1. Andrea Stay Eaton Conservation District

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

3. 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)

4. Data Collection Completed by ECD staff and volunteers May-September 2012 Only one field season 1) Macroinvertebrate collection 2) Ag Practices Survey 3) E-coli sampling 4) Social Indicator Survey

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

7. Agricultural Practices Survey

8. Ag Inventory: Preliminary Results

9. E. coli Sampling

10. 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)

11. July E. coli Monitoring Results

12. August E. coli Monitoring Results

13. 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

14. Source Tracking

15. 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

16. Identified E. coli Sources

17. Ranking Criteria for Planning  E. coli results  Driving Survey  TMDL Priority  Partner Interest  HIT Model  Other Analysis (ICHD overflow septic, Drain Commissioner)

18. 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

20. Response Rate Agriculture Producers Exurban Residents Urban Residents Surveys Sent411945 Response38%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

21. Perceptions: Sources of water pollution Agricultural Producers 1. Waterfowl droppings 2. Improper HHW disposal 3. Sewage treatment Discharge Rural 1. Excessive lawn fertilizer/ pesticide 2. Waterfowl Droppings 3. Excessive crop production fertilizers Urban 1. 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

22. Trusted Sources of Information Agricultural Producers 1. MSUE (80%) 2. Conservation Districts (77%) 3. Neighbors or friends (75%) Rural 1. MSUE (71%) 2. Local government (62%) 3. MDNR (61%) Urban 1. 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

23. 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

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

25. Thank you! Questions?