Water Quality in the Middle Grand River

1. Water Quality in the Middle Grand River Andrea Stay Eaton Conservation District

2. Middle Grand River Watershed 9 subwatersheds ~ 258 sq. miles ~ 165,000 acres

3. Data Collection • Completed by ECD staff and volunteers • May-September 2012 • Only one field season • Macroinvertebrate collection • Ag Practices Survey • E-coli sampling • Social Indicator Survey

4. Macroinvertebrate Sampling www.vernier.com www.wjbc.com www.fs.fed.us www.nrtz.govt.nz http://dumais.us/newtown/blog/?p=8300

6. Agricultural Practices Survey

7. Ag Inventory: Preliminary Results

8. E. coli Sampling

9. Schedule • 4 consecutive weeks July 10-31 • 4 consecutive weeks August 14 – September 4 • 21 sites total; 3 samples/site • Bacterial Source Tracking September 13 • 11 sites • Colony Concentration • Human sewage presence/absence • DNA genotyping (bovine and equine)

10. July E. coli Monitoring Results

11. August E. coli Monitoring Results

12. Source tracking day # of Samples collected at each site 3 for colony concentration 4 for DNA source tracking 1 for canine detection +blanks and duplicates

13. Source Tracking

14. 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/absence • Couple hundred dollars for a few hours. Depends on the scope of the project • Source Tracking • $150/site /marker X 2 - bulk discounts based on qty • Source Tracking by percentage • Cost prohibitive Blanks and duplicates for each Other costs: Staff time, supplies, mileage, and postage

15. Identified E. coli Sources

16. Social Indicator Survey Why care about stakeholder perceptions? • Land users who affect water quality • Barriers or motivations to improve water quality • Baseline information to determine efficacy of engagement efforts

18. Response Rate • Interns have been making phone call follow ups to reach 40% across all audiences. • January 2013 will complete data merge and finalize findings

19. Perceptions: Sources of water pollution • Agricultural Producers • Waterfowl droppings • Improper HHW disposal • Sewage treatment Discharge • Rural • Excessive lawn fertilizer/ pesticide • Waterfowl Droppings • Excessive crop production fertilizers • Urban • 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

20. Trusted Sources of Information • Agricultural Producers • MSUE (80%) • Conservation Districts (77%) • Neighbors or friends (75%) • Rural • MSUE (71%) • Local government (62%) • MDNR (61%) • Urban • MSUE (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

21. 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 strategy

22. Moving forward • Volunteer and stakeholder involvement • Reaching agriculture audience • Additional data collection • Consistent message

23. Thank you! Questions?