Advertisement

Hydrobiologia

, Volume 460, Issue 1–3, pp 185–193 | Cite as

Demographic, landscape, and meteorological factors controlling the microbial pollution of coastal waters

  • Michael A. Mallin
  • Scott H. Ensign
  • Matthew R. McIver
  • G. Christopher Shank
  • Patricia K. Fowler
Article

Abstract

Coastal areas in the United States and many other countries are considered to be desirable regions to live and recreate. However, as human use of coastal land and water increases, so does the incidence of aquatic-borne disease from contact with contaminated water and eating contaminated shellfish. Movement of humans into coastal areas both greatly increases the number of sources of microbial pathogens and radically alters the landscape through increased construction activity and paving of former natural areas. On a regional scale, increases in human population over a 14-year period in coastal North Carolina were strongly correlated with increases in shellfish bed closures due to high fecal coliform bacterial counts. On a watershed scale, an analysis of several tidal creeks found strong correlations between mean estuarine fecal coliform bacterial counts and watershed population, percent developed area and especially with percent impervious surface coverage. Conversion of natural landscapes to impervious surfaces (roads, drives, sidewalks, parking lots and roofs) removes the land's natural filtration capability, allows for increased concentration of pollutants at the land's surface and provides a means of rapid conveyance of pollutants to downstream waterways. An analysis of rural watersheds in the Coastal Plain found that stream fecal coliform counts and turbidity were both strongly correlated with rainfall in the previous 24 h in watersheds containing extensive industrial swine and poultry operations, as well as watersheds containing more traditional agriculture and cattle husbandry. In contrast, in watersheds rich in swamp wetlands these relationships were not significant, even in watersheds containing extensive animal production. Based on these findings, we suggest that waterborne microbial pathogen abundance can be minimized in urbanizing coastal areas through reduced use of impervious surfaces and maximal use of natural or constructed wetlands for passive stormwater runoff treatment. In animal husbandry areas, retention of natural wetlands and management practices designed to minimize sediment runoff can likely reduce inputs of pathogenic microbes into streams.

