Jay S. White, M.Sc., P.Biol. Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. September 17, 2009 • Background – common water quality issues in • Sources of contamination • Case Studies: •, Alberta •Pigeon , Alberta •Lac La Nonne, Alberta •Heart River, Alberta • MST and caffeine testing methods • Experiences with collecting bacterial data • Water quality is an issue in many Alberta • Common problems include nutrient enrichment, nuisance and/or toxic algal blooms, and fecal contamination • Alberta –eutrophic lakes naturally, any addition of nutrients (particularly Algala bloom in , phosphorus) can cause problems 2007

• Toxic algae species are seen in Alberta, including Aphanizomenon, Anabaena and Mycrocystis • These species produce toxins which can be harmful to wildlife, pets and humans • Commonly find E. coli, Cryptosporidium and Giardia in surface waters in Alberta • These organisms can cause cryptosporidiosis, gastroenteritis, and giardiasis (“Beaver Fever”) • Many people still think it is safe to drink water from lakes or rivers without filtration or treatment • Recreational use (boating, waterskiing, swimming, etc) can result in the accidental ingestion of contaminated surface waters • Sources of bacteria and parasites include leaking septic tanks, outhouses, illegal dumping, agricultural operations (livestock), manure application (land spreading)

• Highly used recreational lake, popular for boating, fishing and swimming • 7th largest lake in Alberta, and is an important bird area • Town was putting partially treated wastewater into nearby Field Lake, thinking it would flow into a neighboring watershed • Unfortunately, it flowed from the lake through the outflow (Red Deer Brook) and into Lac la Biche instead • Prior to this, untreated sewage was released directly into Lac la Biche, near the town site

• TP levels in Field Lake jumped from 56 µg/L in 1982 to 1,826 µg/L in 2005 • Lake became anoxic and residents complained of odour problems • Residents were also concerned that the Field Lake water was making the water quality in Lac la Biche deteriorate • Caffeine study completed by Aquality on the lake and tributaries in 2003/2004 • Caffeine is a chemical compound excreted by humans in sufficiently large quantities to be detectable in sewage wastes • Caffeine was detected at 10 sample locations around Lac la Biche and its inflow streams in spring, indicating a recent release of sewage • Current efforts within the watershed have focused on the preservation of the Red Deer Brook outflow, due to its inherent natural water treatment capabilities •Economic valuation of Red Deer Brook performed by a graduate student of Dr. Nancy Olewiler (SFU) • Water intake for the Town was re‐located one kilometer further into the lake to improve the quality of the incoming water • Today, partially treated wastewater is still being dumped into Field Lake •Watershed management plan currently with AENV for approval –this will assist the County in protecting water quality in the lake

• Very popular recreational like, high amounts of development • Shallow, prone to high nutrient levels and water temperatures in summer, providing perfect conditions for algal blooms

•Commonly have cyanobacterial blooms • Phosphorus levels have increased by 49% since the 1980’s • Fecal bacteria counts peaked at 180 CFU/ 100 mL in 2006 in Ma‐ Me‐O Beach, indicating there may be a sewage problem there

• Agricultural practices and dustfall account for the majority of the loadings to the lake

• Exacerbated by removal of riparian vegetation around the lake and extensive cottage development

Typical summer scene at Pigeon Lake (pictures taken in 2007) • Current efforts include a groundwater study in the area to examine the surface and groundwater interactions • Water levels in the lake have dropped in the last year, which will concentrate the nutrients and result in warmer water temperatures • Large algal blooms die off and sink to the bottom of the lake where they decompose, releasing more nutrients into the lake •Residence time of lake is approximately 100 years •No flushing of lake water

• Water quality and algal blooms problematic in this lake as well • Pets have died from ingesting algae from the lake • Land use activities within the watershed are contributing excess nutrients to the lake • Lake is hypereutrophic • Caffeine detected in one inflow stream in 2004, indicating sewage inputs •Inflow stream water quality is problematic throughout the watershed Land Cover in the Lac La Nonne watershed, 1990 Land cover, 2000 Moderate Intensity 2004 BLINDMAN RIVER Poor Nutrients: 2004 GRANDE PRAIRIE CREEK Poor KLESKUN HILLS MAIN DRAIN Poor MEADOW CREEK Fair TOMAHAWK CREEK Poor TROUT CREEK Excellent Average Marginal

LAC LA NONNE Poor

2004 Nutrient Sub-Index Score 100 90 80 t 70 60 Fair 50 Marginal 40 Poor 30 AAWQI - Nutrien 20 10 0

N E IN 6 K K K K R K K EK N EK EE E E EEK E RA E L S- EE EE EE R DRAI R REEK REE RE D IN CR C EK (M1) NON CREEK CREEK CR OU CR CREEK C C C K E A C Y CREE E C T OT AIN IE LS DRA ES AY AN R SEA L S U R C L M ST IN R M WIC FO AIR FALO ER RO A S H B TRO EN L PR WE UF PADDLE RIV WABASH CREEK LL B MEADOW CREEK WILLOW R E BLIND STRETTON CREEKTOMAHAWKBATTE CR HI D HAYNES CR CROW THREEHINEW UN AN STRAW SK E GR KL Moderate Intensity 2005 BLINDMAN RIVER Poor Nutrients: 2005 GRANDE PRAIRIE CREEK Poor KLESKUN HILLS MAIN DRAIN Poor MEADOW CREEK Fair TOMAHAWK CREEK Poor TROUT CREEK Good Average Marginal

