Analysis of Recreational Water Characteristics
A Thesis
Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Master of Applied Science
in Environmental Systems Engineering
University of Regina
By
Christopher Frederick Seeley
Regina, Saskatchewan
March 2015
copyright 2015: Christopher Seeley
UNIVERSITY OF REGINA
FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES AND RESEARCH
SUPERVISORY AND EXAMINING COMMITTEE
Christopher Frederick Seeley, candidate for the degree of Master of Applied Science in Environmental Systems Engineering, has presented a thesis titled, Analysis of Recreational Water Characteristics, in an oral examination held on February 13, 2015. The following committee members have found the thesis acceptable in form and content, and that the candidate demonstrated satisfactory knowledge of the subject material.
External Examiner: Dr. Biplob Das, Saskatchewan Water Security Agency
Supervisor: Dr. Dena McMartin, Environmental Systems Engineering
Committee Member: Dr. Guo H. Huang, Environmental Systems Engineering
Committee Member: Dr. Satish Sharma, Environmental Systems Engineering
Chair of Defense: Dr. Christopher Oriet, Department of Psychology
Abstract Users of natural recreational waters may be exposed to physical hazards and pathogens
that are present in the environment. These pathogens may be natural or resulting from
human activities, which in turn can be from point source and non-point source pollution.
In Canada, recreational water quality monitoring generally falls under provincial and
territorial jurisdictions. An environmental health monitoring program developed through
this research attempts to characterize and communicate the physical and biological risks associated with recreational water use.
Some items addressed during this research include:
1) Determination of the parameters correlated to water quality at beaches
2) Selection of beaches for further monitoring
Within the current research and monitoring approaches, there are gaps in knowledge with respect to the factors that affect water quality at a recreational beach setting. While many research papers have considered time series data from one or two beaches, there remain questions with respect to which beaches should be selected for monitoring. Thus, the following hypothesis was formulated and tested.
That the physical characteristics of a beach area are not correlated with water quality
when considered in conjunction with environmental factors (null hypothesis).
The hypothesis, which was rejected, is important as many jurisdictions only monitor a select number of beaches. Based on the results from testing and subsequently rejecting, the hypothesis, two models were developed.
ii
The first model attempts to explain the geometric mean of E. coli and includes such
parameters of significance as turbidity and Secchi disc data, residential density, water
temperature, pH, beach grooming, wind speed, stormwater runoff, parking facilities,
presence of seaweed and algae, numbers of swimmers present, bird populations and
whether or not pets are permitted at the beach area. The second model describes the
probability of detecting E. coli and can be represented by the same parameters including
turbidity (both average and maximum), water temperature, parking facilities, and
presence of seaweed and algae. Parameters that differ in this model include conductivity, number of toilets, occurrence of rainfall in the previous 24-hours, and prevailing winds both parallel and onshore to the beach area. Based on these two models, a process for ranking beaches to select those that should be sampled in any given year was developed.
The following criteria were applied for making those environmental monitoring and
resource allocation decisions:
A significant residential density should surround the beach. In addition, the area
surrounding the beach can drain to the beach area
The beach should be popular with swimmers. This could perhaps be measured by the
number of toilets.
The beach should allow pets on the beach.
Waterfowl should frequent the beach area.
High amounts of seaweed and algae in the swimming area should be common. This
could be due to blue-green algae blooms.
The beach should have a parking lot available for users.
Beaches in areas with more wind should be preferred
Beaches where the water temperature is typically higher should be preferred.
iii
Acknowledgement I would like to thank all those that contributed to this project. This includes the Director
of Environmental Health, Tim Macaulay, with the Saskatchewan Ministry of Health.
Without his vision, sampling of recreational beaches in Saskatchewan would never have
occurred. Further, the Ministry organized, paid for and completed all the sampling efforts
required for this project. A sampling effort as large as this one would never be possible
without the cooperation of field staff, in particular the summer employees at the Ministry
who coordinated and sampled the majority of the locations over the time period. Due to
their dedication, the quality and quantity of data is sufficient to complete the analysis
contained herein. Beach managers, health regions and their field staff as well as others at
the Ministry of Health also played a large role in ensuring the sampling program’s
success.
I would also like to thank Dr. McMartin for her patience and support through my long journey through graduate studies. Her advice and supervision was critical in completing this project.
iii
Dedication Lastly and most importantly, I would like to thank my family for their love and support.
Many weekends, while I was writing my thesis, and evenings, while I was completing course work, were spent without me. My wife looked after all the things I couldn’t during this time. Most importantly, she has taken care of our children during those times I was away. I am in their debt as without her and the children’s support I could never have completed this program.
