FINAL
FLOWER CREEK WATERSHED STUDY REPORT Oceana and Muskegon Counties, Michigan
Prepared for:
Big Flower Creek Association
Prepared by:
Project Coordinator:
Michelle A Moore
Ph.: 231-941-0179
Email: mmoore@glec.com
January 18, 2021
GLEC Final Report – Flower Creek Watershed Study January 18, 2021 Oceana and Muskegon Counties, Michigan Page i of 16
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by the Big Flower Creek Association, Reviving Our American Democracy and a Freshwater Future Special Opportunities grant. Thank you to Kim de Groh for project management and logistical arrangements and William Hochkammer for providing access for sampling at the mouth of Flower Creek. Thank you, also, to Molly Rippke of Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy for reviewing the Quality Assurance Project Plan. We also thank Michigan State University for providing microbial source tracking analysis and Pace Analytical for performing ammonia analysis.
GLEC Final Report – Flower Creek Watershed Study January 18, 2021 Oceana and Muskegon Counties, Michigan Page ii of 16
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1 2.0 METHODS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1 Task One: Water Quality and Flow Measurements and Sample Collection ……………….. 1 Task Two: Lab Analysis …………………………………………………………………………………….. 6 3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ……………………………………………………………………………… 8 4.0 LITERATURE CITED ………………………………………………………………………………………… 15
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Sample and field measurement collection schedule and rainfall ……………………………….. 1 Table 2. Sample and field measurement collection location information ……………………………….. 2 Table 3. Field water quality data objectives ……………………………………………………………………….. 5 Table 4. Microbial Data Quality Objectives ………………………………………………………………………. 6 Table 5. Nutrient chemistry data quality objectives …………………………………………………………….. 7 Table 6. Laboratory analytical criteria ……………………………………………………………………………… 7 Table 7. Average discharge in June and October 2020 ………………………………………………………… 8 Table 8. 2020 YSI measurements ……………………………………………………………………………………. 12 Table 9. 2018 YSI measurements ……………………………………………………………………………………. 12 Table 10. 2019 YSI measurements at FC004 ……………………………………………………………………. 12 Table 11. 2020 Nutrient results ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 13 Table 12. 2018 Nutrient results ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 13 Table 13. 2019 nutrient results for FC004 ………………………………………………………………………… 13 Table 14. 2020 E. coli results at 3 points across the creek ………………………………………………….. 14 Table 15. 2018 E. coli results at 3 points across the creek ………………………………………………….. 14 Table 16. 2019 E. coli results at 3 points across the creek ………………………………………………….. 14 Table 17. June 2020 MST results ……………………………………………………………………………………. 15 Table 18. October 2020 MST results ……………………………………………………………………………….. 15 Table 19. 2019 MST results at FC004 ……………………………………………………………………………… 15
GLEC Final Report – Flower Creek Watershed Study January 18, 2021 Oceana and Muskegon Counties, Michigan Page iii of 16
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Inset 1 – Flower Creek watershed; Inset 2 – Flower Creek sampling locations …………. 2 Figure 2. View of CAFO from Flower Creek site FC002, June 2020 …………………………………….. 3 Figure 3. Flower Creek, site FC002, June (left and center photographs) and October 2020 ……… 3 Figure 4. Flower Creek, site FC003, June (left) and October 2020 ………………………………………… 4 Figure 5. Flower Creek, site FC004, June and October 2020 ………………………………………………… 4 Figure 6. Flower Creek, site FC005, June (left and center photographs) and October 2020 ……… 5 Figure 7. FC002 Discharge June (left) and October (right) 2020 …………………………………………. 11 Figure 8. FC003 Discharge June (left) and October (right) 2020 …………………………………………. 11 Figure 9. FC004 Discharge June (left) and October (right) 2020 …………………………………………. 11 Figure 10. FC005 Discharge June (left) and October (right) 2020 ……………………………………….. 12
GLEC Final Report – Flower Creek Watershed Study January 18, 2021 Oceana and Muskegon Counties, Michigan Page 1 of 16
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Great Lakes Environmental Center, Inc. (GLEC) was contracted to perform a watershed study on Flower Creek in Oceana and Muskegon Counties, Michigan for the Big Flower Creek Association. This study was designed to supplement baseline data that was collected by Annis Water Resources Institute (AWRI) in 2019 and 2018, and to assess any changes in water quality.
