia, anorexia, abdominal pain, digestive
disturbances
Same as for Taenia sp.
Sources of Fecal Contamination
• Residential sources
• Lakeside
cottages/subdivisions
– Leaky septic systems
– Rogue dumping
– Improper outhouse
placement
• Urban effluent
Sources of Fecal Contamination
• Agricultural sources
– Feedlots
– In-situ watering by
cattle
– Manure application
practices (timing,
amount)
Sources of Fecal Contamination
• Wildlife sources
– Bear, elk, deer, birds, etc.
What is BST?
• Using DNA fingerprinting to identify sources of
microbial contamination in surface water.
• Term coined in 2002 by Hagedorn and Wiggins
What is BST?
• Methods fall into 3 categories: molecular,
biochemical and chemical
• No standard method developed
• Emerging area of
research and technology
development, particularly
for drinking water
How does it work?
• Fecal bacteria are
uniquely adapted to the
host animal in which
they live
• Using DNA analysis
techniques we can
identify these markers
in fecal bacteria
How it is Done
• Samples collected
around the watershed
• Fecal bacteria are
cultured and analyzed
in lab
• Compared to preexisting database
Identifying Sources of
Contamination
• Pinpoint by taking
samples at suspected
sources
– Analyzed
– New genetic markers
added to project
database
Dealing with Suspected Sources of
Contamination
• Collect samples from
location downstream
of suspected
contamination source
• Results compared to
samples in database
Advantages
• This technique has a much greater power
of resolution compared to previous
methods
• No longer tracking an analog of fecal
contamination
• Allows us to create mitigation plans based
on better knowledge
Canadian Examples
• Research at the University of Victoria
(Maeys and Mazumder, 2004)
• Elbow River study: ruminants and humans
(Sosiak and Dixon, 2004)
• Aquality to provide as a commercial
service (Spring, 2005)
Further Study
• More comparative studies to determine
best method for watershed studies
• Field protocol: timing, number of samples
collected, number of isolates identified,
location and number of sites
• Need to optimize analytical and statistical
methods to minimize sources of error
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Introduction
Methods
Results
Conclusion
The Next Steps