iv
Contents
Abstract ...... ii Acknowledgement ...... iii Dedication ...... iv List of Tables ...... vii List of Figures ...... x List of Appendices ...... xiii List of Abbreviations ...... xiv 1 Introduction ...... 1 2 Objectives ...... 3 3 Background ...... 4 3.1 Field of Interest ...... 4 3.1.1 EH Program development description ...... 4 3.1.2 Recreational Water Illness ...... 5 Sources of Contamination ...... 6 3.1.3 Factors Affecting Recreational Water Quality ...... 8 Time Independent Variables ...... 9 Time dependent variables ...... 10 3.1.4 Previous Modeling ...... 13 3.2 Modeling Techniques ...... 14 4 Experimental Methods and Materials ...... 17 4.1 Study Area ...... 17 4.2 Sampling Methodology ...... 20 4.2.1 Standard Equipment ...... 20 4.2.2 Sample Site Selection ...... 21 4.2.3 Surface Water Sampling Procedure ...... 21 4.2.4 Storage and Shipping of Samples ...... 22 4.2.5 Forms and Records ...... 23 4.3 Instrumentation/Simulation ...... 23 4.4 Laboratory and/or Field Techniques ...... 23 4.4.1 Environmental Health Sanitary Survey ...... 23
v
4.4.2 Sample Collection Form ...... 28 4.5 Information about the Analysis Technique ...... 32 Regression Techniques ...... 32 Dependent Variable ...... 32 Independent Variable Selection ...... 33 Testing the Linear Model Assumptions ...... 34 Testing Logistic Model Assumptions ...... 36 Performance metrics ...... 36 5 Results ...... 38 5.1.1 Independent Variables ...... 38 5.1.2 Dependant Variables ...... 41 E.coli Geometric Mean ...... 41 5.2 Model 1 ...... 42 5.2.1 Model Assumption Tests ...... 45 Correctly Specified model ...... 45 Zero population mean ...... 47 Autocorrelation ...... 47 Heteroskedasticity ...... 48 Multicollinearity ...... 57 5.2.2 Model interpretation...... 58 5.3 Model 2 ...... 59 5.3.1 Model Assumptions ...... 64 5.3.2 Model Interpretation ...... 65 5.4 Discussion ...... 66 5.5 Beach Selection ...... 69 6 Conclusions & Recommendations...... 72 6.1 Limitations ...... 73 7 References ...... 74
vi
List of Tables
Table 1: U.S. EPA Recreational Fresh Water Criteria ...... 4 Table 2: Health Canada Recreational Water Quality Guidelines ...... 4 Table 3 - Turgeon et al Variables Examined ...... 10 Table 5: Saskatchewan Watersheds and Their Status ...... 24 Table 6: Beaufort Wind Speed ...... 29
Table 4: Direction of Bias if X2 omitted ...... 35 Table 7: Beaches & Samples by Health Region ...... 38 Table 8: Statistically Significant T-Test Results ...... 39 Table 9: Model 1 Coefficients Steps 1 through 8 ...... 42 Table 10: Model 1 Coefficients Steps 9 through 16 ...... 43 Table 11: Linear Regression Summary Statistics ...... 44 Table 12: Linear Regression Results ...... 44 Table 13: Linear Regression Sum of Squares ...... 45 Table 14: Linear Regression Results with Robust Errors ...... 56 Table 15: Linear Regression with Robust Errors Summary Statistics ...... 57 Table 16: Variance Inflation Factors ...... 57 Table 17: Model 1 Parameters Interpretations ...... 58 Table 18: Model 2 Coefficients Steps 1 through 6 ...... 59 Table 19: Model 2 Coefficients Steps 7 through 12 ...... 61 Table 20: Model 2 Backwards elimination ...... 63 Table 21: Logistical Regression Results ...... 63 Table 22: Marginal Effects Model 2 ...... 65 Table 23: Model 2 Parameters Interpretations ...... 65 Table 24: Beach Ranking System ...... 70 Table 25: Top 20 Beaches...... 71 Table 26: Models ...... 244 Table 27: R2 between the Turbidity Parameters and E.coli Parameters ...... 258 Table 28: Turbidity R2 with Selected Variables ...... 259 Table 29: Turbidity Parameters and E.coli Detected T-Test Results ...... 259 Table 30: Air and Water Temperatures and E.coli Detected T-Test Results ...... 262 Table 31: Temperatures R2 versus Selected Variables ...... 262 Table 32: Sechi Disk and E.coli Detected T-Test Results ...... 264 Table 33: R2 between Sechi Disc and Selected Parameters ...... 264 Table 34: Wind Direction and E.coli Detected T-Test Results ...... 267 Table 35: R2 between Wind Direction and E. coli Parameters ...... 267 Table 36: Two Tailed T-test between Geometric Mean E.coli and Wind Speed 4&5 ... 270 Table 37: Wind Direction and E.coli Detected T-Test Results ...... 270 Table 38: : R2 between Wind Speed and E. coli Parameters ...... 270 Table 39: R2 between Wind Speed and Direction ...... 271
vii
Table 40: Swimmer Density and E.coli Geometric Mean T-Test Results ...... 273 Table 41: R2 between Swimmer Density and E.coli Parameters ...... 273 Table 42: Sunlight and E.coli Geometric Mean T-Test Results ...... 275 Table 43: Rainfall and E.coli Geometric Mean T-Test Results ...... 278 Table 44: R2 between Rainfall Parameters and E.coli Parameters ...... 278 Table 45: Maximum Wave Height and E.coli Geometric Mean T-Test Results ...... 280 Table 46: R2 between Maximum Wave Height and E.coli Parameters ...... 280 Table 47: Flooding and E.coli Geometric Mean T-Test Results ...... 281 Table 48: Number of Birds and E.coli Geometric Mean T-Test Results ...... 283 Table 49: R2 between the Number of Birds and E.coli Parameters ...... 283 Table 50: Sample pH parameters and E.coli Geometric Mean T-Test Results ...... 286 Table 51: R2 between the Sample pH and E.coli Parameters ...... 286 Table 52: Conductivity and E.coli Detected T-Test Results ...... 289 Table 53: R2 between the Sample Conductivity and E.coli Parameters ...... 289 Table 54: Time of Day and E.coli Detected T-Test Results ...... 291 Table 55: R2 between time of day and E.coli Parameters ...... 291 Table 56: Month and E.coli Detected T-Test Results ...... 294 Table 57: R2 between Sample Month and E. Coli Parameters ...... 295 Table 58: Seaweed and Algae levels in water and E.coli Detected T-Test Results ...... 298 Table 59: R2 between Seaweed and Algae amounts and E. coli Parameters ...... 