The three branches of Flower Creek run through mainly agricultural lands in the upper and middle reaches, with some wetland and forested areas in the western lower reach. Clay soils dominate in the middle reaches of each of the three branches. In 2019 a swine concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) began operating in the Flower Creek watershed. The 2019 study concluded that runoff from the poorly drained agricultural riparian area impacted downstream recreational use and fisheries. The focus of this follow-up study was the collection and analysis of samples for E. coli and nutrients due to the Big Flower Creek Association’s concerns that these impacts continue.
2.0 METHODS
GLEC performed the tasks outlined below to complete the scope of work as requested by Big Flower Creek Association. Documents generated by field activities, including field data sheets and notes, are maintained in the project files. Unless otherwise instructed by the Big Flower Creek Association, the GLEC Nutrient Chemistry Laboratory will maintain the project file containing raw data, instrument printouts, preparation and run logs, calibration information, analytical data, quality assurance data, and chain-of-custody forms for 7 years after project completion.
Task One: Water Quality and Flow Measurements and Sample Collection
GLEC collected field data and water samples at four predetermined locations in the early summer (June 10) and mid-fall (October 23) (Table 1). Locations were chosen by Big Flower Creek Association prior to the 2019 study. Three of these locations were upstream of the Flower Creek wetland and one was downstream of the wetland at the mouth of the creek where it enters Lake Michigan.
Table 1. Sample and field measurement collection schedule and rainfall
Collection Date | Rainfall in the prior 24 hours
(inches) |
June 10, 2020 | 1.58 |
October 23, 2020 | 0.6 |
Four of the five previously studied locations were monitored in this study. See Table 2 for the location descriptions and coordinates in decimal degrees. Sample dates were chosen based on the season, and having had at least 0.5 inches of rainfall in the 24 hours prior to the sampling event. Field and analytical procedures were performed in accordance with a Michigan Department of
GLEC Final Report – Flower Creek Watershed Study January 18, 2021 Oceana and Muskegon Counties, Michigan Page 2 of 16
Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE) approved Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). Sampling did not coincide with manifests by the swine CAFO that had occurred on May 1st, 2nd, 5th and 9th and on September 14th and 15th.
Table 2. Sample and field measurement collection location information
Location ID | Location Coordinates | Location Description |
FC002 | 43.478161, -86.432329 | Flower Rd. bridge, east of 48th Ave. |
FC003 | 43.486603, -86.432676 | Roosevelt Rd. bridge east of 48th Ave. |
FC004 | 43.486573, -86.440352 | Roosevelt Rd. bridge west of 48th Ave. |
FC005 | 43.468775, -86.460377 | Flower Creek outlet to Lake Michigan |
Inset 1 – Flower Creek Watershed
Inset 2 – Flower Creek sampling locations |
Figure 1. Inset 1 – Flower Creek watershed; Inset 2 – Flower Creek sampling locations
GLEC Final Report – Flower Creek Watershed Study January 18, 2021 Oceana and Muskegon Counties, Michigan Page 3 of 16
FC002, at the Flower Road bridge east of 48th Ave, was the sampling location with the closest proximity to the swine CAFO (see Figure 2). Figure 3 shows turbidity in the creek at FC002, presumably caused by erosion of riparian soils, during the two sampling events.
