HUMAN WASTE CONTAMINATION AT HUTS AND …

HUMAN WASTE CONTAMINATION AT HUTS ANDCAMPSITES IN THE BACK COUNTRY OF TASMANIA

By Kerry Bridle, Jamie Kirkpatrick & Julie von Platen

HUMAN WASTE CONTAMINATION AT HUTS AND CAMPSITES

ii

TECHNICAL REPORTS The technical report series present data and its analysis, meta-studies and conceptual studies and are considered to be of value to industry, government and researchers. Unlike the Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre’s Monograph series, these reports have not been subjected to an external peer review process. As such, the scientific accuracy and merit of the research reported here is the responsibility of the authors, who should be contacted for clarifications of any content. Author contact details are at the back of this report. EDITORS Prof Chris Cooper University of Queensland Editor-in-Chief Prof Terry De Lacy Sustainable Tourism CRC Chief Executive Prof Leo Jago Sustainable Tourism CRC Director of Research National Library of Australia Cataloguing in Publication Data

Bridle, Kerry Lynn. Human waste contamination at huts and campsites in the back-country of Tasmania. Bibliography. ISBN 1 920704 44 2. 1. Ecological assessment (Biology) - Tasmania. 2. Sewage - Environmental aspects - Tasmania. 3. Sewage disposal - Tasmania. I. Kirkpatrick, J. B. (James Barrie). II. Von Platen, Julie. III. Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism. IV. Title. 363.7209946 Copyright © CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd 2006 All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part of this book may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the publisher. Any enquiries should be directed to Brad Cox, Communications Manager ([email protected]) or Trish O’Connor, Publishing Manager ([email protected]). Acknowledgements The Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre, an Australian Government initiative, funded this research.

Many people helped with various aspects of this project, both in the field and in the laboratory. Bonnie Wintle and Doug Grubert carried out the surveys on the Overland Track and the South Coast Track. Micah Visoiu carried out the original vegetation surveys and collected soil samples. Micah and Nick Fitzgerald also rose to the task at hand by depositing and excavating samples at the Vale of Belvoir. Sandy Leighton, Bev Fearns, Helen Watson, Wendy and Sam Leewood, and Kristel Belbin supplied JvP with samples for her honours project which were cheerfully analysed by Christian Garland and staff at the Water EcoScience Laboratory in Newtown, Tasmania. Rhys Leeming, Andy Revill and Peter Nichols (CSIRO) carried out the faecal sterol analyses. Special thanks go to Grant Dixon, Jennifer Mudge, Greg Peters, Kent McConnell and Eddie Firth (Department of Tourism, Parks, Heritage and the Arts) for facilitating data collection and for their valuable insights into the management of human waste disposal. Thanks also to Steve Leonard for his mapping skills. Finally, staff in the School of Geography and Environmental Studies are thanked for their substantial contribution to the administrative details of this project.

IN THE BACK COUNTRY OF TASMANIA

iii

CONTENTS SUMMARY _____________________________________________________________________________ V CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ___________________________________________________________ 1 PROJECT AIMS..................................................................................................................................................... 2 CHAPTER 2 ARE BUSHWALKERS ADHERING TO MINIMAL IMPACT BUSHWALKING (MIB) GUIDELINES? __________________________________________________________________________ 3 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 3 METHODS ............................................................................................................................................................. 3

Study Sites .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Data Collection................................................................................................................................................... 4 Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................... 5

RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................... 5 Mt Field National Park ....................................................................................................................................... 5 The Overland Track............................................................................................................................................ 8 The South Coast Track ....................................................................................................................................... 9

DISCUSSION......................................................................................................................................................... 9 CHAPTER 3 IMPACTS OF THE BURIAL OF HUMAN TOILET WASTE ON VEGETATION AND SOILS AROUND HUTS AND CAMPSITES_________________________________________________ 11 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 11 METHODS ........................................................................................................................................................... 11

Study Sites ........................................................................................................................................................ 11 Data Collection................................................................................................................................................. 11

RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................. 12 Vegetation Surveys........................................................................................................................................... 12 Soil Nutrient Analyses...................................................................................................................................... 12 Soil Pathogen Analysis..................................................................................................................................... 12

DISCUSSION....................................................................................................................................................... 15 CHAPTER 4 VISUAL ASSESSMENT OF THE DECAY OF FAECES AND TOILET PAPER ______ 16 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 16 METHODS ........................................................................................................................................................... 16

Study Sites ........................................................................................................................................................ 16 Data Collection................................................................................................................................................. 16 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................................... 17

RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................. 17 DISCUSSION....................................................................................................................................................... 19 CHAPTER 5 THE LONGEVITY OF FAECAL PATHOGENS IN SOIL OVER A RANGE OF ENVIRONMENTS ______________________________________________________________________ 21 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 21 METHODS ........................................................................................................................................................... 21 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................. 21 DISCUSSION....................................................................................................................................................... 24 CHAPTER 6 IMPACTS OF HUMAN WASTE DISPOSAL ON WATER QUALITY ______________ 26 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 26 METHODS ........................................................................................................................................................... 26

Study Site ......................................................................................................................................................... 26 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................. 26 DISCUSSION....................................................................................................................................................... 28 CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSED MANAGEMENT OPTIONS___________________ 29 PUBLIC HEALTH RISK OF POORLY BURIED FAECAL DEPOSITS AROUND POPULAR

CAMPSITES ..................................................................................................................................................... 29 MANAGEMENT OPTIONS................................................................................................................................ 29


iv

Conclusion........................................................................................................................................................ 30 REFERENCES _________________________________________________________________________ 32 AUTHORS_____________________________________________________________________________ 35 List of Figures Figure 1: Location of study sites mentioned in the report___________________________________________ 3 Figure 2: Faecal evidence near Newdegate Hut, Mt. Field National Park ______________________________ 6 Figure 3: Defecation distance from Newdegate Hut_______________________________________________ 7 Figure 4: Defecation distance from K-Col Hut___________________________________________________ 7 Figure 5: Faecal evidence near K-Col hut, Mt. Field ______________________________________________ 8 Figure 6: Values for Total Nitrogen (%) for three radial transects (t1, t2, t3)___________________________ 13 Figure 7: Values for Total Phosphorus (ppm) for three radial transects (t1, t2, t3) ______________________ 14 Figure 8: Change in mean toilet paper decay over 1, 3, 6 and 12 months______________________________ 17 Figure 9: Change in mean toilet paper decay over 1, 3, 6, and 12 months - lowland eucalypt site (with and

without urine additions) __________________________________________________________ 18 Figure 10: Change in mean faecal decay over 1, 3, 6 and 12 months _________________________________ 18 Figure 11: Change in mean faeces decay over 1, 3, 6, and 12 months - lowland eucalypt site (with and without

urine additions) _________________________________________________________________ 19 Figure 12: Mean decay of used and clean tampons at two sites after 6 months burial ____________________ 19 Figure 13: Geometric mean of faecal coliform counts for each site at 3, 6 and 12 months ________________ 22 Figure 14: Geometric mean of faecal streptococci counts for each site at 3, 6 and 12 months______________ 22 Figure 15: Geometric mean of Escherichia coli counts for each site at 3, 6 and 12 months________________ 23 Figure 16: Geometric mean of Clostridium perfringens counts for each site at 3, 6 and 12 months _________ 23 List of Tables Table 1: Mean distance (m) of types of deposits from water, track and/or campsite and proportion of

inadequately buried deposits _________________________________________________________ 9 Table 2: Results of faecal contamination in soil samples taken from radial transects around hut/campsites. FC =

faecal coliforms, FS = faecal streptococci_______________________________________________ 15 Table 3: Geometric means for numbers and types of pathogens present in human faeces over a range of

environments, times and depths _____________________________________________________ 24 Table 4: Water quality data from sites surrounding Newdegate Hut _________________________________ 27 Table 5: Results of faecal sterol analyses on water samples from Newdegate Tarn and mossbeds __________ 27


v

SUMMARY

The introduction of a minimal impact bushwalking (MIB) education campaign has alerted walkers to preferred behavioural practices in natural environments. However, despite the introduction of this campaign in Tasmania in 1987, there are still issues relating to visitor impact in back-country environments. The impact of visitors on the natural environment is often measured in terms of vegetation loss or track erosion. Impacts dealing with water quality issues have also been researched to a lesser degree. However, despite the visual impact of inadequately buried human faeces at campsites, there has been very little work done on the extent of this problem, and on associated health risks.

The objectives of this report were to: • Determine the degree of non-compliance with minimal impact bush-walking guidelines around

popular huts and campsites in back-country regions of Tasmania; • Assess the impact of nutrient additions on vegetation and soils around hut sites, and the degree to

which poorly buried faecal deposits impact on water and soil quality; • Determine the longevity of faecal pathogens in the soil in order to assess whether there is any health

risk associated with potential re-excavation of human toilet waste. Many people did not abide by MIB guidelines. They did not travel 100 m away from campsites or from

natural water supplies to go to the toilet, nor did they bury waste to the recommended depth of 15 cm. Many deposits were toilet paper rather than faecal deposits, highlighting the need to educate users to discard all toilet waste products in an appropriate manner. The presence of a toilet was successful in reducing the number of deposits found in an area.

The decay rates of toilet paper and faeces depended on the environment in which they were buried. Toilet paper and faeces that had been buried to a depth of 15 cm were visible after 12 months burial in the nutrient poor, waterlogged, peat soils of western Tasmania. However, three of the four faecal pathogens present in these deposits were in low numbers or undetectable after 12 months. By contrast, deposits buried in sand in a coastal eucalypt forest were invisible within months of being buried. However, faecal pathogens survived in the soil. Therefore there is a greater public health risk associated with the coastal eucalypt environment, even though there is no visible evidence of any faecal material.

While there was little evidence of faecal contamination of soils around huts and campsites, elevated nutrient levels were found in close proximity to the sites. The elevated nutrients did not result in an increase in the presence or cover of exotic plant species for two of the three sites studied.

Inappropriately buried faecal deposits were concentrated within 50 m of a hut at one study site. The hut was located adjacent to an alpine tarn. Water samples taken from a number of places around the hut site showed that water quality decreased after periods of heavy rainfall. Faecal sterol analyses determined that up to 30% of the contamination of the water body was from a human source. Clearly these results have major management implications for popular sites with limited facilities.

We have developed a ‘limits to acceptable change’ approach to guide management agencies to prioritise management issues relating to the disposal of human waste. Our results, recommendations and guidelines will be made available via the internet www.geog.utas.edu.au/faecalmatters, through the media and through academic publications (journal articles). The results from this project have already been presented at national conferences. Results from sites within National Parks have been forwarded to the park management staff.

Further research could be directed into developing the ‘limits to acceptable change’ model of management with respect to this issue. Monitoring works should be undertaken for sites that are perceived as a health risk. Pre and post monitoring should be undertaken for problem sites where management has been changed. Surveys of people’s behaviour, attitude and reaction to faecal waste disposal would provide valuable information as to why people do not follow MIB guidelines. This information would form the basis of the development of a new education campaign to inform walkers about the social, economic and physical impacts of their behaviour.


vi


1

Chapter 1

Introduction

The visual impact of human faeces at a campsite rarely goes unnoticed by users (Cowdin 1986, Rochefort & Swinney 2000). However, this campsite impact is not systematically dealt with in the literature on recreational impacts of camping despite the development of a systematic management strategy for the United States (Cole, Peterson & Lucas 1987). Inappropriate human waste disposal has both a social (Cilimburg, Monz & Kehoe 2000, Land 1995, Lachapelle 2000, Reeves 1979, Rochefort & Swinney 2000) and a physical impact (Bridle & Kirkpatrick 2003, Cowdin 1986, Temple, Camper & Lucas 1982, Temple, Camper & McFeters 1980, Tippets, O’Ney & Farag 2001, von Platen 2003).