299 Table 60: Pets Allowed and E.coli Parameters T-Test Results ...... 300 Table 61: R2 between Pets Allowed and E.coli Parameters ...... 300 Table 62: Residential Density Parameters and E.coli Parameters T-Test Results ...... 304 Table 63: R2 between the Residential Density Parameters and E.coli Parameters ...... 305 Table 64: Holding Tanks and E.coli Parameters T-Test Results ...... 307 Table 65: R2 between Holding Tanks and E.coli Parameters ...... 307 Table 66: Parking Lot Presence and E.coli Parameters T-Test Results ...... 309 Table 67: R2 between Parking Lot Availability and E.coli Parameters ...... 309 Table 68: Accessible by Road and E.coli Parameters T-Test Results ...... 311 Table 69: R2 between Road Accessibility and E.coli Parameters ...... 311 Table 70: Number of Toilets and E.coli Detected T-Test Results ...... 313 Table 71: R2 between Number of Toilets and E.coli Parameters ...... 313 Table 72: Runoff from Urban Areas and E.coli Parameters T-Test Results ...... 315 Table 73: R2 between Stormwater Runoff from Urban Areas and E.coliParameters .... 315 Table 74: Beach Materials and E.coli Detection T-Test Results ...... 319 Table 75: R2 between Beach Material and E.coli Parameters ...... 319 Table 76: Beach Size and E.coli Detection T-Test Results ...... 322 Table 77: R2 between Beach Size and E.coli Parameters ...... 322 Table 78: Surrounding Land Use and E.coli Detection T-Test Results ...... 322 Table 79: Land Use Parameter Interpretations ...... 324
viii
Table 80: R2 between Selected Land Uses and E.coli Parameters ...... 324 Table 81: Watershed Characteristics and E.coli Parameters T-Test Results ...... 327 Table 82: R2 between Watershed Status and E.coli Parameters ...... 327 Table 83: Beach Grooming and E.coli Geometric Mean T-Test Results ...... 330 Table 84: Strong Onshore Winds and E.coli Parameters T-Test Results ...... 331
ix
List of Figures
Figure 1: Ecozones and Ecoregions of Saskatchewan ...... 18 Figure 2: Health of watersheds based on condition indicators ...... 19 Figure 3: Beach Locations ...... 20 Figure 4: Beach Sampling Locations ...... 21 Figure 5: E.coli Geometric Mean Histogram ...... 41 Figure 6: Log of Maximum E.coli Histogram ...... 41 Figure 7: Maximum E.coli Histogram ...... 42 Figure 8 : Residuals versus Time ...... 47 Figure 9: Residual versus Previous Residual ...... 48 Figure 10: Square of Residual versus Birds ...... 49 Figure 11: Square of Residual versus Water Temperature ...... 49 Figure 12: Square of Residual versus Sechi Disk ...... 50 Figure 13: Square of Residual versus Residential Density - Medium ...... 50 Figure 14: Square of Residual versus Stormwater from Residential Areas ...... 51 Figure 15: Square of Residual versus Parking Lot Available ...... 51 Figure 16: Square of Residual versus Wind Speed ...... 52 Figure 17: Square of Residual versus Swimmer Number ...... 52 Figure 18: Square of Residual versus Wave Height To ...... 53 Figure 19: Square of Residual versus Beach Grooming in more than 24 Hours ...... 53 Figure 20: Square of Residual versus Seaweed & Algae - High ...... 54 Figure 21: Square of Residual versus pH ...... 54 Figure 22: Square of Residual versus Log of Average Turbidity ...... 55 Figure 23: Square of Residual versus Pets Allowed ...... 55 Figure 24: Average Turbidity Histogram ...... 255 Figure 25: Average Turbidity +1 Log Histogram ...... 256 Figure 26: Maximum Turbidity Histogram ...... 256 Figure 27: Natural Log of Maximum Turbidity +1 ...... 257 Figure 28: Turbidity versus Geometric Mean of E.coli ...... 258 Figure 29: Sample Turbidity versus E.coli Parameters ...... 259 Figure 30: Water and Air Temperature versus E. coli Parameters ...... 260 Figure 31: Box Plot of Air Temperature over E. coli Detected ...... 261 Figure 32: Box Plot of Water Temperature over E. coli Detected ...... 261 Figure 33: Sechi Disk Histogram ...... 263 Figure 34: Sechi Disk Versus E.coli & Turbidity Parameters ...... 264 Figure 35: Onshore Wind Versus E.coli Geometric Mean ...... 265 Figure 36: Offshore Wind Versus E.coli Geometric Mean ...... 266 Figure 37: Parallel Wind Versus E.coli Geometric Mean ...... 266 Figure 38: Wind Speed Versus E.coli Parameters ...... 268 Figure 39: Histogram of Wind Speed ...... 269
x
Figure 40: Geometric Mean of E.coli over Wind Speed ...... 269 Figure 41: E.coli Geometric Mean versus low Swimmer Density ...... 271 Figure 42: E.coli Geometric Mean versus Medium Swimmer Density ...... 272 Figure 43: E.coli Geometric Mean versus High Swimmer Density ...... 272 Figure 44: E.coli Geometric Mean versus Overcast Sun ...... 274 Figure 45: E.coli Geometric Mean versus Cloudy ...... 274 Figure 46: E.coli Geometric Mean versus Sunny ...... 275 Figure 47: Rainfall Parameters versus E.coli Parameters ...... 276 Figure 48: E.coli Geometric Mean versus Rainfall during Sampling ...... 277 Figure 49: E.coli Geometric Mean versus Rainfall in Last 24 Hours ...... 277 Figure 50: Maximum Wave Height Histogram ...... 279 Figure 51: Maximum Wave Height versus E.coli Parameters ...... 279 Figure 52: Presence of flooding versus E.coli Parameters ...... 281 Figure 53: Number of Birds on the Beach Histogram ...... 282 Figure 54: Number of Birds versus E.coli Parameters ...... 283 Figure 55: pH Histogram ...... 284 Figure 56: H+ Histogram ...... 285 Figure 57: Sample pH versus E.coli Parameters ...... 286 Figure 58: Conductivity Histogram ...... 287 Figure 59: Log of Conductivity Histogram ...... 288 Figure 60: Sample Conductivity versus E.coli Parameters ...... 289 Figure 61: Time of Day Histogram ...... 290 Figure 62: Sample Time of Day versus E.coli Parameters ...... 291 Figure 63: Geometric Mean of E.coli versus the Sample Month of June ...... 292 Figure 64: Geometric Mean of E.coli versus the Sample Month of July ...... 