animal waste fecal coliforms impervious surface microbial pathogens runoff shellfish 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. APHA 1995. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 19th edn. American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  2. Arnold, C. L. & C. J. Gibbons, 1996. Impervious surface coverage – the emergence of a key environmental indicator. J. am. Planning Ass. 62: 243–258.Google Scholar
  3. Bannerman, R. T., D. W. Owens, R. B. Dodds & N. J. Hornewer, 1993. Sources of pollutants in Wisconsin stormwater. Wat. Sci. Technol. 28: 241–259.Google Scholar
  4. Barber, R. T., R. L. Ohrel, P. K. Fowler & G. L. Gilbert, 1993. Why we are convinced that traditional strategies for wastewater management are not working. In Ohrel, R. L. (ed.), Symposium on Integrated Wastewater Management in North Carolina. North Carolina Coastal Federation, Wilmington, N.C.: 7–13.Google Scholar
  5. Booth, D. B., 1991. Urbanization and the natural drainage system – impacts, solutions and prognoses. Northwest envir. J. 7: 93–118.Google Scholar
  6. Burkholder, J. M., M. A. Mallin, H. B. Glasgow, Jr., L. M. Larsen, M. R. McIver, G. C. Shank, N. Deamer-Melia, D. S. Briley, J. Springer, B. W. Touchette & E. K. Hannon, 1997. Impacts to a coastal river and estuary from rupture of a large swine waste holding lagoon. J. envir. Qual. 26: 1451–1466.Google Scholar
  7. Crane, S. R., J. A. Moore, M. E. Grismer & J. R. Miner, 1983. Bacterial pollution from agricultural sources: a review. Trans. ASAE 26: 858–872.Google Scholar
  8. Epstein, P. R., 1998. Marine Ecosystems: Emerging Diseases as Indicators of Change. Year of the Ocean Special Report on Health of the Oceans from Labrador to Venezuela. Center for Health and the Global Environment, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MS.: 85 pp.Google Scholar
  9. Evison, L. M. Comparative studies on the survival of indicator organisms and pathogens in fresh and sea water. Wat. Sci. Technol. 20: 309–315.Google Scholar
  10. Griffin, D. M., Jr., T. J. Grizzard, C. W. Randall, D. R. Helsel & J. P. Hartigan, 1980. Analysis of non-point pollution export from small catchments. J. Wat. Pollut. Cont. Fed. 52: 780–790.Google Scholar
  11. Hill, V. R. & M. D. Sobsey, 1999. Microbial indicator reductions in alternative treatment systems for swine wastewater. Wat. Sci. Technol. 38: 119–122.Google Scholar
  12. Howell, J. M., M. S. Coyne & P. Cornelius, 1995. Fecal bacteria in agricultural waters of the Bluegrass region of Kentucky. J. envir. Qual. 24: 411–419.Google Scholar
  13. Hussong, D., J. M. Damare, R. J. Limpert, W. J. L. Sladen, R. M. Weiner & R. R. Colwell, 1979. Microbial impact of Canada geese (Branta canadensis) and whistling swans (Cygnus columbianus columbianus) on aquatic ecosystems. Appl. envir. Microbiol. 37: 14–20.Google Scholar
  14. Khaleel, R., K. R. Reddy & M. R. Overcash, 1980. Transport of potential pollutants in runoff water from land areas receiving animal wastes: a review. Wat. Res. 14: 421–436.Google Scholar
  15. Klein, R. D., 1973. Urbanization and stream quality impairment. Wat. Res. Bull. 15: 948–963.Google Scholar
  16. Kocasoy, G., 1989. A method for prediction of extent of microbial pollution of seawater and carrying capacity of beaches. Envir. Manage. 13: 469–475.Google Scholar
  17. Mallin, M. A., 2000. Impacts of industrial animal production on rivers and estuaries. Am. Sci. 88: 26–37.Google Scholar
  18. Mallin, M. A., K. E. Williams, E. C. Esham & R. P. Lowe, 2000a. Effect of human development on bacteriological water quality in coastal watersheds. Ecol. Appl. 10: 1047–1056.Google Scholar
  19. Mallin, M. A., L. B. Cahoon, R. P. Lowe, J. F. Merritt, R. K. Sizemore & K. E. Williams, 2000b. Restoration of shellfishing waters in a tidal creek following limited dredging. J. coast. Res. 16: 40–47.Google Scholar
  20. Mallin, M. A., E. C. Esham, K. E. Williams & J. E. Nearhoof, 1999. Tidal stage variability of fecal coliform and chlorophyll a concentrations in coastal creeks. Mar. Poll. Bull. 38: 414–422.Google Scholar
  21. Maiolo, J. R. & P. Tschetter, 1981. Relating population growth to shellfish bed closures: a case study from North Carolina. Coast. Zone Manage. J. 9: 1–18.Google Scholar
  22. Mawdsley, J. L., R. D. Bardgett, R. J. Merry, B. F. Pain & M. K. Theodorou, 1995. Pathogens in livestock waste, their potential for movement through soil and environmental pollution. Appl. Soil Ecol 2: 1–15.Google Scholar
  23. NCDEHNR, 1996.Water Quality Progress in North Carolina, 1994-1995, 305(b) Report. Report No. 96-03. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. Raleigh, N.C.Google Scholar
  24. NRC, 1993. Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas. National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.: 477 pp.Google Scholar
  25. NSCT, 1995. Setting a new course for U.S. coastal ocean science. National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. NOAA,Silver Spring, M.D.: 111 pp.Google Scholar
  26. Pommepuy, M., J. F. Guillaud, E. Dupray, A. Derrien, F. Le Guyader & M. Cormier, 1992. Enteric bacterial survival factors. Wat. Sci. Technol. 25: 93–103.Google Scholar
  27. Sayler, G. S., J. D. Nelson, Jr., A. Justice & R. R. Colwell, 1975. Distribution and significance of fecal indicator organisms in the upper Chesapeake Bay. Appl. Microbiol. 30: 625–638.Google Scholar
  28. Schueler, T., 1994. The importance of imperviousness. Wat. Prot. Tech. 1: 100–111.Google Scholar
  29. SSS, 1999. Report of Sanitary Survey, Southport Area B-1, August 1996 – December 1998. Shellfish Sanitation Section, North Carolina Division of Environmental Health, Morehead City, N.C.Google Scholar
  30. Struck, P. H., 1988. The relationship between sediment and fecal coliform levels in a Puget Sound estuary. J. envir. Health 5550: 403–407.Google Scholar
  31. Trial, W. T. Jr., C. Slaughterbeck, J. Goldberg, G. Ma & M. Samadpour, 1993. Bacterial source tracking – studies in an urban Seattle watershed. Puget Sound Notes 30: 1–3.Google Scholar
  32. USFDA, 1995. Sanitation of shellfish growing areas. National Shell-fish Sanitation Program Manual of Operations, Part 1. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Office of Seafood, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  33. Weiskel, P. K., B. L. Howes & G. R. Heufelder, 1996. Coliform contamination of a coastal embayment: sources and transport pathways. Envir. Sci. Technol. 30: 1872–1881.Google Scholar
  34. Young, K. D. & E. L. Thackston, 1999. Housing density and bacterial loading in urban streams. J. Env. Eng. 125: 1177–1180.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael A. Mallin
    • 1
  • Scott H. Ensign
    • 1
  • Matthew R. McIver
    • 1
  • G. Christopher Shank
    • 1
  • Patricia K. Fowler
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Marine ScienceUniversity of North Carolina at WilmingtonWilmingtonU.S.A
  2. 2.Division of Environmental Health, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural ResourcesShellfish Sanitation SectionMorehead CityU.S.A

Personalised recommendations