Tasmania has an international reputation as a destination for wilderness walking. Much overnight walking is concentrated in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (WHA), During 2001-2002 over 24,000 people chose to stay overnight in the WHA. The majority of overnight visitors stayed in the Cradle Mountain/Lake St. Clair National Park (66%) (Poll 2002). Over 90% of these visits were concentrated in the peak season, November to April (Poll 2002).

There are over 1,000 km of walking tracks of variable standard and difficulty in the WHA (Poll 2002). Facilities at huts and campsites also vary from location to location and the provision of facilities is partly determined by the planning zone (PWS 1999). Walkers either camp or stay in huts where available. Increasing usage of huts and campsites in remote locations demands some degree of compliance from users to ensure the sustainable nature of the ‘wild/natural’ resource for future users. The introduction of minimal impact bushwalking guidelines (MIB) in 1987 (O’Loughlin 1988) provided an education campaign to deliver messages on healthy and socially acceptable camping practices that minimise impacts on the natural environment and maintain peoples’ enjoyment of the bushwalking experience. These guidelines direct walkers to use a toilet if there is one available or bury faecal waste if there is no toilet. When burying waste, walkers are advised to choose a site at least 100 m from water or the track, dig a hole to a depth of 15 cm, bury the waste and cover the hole with soil.

While an assessment of the campaign one year after its instigation showed an improvement in walker behaviour (O’Loughlin 1988), campsite surveys carried out since 1992 show that some visitors are not complying with MIB guidelines on human faecal waste disposal. ‘Faecal events’, evidence of unburied or excavated faeces and or toilet paper, have been recorded around a number of campsites along popular walking tracks, within 100 m of the natural water supply or campsites (Dixon unpublished data). Once a toilet is installed at a site, the incidence of ‘faecal events’ is reduced dramatically. However, the presence of a toilet does not ensure the absence of faecal events (Dixon unpublished data).

Water quality around many of the huts and campsites along walking tracks around the State may not pass Australian water quality guidelines (Davies & Driessen 1997, Davies, Driessen, Cook, McConnell & Schinkel 1999). These guidelines suggest that water samples should contain median counts of less than 150 faecal coliforms per 100 ml and less than 35 enterococci per 100 ml for primary contact (bathing, swimming) and a median count of no more than 1000 faecal coliforms per 100 ml and less than 230 enterococci per 100 ml for secondary contact (boating, fishing) (ANZECC 2000). No pathogens should be detected in water deemed fit for drinking (NWQMS 1996). Research into water quality around some of the major overnight locations in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (WHA) showed that many places passed ANZECC (2000) guidelines for primary contact. However, very few places passed NWQMS (1996) guidelines for drinking water quality (Davies & Driessen 1997, Davies et al. 1999).

Where water quality does not meet Australian standards, it is not necessarily due to the impacts of human users. Wildlife such as wallabies, possums and wombats, are a natural source of faecal material. Native herbivores have been known to spread Giardia spp. in back-country regions in Tasmania and elsewhere (Suk, Riggs & Nelson 1986, Kettlewell 1995, Bettlol, Kettlewell, Davies & Goldsmid 1997). Therefore faecal contamination of water bodies may be from non-human sources. In addition, instances of wild animals excavating faecal deposits have been reported. Whatever the source, there are health issues related to faecal contamination of water bodies.


2

Project Aims The aims of the project are to:

• Determine the degree of non- compliance with minimal impact bush-walking guidelines around popular huts and campsites in back-country regions of Tasmania;

• Assess the impact of nutrient additions on vegetation and soils around hut sites, and the degree to which poorly buried faecal deposits impact on water and soil quality;

• Determine the longevity of faecal pathogens in the soil in order to assess whether there is any health risk associated with potential re-excavation of human toilet waste.


3

Chapter 2

Are Bushwalkers Adhering to Minimal Impact Bushwalking (MIB) Guidelines?

Introduction A change in user behaviour was reported with the introduction of MIB, with walkers going an average of 70 m away from campsites or water to defecate (O’Loughlin 1988). No data have been presented since this time to determine whether users are still complying with MIB guidelines. This section, describing surveys of faecal deposits, aims to shed some light on walker behaviour across a range of accessible to relatively remote, but popular, walking destinations.

Figure 1: Location of study sites mentioned in the report

LAUNCESTON

HOBART

Overland Track

Eastern alpine

Montane grassland

Western lowland

Montane moorland

Melaleuca

Walls of Jerusalem

South Coast Track Lowland eucalypt

Coastal eucalypt (42°49'S, 147°31'E)

Mt Field NP

Methods

Study Sites

Mt Field National Park Three huts in Mt Field National Park (Figure 1) were chosen to be surveyed for walker compliance to MIB guidelines: Newdegate Hut; K-Col Hut; Twilight Tarn Hut. Mt Field National Park is visited by over 140,000 visitors annually (PWS 2002a). This park is a popular day walk area, with limited over-night walking facilities. It is likely that the people who use this park, are less experienced than those who visit more remote areas.


4

Therefore this park provides an insight into user behaviour at one end of the visitor spectrum. Newdegate Hut is surrounded by alpine heath and rainforest scrub. The soils at this site are derived from

Jurassic dolerite, with black peat being present in waterlogged areas. The hut is historic. It is not maintained as an accommodation hut and it has no toilet facilities. Walkers are advised to camp at the nearby Twilight Tarn Hut, which does have a toilet. Despite this advice, walkers still stay at Newdegate Hut or camp near by. The log book records up to 300 visitors over the peak period, but it is not known how many of these actually stay overnight.

K-Col Hut is approximately 3 hours walk from the nearest road. It is situated at the head of a valley, and is some distance from a water-supply. A water-tank collects rain-water from the roof of the hut to provide drinking water. Very little shelter from vegetation is available near the hut. There are likely to be fewer visitors to this hut than to Newdegate Hut. The hut is regarded as an emergency shelter only. Both huts are located at approximately 1,130 m asl.

Twilight Tarn Hut is an historical hut which is used as an accommodation hut. There is a campsite located next to the hut, where a toilet was installed in 2001. The hut is located at 1,000 m asl. Visitor numbers are likely to be similar to those for Newdegate Hut.

The Overland Track – Cradle Mountain-Lake St Clair National Park This 80 km track (Figure 1) is the most popular overnight walking experience in Tasmania, attracting over 8000 walkers per annum. This walk is probably the first overnight walk that people undertake in Tasmania, it therefore provides an insight into the ‘medium’ range of walker experience. The majority of these visitors walk the track during the peak season, November to May, and most (75%) are from interstate or overseas (Poll 2003). Walkers can camp or stay at huts along the route, which generally takes at least five days. Much of the track is located in alpine/subalpine vegetation. Huts are usually serviced with toilets and water tanks, with designated campsites being located in proximity to the huts. Other campsites are located along the track. These sites have no hut, tank water or toilet facilities. Emergency shelters do not generally have water or toilet facilities.

The South Coast Track This track is the second most popular extended overnight walking experience in Tasmania, attracting around 850 walkers per annum. The majority of walkers (94%) walk the 85 km track (Figure 1) during the peak season (November to May), taking six to eight days to complete the journey (Poll 2002). There are no hut facilities other than at Melaleuca Inlet (Appendix A) and a shelter at Deadmans Bay. Toilets are provided at all designated campsites along the route. This walk is considered to be more challenging than the Overland Track and caters for more self-reliant walkers.

Data Collection Systematic searches for evidence of faeces and/or toilet paper were undertaken in the vicinity of the three huts at Mt Field National Park during April and May 2002, after the main tourist season. Once a group of deposits were found, the position of one deposit was recorded with a GPS. The relative position and distance of all other deposits in the group was recorded with a tape measure and compass. Using this method the same GPS position was used to reference all visible deposits within approximately 15 m. This process was repeated until an area, covering a radius of approximately 120 m from the hut, was mapped for faecal deposits. Data were adjusted to accommodate differences between magnetic north and true north. Each deposit was then given a GPS position. This procedure ensured accurate data translocation to AMG printed maps and manipulation into a GIS package.

The Overland Track survey was undertaken during February (late summer) 2003. Data on faecal events were collected for each hut and campsite along the track. Data were also collected from key track-heads leading to day-walks off the main track. All deposits were mapped using a GPS. Data were also collected on the approximate distance of each deposit from the nearest natural water supply and from the track/hut/campsite. The following information was recorded: type of deposit (faecal, toilet paper, or sanitary product); type of burial (deep [regarded as MIB depth 15 cm], shallow burial, or surface deposit); whether the deposit was covered by rocks or soil or vegetation; where the deposit was buried (behind a vegetation screen, in bare ground, moss or litter); and whether there was any evidence of excavation by animals. Data were also collected on the campsite/hut facilities such as the provision of toilets or water tanks. Data on site physical parameters were also collected (soil depth, soil type, geology, and slope).

Notes of evidence of faecal deposits and toilet paper were made along the South Coast Track during July 2001. Surveys were undertaken along the track and at campsites. The number and type of deposits were recorded and mapped on a 1:25,000 topographic map.


5

Data Analysis The data were compiled for individual sites, due to the minor variations in data collection techniques between sites. The data from the Overland Track sites were aggregated and the relationships between the following variables determined: faecal deposit/non faecal deposit; burial (deep, shallow, under rock, surface); distance from hut/camp; distance from water; soil depth (less than 20 cm, 20-100 cm, more than 100 cm); presence/absence of toilet). Chi-square was used to determine the significance of relationships between class variables. ANOVA was used to determine the significance of relationships between class and continuous variables, and the paired t-test was used to compare sets of continuous variables.

Emergency shelters were grouped with campsites as they have no toilet or tank facilities. Only one old hut has a toilet but no tank.

Results

Mt Field National Park A total of 52 recognisable faecal deposits were located within a 120 m radius of Newdegate hut (Figure 2). Two distinct groups of defecators emerged from the study of deposit positions at this site, those who abided by MIB guidelines and those who did not. Of the 52 deposits, seven (13.5%) were located 100 m or more away from the hut while 45 (86.5%) were clustered within 55 m of the hut (Figure 3). The distance from water is approximately equal to the distance from hut at this site.

Clusters of deposits were in part determined by the physical features of the site, and by the presence of vegetation that provided privacy. Deposit density in clusters was highest (1.5 deposits/m2) around the hut and lowest (0.07 deposits/m2) among those people who defecated more than 100 m away from the hut. Those deposits that were located within 55 m of the hut, were also more likely to be closer to each other (mean distance of 1.3 m apart) compared to those deposits found more than 100 m away from the hut (mean distance of 4 m apart).