293 Figure 65: Geometric Mean of E.coli versus the Sample Month of August ...... 293 Figure 66: Geometric Mean of E.coli versus the Sample Month of September ...... 294 Figure 67: No Seaweed or Algae in the Swimming Area Box Plot ...... 296 Figure 68: Low Seaweed and Algae in Water Box Plot ...... 296 Figure 69: Medium Seaweed and Algae in Water Box Plot ...... 297 Figure 70: High Seaweed and Algae in Water Box Plot ...... 297 Figure 71: Pets Allowed Box Plot ...... 300 Figure 72: No Residential Density Box Plot ...... 301 Figure 73: Low Residential Density Box Plot ...... 302 Figure 74: Medium Residential Density Box Plot ...... 302 Figure 75: High Residential Density Box Plot ...... 303 Figure 76: Any Residential Density Box Plot ...... 303 Figure 77: Residential Parameter Parameters versus E.coli Parameters ...... 304 Figure 78: Holding Tanks Box Plot ...... 306 Figure 79: Presence of Holding Tanks versus E.coli Parameters ...... 307
xi
Figure 80: Parking Available Box Plot ...... 308 Figure 81: Presence of a Parking Lot versus E.coli Parameters ...... 309 Figure 82: Accessible by Road Box Plot ...... 310 Figure 83: Accessible by Road versus E.coli Parameters ...... 311 Figure 84: Number of Toilets Histogram ...... 312 Figure 85: Number of Toilets versus E.coli Parameters ...... 313 Figure 86: Runoff from Residential Areas Box Plot ...... 314 Figure 87: Runoff from Urban Areas versus E.coli Parameters ...... 315 Figure 88: Beach Material -Mucky Box Plot ...... 316 Figure 89: Beach Material - Rocky Box Plot ...... 317 Figure 90: Beach Material - Sandy Box Plot ...... 317 Figure 91: Beach Material - Other Box Plot ...... 318 Figure 92: Beach Materials versus E.coli Parameters ...... 318 Figure 93: Beach Length Histogram ...... 320 Figure 94: Beach Width Histogram ...... 321 Figure 95: Beach Size versus E.coli Parameters ...... 321 Figure 96: Geometric Mean of E. coli versus Healthy Watershed ...... 325 Figure 97: Geometric Mean of E.coli versus Stressed Watershed ...... 326 Figure 98: Geometric Mean of E.coli versus Impacted Watershed ...... 326 Figure 99: Beach Grooming in the last 24 hours Box Plot ...... 328 Figure 100: Any Beach Grooming Box Plot...... 328 Figure 101: Beach Grooming in more than 24 hours Box Plot ...... 329 Figure 102: Beach Grooming Parameters versus E.coli Parameters ...... 329 Figure 103: Strong Onshore Winds Box Plot ...... 331
xii
List of Appendices Appendix A: Map of Beach Locations
Appendix B: Environmental Health Sanitary Survey Form
Appendix C: Sample Collection Form
Appendix D: Calculation of Geometric Mean
Appendix E: Raw Data
Appendix F: Previous Modeling
Appendix G: Descriptive Statistics
Appendix H: Analysis of Variables
Appendix I: Linear Regression Process Results
Appendix J: Logistic Regression Process Results
Appendix K: Beach Ranking Results
xiii
List of Abbreviations α Alpha – significance level
AIC Akaike information criterion
ANN Artificial neural networks
CDC Centers for Disease Control
CFU Colony Forming Units
E.coli Escherichia coli
EC Escherichia coli
EN Enterococcus
EHSS Environmental Health Sanitary Survey
FC Fecal Coliform
FFSGA Fixed Functional set algorithms
FN False Negative
FP False Positive
GM Geometric Mean
LR Logistical Regression
Max Maximum
MLR Multivariate Linear Regression
OLS Ordinary Least Squares p-value (1-α) level of confidence
R2 Coefficient of determination
R2-Adjusted Adjusted coefficient of determination
STV Statistical Threshold Value of 90%
TC Total Coliform
TN True Negative
xiv
TP True Positive
TSS Total Suspended Solids
U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
VIF Variance Inflation Factor
WHO World Health Organization
WSA Water Security Agency
xv
1 Introduction Users of natural recreational waters may be exposed to physical hazards and pathogens that are present in the environment. These pathogens may be natural or resulting from human activities, which in turn can be from point source and non-point source pollution. Many North American jurisdictions have created recreational water monitoring programs to attempt to characterize the risk of gastroenteritis illnesses and to advise beach goers of the risks. In Canada, recreational water quality monitoring generally falls under provincial and territorial jurisdictions (Health Canada, 2012). The responsibility for overseeing recreational water quality falls under different authorities in the provinces and territories depending on provincial policies. However, due to the health focus of the activities, the provincial Ministry of Health or regional health authorities often carry out these programs.
Health hazards in recreational water environments include drowning and near-drownings; injuries; and illnesses. Drowning and near-drownings account for a significant death toll (WHO, 2000). Injuries range for traumatic spinal cord injuries and other severe injuries to less severe incidents related to discarded materials on the beach (WHO, 2000). Lastly, pathogenic microorganisms found in water bodies can cause a wide range of illnesses. The primary concern is gastro-intestinal illnesses and infections of the eyes, ears, nose and throat. However, there is also some evidence to suggest that more serious illnesses such as meningitis, hepatitis A, typhoid fever and poliomyelitis may be transferred through recreational waters.
Water-borne disease can be acquired during recreational water activities such as swimming, boating or other water sports (Sinclair, et al., 2009). The link between health outcomes and recreational swimming has been well documented (Marion, et al., 2010). This is important because the usage and attendance at rivers, lakes and coastal waters for recreational activities has been increasing and is expected to continue to increase due to climate change (Turgeon, et al., 2011).