LAC LA NONNE Poor

2005 Nutrient Sub-Index Score 100 90 80 70 60 Fair 50 Marginal 40 Poor 30 AAWQI - Nutrient - Nutrient AAWQI 20 10 0

K K K K EK EK EK M1) M6) AIN S-6 ( ( EEK E EEK E E R EEK EEK EE K R R R R ULEE REEK REE R CREE DRAIN CR CR CR AIN CREEK C C E C A K CREEKN CREEKS Y A NONNE RE REEK SH O A DR W C UT C C T LL SE R L ST CO OW O O WIC R AWK FALO C S E H ROSE C HINES AD LL R E ES N T A F PADDLELAC RIVER WE T E T U WI WABA R TRET M WBERRY B ME YN REEHI A O A BLINDMAN CREE A S H B R DE PRAIRIE C H HAYN T T CROWFOOT CREEK NEW ST AN KUN HILLS MAIN D S GR LE K • Restoration workshop held for Lac La Nonne in 2006 • Workshop included representatives from AENV, Cows and Fish, FAN, AAFRD, ASRD • Numerous lake restoration options brainstormed by the professionals at the workshop •Included options such as dredging, amendments, hypolimnetic

withdrawal, shoreline and watershed

restoration projects

• Progress: •SoW report completed (2006) •Riparian assessment completed on Nakamun Lake (2008) and Majeau Lake

•Participated in the Living By Water HomeSite Consultation Program (2007)

•Some BMPs have been implemented with demonstration sites •Farm Water Watch Program initiation •Ag Capture Land Use Inventory Pilot Project •Riparian Improvement Projects •Environmental Farm Planning •Paleolimnology study (U of A)

• While not a recreational waterbody, the Heart River is the source of drinking water for residents in Nampa, the Hamlets of St. Isidore, Marie‐

Reine and the East Peace Water Co‐operative in Northern Sunrise

County

• Water quality monitoring program initiated in 2003 •Included the Heart River and tributaries • Common contaminants seen include: •Parasites (Cryptosporidium and Giardia) •Fecal bacteria •Pesticides (glyphosate has been found in spill level concentrations) •Excess nutrients • Poorest water quality seen from one tributary, known as Myrtle Creek Heart River Watershed showing delineated watershed boundary A (thick black line) and the four 2008 sampling site locations (sites A, B, D, B D and E) E A typical riparian area on the Heart River

Tot al Coliforms 3,000

2,500 mL)

2,000 (CFU/100 1,500 Coliforms

1,000 Total 500

0 Site ASite BSite DSite E Site

Total coliform (CFU/100 mL) concentrations in the water column at all four sampling locations in 2008. The CCME guideline for Irrigation

Water is given for comparison (red line, 1,000 CFU/100 mL).

• Alberta Environment has not identified any pesticides as an issue in Nampa’s treated water however, Alberta Environment has not tested for pesticides in treated water since 2003

• High turbidity linked with high phosphorus levels, implying erosion and loading of sediments from the surrounding land

• Spring runoff periods seem to be problematic in this watershed • Microbial source tracking was completed in 2006 using Cryptosporidium and Giardia in order to track the sources of fecal contamination

Cryptosporidium and Giardia results from 2006 microbial source tracking

• Progress in watershed work has been hindered by general public apathy on the subject of water quality and wetland preservation

• Watershed management plan has been completed and approved by AENV

• Water quality study continues on an annual basis • Riparian restoration work has been completed in two demo sites • Offsite watering has been demonstrated and some producers have completed Environmental Farm Plans

• Problems are linked to land use practices and agricultural operations, along with widespread wetland drainage

• Many different methods are available, including: •Library dependent methods using E. coli and Enterococcus spp. – method limited by the size of the library available for use •Library independent methods that use host‐specific markers and PCR •Chemical tracers –not microbial but some chemical compounds can be linked to fecal contamination, such as pharmaceuticals •Protozoan genotyping using Cryptosporidium and Giardia, which is based on science that suggests that different species and/or genotypes of these parasites exhibit host specificity • All methods are time consuming, require specialized knowledge and equipment, and are very costly • Still an emerging technology • Caffeine is a compound found solely in human wastes • Raw sewage should contain approximately 42 µg/L of caffeine based on literature available • It is possible to detect caffeine in lakes that has been diluted up to 2100 times • Results can be misleading because caffeine degrades quickly in the environment, so a non‐ detect does not necessarily mean that there isn’t any sewage present • Aquality has written State of the Watershed Reports, Watershed Management Plans, water quality reports and Source Water Protection Plans for many groups across the province • All of these require the use of available water quality data, including bacterial samples • Data is often very hard to come by, either because it doesn’t exist, it is limited in scope, or there are cumbersome privacy agreements that must be signed before data can be released • Aquality has collaborated with Lynn Bollinger (from the former Aspen Regional Health Authority) and David Brown (from the former David Thompson Health Region) on a couple of projects in the province • Provincial parks staff also perform limited water quality testing but we have not been able to obtain much data from them • Bacterial data continues to be a large data gap in the province • More staff is required? •Data should be made readily available to the public if requested Questions?