11.07.2015 Views

Animal Waste, Water Quality and Human Health

Animal Waste, Water Quality and Human Health

Animal Waste, Water Quality and Human Health

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

326<strong>Animal</strong> <strong>Waste</strong>, <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Quality</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Human</strong> <strong>Health</strong>within a preventative framework, these surveys are one of a suite of procedures,actions <strong>and</strong> tools collectively designed to reduce exposure risks. Benefits of themulti-barrier approach are stated to be: more effective protection of publichealth, enhanced water quality management, improved public communication<strong>and</strong> informed hazard management (<strong>Health</strong> Canada 2010). In this capacity, theCanadian Environmental <strong>Health</strong> <strong>and</strong> Safety Survey (EHSS) serves as a flexible,site-specific blueprint for designing <strong>and</strong> implementing a recreational waterquality management framework which includes compliance monitoring, publicnotification <strong>and</strong> mitigation. A properly performed annual EHSS would identify<strong>and</strong> assess all potential threats to health <strong>and</strong> safety (physical, chemical,biological/microbiological) leading to prioritization of intervention measures.An EHSS should be conducted prior to the start of the bathing season <strong>and</strong>include (<strong>Health</strong> Canada 2010):• a review of historical data/trends/problems; water body characteristic <strong>and</strong>usage observations;• cataloguing of site-specific physical attributes;• an assessment of potential pollution sources (especially those likely tocontribute human or animal wastes);• an evaluation of current monitoring programme effectiveness; <strong>and</strong>,• an intervention measures performance appraisal.The final assessment report should culminate in the development of bestbeach-management practices via improved operational plans, includingsite-specific monitoring schemes, which function as a feedback loop forcontinual quality improvement.While used to assess operational quality (reduced closures due to elevated FIOlevels) of shellfish beds in the United States, 1 the push for adoption of ast<strong>and</strong>ardized beach sanitary survey for bathing beaches was the result of the GreatLakes Regional Collaboration (GLRC) process (GLRC 2005). Previouslegislation st<strong>and</strong>ardized national monitoring protocols employing FIOs <strong>and</strong>public notification, but made no provision for pollution source identification(United States Congress, 2000). The lack of a mechanism by which to identifycontamination sources impacting bathing beaches resulted in 5,104–11,951(2003–2005) water quality failure action days nationally, of which 84 per cent, onaverage, were attributed as (source unknown) (Kovatch 2006). Recognizing thatidentification <strong>and</strong> mitigation are necessary to reduce risk to human health throughcontact with surface waters <strong>and</strong> to provide the maximum personal, commercial,<strong>and</strong> recreational benefit, the GLRC Coastal <strong>Health</strong> Strategy Team recommended1http://www.buzzardsbay.org/shellclssuccess.htm

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!