An environmental health monitoring program attempts to characterize and communicate the physical and biological risks associated with recreational water usage. To date, Saskatchewan has not had a formal environmental health beach monitoring program. Program activities have consisted of complaint follow-up and occasional one-of sampling of recreational waters, primarily in response to complaints. Over the 2012 and 2013 calendar years, the Ministry of Health began the development of Recreational Water Quality Monitoring Program called “Healthy Beach”. In the initial year of development, program development activities focused on research, sampling and monitoring criteria and informational needs. The second year of the program collected descriptive information regarding approximately 200 beaches in Saskatchewan and included water sampling. Future program years will reduce the number of beaches monitored to a
1
manageable number of beaches. The intent is to regularly monitor beaches where there is a greater likelihood of adverse microbial test results and therefore a higher likelihood of the presence of pathogens. In addition, physical hazard information will be collected periodically from all beaches and communicated to the public in a meaningful manner.
2
2 Objectives In the development of the Health Beach program, a number of elements need to be considered. While the scope of the program development is quite broad, this particular research is focused on providing an indication of beaches that should be monitored on a more frequent basis.
Some items addressed during this research include:
1) Determination of the parameters correlated to water quality at beaches 2) Selection of beaches for further monitoring
There are gaps in knowledge with respect to the factors that affect water quality at a recreational beach setting. While many research papers have considered time series data from one or two beaches, there remain questions with respect to which beaches should be monitored in the first place.
The following hypothesis was tested:
That the physical characteristics of a beach area are not correlated with water quality when considered in conjunction with environmental factors (null hypothesis).
The hypothesis is important as many jurisdictions only monitor a select number of beaches. For example, more than 200 public beaches were identified in Saskatchewan. Due to fiscal restraints, only a small subset of these beaches can be monitored on an ongoing basis.
3
3 Background
3.1 Field of Interest
3.1.1 EH Program development description The World Health Organization and others recommend evaluation of the source of fecal contamination and environmental characteristics influencing the contamination of recreational waters (Turgeon, 2012). These factors are usually stable over time. Monitoring those beaches with a higher risk of fecal contamination is desirable from a public health perspective.
In 1986, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) recommended the use of Escherichia coli (E. coli) and/or enterococci as fecal indicator(s) to assess pathogen concentrations associated with gastrointestinal illness (U.S. EPA, 2012). In 2000, the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Costal Health Act required certain areas to adopt bacterial levels that provided the same or better levels of protection. In 2012, the U.S. EPA adopted new criteria that are based on fecal indicator bacteria.
Table 1: U.S. EPA Recreational Fresh Water Criteria Indicator Limits Enterococci 35 cfu/100 mls GM 130 cfu/100 mls STV E.coli 126 cfu/100 mls GM 410 cfu/100 mls STV *STV indicates a Statistical Threshold Value of 90% *GM indicates a geometric mean to be calculated over a rolling 30 day period.
In Canada, Health Canada recently published the Guidelines for Canadian Recreational Water Quality (3rd Edition). Generally, the responsibility for managing recreational waters falls under provincial and territorial jurisdictions with the specific duties split between municipalities, health authorities and other stakeholders varying from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The Health Canada recommendation is for a multi-barrier approach that includes the identification and control of water quality hazards before people can be exposed (Health Canada, 2012). Health Canada recommends a number of guideline values including fecal indicator guidelines provided in Table 2.
Table 2: Health Canada Recreational Water Quality Guidelines Indicator Limits Enterococci 35 cfu/100 mls GM 70 cfu/100 mls Max E.coli 200 cfu/100 mls GM 400 cfu/100 mls Max *Max indicated a single sample maximum concentration *GM indicates a geometric mean of at least five samples.
4
Most research attempts to predict the specific conditions under which a positive fecal indicator bacteria test will occur. Often this research is an attempt to decrease the response time between identifying the presence of fecal indicator bacteria and providing health advice to recreational users. While the same type of empirical modeling is proposed for this research, the focus is different. The intent of this research is to develop a methodology useful for the selection of a limited number of beaches for focused monitoring and assessment from the larger pool of recreational beaches based on the likelihood of higher fecal indicator bacteria results.
It is generally accepted that the physical processes that determine water quality and the indicators of high microbial density are location specific (Jones, et al., 2013). Because of this, researchers often use significant monitoring equipment at a specific beach in order to collect information on a number of physical processes to increase the statistical validity of results (Jones, et al., 2013). The equipment often monitors environmental factors such as wind, near shore waves and chemical and physical measurements of the water. The modeling technique then develops a physically-based model that describes processes related to microbial generation, transport and fate. These approaches are resource-intensive and increase knowledge of processes affecting recreational water quality. However, it is not realistic to expect all the required parameters at all beaches in a recreational water quality programs to be monitored for a significant number of physical parameters. Therefore physical based models do not provide recreational water program managers with adequate information for decision making. Rather than relying on resource intensive physical based models, an empirical model that predicts the response of fecal indicator bacteria based on various independent variables can be used to understand the distributions of fecal indicator bacteria (Jagupilla, et al., 2010). In fact, successful predictive models can be developed using only basic land use data (Crowther, et al., 2003).
3.1.2 Recreational Water Illness Numerous illnesses related to swimming in recreational water have been reported (Pruss, 1998). Investigations historically focus on gastro-intestinal illness, eye infections, skin complaints, ear, nose, and throat infections and respiratory illness. These investigations concluded that the risks of these symptoms are greater in swimmers than in non- swimmers (Pruss, 1998; Graczyk, et al., 2010).
The rate of certain symptoms, with gastro-intestinal symptoms being the most frequent adverse health outcome, has been shown to be significantly related to the count of fecal indicator bacteria in recreational water with a significant dose-response association (Pruss, 1998; McLellan & Salmore, 2003).
For 1971-2000, the U.S. EPA, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the United States Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists
5
surveillance system for reporting waterborne outbreaks contained a record of 259 outbreaks including an estimate 21,740 cases of illness (Craun, et al., 2005). In some studies, swimming in a lake or pond has resulted in 44.8% of the outbreaks and 34.8% of the illnesses (Craun, et al., 2005). The most commonly identified organism was Shigella, with N. fowleri, E.coli O157:H7; Schistomosoma, norovirus (Craun, et al., 2005). Similarly, between 1991 and 2001, The Netherlands reported 742 recreational water related outbreaks involving at least 5,623 individuals where the significant health outcomes included skin conditions and gastroenteritis (Schets, et al., 2001).