Figure 2. View of CAFO from Flower Creek site FC002, June 2020
Figure 3. Flower Creek, site FC002, June (left and center photographs) and October 2020
GLEC Final Report – Flower Creek Watershed Study January 18, 2021 Oceana and Muskegon Counties, Michigan Page 4 of 16
Sampling location FC003 was at Roosevelt Road bridge east of 48th Avenue. There was an adjacent large agricultural operation just upstream (Figure 4; note the outbuildings visible in the background). The creek bottom at this location had deep soft sediment.
Figure 4. Flower Creek, site FC003, June (left) and October 2020
FC004 was located at Roosevelt Road bridge west of 48th Avenue (Figure 5). Like FC003, the bottom substrate was deep soft sediment. It sprinkled a little during sample collection in October at this location but the rainfall was short-lived and the amount negligible. It is unlikely to have had any affect on measurements or sample results.
Figure 5. Flower Creek, site FC004, June and October 2020
GLEC Final Report – Flower Creek Watershed Study January 18, 2021 Oceana and Muskegon Counties, Michigan Page 5 of 16
FC005 was located at the mouth Flower Creek where the bottom substrate was predominantly sand (Figure 6). On each sample date, prevailing winds were intermittently pushing water from Lake Michigan into the mouth of the river and then reversing. Consequently, the water samples collected at this location were a combination of creek and lake water.
Figure 6. Flower Creek, site FC005, June (left and center photographs) and October 2020
The four tasks listed below were performed at each of the four locations on each of the field days. The sampler wore gloves and stood in a downstream position (i.e., facing upstream) to avoid collecting disturbed sediment.
- Determine the creek width, depth and flow velocity – A tape measure was used to measure the width of a cross section of the creek. At 20 equidistant locations across the transect, depth and flow measurements were taken using a Marsh McBirney flow meter and top-set wading rod.
- Measure temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen and specific conductance – A YSI DSS Pro was used for these measurements following GLEC standard operating procedures (SOPs) that adhere to the manufacturer’s instructions. One set of duplicate YSI measurements was recorded on the first collection date. The data quality objectives for these field measurements of water quality are specified in Table 3.
Table 3. Field water quality data objectives
Parameter | Precision* | Range | Resolution |
pH | ±20 | 0 to 14 standard units (SU) | 0.01 SU |
Temperature | ±20 | -5 to 45°C | 0.01°C |
Dissolved Oxygen | ±20 | 0 to 50 mg/L | 0.01 mg/L |
* Precision is measured as relative percent difference (RPD).
- Collect E. coli samples – Samples were collected for E. coli analysis from flowing water near the left and right banks and in the center of the creek. To collect a sample, the cap was removed from a sterile bottle which was inverted, submerged, and then righted while underwater, thereby minimizing the influence of the surface microlayer. Sample was poured off to the 100 mL graduation mark prior to filtration in the laboratory. The precision and accuracy of microbial sample collection and analysis methods was assessed
GLEC Final Report – Flower Creek Watershed Study January 18, 2021 Oceana and Muskegon Counties, Michigan Page 6 of 16
through a field duplicate sample collected during the first sampling event and field blanks collected once per sample day, (see Table 4).
Table 4. Microbial Data Quality Objectives
Activity | Accuracy | Precision |
E. coli Analysis | Field blanks with a bacteria count < 1 most probable number (MPN) | Field duplicates RPD ≤ 35% |
- Collect microbial source tracking (MST) samples – Two MST samples were collected from the center of the creek using the same technique as was used to collect E. coli samples. One sample was for analysis, and the other was a back-up in case the laboratory had problems with the analysis of the first sample.
- Collect nutrient samples – A clean collection vessel was used to fill 250 mL glass and 500 mL plastic bottles from mid-depth at the center of the creek. The 250 mL sample was for analysis of total phosphorus (TP) and nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen (NO3+NO2-N), and the 500 mL sample was for analysis of ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-N). A duplicate sample was collected at one of the four sample locations on each sample date. Samples were appropriately preserved.
The TP, NO3+NO2-N, NH3-N, E. coli, and MST samples were stored on ice by the field crew, and transported to GLEC’s Nutrient Chemistry Laboratory in Traverse City, MI.
