/
Water Quality in the Water Quality in the

Water Quality in the - PowerPoint Presentation

myesha-ticknor
myesha-ticknor . @myesha-ticknor
Follow
368 views
Uploaded On 2016-03-29

Water Quality in the - PPT Presentation

Middle Grand River Andrea Stay Eaton Conservation District Middle Grand River Watershed 9 subwatersheds 258 sq miles 165000 acres Middle Grand River Watershed Warm water fishery DO Total body contact ID: 271336

water coli tracking source coli water source tracking quality 000 results survey www site preliminary agricultural total sampling data

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Water Quality in the" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

Water Quality in the

Middle Grand River

Andrea StayEaton Conservation DistrictSlide2

Middle Grand River Watershed

9 subwatersheds

~ 258 sq. miles~ 165,000 acresSlide3

Middle Grand River Watershed

Warm water fishery (DO), Total body contact (

E.coli

)

Other indigenous aquatic life and wildlife

Fish

consum

. -- Hg & PCB in tissue; PCB in water column -- are not supporting designated uses statewide

Total body contact (

E.coli

)Slide4

Data Collection Completed by ECD staff and volunteers

May-September 2012Only one field seasonMacroinvertebrate collectionAg Practices Survey

E-coli samplingSocial Indicator SurveySlide5

http://dumais.us/newtown/blog/?p=8300

www.nrtz.govt.nz

www.vernier.com

www.fs.fed.us

www.wjbc.com

Macroinvertebrate SamplingSlide6
Slide7

Agricultural Practices SurveySlide8

Ag Inventory: Preliminary ResultsSlide9

E. coli Sampling Slide10

Schedule4 consecutive weeks July 10-31

4 consecutive weeks August 14 – September 421 sites total; 3 samples/site Bacterial Source Tracking September 1311 sites Colony ConcentrationHuman sewage presence/absence

DNA genotyping (bovine and equine) Slide11

July E. coli Monitoring ResultsSlide12

August E. coli Monitoring ResultsSlide13

Source tracking day

# of Samples collected at each site3 for colony concentration4 for DNA source tracking

1 for canine detection+blanks and duplicatesSlide14

Source TrackingSlide15

Lab Costs of E. coli sampling E. coli Colony Count

(surface water)$15 for 10-10,000 colonies$25 for 10-1,000,000 coloniesHuman presence/absenceCouple hundred dollars for a few hours. Depends on the scope of the projectSource Tracking$150/site /marker X 2 - bulk discounts based on qty

Source Tracking by percentageCost prohibitiveBlanks and duplicates for eachOther costs: Staff time, supplies, mileage, and postageSlide16

Identified

E. coli SourcesSlide17

Ranking Criteria for Planning

E. coli results Driving Survey TMDL Priority Partner Interest

HIT Model Other Analysis (ICHD overflow septic, Drain Commissioner)Slide18

Social Indicator SurveyWhy care about stakeholder perceptions?

Land users who affect water qualityBarriers or motivations to improve water qualityBaseline information to determine efficacy of engagement efforts Slide19
Slide20

Response Rate

Agriculture

Producers

Exurban Residents

Urban Residents

Surveys Sent

411

945

945

Response

38

%

42

%

26

%

Interns have been making phone call follow ups to reach 40% across all audiences.

January 2013 will complete data merge and finalize findingsSlide21

Perceptions: Sources of water pollution

Agricultural ProducersWaterfowl droppingsImproper HHW disposal

Sewage treatment DischargeRuralExcessive lawn fertilizer/ pesticideWaterfowl Droppings

Excessive crop production fertilizersUrban

Excessive lawn fertilizer/ pesticide

Improper HHW disposal

Excessive Crop production fertilizers

and (tied) Street Runoff

Top 3 in each category pulled from preliminary executive summary, completed by Heather Triezenberg Slide22

Trusted Sources of Information

Agricultural ProducersMSUE (80%)Conservation Districts (77%)Neighbors or friends (75%)

RuralMSUE (71%)Local government (62%)MDNR (61%)

UrbanMSUE (75%)

MDNR (66%)

US EPA (64%)

Users could select all that apply. Top 3 in each category pulled from preliminary executive summary, completed by Heather Triezenberg Slide23

Public Education Program

Why have 4 versions of outreach materials talking about water quality?Similar land use and water quality concerns Regional media (print, tv, and radio) covers multiple watersheds MGROW =regional outreach strategySlide24

Moving forward

Volunteer and stakeholder involvementReaching agriculture audienceAdditional data collectionConsistent messageSlide25

Thank you! Questions?