introduction methods results discussion the next steps lac la nonne water quality report 2004...

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

The Next Steps

Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004

Nutrients, Bacteria and Caffeine

Jean-Francois Bouffard, B.I.T.Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd.

April 16, 2005

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

The Next Steps

• Stream Study– LEPA– AAFRD (Sarah Depoe)– AAFC-PFRA (Jason Vanrobaeys)

• Caffeine– LEPA and Aquality

• Bacteria– LEPA, ARHA, and Aquality

Introduction


Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

The Next Steps

Methods

• Stream survey– 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


Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

The Next Steps


Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

The Next Steps

Methods• Caffeine

– 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

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

The Next Steps

ResultsLLN Stream Water Quality Data (TP)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1-Apr-04 5-Apr-04 7-Apr-04 12-Apr-04 20-Apr-04

(mg/

L)

Site 1

Site 2

Site 3

Site 4

Site 5

Site 6

Site 7

Site 8


Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

The Next Steps

ResultsLLN Stream Water Quality Results (TN)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9


To

tal

Nit

rog

en (

mg

/L)

Site 1

Site 2

Site 3

Site 4

Site 5

Site 6

Site 7

Site 8


Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

The Next Steps

ResultsLLN Stream Water Quality Results (E.coli )

0

100

200

300

400

500


(CF

U/1

00m

l)Site 1

Site 2

Site 3

Site 4

Site 5

Site 6

Site 7

Site 8


Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

The Next Steps

Results May 21st, 2004 Sept 7th, 2004

Site Name 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 -


Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

The Next Steps

Sample LocationTotal 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

Results


Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

The Next Steps

Discussion

• 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


Discussion TP TN NO2-N E. coli

Guideline: ASWQG ASWQG ASWQG ASWQG

Protection: PAL PAL PAL Recreation

Guideline Value: 0.05 mg/L 1.0 mg/L 0.018 mg/L 200/100 mL

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%


Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

The Next Steps

AAWQI IndexSite No. AAWQI Nutrient

Sub Index Score

Ranking

1 24.5 Poor

2 17.0 Poor

3 13.3 Poor

4 53.3 Marginal

5 15.6 Poor

6 23.0 Poor

7 19.7 Poor

8 8.8 Poor


Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

The Next Steps

Discussion

• Typical of other Alberta Streams– 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)

– Other watersheds of similar Ag intensity produce similar results


Discussion

• Bacteria showed decreasing trend

• High counts at Site 1 and 3 indicate recent fecal contamination

• Trace exact source using Microbial Source Tracking techniques


Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

The Next Steps

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

The Next Steps

Discussion

• 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


Discussion

• 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


Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

The Next Steps

The Next Step

• Minimize runoff– Preserving riparian areas– Restore wetlands

• Accurate nutrient budget– Debate over sources of

nutrients• 57% from cleared lands (Mitchell

and Prepas, 1991)

– Uncertain other sources


Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

The Next Steps

The Next Step

• Investigation into sources of human sewage– Septic tank inspections

• Continue monitoring as a deterrent

• Probably the easiest source of nutrients to control


Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

The Next Steps

The Next Step

• 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


Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

The Next Steps

Acknowledgements

• LEPA and the volunteers who made all the sampling happen

• Jason Vanrobaeys – PFRA• Sarah Depoe – AAFRD• Jay White - Aquality


Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

The Next Steps

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

The Next Steps

Thanks!Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

The Next Steps

Prediction• 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


Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

The Next Steps

Prediction

Adult caffeine produced per day Total amount of water

=2100 µg caffeine

50.4 L=

= 42 µg/L (Predicted)


Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

The Next Steps

Prediction

• Detection level = 0.02 µg/L

• Predicted conc. = 42 µg/L

• 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 typhiVibrio choleraeEnteropathogenic-Escherichia coliYersina spp.Campylobacter jejuni

Bacilary diseaseSalmonellosis (gastroenteritis)Typhoid feverCholeraA variety of gastroenteric diseasesHaemolytic Uretic Syndrome Yersiniosis (gastroenteritis)Campylobacteriosis (gastroenteritis)

Viruses Hepatitis A VirusNorwalk VirusRotavirusesPoliovirusesCoxsackie virusesEchovirusesReovirusesAstrovirusesCalciviruses

Infectious hepatitisAcute gastroenteritisAcute gastroenteritisPoliomyelitis“Flu-like” symptoms“Flu-like” symptomsRespiratory infections, gastroenteritisEpidemic gastroenteritisEpidemic gastroenteritis

Protozoa Entamoeba histolyticaGiardia lambiliaCryptosporidium spp.Balantidium coliToxoplasma gondii

Amebiasis (amoebic dysentery)Giardiasis (gastroenteritis)Cryptosporidiosis (gastroenteritis)Balantidiasis (gastroenteritis)Toxoplasmosis

Nematodes(Roundworms)

Ascaris lumbricoidesTrichuris trichiuraAscaris suumToxocara canisNecator americanus

Digestive and nutritional imbalances, abdominal pain,vomiting, restlessnessAbdominal pain, diarrhea, anemia, weight lossSymptoms such as coughing, chest pain and feverFever, abdominal discomfort, muscle aches, neurologicalsymptomsHookworm disease, anemia

Cestodes(Tapeworms)

Taenia spp.Hymenolepsis nana

Nervousness, insomnia, anorexia, abdominal pain, digestivedisturbancesSame as for Taenia sp.

Sources of Fecal Contamination

• Residential sources• Lakeside

cottages/subdivisions– Leaky septic systems– Rogue dumping– Improper outhouse

placement

• Urban effluent


• Agricultural sources– Feedlots– In-situ watering by

cattle– Manure application

practices (timing, amount)


• 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 pre-existing database

Identifying Sources of Contamination

• Pinpoint by taking samples at suspected sources– Analyzed– New genetic markers

added to project database

• Collect samples from location downstream of suspected contamination source

• Results compared to samples in database

Dealing with Suspected Sources of Contamination

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


Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

The Next Steps

introduction methods results discussion the next steps lac la nonne water quality report 2004...

Documents