A total of 39 deposits were found at K Col hut, all of which were located less than 55 m from the hut (Figure 4). More than half of the deposits (23 deposits or 59%) were located within 30 m of the hut (Figure 5). There was no discernible pattern or ‘clustering’ of deposits at K Col hut, probably due to the lack of vegetation screens and the dominance of a boulder field over much of the area. The mapped area at K Col covered 1,221m2. Density for the 39 deposits equated to 0.03 deposits per m2. Nearest Neighbour distance for the 39 mapped deposits was 4.3 m.

No deposits were found at Twilight Tarn Hut. Walkers appear to utilise the toilet, installed in 2001.


6

Figure 2: Faecal evidence near Newdegate Hut, Mt. Field National Park


7

Figure 3: Defecation distance from Newdegate Hut

3

524541

3734

2218

117

3737

510152025303540455055

>100

dist

ance

(m) f

rom

hut

cumulative number of deposits

Figure 4: Defecation distance from K-Col Hut

15

716

232425

3135

3939

0510152025303540455055

>55

dist

ance

(m) f

rom

hut

cumulative number of deposits


8

Figure 5: Faecal evidence near K-Col hut, Mt. Field

The Overland Track A total of 223 deposits were found along the Overland Track. Seventy-two per cent (160) of the deposits were toilet paper products rather than faeces.

Of the 63 faecal deposits, 32% were deeply buried, 47% were shallowly buried, 16% were covered with a rock and 5% were on the surface of the ground. Of the 160 incidences of other toilet wastes (toilet paper, tissues and/or tampons) 1% were deeply buried, 5% were shallowly buried, 2% were under rocks and 92% were on the surface. The relationship between type of waste and type of burial was highly significant (Chi2 = 158.1, d.f. = 3, P < 0.001).


9

The type of burial varied significantly with distance from hut/camp/track (H = 8.65, d.f. = 3, P = 0.034), with the median distances being 22 m for deep burial, 18 m for shallow burial, 14 m for placement under a rock and 13 m for surface disposal. There was no significant variation with distance from water. Soil depth strongly influenced the type of burial (Chi2 = 31.8, d.f. = 6, P < 0.001), with disposal under rocks being more than expected where soils fell in the shallowest class and in the deepest class. Both shallow disposal and disposal under rocks, was less than expected when the soils were of intermediate depth.

The mean distance of all deposits from water was greater than the mean distance from huts, tracks or campsites (69.1 m cf 21.7 m, T = 16.96, P < 0.001). This was more strikingly the case for non-faecal deposits (70.6 m cf 20.4 m, T = 15.2, P < 0.001) than for faecal deposits (65.6 m cf 24.8 m, T = 7.8, P < 0.001). While the proportions of faecal and non-faecal deposits did not significantly differ between sites with toilets and those without toilets (Chi2 = 1.51, d.f. = 1, P = 0.219), toileted sites had a mean of 1.6 faecal deposits compared to a mean of 3.8 for non-toileted sites. There was significant variation in the distance of deposits from both water (F = 24.66, d.f. = 3, P < 0.001) and distance from hut/camp/track (F = 5.49, d.f. = 3, P = 0.001) by category of site (Table 1). In both cases the distances from tracks was the highest and that from huts was the lowest.

Table 1: Mean distance (m) of types of deposits from water, track and/or campsite and proportion of inadequately buried deposits

Category Type of deposit

Distance to water (m)

Distance to track/ hut/ campsite (m) N No. of shallow/

surface deposits faeces 27.6 13.8 10 (23%) 4 (40%)

Hut/tank/toilet non-faeces 53.1 25.0 33 (77%) 32 (97%) faeces 80.0 30.0 3 (20%) 2 (67%) Hut/no tank/

toilet non-faeces 40.6 13.2 12 (80%) 12 (100%) faeces 61.0 19.7 35 (38%) 23 (66%)

Camp/no toilet non-faeces 64.4 14.6 58 (62%) 58 (100%) faeces 97.0 43.7 15 (21%) 10 (67%)

Track/no toilet non-faeces 93.7 25.0 57 (79%) 57 (100%)

The South Coast Track Only five samples were found along the South Coast track. These consisted of four surface deposits of toilet paper and one surface faecal deposit all within five metres of the track or campsite. The faecal deposit had been left by one of a large party, ahead of the survey team.

Discussion Compliance with MIB guidelines is poor. On the Overland Track only 9% of observed deposits and 32% of faecal deposits were buried to depth, although more buried deposits were likely to avoid detection than exposed ones. At K Col all faecal deposits were within 100 m of the hut. At Newdegate only 13.5% of faecal deposits were more than 100 m from both the hut and the lake. On the Overland Track the level of compliance seems greater in relation to distance from water, than distance from hut/camp/track, perhaps because walkers understand that pollution of their water supply can have serious personal consequences. It appears that some are not convinced that depth of burial or proximity to a hut present personal dangers. Also, burial to depth can be difficult where soils are shallow and rocky, accounting for the relatively high use of rocks to conceal deposits in such areas.

The presence or absence of a water tank at a hut does not seem to have any impact on walker behaviour. However, the presence of a toilet seems highly effective in almost eliminating human waste deposition in natural vegetation. Those who do not use toilets at sites where they are provided seem less compliant with MIB guidelines than those who use campsites without toilets.

The proportion of walkers who bury waste to depth during a 1987 survey along the Overland Track was 68% (O’Loughlin 1988). Our study of the Overland Track showed that 32% of the deposits found were buried to a depth approximating MIB guidelines, and that 63% either buried waste in a shallow hole or just covered it with litter, vegetation or rocks. O’Loughlin reported that 19% of people covered their waste with rocks or litter and that 1% left an uncovered deposit on the surface. Our survey found that at least 5% of deposits were surface deposits. While O’Loughlin (1988) interviewed people, we looked for evidence of faecal deposits. It is difficult


10

to correlate our data with those of O’Loughlin. However, O’Loughlin (1988), like us, found that people were more compliant with MIB guidelines on the South Coast Track than on the Overland Track.

Over 40,000 visitor nights are spent on the Overland Track. We found 223 deposits or approximately one deposit per 200 people. It is difficult to know how many people overnight at Newdegate Hut at Mt Field. The hut log book records approximately 280 people for a summer season, which with 55 deposits being found at the site, would give a ratio of one deposit for every five people. An average of 850 people spend five to seven nights on the South Coast track, where only five deposits were found. Therefore the ratio along this track would be one deposit for every 850 people. These data are crude, but on first reading they appear to support the hypothesis that the differences in user behaviour on different tracks is related to different levels of walker experience. However, both the Overland Track and the South Coast track have toilets at designated overnight stops. Twilight Tarn hut also has a toilet. The greatest densities of poorly buried faecal waste occurred at Newdegate hut and K Col hut, where there is no toilet. It is likely that the provision of a toilet at these locations would do much to alleviate the number of faecal deposits at the sites.


11

Chapter 3

Impacts of the Burial of Human Toilet Waste on Vegetation and Soils Around Huts and Campsites

Introduction Previous research has shown that exotic plant species are commonly found around the entrances of huts in remote locations (North 1991). The location of these exotic species is likely to be a result of disturbance around the hut and urination at night (Kirkpatrick 1983). However, a recent study on nutrient additions on vegetation across a range of environments, found no relationship between nutrient additions and exotic plant species (Bridle & Kirkpatrick 2003). There are currently no soil nutrient data at huts or campsites in back-country regions.

The burial of human faecal waste carries a risk of contaminating the soil with faecal pathogens. These pathogens may survive for a long period of time (Temple et al. 1982), and may be transported laterally through the soil (Sobsey 1983), possibly contaminating local water supplies (Bitton & Harvey 1992, Gerba, Wallis & Melnick 1975, Varness et al. 1978). No data are available on the presence of faecal pathogens in the soil surrounding huts and campsites. This section reports on an analysis of vegetation and of nutrients and faecal pathogens in soils around three popular back-country destinations.

Methods

Study Sites Site 1, Melaleuca (Figure 1), is located in south-west Tasmania in the South-West Conservation Area. The vegetation is dominated by buttongrass moorland (Gymnoschoenus sphaerocephalus) overlying highly organic, waterlogged and acidic peat. The area is frequented by an estimated 4,000 to 5,000 people per year (PWS 2002b) who either fly, sail or walk to the accommodation huts centred around Melaleuca Inlet. There is a composting toilet provided at the location. Site 2, Pool of Bethesda is located in the Walls of Jerusalem National Park (Figure 1), within the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (WHA). The dominant vegetation type around the campsite is grassy alpine heath on shallow rocky clay soils derived from Jurassic dolerite. The tarn is approximately four hours walk from the closest road. There is no toilet or hut facility at this location. Over 2,300 people register to walk into the Walls of Jerusalem annually, with the majority (90%) visiting the park from November to April (Poll 2002). Site 3, Newdegate Hut, is described in Chapter 2.

Data Collection At each site three radial transects were located in the vicinity of the campsite or hut, outwards to a distance of 50 m. Vegetation surveys consisted of quadrats (1 m x 1 m) placed at 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 20, 50 m along each of the three transects. Plant species presence and an estimate of cover were recorded using a modified Braun-Blanquet scale (Mueller-Dombois & Ellenberg 1974): 1 = < 5%, 2 = 5-25%, 3 = 25-50%, 4 = 50-75%, 5 = 75-100%.

Bulked soil samples (using two 0-5 cm samples) were also collected from each vegetation quadrat. Soil samples were analysed for the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus present, two nutrients that are commonly found in urine and faeces (Gotaas 1956). Soil chemical analyses used the following methods: Total P (1 part soil: 20 parts 1N sodium bicarbonate @ pH 8 (Olsen), shaken 30 min.); Total N (followed method 7A3) (Kjeldahl N with salicylic modification) (Rayment & Higginson 1992). Soil samples were also sent away for microbiological testing for the presence of faecal coliforms (AS4276.7-1995), faecal streptococci (AS4276.9-1995), Listeria spp. (USDA FSIS-1989), Salmonellae (AS4276.14-1995), and Clostridium perfringens (AS4276.1.16-1995 -membrane filtration). All soil samples were taken using a narrow trowel which was sterilised between samples.

Transect Location Melaleuca Transect 1 ran from a point 6 m from the north side of the Charles King Memorial Hut through 340° (magnetic) until it reached the lagoon at 47 m. Transect 2 started 1 m from the edge of the track, 10 m before the hut. This


12

transect was 50 m long, following the direction of 186° (magnetic). Transect 3 was located between 1 and 2. The third transect commenced three meters from the back of the toilet and ran at 240° (magnetic) for 50 m. Areas of bare ground located close to the toilet showed evidence of nutrient enrichment by the presence of algae on the soil surface. Despite this, there was no evidence of inappropriate human waste disposal at the hut site. There was some evidence of native wildlife at the site, though numbers of scats were not high.

Pool of Bethesda Transect 1 was located at south-west edge of the camp ground and following 200° (magnetic) for 50 m. Transect 2 commenced on the western edge of the campsite and ran 308° (magnetic) for 50 m, while transect 3 commenced on the northern edge of the camp site and ran 8° (magnetic) for 50 m. Throughout this area there was extensive evidence of human waste disposal with faecal events being confined to the relatively few suitable places that were offered by this landscape. There was also a very large wildlife population in this area with all of the grassy areas partly covered in wallaby droppings.