Field data and sample collection forms were used by the field crew to populate the chain of custody form that was submitted to the laboratory with samples. All bottle IDs, sample locations, dates and times were included on the chain of custody form.
Field completeness was determined by the number of collected measurements versus the number of planned measurements. Field data representativeness and comparability criteria were met by adhering to the QAPP design.
Task Two: Lab Analysis
GLEC’s Traverse City, MI Nutrient Chemistry Laboratory analyzed the TP, NO3+NO2-N and E. coli samples per reference methods 4500-P-F, 4500-NO3-H and 9223 B, respectively, from the 22nd Edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (SM). GLEC is accredited by The National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC) Institute (TNI) to perform these analyses. NH3-N analysis was performed by subcontractor laboratory Pace Analytical using SM 4500-NH3-G, and MST analysis was performed by Michigan State University (MSU) using Bacteroides human specific marker (Aslan and Rose, 2013; Layton et al., 2007; Srinivasan et al., 2011; Yampara-Iquise et al., 2008; Verhougstraete et al., 2015), Bacteroides bovine specific marker (Dick et al., 2013; Shanks et al., 2008), and Bacteroidales Porcine specific marker (Mieszkin et al., 2009).
MST samples were filtered in a sterile environment upon arrival at the laboratory. The filters were placed into microcentrifuge tubes provided by MSU, and stored at -20ºC until shipment on dry ice to MSU. Only those MST samples collected from locations that had E.coli results greater that 300 MPN were analyzed.
GLEC Final Report – Flower Creek Watershed Study January 18, 2021 Oceana and Muskegon Counties, Michigan Page 7 of 16
Task Three: Verification and Validation
Data was evaluated by the Project Coordinator for compliance, correctness, comparability and completeness. Laboratory data representativeness and comparability criteria were met by adhering to the QAPP design. Identical sampling and analytical procedures were used for the two sampling events and were comparable to procedures used in prior studies within the creek system.
Laboratory personnel assessed accuracy through the analysis of positive and negative controls: laboratory fortified blanks (LFBs) and laboratory reagent blanks (LRBs) for nutrient chemistry analysis, and laboratory blanks (LBs) for E. coli analysis. The precision of laboratory data was assessed through the use of matrix spike (MS) and matrix spike duplicate (MSD) samples. One MS/MSD sample set was analyzed for every 20 samples. Laboratory completeness was assessed
by comparing the number of valid measurements with the total number of measurements. Data quality objectives for nutrient chemistry parameters are summarized in Table 5. The Laboratory Coordinator reviewed all laboratory data to ensure it met quality control criteria prior to the data being released for final report preparation.
Table 5. Nutrient chemistry data quality objectives
Parameter | Accuracy (% Recovery) | Precision
(RPD) |
Completeness | Method
Detection Limit |
TP | 80% – 120% | ±20% | 95% | 0.0021 mg/L |
NH3-N | 80% – 120% | ±20% | 95% | 0.015 mg/L |
NO3+NO2-N | 80% – 120% | ±20% | 95% | 0.0039 mg/L |
Laboratory instrument calibration criteria for each parameter are specified in Table 6. Initial instrument calibration and subsequent calibration checks ensure data accuracy and precision.
