1 / 16

Predictive Models for E. coli on Beaches: Evaluation, Development, and Application

Predictive Models for E. coli on Beaches: Evaluation, Development, and Application. Meredith B. Nevers U.S. Geological Survey Great Lakes Science Center Lake Michigan Ecological Research Station Porter, IN. Assessing the Modeling Potential of Door County, Wisconsin Beaches.

esma
Download Presentation

Predictive Models for E. coli on Beaches: Evaluation, Development, and Application

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Predictive Models for E. coli on Beaches:Evaluation, Development, and Application Meredith B. Nevers U.S. Geological Survey Great Lakes Science Center Lake Michigan Ecological Research Station Porter, IN

  2. Assessing the Modeling Potential of Door County, Wisconsin Beaches Door County, Wisconsin Beaches Location of beaches analyzed: Lake Michigan-9 Green Bay-7 Inland lakes-3 Washington Island-4 Sturgeon Bay-2

  3. Comparison of E. coli Counts by Beach Type Number of beaches in analysis: Lake Michigan-9 Green Bay-7 Inland lakes-3 Washington Island-4 Sturgeon Bay-2

  4. Fish Creek Beach Sandy Bay Beach Sturgeon Bay NW NW SE Impact of wind direction on mean E. coli count SE

  5. Otumba storm outfall Fish Creek storm outfall Potential for Modeling for Door County Beaches Best model: Fish Creek and Otumba Beaches 2004 24 hour rainfall water temperature wave height gulls wind speed barometric pressure

  6. Mt. Baldy Central Modeling Two Indiana Beaches Impacted by Two River Outfalls

  7. Precip. (cm) Impact of current direction on E. coli counts at Central Avenue Beach

  8. Resulting Models Mount Baldy, all winds Central Avenue, all winds Parameters used: Kintzele Ditch conductivity Wave height Barometric pressure Wave period Parameters used: Kintzele Ditch conductivity Wave height log E. coli = 1.286 -0.132 (KDspcond)+0.336 (waveht)+error log E. coli =1.408-0.262(baropress)-0.179(KDspcond) +0.364(waveht)-0.153(wvperiod) + error

  9. Modeling Five Indiana Beaches: Usefulness as a Management Tool Ogden Dunes (OD), West Beach (WB), Wells Street Beach (WS), Marquette Beach (MQ), and Lake Street Beach (LS) Westerly wind Easterly wind Burn’s Ditch OD WB WS MQ LS

  10. Burns Ditch log E. coli Mean log beach E. coli Total precipitation Impact of Burns Ditch Plume Eastward current Westward current

  11. Project SAFE Wells St. Beach Marquette Park Lake St. Beach Ogden Dunes West Beach Monday, August 22, 2005 Swimming Advisory Forecast Estimate A Pilot Experiment by USGS In Cooperation with NOAA, Gary, IDEM, NPS NWS nearshore marine forecast: http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/marine/zone/gtlakes/lotmz.htm S.A.F.E., USGS, Great Lakes Science Center URL: http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/projectSAFE.php *The EPA recommends issuing a swimming advisory when E. coli count exceeds 235 cfu/100ml

  12. Scatterplots of predicted vs. actual E. coli counts at Indiana Beaches in 2004 and 2005 R square for predicted vs. actual E. coli counts for USGS Predictive Modeling and Currently Used Method (EPA) at Indiana Beaches in 2004 and 2005

  13. RSGS RSGS RSGS RSEPA RSEPA RSEPA Count Count Count Both Winds North Wind South Wind NORTH WIND SOUTH WIND Error for EPA (RSEPA) and USGS (RSGS) for SAFE program, 2004 RMSE (root mean square of the error) values by wind direction Mean log E. coli

  14. Wells St. Beach Marquette Park Lake St. Beach Ogden Dunes West Beach Both Winds South Wind North Wind

  15. Second Discriminant soils (■), geese (□), terns (●), deer (∆), and gulls (○) First Discriminant Related Activities: E. coli surveys and PCR Models provide indication of factors affecting E. coli, questions arise about sources Soil-borne E. coli strains are genetically distinct from potential fecal sources

  16. B A Time of sampling influences results E. coli from Dunes Creek collected during summer and winter

More Related