Newdegate Hut Newdegate Hut is located at the northern end of Lake Newdegate. Transect 1 was located on the north-east corner of the hut and followed a bearing of 8° (magnetic) for 50 m. Transect 2 started at the north-west corner of the hut and followed a bearing of 314° (magnetic) for 50 m. Transect 3 started from the south-west corner of the hut and followed 228° (magnetic). There was extensive evidence of inappropriate disposal of human waste around this hut. There was also an abundance of the exotic grass Poa annua growing around the hut door. Several of the drainage lines in close proximity to the hut also showed signs of excessive nutrients as indicated by the vigorous growth of green algae.

Results

Vegetation Surveys No exotic species were recorded in quadrats located along the transects at any of the three sites. Only one exotic species, the grass Poa annua, was observed outside the transects in close proximity to Newdegate Hut.

Soil Nutrient Analyses Nutrient peaks were found within 10 m of the huts/campsite (Figure 6 a,b,c, and Figure 7 a,b,c). However there was no obvious relationship between soil nutrient spikes and the presence or cover of particular plant species in the quadrats. Quadrats that were dominated by taller vegetation (providing privacy for campers) did not show higher levels of nutrients than those that were dominated by smaller life forms such as grasses and herbs.

Soil Pathogen Analysis None of the samples taken from Newdegate Hut or the Pool of Bethesda recorded any presence of faecal pathogens, despite there being faecal deposits close to these sites (Table 2). Only one sample at Melaleuca showed a relatively high faecal coliform count (Table 2). This sample was taken in close proximity to the composting toilet. However, the impact of the toilet is localised as no elevated coliform levels were found further along the transect.


13

Figure 6: Values for Total Nitrogen (%) for three radial transects (t1, t2, t3)

a) Melaleuca Hut (M)

b) Pool of Bethesda (W) campsite

c) Newdegate Hut (F)

(Missing data from Newdegate Hut are due to quadrats being located on rock outcrops)

0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2

1 2 3 5 10 20 50

Distance from campsite (m)

Tota

l N (%

)

W N t1 W N t2 W N t3

0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2

1 2 3 5 10 20 50

Distance from hut (m)

Tota

l N (%

)

F N t1 F N t2 F N t3

0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2

1 2 3 5 10 20 50


Tota

l N (%

)

M N t1 M N t2 M N t3


14

Figure 7: Values for Total Phosphorus (ppm) for three radial transects (t1, t2, t3)

a) Melaleuca Hut (M)

b) Pool of Bethesda (W) camp site

c) Newdegate Hut (F)

(Missing data from Newdegate Hut are due to quadrats being located on rock outcrops.)

0

4

8

12

16

1 2 3 5 10 20 50

Distance from campsite (m)

Tota

l P (p

pm)

W P t1 W P t2 W P t3

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 2 3 5 10 20 50


Tota

l p (p

pm)

M P t1 M P t2 M P t3

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 2 3 5 10 20 50


Tota

l P (p

pm)

F P t1 F P t2 F P t3


15

Table 2: Results of faecal contamination in soil samples taken from radial transects around hut/campsites. FC = faecal coliforms, FS = faecal streptococci

Melaleuca Pool of Bethesda

Mt Field National Park

FC/g FC/g FC/g FS/gSalmonellae/100g Listeria spp./100g Clostridium

perfringens/g

A1 <10 D1 <10 G1 <10 <10 not detected not detected <10 A2 <10 D2 <10 G2 <10 <10 composite sample composite sample <10 A3 <10 D3 <10 G3 <10 <10 <10 A4 <10 D4 <10 G4 <10 <10 <10* A5 <10 D5 <10 G5 <10 <10 <10 A6 <10 D6 <10 G6 <10 <10 <10 A7 <10 D7 <10 G7 <10 <10 <10 B1 <10 E1 <10 H1 <10 <10 not detected not detected <10 B2 <10 E2 <10 H2 <10 <10 composite sample composite sample <10 B3 <10 E3 <10 H3 <10 <10 <10* B4 <10 E4 <10 H4 <10 <10 <10 B5 <10 E5 <10 H5 <10 <10 <10 B6 <10 E6 <10 H6 <10 <10 <10 B7 <10 E7 <10 H7 <10 <10 <10 C1 <10 F1 <10 I1 <10 <10 not detected not detected <10 C2 <10 F2 <10 I2 <10 <10 composite sample composite sample <10 C3 <10 F3 <10 I3 <10 <10 <10 C4 <10 F4 <10 I4 <10 <10 <10 C5 <10 F5 <10 I5 <10 <10 <10 C6 120 (est) F6 <10 I6 <10 <10 <10 C7 <10 F7 <10 I7 <10 <10 <10*

Test Methods: Clostridium perfringens AS4276.1.16-1995 (membrane filtration), AS1766.2.8-1991 (C. perfringens in food); Salmonellae AS4276.14-1995; Listeria USDA FSIS (1989); FC (faecal coliforms) AS4276.7-1995; FS (faecal streptococci) AS4276.9-1995 * presumptive Clostridium present but not found after further testing.

Discussion It is likely that the increase in nutrient levels within 10 m of the huts/campsite, is a result of people urinating during the night, when privacy is not a problem, and people are less inclined to travel any distance. The fact that the elevated nutrient levels did not coincide with any detection of faecal pathogens might suggest that the nutrient additions were primarily from urine rather than faeces.

Elevated nutrient levels from a urine source do not necessarily lead to an increase in the presence or cover of exotic plant species (Bridle & Kirkpatrick 2003); as was the case at two of our sites. However, all three sites used in this study were dominated by native plant species, with very few or no exotic species recorded. All three sites are also extreme environments. A build-up of nutrients over a long period of time may be negligible with current visitor numbers, but this may change should visitor numbers increase dramatically.

The lack of faecal pathogens detected in the soil samples should not lead to complacency. Research has shown that faecal pathogens may travel through the soil profile (Sobsey 1983). Reeves (1979) noted that these pathogens were generally only detected if one sampled a faecal sample rather than the soil surrounding the deposit. The results from this part of the study suggest that:

1. Faecal pathogens do not travel from depositional sites through the soil profile of acid soils; 2. Faecal pathogens do not persist in acid soils for any length of time; 3. There is no public health risk to users at huts/campsite from burying faecal waste close to the

hut/campsite. However, for these reasons we investigate the longevity of micro-organisms in specific faecal deposits later

in the report.


16

Chapter 4

Visual Assessment of the Decay of Faeces and Toilet Paper

Introduction The data presented in Chapter 2 illustrated how much toilet paper and faeces were located around huts and campsites. However, it was not known how old the deposits were, not for how long they would persist. Bridle and Kirkpatrick (2003) report on the slow decay of toilet paper in alpine environments, with accelerated decay after the addition of nutrients from artificial urine. While their study used a urine substitute as it has more nutrients than faeces, it is not known what the effect of faeces or the effect of faeces and urine combined have on toilet paper decay.

In sub-tropical Queensland buried human faeces decayed almost completely in rainforest after one month (Buckley 1998). Faeces buried in the sandy loams of a dry eucalypt woodland decayed within two months, and faeces buried in coastal sand dunes took four months to decompose. There are no comparative data on the rate of breakdown of faeces in natural environments in Tasmania.

Bridle and Kirkpatrick (2003) also reported on the decay of tampons with and without nutrient additions from artificial urine. Their results showed that tampon decay was extremely slow across all sites, with no complete decay after six months. The tampons used in their experiment were clean, unused. Whether blood enhances decay is not known.

Methods

Study Sites A montane grassland at an elevation of 830 m asl was chosen (Figure 1). This site is a limestone floored valley with terra rosa soils, overlain in parts by an organic soil horizon. The site is located close to Cradle Valley, an end point of the Overland Track. This montane grassland supports a high density of native animals. This site was chosen as it was previously used in another study to determine whether native animals excavate human waste (Kirkpatrick & Bridle 2002).

A coastal eucalypt woodland site (Figure 1) was used in a previous study to assess the relative breakdown of toilet paper and tampons over time (Kirkpatrick & Bridle 2002, Bridle & Kirkpatrick unpublished data). This site recorded the fastest decay of all nine sites in the previous survey. The site is representative of parts of the South Coast Track and other Tasmanian coastal walks. This site has an altitude of 5 m asl.

A montane moorland site at 850 m asl (Figure 1) was also used in the Kirkpatrick and Bridle (2002) study. This site showed very little decay in toilet paper and tampons over a two year period. The site can be related to much of the montane country in the southwest, including parts of the South Coast track and the Western Arthur Range.

A lowland eucalypt site was chosen as an intermediate site between the montane moorland and the coastal eucalypt site. The lowland eucalypt site is a dry eucalypt forest dominated by Eucalyptus obliqua with a healthy understorey of Mimosaceae, Epacridaceae and Fabaceae. The soils are grey brown podsolics derived from mudstone. This site sits at an altitude of 380 m asl.

Opportunistic (single) samples were collected for a western lowland (Figure 1) gravel site in southwest Tasmania (320 m asl), and an eastern alpine heath site on the Eastern Central Plateau (1,150 m asl) (Figure 1). The gravel site is representative of parts of the Western Arthur Range and the South Coast Track, while the alpine heath site is representative of parts of the Overland Track.

Data Collection Human faeces were collected from a number of contributors over a period of 18 days. A deposit included faeces from a single event plus used toilet paper. Deposits were frozen at – 40 C for periods of between two and 18 days to facilitate synchronised burial. One of the research team (JvP) collected 7.5 l of her own urine over a period of five days. This was bulked before application.

A single transect, approximately 20 m long, was laid out along the contour at the lowland eucalypt, the montane moorland and the coastal eucalypt sites. Twenty suitable toilet sites were located where enough space


17

was afforded for a person to squat, where possible, in proximity to a vegetation screen. Holes were dug (minimum distance apart = 50 cm) using commercially available toilet trowels to a depth of 15 cm. Holes along each transect (20) were grouped into blocks of four and were randomly allocated a treatment: control; 1/12; 3; and 6. Faeces and toilet paper were buried in 15 holes along each transect. Five visual assessments of each treatment were made at one, three, six and 12 months. Samples that were visually assessed at one month were reburied and assessed again at 12 months. An additional transect was added to the site at the lowland eucalypt site. This transect also consisted of 20 holes (using the same design as above), however 500 ml of urine was also added to the faeces and toilet paper before burial.

Retrieved deposits were rated according to their visible decomposition state for each of toilet paper and faeces, the classes being; highly visible; some decomposition; not visible.

A single transect was located at the forest grassland boundary at the montane grassland site. Six faecal deposits were divided into two equal halves, creating 12 samples. Each sample was deposited in a hole offset from the transect. Half of the deposits were buried to a depth of 5 cm and the other half were buried to a depth of 15 cm. The samples were left for a year, when they were dug up and visually assessed for any evidence of faecal material or toilet paper.

The opportunistic sample taken from a western lowland gravel site in southwest Tasmania was assessed after three months. This sample was a surface deposit covered with a rock. The second opportunistic sample from the eastern alpine site was assessed after nine months burial in soil to a depth of 15 cm.

Five clean tampons and five used tampons were buried at a depth of 15 cm along a transect at the montane moorland and at the lowland eucalypt sites. The tampons were buried for six months, after which time they were visually assessed for any signs of decay (by volume). The scale used was as follows: 1 = no decay, 2 = ¼ decayed, 3 = ½ decayed, 4 = ¾ decayed, 5 = over 90% decayed.