As few as 5 pathogenic E. coli organisms, a single Giardia cyst, or 80 to 140 Cryptosporidium oocysts can cause illness if ingested (Health Canada, 2012). Due to the low numbers of organisms required to cause illness, the unintentional ingestion of a single mouthful of contaminated water while swimming may be sufficient to cause illness (Craun, et al., 2005). Wading, playing or swimming in recreational waters has been observed to be a significant risk factor for gastrointestinal illness (Marion, et al., 2010).
Recreational water monitoring programs often use microorganisms such as E. coli or Enterococci as indicators of fecal contamination rather than attempting to monitor the great diversity of pathogenic organisms at significant difficulty and cost of monitoring. Indicator organisms are those found in the intestinal tract of warm-blooded animals like the pathogens of interest. They are found in high concentration in fecal matter and are easy to culture. The indicators often do not directly cause illness. However, they are associated with fecal contamination that may contain pathogens (McLellan & Salmore, 2003). For Example, E.coli is a fecal coliform bacterium that lives in the human intestinal tract and is excreted in large numbers in feces. The bacteria are typically nonpathogenic but are used as an indicator of other pathogens (Viessman & Hammer, 1998).
These bacterial indicators are unreliable indicators for the presence of virus (Sinclair, et al., 2009). However, E. coli density has been found to be significantly associated with elevated gastrointestinal illness (Marion, et al., 2010). In addition, there is an association between gastrointestinal illness and single daily E. coli measurements in recreational water (Marion, et al., 2010). Although some studies have indicated that traditional fecal indicators (i.e. enterococcus, total coliforms and fecal coliforms) are not associated with health risks at beaches that not predominately contaminated by human sewage (Colford, et al., 2007), it is still common practice to use indicator organisms when monitoring recreational waters.
Sources of Contamination In 1971-2000, the sources of contamination associated with untreated recreational water outbreaks were feces in water or ill bathers (31%); bather overloading or crowding (34%); diaper aged children (25%); seepage or overflow of sewage (21%); animals (18%); and flooding or heavy rainfall (3%) (Craun, et al., 2005).
6
The sources of fecal contamination can be placed into several categories as laid out by Turgeon et al (Turgeon, 2012):
1. Urban activities Urban fecal pollution can occur in a number of ways. First, during a rainstorm, overland flow and storm sewers can carry domestic wastes, animal waste and other fecal contamination into surface water bodies. Secondly, during significant rainstorms, sanitary sewers and treatment systems may be overloaded and result in the discharge of partially treated or raw sewage from the wastewater treatment plants or through combined sewage overflows. Other urban sources may include onsite wastewater treatment systems, sewage from land spreading of domestic waste and effluent from wastewater treatment plants (Crowther, et al., 2002).
The number of bathers and the levels of waterborne pathogens have been shown to be significantly related (Graczyk, et al., 2010). This is believed to be partially due to the re-suspension of bottom sediments by bathers.
2. Wildlife Many types of wild animals can contribute to fecal pollution of recreational waters. However, waterfowl have been specifically studied and it has been shown that these birds can be carriers of campylobacter, salmonella and cryptosporidium. Fecal contamination from wildlife can be directly deposited into water, deposited on to beach sands or enter the water through runoff.
3. Agricultural activities Agricultural activities affect recreational waters in many ways. Fecal contamination can come from animals and manure piles on farms. The various pathogens contained in animal feces can reach water bodies and recreational areas following rain events. In addition, direct access of livestock to water can introduce fecal contamination. Rainfall can also wash spread manure into recreational waters. It is generally accepted that runoff from pasture land can be a significant source of fecal indicator bacteria. In addition, high-flow conditions in farming catchments can have higher fecal indicator bacteria present (Crowther, et al., 2002).
There are a number of factors that affect the levels of fecal contamination in recreational waters as described by Turgeon et al (Turgeon, 2012):
1. Vegetation Riparian zones reduce the concentration of fecal pathogens from runoff by more than 99% (Sullivan, et al., 2007). Wetlands can also help to reduce incoming E. coli contamination by 60-77% (Knox, et al., 2008). 7
2. Climatic Conditions Rainfall and runoff are one of the primary means that non-water deposited fecal contamination reaches water courses. The timing of various activities in a watershed can also impact the amount of fecal contamination reaching the water. For example, rainfall immediately following agricultural field manure spreading would result in higher fecal contamination than if several days passed prior to rainfall.
3. Soil Type and Topography Soil type can influence the quantity of microbes that reach water bodies. High clay content can offer protection against environmental stresses, while a sandy soil will not. High soil humidity will also facilitate microorganism transport. Lastly, a steep slope of the surrounding land will increase the runoff speed which increases soil erosion and particle, including microorganisms, movement.
4. Environmental Conditions Environmental conditions will control the rates of fecal indicator bacteria die-off and therefore the amount of fecal contamination that reaches water bodies. These factors include solar isolation, temperature, dissolved organic nutrients, dissolved oxygen and protistan grazing (Rippy, et al., 2013; Marsalek & Rochfort, 2004). Some studies have indicated that die-off within the stream during transit or in the sediments is not a major factor in some watersheds (Crowther, et al., 2002).
Fecal contamination of recreational waters is complex and can result from a number of sources that may result in a large amount of organisms in water. Multiple mechanisms have been identified that introduce fecal contamination to beaches. Some of these are tidal pumping, groundwater, river flow, re-suspension from sediments (Rippy, et al., 2013). Both contact with the recreational waters and contact between sand and individuals (Heaney, et al., 2012) have been shown to be related to illness but the relationship between fecal indicators in sediments and the water is not necessarily related. However, migration of the fecal contamination from the sediments to the water column can take place. Wave action, including that caused by boats, may reintroduce fecal indicators into the water column from sand (Zhu, et al., 2011).The highest concentrations of fecal indicators in sediments are often found in locations close to the mouth of rivers, and in beaches with low water renewal and a high accumulation of fine sediments (Garrido-Perez, et al., 2008).