Table 6. Laboratory analytical criteria
Parameter | Requirement /Criteria | Frequency of Check | Frequency
of Initial Calibration Verification |
Initial
Calibration Verification |
Frequency of Continuing
Calibration Verification |
Continuing
Calibration Verification R = 85-115% None |
TP,
NH3-N, and NO3+NO2– N |
6 Standards in initial
calibration; correlation coefficient ≥ 0.995 |
Every batch | Every batch | Recovery
(R) = 85- 115% |
Every 10
samples |
|
E.coli | Incubator
temperature ±5% of method defined temperature |
Annually in April and
check temperature daily upon use |
None | None | None |
GLEC Final Report – Flower Creek Watershed Study January 18, 2021 Oceana and Muskegon Counties, Michigan Page 8 of 16
3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
SOP and QAPP requirements were successfully achieved and data adhered to quality control criteria. Data collection procedures resulted in a well-documented full data set. The crew followed proper field data collection techniques laid out in the QAPP and in GLEC SOPs. The field crew did not collect a duplicate E. coli sample or duplicate readings of the four YSI parameters on their second trip to Flower Creek in October. Of the 112 planned field measurements and collections (including flow, YSI readings and sample collections), 107 were completed, resulting in 96% completeness. This adheres to the goal of at least 90% completeness for field data.
All nutrient and MST samples were analyzed within the applicable holding times and the analyses met all applicable quality control criteria. However, E. coli samples collected from FC003 and FC004 on June 10th and from FC002 on October 23rd were filtered past the 6 hour holding time. LFB, LRB and LB results were acceptable for all parameters. All of the 93 analytical measurements, including field and QC samples, were valid, resulting in 100% analytical completeness. Therefore, the goal of at least 95% completeness for laboratory data was met.
Data from each of the two 2020 sampling events are presented in this section. Data from the 2018 and 2019 AWRI reports are included for comparison to the 2020 results.
The June 10th sampling event followed an accumulation of 1.58 inches of rain. Approximately 1.08 inches of rain fell on June 9th, and another 0.5 inches fell the morning of June 10th prior to sampling. The October 23rd sampling event occurred after 0.6 inches of rain had fallen in the previous 24 hours.
Flow velocity (discharge) on each of the sampling dates is shown in Table 7 and Figures 7 through 10. The discharge was much higher at the mouth of Flower Creek on both sampling dates. Flow measurements at the mouth were timed for when water was flowing from the creek into the lake, avoiding times when waves in the lake were pushing water into the mouth of the creek. However, the discharge rate at the mouth was affected by this lake water flowing into the creek, reversing course, and flowing back out.
Table 7. Average discharge in June and October 2020
Location | June Discharge (m3/sec) | October
Discharge (m3/sec) |
FC002 | 0.75 | 0.25 |
FC003 | 0.51 | 0.65 |
FC004 | 0.71 | 0.35 |
FC005 | 9.55 | 3.59 |
GLEC Final Report – Big Flower Creek Watershed Study January 18, 2021 Oceana and Muskegon Counties, Michigan Page 11 of 6
Figure 7. FC002 Discharge June (left) and October (right) 2020
Figure 8. FC003 Discharge June (left) and October (right) 2020
Figure 9. FC004 Discharge June (left) and October (right) 2020
GLEC Final Report – Big Flower Creek Watershed Study January 18, 2021 Oceana and Muskegon Counties, Michigan Page 12 of 17
Figure 10. FC005 Discharge June (left) and October (right) 2020
YSI data collected in this study is presented in Table 8. The temperature readings at the three locations upstream of the Flower Creek wetland were all in the range expected for a cold-water fishery. The specific conductance (SpCond) and pH results were similar to those recorded in 2019 (Table 10).
Dissolved oxygen (D.O.) ranged from 7.7 mg/L to 10.1 mg/L in this study. D.O. at FC004 ranged from 8.69 mg/L to 9.98 in 2019, and was lower in 2020, at 7.7 mg/L and 8.3 mg/L in June and October, respectively. In 2018 (Table 9), D.O. was, on average, higher than in either 2019 or 2020, with exception of some lower readings at the mouth of the creek. On the 2020 sample dates, the water at the mouth was well oxygenated by wave action. All D.O. readings in 2020 exceeded the threshold to support a cold-water fishery.