Data Analysis Where the number of samples allowed, the data were analysed using the Chi-square test. In some instances it was necessary to reduce some of the decay classes to two (1 and 2 + 3 or 1 + 2 and 3) and the different sampling times or sites were pooled. P > 0.05 was taken as non-significant.

Results At the montane moorland site the decay of toilet paper was less than at both the coastal eucalypt woodland and the lowland eucalypt forest (coastal eucalypt vs moorland, Chi2 = 25.664, d.f. = 1, P < 0.001; lowland eucalypt vs moorland, Chi2 = 9.643, d.f. = 1, P < 0.02) (Figure 8). Decay was not significantly different between the coastal eucalypt woodland and the lowland eucalypt forest (Figure 8). There was significant variation in toilet paper decay through time (Chi2 = 9.333, d.f. = 2, P < 0.05). The addition of urine in the lowland eucalypt forest did not significantly affect decay (Figure 9).

Figure 8: Change in mean toilet paper decay over 1, 3, 6 and 12 months

1

2

3

LE-1 LE-3 LE-6 LE-12

CE-1

CE-3

CE-6

CE-12

MM-1

MM-3

MM-6

MM-12

Site/Time

Deg

ree

of d

ecay

[LE = lowland eucalypt, CE = coastal eucalypt, MM = montane moorland. 1 = visible, no decay; 2 = visible, slight decay, mycorrhiza; 3 = no evidence of toilet paper remaining]


18

Figure 9: Change in mean toilet paper decay over 1, 3, 6, and 12 months - lowland eucalypt site (with and without urine additions)

[1 = visible, no decay; 2 = visible, slight decay, mycorrhiza; 3 = no evidence of toilet paper remaining] Decay of faeces in both the coastal eucalypt woodland and the lowland eucalypt forest was greater than at the

montane moorland (coastal eucalypt vs moorland, Chi2 = 11.62, d.f. = 1, P < 0.001; lowland eucalypt vs moorland, Chi2 = 7.78, d.f. = 1, P < 0.01) but there was no significant difference in decay between the lowland eucalypt and coastal eucalypt (Figure 10). There was significant variation in faecal decay through time (Chi2 = 11.13, d.f. = 2, P < 0.01). The addition of urine in the lowland eucalypt forest did not significantly affect decay (Figure 11).

Faeces and toilet paper were undetectable after 12 months in the high rainfall, high nutrient grassland site. They were also undetectable in the two opportunistic samples (lowland western and eastern alpine). However, there was a narrow dark layer in the eastern alpine sample.

There was no significant difference in the decay of used or clean tampons after six months burial in the soil from either the lowland eucalypt or the montane moorland site (Figure 12). Decay was negligible.

Figure 10: Change in mean faecal decay over 1, 3, 6 and 12 months

1

2

3

LE-1 LE-3 LE-6 LE-12

CE-1

CE-3

CE-6

CE-12

MM-1

MM-3

MM-6

MM-12

Site/Time

Deg

ree

of d

ecay

[LE = lowland eucalypt, CE = coastal eucalypt, MM = montane moorland. 1 = highly visible, strong odour, distinct colour; 2 = just visible, mild odour, slight colour difference; 3 = not visible, no odour, colour indistinct from surrounding soil]

1

2

3

1m 3m 6m 12m 1m 3m 6m 12mlowland eucalypt lowland eucalypt with urine

Treatment/Time

Mean decay


19

Figure 11: Change in mean faeces decay over 1, 3, 6, and 12 months - lowland eucalypt site (with and

without urine additions)

[1 = highly visible, strong odour, distinct colour; 2 = just visible, mild odour, slight colour difference; 3 = not visible, no odour, colour indistinct from surrounding soil]

Figure 12: Mean decay of used and clean tampons at two sites after 6 months burial

[I = no decay, 2 = ¼ decayed, 3 = ½ decayed, 4 = ¾ decayed, 5 = over 90% decayed]

Discussion The relative rates of breakdown of toilet paper in the coastal eucalypt woodland and at the buttongrass moorland site replicated those observed by Bridle and Kirkpatrick (unpublished data). The intermediate rate of decay in the dry eucalypt forest fitted the predictive environmental model developed by Kirkpatrick and Bridle (2002). The decay of faecal matter appeared marginally more rapid than that of toilet paper, but mimicked its relativities. The breakdown rate of faeces may be most strongly influenced by the degree of soil dryness, in the same manner as toilet paper (Bridle & Kirkpatrick unpublished data). In this context, it is interesting to note that, in the study of Buckley (1998) faecal breakdown rates were also inversely related to rainfall. The rate of breakdown on lowland sites in Queensland was similar to that found in the lowland sites in the present study, indicating that temperature has relatively little influence.

Bridle and Kirkpatrick (unpublished data) found a strongly significant increase in the decay of toilet paper with the addition of nutrients. The failure of urine to influence breakdown rates of faeces and toilet paper deposits in the present study indicates that sufficient nutrients are contained in faeces to accelerate the process of decay near the level of decay induced by urine addition.

1

2

3

1m 3m 6m 12m 1m 3m 6m 12m

lowland eucalypt lowland eucalypt with urine Treatment/Time

Mean decay

1

2

3

Lowland eucalypt Montane moorland

Site

Deg

ree

of d

ecay

Mean Used Mean Clean


20

The inability of faeces and toilet paper to break down to any great degree over 12 months in the saturated peats of the montane moorland site represents a high visible encounter hazard. Whether there is any health issue related to faecal pathogen survival is discussed in Chapter 5.


21

Chapter 5

The Longevity of Faecal Pathogens in Soil Over a Range of Environments

Introduction The previous chapter showed that toilet paper and faeces may be visible after long periods of time in high elevation environments. While the visible evidence of inappropriate human waste disposal may be socially or aesthetically undesirable, the real problem lies in potential contact with human pathogens. There have been no studies in Australia that have investigated the longevity of human pathogens in faeces in the soil.

Human faeces potentially contain over 100 individual pathogenic bacteria, viruses and parasites (Cowgill 1971). Survival of pathogens in the soil is contingent on temperature, soil characteristics and pathogen type (Beard 1940; Bitton & Harvey 1992; Gerba et al. 1975; Sobsey 1983; Young & Greenfield 1923). In particular, Tate (1978) found that bacteria persisted longer in organic than non-organic soils, Beard (1940) observed that low pH reduced the survival of Salmonella typhimurium and Reeves (1979) found that the persistence of coliform bacteria was inhibited in dry environments. Surface deposits of faeces have been shown to lose pathogenicity in response to desiccation (Elliot & Ellis 1977; Ells 1999 2000a 2000b; Robertson, Campbell & Smith 1992; van Donsel, Geldreich & Clarke 1967), but to harbour bacteria for more than four months in cool, moist conditions (Ells 2000a), and over multiple freeze-thaw cycles in snow (Parker, Yushak, Martel & Reynolds 2000). Temple et al. (1982) found that bacterial longevity was not affected by burial depth.

This section reports on the fate of bacteria buried in human faeces in alpine, montane, temperate and coastal regions in Australia over time.

Methods Study sites, transect layout and collection methods were outlined in the previous chapter. Three faecal samples and surrounding soil were collected from the lowland eucalypt, montane moorland and coastal eucalypt sites, at three, six and 12 months. In addition, one control soil sample was also collected (Figure 1). Twelve samples plus a control were collected from the montane grassland site (Figure 1), and single samples (plus controls) were collected from two opportunistic samples, western lowland and eastern alpine sites (Figure 1, see Chapter 4).

The samples were approximately 500 ml in size, and were stored in pre-sterilised pvc bottles. The samples were tested for micro-organism counts at the Water EcoScience Laboratories, Hobart. Laboratory testing was performed according to standard procedures for the colonial growth and identification of the following target bacterial species: Listeria monocytogenes (modified from USDFA FSIS-1989); Clostridium perfringens (OXOID Manual 1998, modified from AS1766.8-1991), Salmonellae (AS4276.14-1995); Escherichia coli (Membrane Filtration method AS4476.7-1995/MPN method AS4276.6-1995); faecal coliforms (Membrane Filtration method AS4476.7-1995/MPN method AS4276.6-1995); and faecal streptococci (AS4276.9-1995). The geometric mean was used to collate micro-organism counts at each sampling period, from each site.

To determine the effect of freezing on micro-organisms, two faecal samples from two different sources were collected. This material was tested as above. The samples were then frozen at – 18o C for 12 days, defrosted, and tested on day 13.

Micro-organism analysis is expensive. For this reason only three of the five available deposits per site, (lowland eucalypt, montane moorland, coastal eucalypt) per time were laboratory tested. Consequently, counts were not statistically analysed. All 12 samples from the montane grassland were tested.

Results Negligible effects from freezing of faeces were recorded. The two samples harboured quite different quantities of the same micro-organisms at the time of sampling, and maintained their differences after freezing. Salmonellae were not detected in any sample at any time. Listeria monocytogenes was detected in two samples. One sample buried at the lowland eucalypt site for three months recorded very low numbers of L. monocytogenes. The other sample, which had been buried for nine months, came from the eastern alpine site.


22

Faecal coliforms, faecal streptococci and Escherichia coli were found at the lowland eucalypt, montane moorland and coastal eucalypt sites after both three and six months (Figures 13, 14, 15, Table 3). Background levels (less than 10/g) of faecal coliforms and E. coli were found from the lowland eucalypt forest (with and without urine) and the coastal eucalypt woodland and at less than 100/g from the montane moorland after 12 months. Overall, micro-organism counts fell between the three, six and 12 month tests. However, there were notable exceptions: faecal streptococci significantly increased in the montane moorland between three and six months and Clostridium perfringens increased in the lowland eucalypt forest and the coastal eucalypt woodland between three and six months, yet was virtually undetectable in the moorland peat after six months but increased markedly at this site between six and 12 months (Figure 16, Table 3). Background levels of bacteria (less than 10/g) were found in most site control samples.

Relatively low counts of all micro-organisms were recorded for the samples with urine in the dry eucalypt forest after twelve months. Faecal streptococci counts increased in the faeces only samples between three and six months. However the faeces and urine samples returned a significant drop in numbers over the same period. Although counts were comparatively low, C. perfringens increased in the dry eucalypt forest in both treatment types up to six months and then decreased after 12 months (Figure 16)

The single surface sample was relatively pathogen free after three months. However, the nine month old eastern alpine sample contained more E. coli and Clostridium perfringens than the six month old samples from the lowland sites. (Table 3)

Samples that had been buried to a depth of 5 cm at the montane grassland, had less pathogens than those that were buried at 15 cm depth at the same site (Table 3).