3.1.3 Factors Affecting Recreational Water Quality Two broad classes of variables have been shown to be important to influence fecal contamination of recreational waters. These include time-dependant meteorological
8
conditions like rainfall, wind direction and temperature as well as time independent land use and environmental conditions.
Time Independent Variables The relative importance for the two classes is not well studied; however, Turgeon et al determined that 40% of the total variation in fecal coliforms was due to time-independent variables related to the beach itself.
Ruminants production within 2 km of the beach and urban area have been shown to be significant (Turgeon, et al., 2011). This is consistent with other findings that there are highly significant relationships between mean fecal indicator bacteria and the percentage land use and land affected by livestock related management practices (Crowther, et al., 2002; Hampson, et al., 2010) such as improved grassland (Kay, et al., 2010) related to intensive livestock farming. The concentration of dairy farming has also been shown to be a dominant source of fecal indicator especially under high flow conditions (Hampson, et al., 2010). This is likely due to a large quantity of manure washed off farmland during these events. Conversely, human population density has been found to be more significant in low flow conditions likely due to a continual low loading rate of fecal contamination (Hampson, et al., 2010).
Several other variables may also have a significant impact including swine production in 2 km, wastewater treatment plant within 2 km upstream, topographical index greater than 3, proximity to septic tanks, and lake area greater than 1 km2 (Turgeon, et al., 2011; Eleria & Vogel, 2005). In addition, the presence of sewers, household density, population, percent impervious area, domestic wastewater spreading practices and domestic animal density may all be correlated with fecal indicator concentrations (Eleria & Vogel, 2005; Schoonover & Lockaby, 2006). Significant increases in fecal coliforms can occur in a watershed that is greater than 20% impervious surfaces, which has significant implications for urbanization practices (Schoonover & Lockaby, 2006).
Turgeon et al perhaps completed the most complete examination of time independent variables to date. They examined 24 time independent variables related to agricultural activities, human activities and geo-hydrological characteristics.
9
Table 3 - Turgeon et al Variables Examined Type of activity Variable Definition Agricultural Swine production in the area of Absence, presence in 2 km influence or presence in 5 km
Ruminant production in the area of Absence, presence in 2 km interest or presence in 5 km
Crop lands in the area of influence Absence, presence in 2 km or presence in 5 km
Human activities Urban area Most of the area of interest is an urban area
Wastewater treatment plant Absence, presence in 2 km upstream or presence in 5 km upstream
Geo-hydrological Plant hardiness zone Zone covering the larger characteristics area of the area of interest
Tributaries Number of lake tributaries
Lake area Lake area in km2
Topographical index Topographical index value at the beach localization
Interestingly, only two variables were found to be statistically significant. These were presence of ruminant production in the area of influence and whether it was an urban area.
Time dependent variables Numerous studies have been completed that attempt to relate time dependent environmental variables to the concentration of fecal indicator bacteria found in recreational waters. The variables found to be significant in studies includes: turbidity, solar radiation, air temperature, water temperature, rainfall, combined sewer overflows, bottom sediments re-suspension processes, salinity, presence of animals, time of the year, and wind factors.
Turbidity has been shown to be an important factor in a number of studies (Chandramouli, et al., 2007; Francy, et al., 2006). Turbidity affects the penetration of solar radiation, which, if the fecal indicator bacteria are solar sensitive, will result in less die off of the indicator bacteria (Rippy, et al., 2013; Eleria & Vogel, 2005). In particular,
10
log10 turbidity has been found to be correlated with E. coli concentrations at some beaches (Francy, et al., 2006). Turbidity is very much impacted by wave height, wind speed, rainfall, runoff and other environmental variables (He & He, 2008; Ferguson, et al., 1996) therefore the inclusion of turbidity and other impacting variables may introduce co-linearity.
Cumulative solar radiation prior to the time of sample collection has been identified as an
important variable for predicting log10(E. coli) densities (Jones, et al., 2013; Crowther, et al., 2001). Some studies have identified solar radiation as less important for E. coli (Noble, et al., 2004; Sinton, et al., 2002) as compared to enterococci. While solar radiation will increase the rate of decay for E. coli, the change in rate is less that the change in rate for enterococci. However, for both organisms sunlight increases inactivation rates by a factor of 5 to 10 (Noble, et al., 2004; Sinton, et al., 2002).
The average monthly air temperature in June, July and August and the number of summer days (maximum temperature ≥25°C) and the number of tropical days (maximum temperature ≥30°C) in a summer has been shown to be related to the number of outbreaks (Schets, et al., 2001) and the presence of fecal indicator bacteria (Schoonover & Lockaby, 2006). However, the effect of temperature on the survival of indicator bacteria is not consistent in all studies (Noble, et al., 2004). In some cases, a higher temperature increases the inactivation rate, in others temperature has no effect, while some indicate that a lower temperature increases the inactivation rate (Mas & Ahlfeld, 2007). Air temperature and water temperature have an obvious relationship. However, water temperature is also likely related to solar radiation (He & He, 2008) in that higher water temperatures often result from increase solar radiation, which also may increase fecal indicator die-off.
In one study, an increase in water temperature was moderately correlated with only one fecal indicator (somatic coliphages) (Love, et al., 2010). Other findings indicate a positive relationship between water temperature and E. coli concentrations (Francy, et al., 2006). Some other studies have indicated that natural inactivation rates of fecal indicators increase with increasing temperature (Noble, et al., 2004), which would suggest lower fecal indicators in higher temperature waters. There does not to be a consensus on the impact of water temperature on the presence or concentration of fecal indicator bacteria.