Table 8. 2020 YSI measurements
Location | Temp (℃) | SpCond (µS/cm) | D.O. (mg/L) | pH (SU) | ||||
June | October | June | October | June | October | June | October | |
FC002 | 14.9 | 10.4 | 362.9 | 340.9 | 10.1 | 9.2 | 7.95 | 8.18 |
FC003 | 15.2 | 10.5 | 360.5 | 333.0 | 9.8 | 7.7 | 8.01 | 8.07 |
FC004 | 16.8 | 10.2 | 362.0 | 364.0 | 7.7 | 8.3 | 7.80 | 8.12 |
FC005 | 20.8 | 10.2 | 350.8 | 289.6 | 8.2 | 9.9 | 7.81 | 8.32 |
FC005 DUP | 20.9 | – | 347.0 | – | 8.3 | – | 7.85 | – |
Table 9. 2018 YSI measurements
Location | Temp (℃) | D.O. (mg/L) | pH (SU) | ||||||
April | August | October | April | August | October | April | August | October | |
FC002 | 11.50 | 13.63 | 11.72 | 12.96 | 10.63 | 10.11 | 8.77 | 8.21 | 7.92 |
FC003 | 12.15 | 13.12 | 11.83 | 13.16 | 10.04 | 9.97 | 8.89 | 8.24 | 7.92 |
FC004 | 12.97 | 13.88 | 11.10 | 13.63 | 9.70 | 9.14 | 9.07 | 8.05 | 7.73 |
FC005 | 12.46 | 21.11 | 12.29 | 16.28 | 6.86 | 6.60 | 9.27 | 7.86 | 7.47 |
Table 10. 2019 YSI measurements at FC004
2019 Date | Temp (℃) | SpCond (µS/cm) | D.O. (mg/L) | pH (SU) |
July 15 | 13.6 | 395 | 9.85 | 7.96 |
July 22 | 15.4 | 392 | 8.69 | 8.12 |
July 29 | 16.2 | 391 | 8.84 | 8.23 |
August 5 | 13.2 | 389 | 9.89 | 8.14 |
August 13 | 14.5 | 422 | 9.98 | 7.92 |
GLEC Final Report – Big Flower Creek Watershed Study January 18, 2021 Oceana and Muskegon Counties, Michigan Page 13 of 16
The 2020 results for the nutrient parameters are summarized in Table 11, below. Tables 12 and 13 show results from the 2018 and 2019 studies conducted by AWRI. AWRI indicated in their reports that there were significant rain events of: 1.5 inches just prior to sampling in October 2018; 1.35 inches two days prior to sampling on July 22, 2019; and 0.55 inches on August 5, 2019, just prior to sampling. The conditions present during the October 2018 and July 22 and August 5, 2019 wet weather sampling events were the most comparable to those present during the 2020 sampling events.
Most TP results in this study exceeded those collected in 2018 and 2019, with the exception of the post-rain event samples collected in October of 2018. The TP results at FC004 in 2019 after the July and August rain events were 0.049 mg/L and 0.035 mg/L, respectively, and in 2020 after the June and October rain events were 0.0644 mg/L and 0.0547 mg/L, respectively. The results for rain event samples collected in 2018 ranged from 0.055 to 0.203 mg/L.
In 2020, NO3+NO2-N ranged from 0.437 to 3.25 mg/L and NH3-N ranged from non-detect (i.e., <0.015 mg/L) to 0.043 mg/L. After the heavier rain event in June, NO3+NO2-N results were slightly higher and NH3-N were significantly higher at the three sampling locations upstream of the wetland (FC002, FC003, and FC004) than downstream of the wetland at FC005. This indicates that the wetland may be filtering out inorganic nitrogen. In the case of the October 2020 reading, the low NO3+NO2-N at FC005 may also be the result of dilution by lake water from the strong wave action. NO3+NO2-N and NH3-N results did not differ significantly from year to year.