Figure 13: Geometric mean of faecal coliform counts for each site at 3, 6 and 12 months

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

LE LE UF CE MM

Site

Faec

al c

olifo

rms

(100

/g)

3 m 6 m 12 m

[LE = lowland eucalypt, LE UF = lowland eucalypt with urine and faeces, CE = coastal eucalypt, MM = montane moorland]

Figure 14: Geometric mean of faecal streptococci counts for each site at 3, 6 and 12 months

0

10000000

20000000

LE LE UF CE MM

Site

Faec

al s

trep

toco

cci

(100

/g)

3 m 6 m 12 m



23

Figure 15: Geometric mean of Escherichia coli counts for each site at 3, 6 and 12 months

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

LE LE UF CE MM

Site

Esch

eric

hia

coli

(100

/g)

3 m 6 m 12 m


Figure 16: Geometric mean of Clostridium perfringens counts for each site at 3, 6 and 12 months

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

LE LE UF CE MM

Site

Clo

strid

ium

per

frin

gens

(1

00/g

)

3 m 6 m 12 m



24

Table 3: Geometric means for numbers and types of pathogens present in human faeces over a range of environments, times and depths

TYPES Altitude 3 mths@ 0 cm deep

3 @ 15 cm

6 @ 15 cm

9 @ 15 cm

12 @ 15 cm

12 @ 5 cm

Faecal coliforms - - - - - - Lowland western 320 m 100 - - - - - Coastal eucalypt 4 m - 1242893 105653 10 Eastern alpine 1150 m - - - 10000 - - Lowland eucalypt 380 m - 2041787 213472 - 10 - Lowland eucalypt* 380 m - 607318 136262 - 10 - Montane moorland 850 m - 3509 215 - 99 - Montane grassland 830 m - - - - 862 284 Faecal streptococci - - - - - Lowland western 100 - - - - Coastal eucalypt - 391487 133774.9 - 44 - Eastern alpine - - - 80 - - Lowland eucalypt - 1275190 2564913 - 31 - Lowland eucalypt* - 16984993 2080507 - 69 - Montane moorland - 2490954 16978520 - 63825 - Montane grassland - - - - 95 37 Escherichia coli - - - - - - Lowland western 100 - - - - - Coastal eucalypt - 215 1000 - 46 - Eastern alpine - 10000 - Lowland eucalypt - 2041787 213472 - 10 - Lowland eucalypt* - 46 126 - 10 - Montane moorland - 2327 25 - 1000 - Montane grassland - - - - 862 284 Clostridium perfringens - - - - - - Lowland western 100 - - - - - Coastal eucalypt - 215 1000 - 46 - Eastern alpine - - - 15000 - - Lowland eucalypt - 1000 2154 - 22 - Lowland eucalypt* - 46 126 - 10 - Montane moorland - 2327 25 - 1000 - Montane grassland - - - - 48 33

Lowland eucalypt* = samples with urine and faeces present. ‘-‘ = not sampled.

Discussion Bacteria survived in buried faeces at the coastal eucalypt woodland site despite the absence of visual faecal matter. Reasons for this continued survival are unclear, since several studies have shown that anaerobic bacteria are inhibited by dry, aerobic environments (Ells 2000b; Gerba et al. 1975; Reeves 1979).

The inability of faeces and toilet paper to break down to any great degree over twelve months in the saturated peats of the montane moorland site represents a high visible encounter hazard. Despite this, only one of the bacterial measures, faecal streptococci was persistent to any degree at six months. However, survival at 12 months was low. With a particularly durable cell wall, faecal streptococci are more resilient to the antibiotic effects of acid soils than other bacteria measured in the present study (C. Garland pers. comm.). It is therefore not surprising that they were also the one bacterium that proved indifferent to the antibacterial qualities of the urine at three months.


25

After six months, C. perfringens counts were low enough to conclude that whilst highly visible, buried faeces in the montane moorland were relatively benign. C. perfringens, a gram-positive, anaerobic bacterium, is relatively long-lived (Shimizu et al. 2002). This bacterium, along with faecal streptococci, returned the highest counts after 12 months in the acidic peats of the montane moorland site. That C. perfringens counts, although low, increased by over 25,000% between six and 12 months indicates a robust organism which could present a transmission risk for the life of its faecal habitat.

Despite earlier findings that depth does not influence bacterial longevity (Temple et al. 1982) bacterial survival was higher at greater depth (Table 3) at the montane grassland site. However, shallow burial (5 cm) may encourage excavation by animals (Dixon unpublished data). Saturated soils can transport bacteria from the site of deposition (Zyman & Sorber 1988) and shallow burial represents an increased risk for pathogen contamination of waterways via overland flow, especially after a rainfall event.


26

Chapter 6

Impacts of Human Waste Disposal on Water Quality

Introduction Inappropriate human waste disposal can lead to soil and water contamination around popular camping sites (Reeves 1979), especially after rain (Davies et al. 1999, Farag, Goldstein, Woodward & Samadpour 2001). This contamination may remain long after the visible evidence of faeces has disappeared (Ells 2000a, von Platen 2003). The visual impact of unburied, partially buried or excavated faeces and toilet paper is one that does impact on visitors experiences and expectations, especially in designated ‘wilderness’ environments (Cole et al. 1987).

The use of the cat-hole method for waste disposal is intended to spread the waste over a wide area. However, Reeves (1979) found that cat-hole burial sites were usually located in close proximity to one another, with tracks being formed to obvious defecation areas. This concentration of faecal deposits is likely to lead to an increased risk of contamination of future users.

Water quality may be impacted upon in situations where people have defecated too close to a water supply, or where rainfall and surface runoff washes inadequately buried faecal material into the water supply (see review by Bohn & Buckhouse 1985).

Contamination may also occur from native animals digging up faeces, and spreading pathogens such as Giardia sp. (Bettlol et al. 1997; Suk et al. 1986). A water quality study at Pelion Plains on Tasmania's Overland Track determined that the water supply was contaminated by faecal wastes (Brassington 1999). However, the analyses could not determine whether the contamination came from human souces or whether it occurred naturally due to the presence of native animals. Biomarkers can be used to determine source of contamination, using recently developed techniques (Leeming, Ball, Ashbolt, Jones & Nichols 1994; Leeming, Ball, Ashbolt & Nichols 1996; Leeming, Latham, Rayner & Nichols 1997; Leeming & Nichols 1996; Leeming, Nichols & Ashbolt 1998). Sites and sources of faecal contamination can be identified by using a combination of soil and water analyses.

This chapter explores the possible impact of inadequate faeces disposal on water quality.

Methods

Study Site

Mt Field National Park - Newdegate Hut This study site has been described in Chapter 2. Water samples (250 ml) were taken from pools behind the hut (the main toilet area), Newdegate tarn, and the outflowing stream. Samples were taken once a week for five consecutive weeks. The samples were placed in pre-sterilised plastic containers that were transported back to the laboratory in an ice-cooled insulated bag. The samples were analysed within 24 hours of collection. Samples were tested for the presence of faecal coliforms (E. coli) and faecal streptococci. (Tests were undertaken using the methods outlined in Chapters 3 and 5).

Once faecal contamination had been detected in the water samples, additional water samples were taken from the same source in order to test for the origin of faecal contamination. Approximately 10 L of water was filtered using a hand-pump through glass fibre filters (15 cm) to obtain particulate matter samples. These samples were then analysed for the presence and level of coprostanol, the principal human faecal sterol (Leeming et al. 1994), and other faecal sterols.

Results Water quality decreased after rainfall events (Table 4). All sample points recorded low levels of faecal coliforms before a major rainfall event. However, while the tarn and the outfall showed a peak immediately after rainfall, levels in the pools behind the hut were still high two weeks after the rainfall event.

The mossbed behind the hut recorded the greatest concentrations of faecal pathogens. This site is located in


27

the middle of a ‘deposit’ (buried faeces) area within metres of the hut (see Figure 8). Forty-five of the 52 deposits found in the vicinity were located less than 50 m away from the hut. The hut is less than 10 m from Lake Newdegate.

Table 4: Water quality data from sites surrounding Newdegate Hut

Rainfall (mm) Tarn outfall Tarn Tarn by hut Mossbed Collection date previous

week previous

day FC FS FC FS FCl FS

6/03/2003 14 0 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 12/03/2003 4 0 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 20/03/2003 52 38 170 220 140 30 80 270 27/03/2003 17 0 <10 <10 <10 <10 90 800 3/04/2003 9 5 10 <10 10 <10 190 8400

[FC = faecal coliforms/100 ml, FS = faecal streptococci/100 ml]

Faecal sterol analyses of the water samples collected from the tarn and behind the hut, showed negligible contamination of the tarn water (Table 5). However, it is estimated that approximately 30% of the faecal contamination found in the mossbeds was derived from a human source. Native herbivores account for another 30% while untraceable sources such as birds and lizards account for the rest.

Table 5: Results of faecal sterol analyses on water samples from Newdegate Tarn and mossbeds

Newdegate Tarn Mossbed A Mossbed B Mossbed CCoprostanol 2 10 312 245 Epicholestanol 0 0 24 46 Epicoprostanol 0 0 0 0 Cholesterol 210 1206 5553 3475 5a-cholestanol 7 473 1562 577 24-ethylcoprostanol 0 29 364 324 24-ethylepicoprostanol 0 0 0 0 24-ethylcholesterol 489 874 16767 20439 24-ethylcholestanol 16 70 665 1107 Coprostanol / 5a-cholestanol 0.24 0.02 0.20 0.43 epicop / coprostanol ratio 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 epicholestanol / coprostanol 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 Coprostanol / cholesterol 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.07 24-ethylCop / 24-ethyl-5a-cholestanol ratio 0.00 0.42 0.5 0.29 24-ethylepicop / 24-ethylcoprostanol -! 0.00 0.00 0.00 24-ethylCop / 24-ethylcholesterol ratio 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.02 % Cop 100 26 46 43 % 29 Cop 0 74 54 57 % human (based on biomarkers ONLY) 100 0 36 29 % herbivore (based on biomarkers ONLY) 0 100 64 71 Faecal coliforms/ 100 ml 140 80 90 190 FS / 100 ml 30 270 800 8400 C. perfringens / 100 ml Average % Human faecal matter 0 0 35 25 % Herbivore faecal matter 0 17 26 26 % Unexplained bacterial indicators 100 83 39 49


28

Discussion Our data from water bodies around Newdegate Hut confirm that concentrations of poorly buried faecal waste can affect water quality. Although lakes and streams may be only intermittently contaminated, surface pools in moss beds, and along tracks, may be contaminated with human waste over relatively long periods. Faecal bacteria are known to persist in Tasmanian soils for at least 12 months after burial (Chapter 5). While these bacteria do not appear to move easily through the soil as inferred from the pathogen free soil samples taken from Newdegate Hut (Chapter 3), they may last in situ, and they are easily transported over the soil surface when they have not been buried to some depth (Reeves 1979).

After periods of heavy rainfall, the water quality around Newdegate Hut does not pass the Australian guidelines for primary contact, and may even exceed guidelines for secondary contact for short periods of time (ANZECC 2000).


29

Chapter 7

Conclusions and Proposed Management Options

Public Health Risk of Poorly Buried Faecal Deposits Around Popular Campsites This report has shown that some walkers are not abiding by MIB guidelines even where there is a toilet present at a hut or campsite. On the Overland Track only 9% of observed deposits, and 32% of faecal deposits, were buried to depth. At K Col all faecal deposits were within 100 m of the hut. At Newdegate only 13.5% of faecal deposits were more than 100 m from both the hut and the lake. On the Overland Track, the mean distance of a deposit from water was greater than the mean distance from a hut, campsite or track, suggesting that there is some awareness of the possible health risk of contaminating water supplies with human waste. O’Loughlin (1988) also reported similar behaviour prior to the implementation of MIB guidelines.