Rainfall may increase microbe densities by introducing bacteria via surface runoff and storm water discharge and resuspension of sediments as well as other mechanisms (Jones, et al., 2013; Love, et al., 2010). Rainfall in the previous three days has been shown to be a significant explanatory variable (Love, et al., 2010), and other studies have found other rainfall related variables important (Motamarri & Boccelli, 2012; Crowther, et al., 2001; Francy, et al., 2006). The appropriate rainfall variable is very likely site-specific (Jones, et al., 2013) due to the time it takes rainfall to reach the water body and various
11
environmental factors. The amount and occurrence of runoff may be related to the amount of water required to exceed the holding capacity of the surrounding land (He & He, 2008). This explains the variation in time since rainfall and the different rainfall amounts that are found to be important in various studies. It is also apparent that the rainfall itself is not the direct contributor to increased fecal indicators. Instead, it is the runoff water that carries a variety of contaminants from surrounding landuse. For example, large paved parking lots near the beach have been shown to influence the E. coli counts in the recreational water (McLellan & Salmore, 2003).
Rainfall is also related to the flow rate of a river or the stage of a lake. High rainfall periods naturally coincide with high flow periods due to the increased water volumes. Fecal indicator bacteria concentrations increase by an order of magnitude or more during high flow periods (Crowther, et al., 2003). This is potentially due to two causes. First the number of organisms entering the water is increased due to increased water runoff, entrainment of organisms from sediments, and extension of the water to formerly dry areas (i.e. flooding). Second, there is an increased water depth, velocity and turbidity that reduces the chances of die off and sedimentation (Crowther, et al., 2003).
Combined sewer overflows variables have been demonstrated as important; however some have been it has been suggested that there may not be a cause and effect relationship (Jones, et al., 2013; Marsalek & Rochfort, 2004; Haack, et al., 2003; Rijal, et al., 2009). The typical levels of indicator bacteria in storm water (103-105 E.coli/100 mls) and in combined sewer overflows (105 – 106 E.coli/100 mls) are significantly greater than recreational water quality guidelines (Marsalek & Rochfort, 2004) and therefore, if a combined sewer overflow is present, indicator bacteria levels can be elevated.
Fecal coliforms in recreational water can also originate from the re-suspension of bottom sediments and from the bathers themselves (Graczyk, et al., 2010)(Gerba, 2000)(Graczyk, et al., 2007). Therefore, beaches will a higher bather load will tend to have greater amounts of indicator bacteria. Bottom sediments may also contain significant amounts of fecal indicator bacteria (He & He, 2008). Increased wind speed will often increase mixing and turbidity which may increase fecal indicator bacteria concentrations (Crowther, et al., 2001). Wave height also impacts the movement of near- shore sediment and may also increase the fecal indicator bacteria found in the water.
The presence of domestic or wild animals may increase the concentration of fecal indicator bacteria. Dog fecal events can have a major impact of fecal indicator bacteria (i.e. enterococci) (Zhu, et al., 2011). The presence of birds has also been shown to have a significant positive relationship with E. coli at some beaches (McLellan & Salmore, 2003; Francy, et al., 2006).
12
Studies generally indicated increasing inactivation rates of fecal indicators with increasing salinity (Noble, et al., 2004; Sinton, et al., 2002). Therefore, there is often a negative correlation between salinity and fecal indicators (Love, et al., 2010; Ferguson, et al., 1996; Eleria & Vogel, 2005). This is relatively unimportant when considering freshwater lakes such as those found in Saskatchewan.
Water collection time was moderately negatively correlated with E. coli. (Love, et al., 2010). Water collected later in the day may have lower E. coli. concentrations.
Higher concentrations at certain times of year have been shown in some studies (Crowther, et al., 2001; Christensen, 2001). It is likely that the time of year is correlated with weather variables such as rainfall and solar radiation or a flushing effect mechanism (Eleria & Vogel, 2005). In addition, peak summer holiday time periods may increase bacterial inputs due the presence of significant numbers of bathers.
Wind factors such as speed and direction have been shown to influence water quality (McLellan & Salmore, 2003; Hellweger, 2007; Francy, et al., 2006). In particular, this can be due to re-suspension of bacteria in the sediment due to higher wave action. Water found in the beach sand at the water/sand interface can potentially have significant E. coli concentrations (Francy, et al., 2003). The relationship has been found to be a positive relationship (Francy, et al., 2006).
3.1.4 Previous Modeling Modeling of water quality in surface water has been completed and reviewed using a number of methods. Empirical models, such as linear regression techniques, are particularly useful where limited data is available (Tufail, et al., 2008).
Some of the differences between different models are due to different water and environmental characteristics but also the time-frequency characteristics of explanatory variables (Ge & Frick, 2009). Specifically, models that consider that consider data from a short time period often have high R2 values and compared to much lower values achieved in multi-year models (Ge & Frick, 2009).
Generally, the analysis approach is to model time dependent environmental variables in order to predict recreational water quality (see Appendix F). These investigations usually examine one or more sampling locations on the same water system over a period of time. In a minority of cases, investigations attempt to focus on time independent environmental variables such as land use characteristics.
Model significance has been shown to improve significantly when logarithmic transformed data are used in model development (Tufail, et al., 2008; He & He, 2008;
Ferguson, et al., 1996). Log10 transformations are applied to bacterial concentrations in order to improve their parametricity (McLellan & Salmore, 2003). The geometric mean is
13
calculated as the antilog of the log10 values (Crowther, et al., 2001) as shown in Appendix D.
3.2 Modeling Techniques Two primary modeling techniques have been used in past analysis: multivariate linear regression and multivariate logistical linear regression. Other techniques such as learning vector quantization; artificial neural based forecasting; and simple correlation coefficients have been used but not extensively. Often the purpose of the modeling is to develop prediction techniques that can be used to predict water quality in near real time versus waiting for bacterial lab results that take at least 18 hours. In other cases, the studies explore the importance of various explanatory variables. ANNs can provide a superior modeling technique if the application of the model is to predict violations of water quality standards for fecal bacteria. However, ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models provide more transparent information about the nature of the relationships between indicator bacteria and the explanatory variables (Mas & Ahlfeld, 2007).
Multivariate linear regression is a method that attempts to analyze relationships between data. The methodology to calculation a multivariate linear regression is usually the ordinary least squares method. The basic equation for multivariate linear regression for k explanatory variables and i predictions of y.