Table 11. 2020 Nutrient results
Location | TP (mg/L) | NO3+NO2-N (mg/L) | NH3-N (mg/L) | |||
June | October | June | October | June | October | |
FC002 | 0.0581 | 0.0377 | 3.25 | 2.83 | 0.040 | <0.015 |
FC002 DUP | – | 0.0392 | – | 2.83 | – | <0.015 |
FC003 | 0.0664 | 0.0506 | 3.24 | 2.75 | <0.015 | <0.015 |
FC004 | 0.0644 | 0.0547 | 2.60 | 2.17 | 0.042 | <0.015 |
FC005 | 0.0576 | 0.0122 | 1.25 | 0.437 | 0.042 | 0.019J |
FC005 DUP | 0.0558 | – | 1.30 | – | 0.043 | – |
Field Blank | <0.0021 | <0.0021 | <0.0039 | <0.0039 | <0.03 | <0.03 |
J Estimated concentration. Result was above the method detection limit and below the reporting limit.
Table 12. 2018 Nutrient results
Location | TP (mg/L) | NO3+NO2-N (mg/L) | NH3-N (mg/L) | ||||||
April | August | October | April | August | October | April | August | October | |
FC002 | 0.012 | 0.02 | 0.085 | 2.6 | 3.4 | 2.5 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.1 |
FC003 | 0.014 | 0.02 | 0.055 | 2.6 | 3.0 | 2.4 | <0.01 | 0.01 | 0.05 |
FC004 | 0.013 | 0.03 | 0.066 | 2.2 | 3.3 | 2.4 | <0.01 | 0.02 | 0.06 |
FC005 | 0.013 | 0.01 | 0.203 | 1.7 | 1.3 | 2.2 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.08 |
Table 13. 2019 Nutrient results for FC004
2019 Date | TP (mg/L) | NO3+NO2-N (mg/L) | NH3-N (mg/L) |
July 15 | 0.031 | 2.82 | 0.03 |
July 22 | 0.049 | 2.82 | 0.03 |
July 29 | 0.044 | 1.99 | 0.01 |
August 5 | 0.035 | 3.18 | 0.01 |
August 13 | 0.024 | 2.92 | 0.01 |
GLEC Final Report – Big Flower Creek Watershed Study January 18, 2021 Oceana and Muskegon Counties, Michigan Page 14 of 16
As seen in Tables 14 through 16, below, E.coli results for samples collected in 2020 after rain events mirrored those collected October 2018 and July 22, 2019. The results after 1.58 inches of rainfall were very similar to 2019 results at FC004 after 1.35 inches of rainfall, and to October 2018 results after 1.5 inches of rainfall. The E. coli results for FC005 in all three years were relatively low, with the exception of the October 2018 sample. The August 2019 rain event did not result in as a high an E. coli concentration, perhaps due to the timing of the rainfall, just prior to the sampling event. E. coli counts at all three locations upstream of the wetland exceeded total body contact criteria (EGLE, 2019) on both 2020 sample dates.
Five week geometric mean E coli data was also collected in August of 2018 at FC004 (Rediske and Allen, 2019) but is not included in a table in this report. Average results for the first three weeks in August 2018 were lower than the 2020 results at FC004 but the results for the last two weeks captured rain events and were significantly higher than sample results from 2020. Samples collected in the fifth week ranged from 8100 cfu to 12670 cfu, resulting in a geometric mean that exceeded both partial and total body contact standards.
