Water Quality in the Middle Grand River

Andrea StayEaton Conservation District

Middle Grand River Watershed

9 subwatersheds~ 258 sq. miles~ 165,000 acres

Data CollectionCompleted by ECD staff and volunteersMay-September 2012Only one field season

1) Macroinvertebrate collection2) Ag Practices Survey3) E-coli sampling4) Social Indicator Survey

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

www.nrtz.govt.nz

www.vernier.com

www.fs.fed.us

www.wjbc.com

Macroinvertebrate Sampling

Agricultural Practices Survey

Ag Inventory: Preliminary Results

E. coli Sampling

Schedule4 consecutive weeks July 10-314 consecutive weeks August 14 – September

421 sites total; 3 samples/site

Bacterial Source Tracking September 1311 sites

Colony Concentration Human sewage presence/absence DNA genotyping (bovine and equine)

July E. coli Monitoring Results

August E. coli Monitoring Results

Source tracking day # of Samples collected at each site3 for colony concentration4 for DNA source tracking1 for canine detection

+blanks and duplicates

Source Tracking

Lab Costs of E. coli sampling E. coli Colony Count (surface water)

$15 for 10-10,000 colonies$25 for 10-1,000,000 colonies

Human 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 qtySource Tracking by percentage

Cost prohibitiveBlanks and duplicates for each

Other costs: Staff time, supplies, mileage, and postage

Identified E. coli Sources

Social Indicator Survey

Why care about stakeholder perceptions?Land users who affect water qualityBarriers or motivations to improve water

qualityBaseline information to determine efficacy of

engagement efforts

Response RateAgriculture 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 findings

Perceptions: Sources of water pollution

Agricultural Producers1. Waterfowl

droppings2. Improper

HHW disposal3. Sewage

treatment Discharge

Rural1. Excessive

lawn fertilizer/ pesticide

2. Waterfowl Droppings

3. Excessive crop production fertilizers

Urban1. Excessive

lawn fertilizer/ pesticide

2. Improper HHW disposal

3. Excessive Crop production fertilizers

and (tied) Street Runoff

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

Trusted Sources of InformationAgricultural

Producers1. MSUE (80%)2. Conservatio

n Districts (77%)

3. Neighbors or friends (75%)

Rural1. MSUE (71%)2. Local

government (62%)

3. MDNR (61%)

Urban1. MSUE (75%)2. MDNR (66%)3. US EPA

(64%)

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

Public Education ProgramWhy 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 strategy

Moving forwardVolunteer and stakeholder involvementReaching agriculture audienceAdditional data collectionConsistent message

Thank you!

Questions?