The presence of a toilet seems highly effective in almost eliminating human waste deposition in natural vegetation, especially when it is considered that more people stay at hut sites than campsites along the Overland Track. Having a hut without a toilet seems to be a recipe for a potential public health problem. However, maintenance of the toilet is also important to encourage its usage where possible.

The impact of human waste on soils and vegetation surrounding Newdegate Hut is limited. Urine deposited close to the hut door has led to very local exotic invasion and elevated nutrient levels. However, the impact on water quality is a concern and circumstantial evidence from elsewhere suggests that it is not just a problem at this site. Water quality surveys carried out in 1999 (Davies et al. 1999), showed the water quality of natural water to fail primary contact standards for two sites along the Overland Track. These two sites also recorded numerous faecal/toilet paper deposits less than 100 m of the water supply during a survey undertaken in 2003. A third site Kia Ora hut recorded clean water supplies. This site recorded no evidence of faecal waste around the hut/campsites in February 2003. While these data do not overlap in time, they do suggest that there may be a relationship between user behaviour and water quality.

Voluntary guidelines for disposal of human waste in natural vegetation obviously have not worked. While it could be argued that the guidelines could be less severe, i.e. that moving 100 m away from a campsite may be excessive, a lack of data relating distance of deposit and chance of contamination make this option unwise. Conversion of the guidelines to regulations might encourage greater compliance. Although enforcement by rangers might be generally impractical, social pressure could be more effective. Whatever the guidelines, and their legal status, it will be important that walkers know the nature of the hazards involved in violating them. The widespread taboo on defecating near a water supply has made the distance from water guideline more effective than the others. Good reasons need to be given for the other guidelines. The reasons exist (Bridle & Kirkpatrick unpublished data).

Cole et al. (1987) suggest that stronger actions could include the provision by users of a certificate of knowledge of MIB guidelines before proceeding on a walk, or higher fees for access to problem areas. Discouraging use of a campsite is a non-confrontational method of dealing with the issue of too much waste. However, while it may be the preferred option, it may not always be possible along popular walks that are topographically confined. Under these conditions, toilets would need to be provided, or limits may need to be enforced on the number of visitors per campsite per day.

Management Options Current guidelines for walker impacts in wilderness areas are being reviewed as a ‘limits to acceptable change’ approach is adopted by management agencies (Poll 2002). Camping impacts such as degree of vegetation damage and/or removal, and amount of bare ground are accepted indicators of impact. However, no guidelines for toilet related impacts are in place. In fact, there is no transparent method of determining whether toilets are needed at any camping location. Past management decisions have been ad hoc, responding to comments from field staff or visitors.

A limits to acceptable change approach could be developed to manage human faecal waste issues around campsites and huts. Given the results presented in this report, we suggest the following criteria:


30

• Green light (no action needed) where there are less than 3 deposits within a 20 m radius of a hut/campsite;

• Yellow light (warning/instigate monitoring program) where there are 3-10 deposits within a 20 m radius of a hut/campsite;

• Red light (immediate action necessary) where there are more than 10 deposits within a 20 m radius of a hut/campsite.

The 20 m radius is arbitrary and is a compromise between data collection and sampling time. The action to be taken will in part be determined by the recreational zone. For example it may not be

economical or desirable to provide toilet facilities in a remote ‘wilderness’ zone, where the lack of visible evidence human interference is seen to be an advantage to the user. Other options may then have to be assessed such as: carrying out of toilet waste or limiting visitor numbers (Cole et al. 1987).

Recommended actions when yellow-light limits are breached are: • where a toilet is present;

− educate users (enhanced MIB campaign, site specific) − maintain/upgrade toilet

• where no toilet is present; − educate users (site specific)

Recommended actions when red-light limits are breached are: • where a toilet is present;

− upgrade toilet, maintenance program − provide drinking water supply − limit number of campers − move/close campsite

• where no toilet is present − provide toilet − provide drinking water supply − limit number of campers − move/close campsite

While the red/yellow/green light system appears to be appropriate in mitigating health risks, other more transient factors need to be incorporated into the model, such as: the presence of vegetation screens in the area; the rockiness and depth of the soil, access to drinking water; catchment topography; presence and condition of toilet facilities. Faecal deposits are found in greater numbers around trees in an otherwise open landscape. Burial of faecal waste may be difficult in environments where soils are shallow, rocky or full of large roots. Where catchments are confined, such as in cirques, and the tarn is the main water source, these sites would have a higher management priority than those that were not confined.

In the case of Newdegate Hut, faecal deposits number 18 within 20 m of the hut. Therefore the site conditions would already be in breach of the red-light limits of acceptable change, especially with concerns about water quality and supply around the hut. A survey of the site demands that a campsite be developed close by with a toilet facility. Discouraging use has not worked in the past. The hut is an important piece of cultural heritage and therefore cannot be removed. A hardened walking track provides good access to the area. The development of an alternative campsite with toilet coupled with appropriate signage (on the ground and in walker information) is probably the most viable management option.

At K-Col hut, seven deposits were located within 20 m of the hut. However, while there is very little vegetation shelter at this hut, it is also far from a natural water supply. Drinking water is supplied in a tank from rainwater collected from the roof. This hut would have a ‘yellow light standard’, that is it should be monitored and assessed at a later date. It would be a lower priority than another location where drinking water was not provided.

All of the camps/huts along the Overland Track would be classified as green or yellow light categories. All huts that are designated accommodation huts have toilets and water-tanks. Problems still arise where people are camping at undesignated sites, and at track heads to popular side routes. Upgrading existing facilities is likely to be the most effective management option on this popular walking track, along with an enhanced MIB education campaign at both ends of the Overland Track and at huts and toilets along the route.

Conclusion This report demonstrates that poorly buried faecal waste is a public health risk to walkers. While soil and vegetation may not be adversely affected by increased nutrient levels, contamination of soils and water from


31

faecal pathogens does occur. Pathogens can remain in the soil for over 12 months, even where deposits are no longer visible.

The most effective way of ameliorating the problem of human waste management is to provide a toilet. However, the educational MIB campaign needs to be relaunched, with emphasis on toilet paper disposal as well as the disposal of faeces.

The adoption of a limits to acceptable change approach provides managers with a socially acceptable approach to dealing with toilet waste issues across a range of recreation zones.

This research has already prompted Mt Field National Park to consider redirecting campers to the less environmentally sensitive campsite (and toilet) at Twilight Tarn, a 30 minute walk from Newdegate Hut. This information would be relayed to visitors at the visitor centre and on signs located at the starting point and at Newdegate Hut. It would be beneficial to continue monitoring this site and Twilight Tarn to measure the impact of the change in management.


32

REFERENCES ANZECC (2000). Australian water quality guidelines for fresh and marine waters. Australian and New Zealand

Environment and Conservation Council, Canberra, ACT. Beard, P. J. (1940). ‘Longevity of Eberthella Tyhosus in various soils’, American Journal of Public Health, vol.

30, pp. 1077-1082. Bettlol, S. S., Kettlewell, J. S., Davies, N. J. & Goldsmid, J. M. (1997). ‘Giardiasis in native marsupials of

Tasmania’, Journal of Wildlife Diseases, vol. 33, pp. 352-354. Bitton G. & Harvey, R. W. (1992). ‘Transport of pathogens through soils and aquifers’ in R. Mitchell (ed).

Environmental microbiology. Wiley-Liss, New York, pp. 103-124. Bohn, C. C. & Buckhouse, J. C. (1985). ‘Coliforms as an indicator of water quality in wildland streams’, Journal

of Soil and Water Conservation, vol. 40, pp. 95-97. Brassington, J. (1999). Wilderness management: human waste and water quality. MSc Thesis, University of

Tasmania, Hobart, TAS. Bridle, K. L. & Kirkpatrick J. B. (2003). ‘Impacts of nutrient additions and digging for human waste disposal in

natural environments, Tasmania, Australia’, Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 69, pp. 299-306. Buckley, R. (1998). ‘Breakdown of human waste in three sub-tropical Australian ecosystems’, Viewed 14

August 2002, http://www.research.nols.edu/buckley.1998.html Cilimburg, A., Monz, C. &0 Kehoe, S. (2000). ‘Wildland recreation and human waste: a review of problems,

practices and concerns’, Environmental Management, vol. 25, pp. 587-598. Cole, D. N., Peterson, M. E. & Lucas, R. C. (1987). Managing wilderness recreation use: common problems and

potential solutions, USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-230. Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Cowdin, N. (1986). ‘Conceptions and behaviours of recreationists regarding water quality in Rocky Mountain National Park’ in: R. Lucas (ed). Proc. National Wilderness Research Conference: Current Research. General Technical Report INT 212, USDA Intermountain Research Station Ogden, UT.

Cowgill, P. (1971). ‘Too many people on the Colorado River’, The Environmental Journal, vol. 45, pp. 10-14. Davies, P. & Driessen, M. (1997). Surface water quality at three key locations in the Tasmanian Wilderness

World Heritage Area, Wildlife Report 97/2, Parks and Wildlife Service, Hobart, TAS. Davies, P., Driessen, M., Cook, L., McConnell, K. & Schinkel, H. (1999). Condition of streams associated with

selected visitor facilities on the Overland Track, Cradle Mountain-Lake St Clair National Park, Nature Conservation Report 99/2, Parks and Wildlife Service, Hobart, TAS.

Elliot, L. F. & Ellis, J. R. (1977). ‘Bacterial and viral pathogens associated with land application of organic wastes’, Journal of Environmental Quality, vol. 6, pp. 245-251

Ells, M. D. (1999). ‘The fate of faeces and faecal micro-organisms in human waste smeared on rocks in an alpine environment and its impact on public health’, Viewed March 2002, http://research.nols.edu/wild_instructor_pdfs/1999Alpinestudy.pdf

Ells, M. D. (2000a). ‘The fate of faeces and faecal micro-organisms in human waste smeared on rocks in a temperate forest environment and its impact on public health’, Viewed March 2002, http://research.nols.edu/wild_instructor_pdfs/2000Longmire.pdf

Ells, M. D. (2000b). ‘The fate of faeces and faecal micro-organisms in human waste smeared on rocks in an arid environment and its impact on public health’, Viewed March 2002, http://research.nols.edu/wild_instructor_pdfs/2000Naches.pdf

Farag, A. M., Goldstein, J. N., Woodward, D. F. & Samadpour, M. (2001). ‘Water quality in three creeks in the backcountry of Grand Teton National Park, USA’, Journal of Freshwater Ecology, vol. 16, pp. 135-143.

Gerba, C. P., Wallis, C. & Melnick, J. L. (1975). ‘Fate of wastewater bacteria and viruses in soil’, Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division, vol. 101, pp. 157-174.

Gotaas, H. B. (1956). Composting: sanitary disposal and reclamation of organic wastes, World Health Organisation, Geneva.

Kettlewell, J. S. (1995). ‘Giardiasis in Tasmania’, Unpublished Honours Thesis, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS.

Lachapelle, P. (2000). ‘Sanitation in wilderness: balancing minimum tool policies and wilderness values’ in D.N. Cole, S.F. McCool, W.T. Borrie & J. O’Loughlin (Eds). ‘Wilderness science in a time of change


33

conference – Vol 5. Wilderness ecosystems, threats and management proceedings, RMRS-P-15-Vol-5, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden UT, May 23-27 1999.