Table 14. 2020 E. coli results at 3 points across the creek
2020 E. coli result (MPN) | ||||||
June | October | |||||
Location | Right | Center | Left | Right | Center | Left |
FC002 | 961 | 913 | 913 | 659 | 575 | 722 |
FC003 | 722 | 722 | 830 | 575 | 689 | 219 |
FC004 | 1011 | 830 | 914 | 659 | 328 | 629 |
FC005 | 69 | 69 | 150 | 1 | 11 | 6 |
FC005 DUP | 66 | – | – | – | – | – |
Field Blank | <1 | <1 |
Table 15. 2018 E. coli results at 3 points across the creek
Location | 2018 E. coli result (MPN) | ||||||||
April 25 | August 1 | October 2 | |||||||
Right | Center | Left | Right | Center | Left | Right | Center | Left | |
FC002 | 81 | 56 | 84 | 308 | 411 | 308 | 816 | 1203 | 866 |
FC003 | 105 | 105 | 75 | 326 | 517 | 261 | 1300 | 1120 | 1733 |
FC004 | 82 | 84 | 62 | 579 | 649 | 816 | 1800 | 2100 | 1600 |
FC005 | 9 | 18 | 9 | 22 | 24 | 18 | – | – | 2400 |
Table 16. 2019 E. coli results at 3 points across the creek
2019 Date | 2019 E. coli result (CFU/100 mL)* | |||||
FC004 | FC005 | |||||
Right | Center | Left | Right | Center | Left | |
July 15 | 387 | 365 | 435 | 5 | 2 | 4 |
July 22 | 1553 | 980 | 1120 | 116 | 133 | 117 |
July 29 | 921 | 548 | 727 | 15 | 15 | 12 |
August 5 | 272 | 299 | 579 | 20 | 11 | 22 |
August 13 | 326 | 291 | 238 | 41 | 30 | 35 |
* CFU = colony forming units. It is equivalent to MPN.
GLEC Final Report – Big Flower Creek Watershed Study January 18, 2021 Oceana and Muskegon Counties, Michigan Page 15 of 16
As seen in Table 17 and 18, below, results from 2020 MST samples found both bovine and human markers in the sample collected at FC003 in June 2020 only. As shown in Table 19, bovine markers were found in the July 22, 2019 sample collected at FC004. Because MST
samples were not collected at FC003 in 2019, there is no way to know if bovine DNA would have been detected there. The results at FC003 in June indicate that, somewhere upstream of FC003, both cow manure and septic leachate was entering the stream.
Table 17. June 2020 MST results
Location | Bacteriodes average gene copies/100mL | ||
Human specific marker | Bovine specific marker | Porcine specific marker | |
FC002 | <442.5 | <442.5 | <442.5 |
FC003 | 573.8 | 509 | <416.5 |
FC004 | <472 | <472 | <472 |
Note: Less than values represent results below the lowest limit of detection
Table 18. October 2020 MST results
Location | Bacteriodes average gene copies/100mL | ||
Human specific marker | Bovine specific marker | Porcine specific marker | |
FC002 | <442.5 | <442.5 | <442.5 |
FC003 | <505.7 | <505.7 | <505.7 |
FC004 | <708 | <708 | <708 |
Note: Less than values represent results below the lowest limit of detection
Table 19. 2019 MST results at FC004
2019 Date | Bacteriodes average gene copies/100mL | ||
Human specific
marker |
Bovine specific
marker |
Porcine specific
marker |
|
July 15 | ND | ND | ND |
July 22 | ND | 590 | ND |
July 29 | ND | ND | ND |
August 5 | ND | ND | ND |
August 13 | ND | ND | ND |
ND = Not detected at a level above 354 gene copies/100 mL.
Agricultural land use dominates the Flower Creek watershed. It is likely that, during rain events, agricultural operations are a significant source of runoff to the creek of nutrient laden soils, fertilizers and E. coli from manure. This is causing degradation of the recreational water quality in Flower Creek.
4.0 LITERATURE CITED
APHA, 2011. Water Pollution methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (22nd Edition) American Public Health Association. Washington D. C. 1437.
EGLE, 2019. Michigan’s E. coli Water Quality Standard.
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/wrd-swas-ecoli_527147_7.pdf.
GLEC Final Report – Big Flower Creek Watershed Study January 18, 2021 Oceana and Muskegon Counties, Michigan Page 16 of 16
Flower Creek Monitoring Project 2018 E. coli, Nutrient, and Bioassessment Surveys. R. R. Rediske and M. Allen (AWRI), February 2019.
Flower Creek Monitoring Project 2019. R. R. Rediske (AWRI), April 2019.