Land, B. (1995). Remote waste management, USDA Forest Service, Technology and Development Program, San Dimas, CA.

Leeming, R., Ball, A., Ashbolt N., Jones G. & Nichols, P. (1994). ‘Distinguishing between human and animal sources of faecal pollution’, Chemistry in Australia, vol. 61, pp. 434-435.

Leeming, R., Ball, A., Ashbolt, N. & Nichols, P. (1996). ‘Using faecal sterols from humans and animals to distinguish faecal pollution in receiving waters’, Water Resources, vol. 30, pp. 2893-2900.

Leeming, R., Latham, V., Rayner, M. & Nichols, P. (1997). ‘Detecting and distinguishing sources of sewage pollution in Australian inland and coastal waters and sediments’, Molecular Markers in Environmental Geochemistry, vol. 671, pp. 306-319.

Leeming, R. & Nichols, P. (1996). ‘Concentrations of coprostanol that correspond to existing bacterial indicator guideline limits’, Water Resources, vol. 30, pp. 2997-3006.

Leeming, R., Nichols, P. & Ashbolt, N. J. (1998). Distinguishing sources of faecal pollution in Australian inland and coastal waters using sterol biomarkers and microbial faecal indicators. Water Services Association of Australia Research Report, Melbourne, VIC.

Mueller-Dombois, D. & Ellenberg, H. (1974). Aims and methods of vegetation ecology, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

NWQMS (1996). Australian drinking water quality guidelines, National Water Quality Management Strategy, NHMRC, ARMCANZ, Canberra, ACT.

North, A. (1991). ‘Weeds on the central plateau: a survey of their distribution and association with recreational users’, Report to the Department of Parks, Wildlife and Heritage, Hobart, TAS.

O'Loughlin, T. (1988). Evaluating the effectiveness of a minimal impact bushwalking campaign, Department of Lands, Parks and Wildlife Tasmania and the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hobart, TAS.

Parker, L. V., Yushak, M. L., Martel, C. J. & Reynolds, C. M. (2000). Bacterial survival in snow made from wastewater, US Army Corps of Engineers Report ERDC/CRREl TR-00-9, Belvoir, VA.

Parks and Wildlife Tasmania (2002). ‘Minimal impact bushwalking guidelines’, Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Viewed 12 Dec 2003, http://www.dpiwe.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/RLIG-53C726

Parks and Wildlife Tasmania (2002a). Mt. Field National Park Marriots Falls State Reserve and Junee Cave State Reserve management plan, Department of Tourism, Heritage, Parks and the Arts, Hobart, TAS.

Parks and Wildlife Tasmania (2002b). ‘Development of a melaleuca site plan’, Internal report, PWS Tasmania, Hobart, TAS.

Poll, M. (2002). World heritage walking: overnight bushwalking opportunities in the Tasmanian wilderness, Parks and Wildlife Service, Hobart, TAS.

Poll, M. (2003). Western Arthur Range: management options, Parks and Wildlife Service, Hobart, TAS. Rayment, G. E. & Higginson, F. R. (1992). Australian laboratory handbook of soil and water chemical methods,

Inkata Press, Melbourne, VIC. Reeves, H. (1979). ‘Human waste disposal in the Sierran wilderness’ in: J.T. Stanley, H.T. Harvey & R.J.

Hartesveldt (Eds). Wilderness impact study, Sierra Club Outing Committee, San Francisco, CA. Robertson, L. J., Campbell, A. T. & Smith, H. V. (1992). ‘Survival of Cryptosporidium parvum oocyts under

various environmental pressures’, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 58, pp. 3494-3500. Rochefort, R. M. & Swinney, D. D. (2000). ‘Human impact surveys in Mount Rainier National Park: past,

present, and future’, USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-15, vol. 5, pp. 165-171. Shimizu, T., Ohtani, K., Hirakawa, H., Ohshima, K., Yamashita, A., Shiba, T., Ogasawara, N., Hattori, M.,

Kuhara, S., & Hayashi, H. (2002). ‘Complete genome sequence of Clostridium perfringens, an anaerobic flesh-eater’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA, vol. 22, pp. 996-1001.

Sobsey, M. D. (1983). ‘Transport and fate of viruses in soils’, Proceedings of the conference: Microbial health considerations of soil disposal of domestic wastewaters, University of Oklahoma, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, May 11-12, 1982.

Suk, T. J., Riggs, J. L. & Nelson, B. C. (1986). ‘Water contamination with Giardia in back-country areas’, Proceedings – National wilderness research conference: current research, Compiled by R.C. Lucas. USDA general technical report INT-212, Ogden, UT, pp. 237-240.


34

TWWHA (1999). The Tasmanian wilderness world heritage area management plan, Parks and Wildlife Service, Dept of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Hobart, TAS.

Tate, R. L. III. (1978). ‘Cultural and environmental factors affecting the longevity of Escherichia coli in histosols’, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 35, pp. 925-929.

Temple, K. L., Camper, A. K. & McFeters, G. A. (1980). ‘Survival of two enterobacteria in faeces buried in soil under field conditions’, Applications in Environmental Microbiology, vol. 40, pp. 794-797.

Temple, K. L., Camper, A. K. & Lucas, R. C. (1982). ‘Potential health hazard from human wastes in wilderness’, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, vol. 37, pp. 357-359.

Tippets, N., O’Ney, S. & Farag, A. M. (2001). ‘Backcountry water quality in Grand Teton National Park’, Park Science, vol. 21, pp. 25-27.

van Donsel, D. J., Geldreich, E. E. & Clarke, N. A. (1967). ‘Seasonal variations in survival of indicator bacteria in soil and their contribution to storm-water pollution’, Journal of Applied Microbiology, vol. 15, pp. 1362-1370.

von Platen, J. (2003). ‘Human waste disposal in remote natural terrestrial areas: is there a public health risk?’, Unpublished Honours thesis, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS.

Young, C. C. & Greenfield, H. (1923). ‘Observations on the viability of the Bact. Coli group under natural and artificial conditions’, American Journal of Public Health, vol. 13, pp. 270-273.

Zyman, J. & Sorber, C. (1988). ‘Influence of simulated rainfall on the transport and survival of selected indicator organisms in sludge-amended soils’, Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, vol. 60, pp. 2105-2110.


35

AUTHORS

Kerry Bridle Kerry presently works as a researcher at the School of Geography & Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania. Kerry shifted her research focus to the alpine region of the Eastern Central Plateau Tasmania where she investigated the impacts of vertebrate herbivore grazing on alpine vegetation (PhD). Currently, Kerry is working on two projects funded by the STCRC researching the impacts of human toilet waste disposal in remote areas of the World Heritage Area (including mountain environments). Email: [email protected] Prof Jamie Kirkpatrick Jamie has the Chair of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania, and is the Head of School. He is a plant ecologist with many years experience and over 150 publications. Jamie has worked on the politics of environment and the quantification of intangible values, such as wilderness and scenery. At present, Jamie’s major funded research projects are directed towards the management of remnant vegetation and the disturbance ecology of alpine environments. Email: [email protected] Julie von Platen Julie is a PhD student in the School of Geography and Environmental Studies. Julie took on part of the research covered in this report and successfully created an Honours thesis from it. Julie is also an ecologist who has taken a different turn with her PhD topic, examining tree rings to determine past fire histories in eastern Tasmania. Email: [email protected]

The Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre (STCRC) is established

under the Australian Government’s Cooperative Research Centres Program.

STCRC is the world’s leading scientific institution delivering research to

support the sustainability of travel and tourism - one of the world’s largest

and fastest growing industries.

Research Programs

Tourism is a dynamic industry comprising many sectors from accommodation to hospitality, transportation to retail and many more.

STCRC’s research program addresses the challenges faced by small and large operators, tourism destinations and natural resource

managers.

Areas of Research Expertise: Research teams in five discipline areas - modelling, environmental science, engineering &

architecture, information & communication technology and tourism management, focus on three research programs:

Sustainable Resources: Natural and cultural heritage sites serve as a foundation for tourism in Australia. These sites exist in

rural and remote Australia and are environmentally sensitive requiring specialist infrastructure, technologies and management.

Sustainable Enterprises: Enterprises that adhere to best practices, innovate, and harness the latest technologies will be

more likely to prosper.

Sustainable Destinations: Infrastructural, economic, social and environmental aspects of tourism development are

examined simultaneously.

Website: www.crctourism.com.au I Bookshop: www.crctourism.com.au/bookshop I Email: [email protected]

Postgraduate Students: STCRC’s Education Program recruits high quality postgraduate students and provides scholarships,

capacity building, research training and professional development opportunities.

THE-ICE: Promotes excellence in Australian Tourism and Hospitality Education and facilitates its export to international markets.

Education

Extension & Commercialisation

STCRC uses its research network, spin-off companies and partnerships to extend knowledge and deliver innovation to the tourism

industry. STCRC endeavours to secure investment in the development of its research into new services, technologies and

commercial operations.

Australia’s CRC ProgramThe Cooperative Research Centres (CRC) Program brings

together researchers and research users. The program

maximises the benefits of research through an enhanced

process of utilisation, commercialisation and technology

transfer. It also has a strong education component

producing graduates with skills relevant to industry needs.

CAIRNSNQ CoordinatorProf Bruce Prideaux

Tel: +61 7 4042 1039

[email protected] CoordinatorMs Alicia Boyle

Tel: + 61 8 8946 7267

[email protected] Director - STSMr Stewart Moore

Tel: +61 7 3321 4726

[email protected]

BRISBANEQLD CoordinatorMr Noel Scott

Tel: +61 7 3381 1024

[email protected]

LISMORENSW CoordinatorRegional Tourism ResearchDr Jeremy Buultjens

Tel: +61 2 6620 3382

[email protected]

SYDNEYSustainable DestinationsMr Ray Spurr

Tel: +61 2 9385 1600

[email protected] CoordinatorAdjunct Prof Malcolm Wells

Tel: + 61 3 6226 7686

[email protected]

CANBERRAACT CoordinatorDr Brent Ritchie

Tel: +61 2 6201 5016

[email protected]

ADELAIDESA CoordinatorProf Graham Brown

Tel: +61 8 8302 0313

[email protected]

PERTHWA CoordinatorDr Diane Lee

Tel: + 61 8 9360 2616

[email protected]

MELBOURNEVIC CoordinatorA/Prof Sue Beeton

Tel: +61 3 9479 3500

[email protected]

NATIONAL NETWORK

Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre

S P I N - O F F C O M P A N I E SU N I V E R S I T Y P A R T N E R SI N D U S T R Y P A R T N E R S

CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd ABN 53 077 407 286

PMB 50 Gold Coast MC

Queensland 9726 Australia

Telephone: +61 7 5552 8172 Facsimile: +61 7 5552 8171

Chairman: Sir Frank Moore AO

Chief Executive: Prof Terry De Lacy

Director of Research: Prof Leo Jago

Website: www.crctourism.com.au

Bookshop: www.crctourism.com.au/bookshop

Email: [email protected]

*95

52

HUMAN WASTE CONTAMINATION AT HUTS AND …

Documents

Transcript of HUMAN WASTE CONTAMINATION AT HUTS AND …