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  

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  

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.  

1. 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.  
2. 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 

* Precision is measured as relative percent difference (RPD).  

3. 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  

4. 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.  
5. 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  

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 

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  

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  

Table 9. 2018 YSI measurements  

Table 10. 2019 YSI measurements at FC004 

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  

J Estimated concentration. Result was above the method detection limit and below the reporting limit.  

Table 12. 2018 Nutrient results  

Table 13. 2019 Nutrient results for FC004 

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  

Table 15. 2018 E. coli results at 3 points across the creek  

Table 16. 2019 E. coli results at 3 points across the creek  

* 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  

Note: Less than values represent results below the lowest limit of detection  

Table 18. October 2020 MST results  

Note: Less than values represent results below the lowest limit of detection  

Table 19. 2019 MST results at FC004  

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. 

The post Flower Creek 2020 Final Watershed Report appeared first on R.O.A.D..

Flower Creek E. coli Results 7/27/2020 

Flower Creek E. coli Results 8/4/2020 

Flower Creek E. coli Results 8/10/2020

Flower Creek E. coli Results 8/17/2020

Flower Creek 8/25/2020 

1. coli Results 7/20/2020 

1. coli Results 7/27/2020 

k E. coli Results 8/4/2020 

1. coli Results 8/10/2020

0.047  

1. coli Results 8/17/2020

NA 

The post Flower Creek 2020 E. coli results appeared first on R.O.A.D..

Kim de Groh 

March 3, 2021 

Due to the Covid-19 situation, the 2020 Flower Creek testing was conducted by two organizations: 

• The Great Lakes Environmental Center (GLEC) tested at 4 Flower Creek sites (FC002, FC003,  FC004 & FC005) on June 10, 2020, and the same 4 sites on October 23, 2020. 

o These tests were conducted after rain events 

• Prof. Rick Rediske of the Annis Water Resources Institute (AWRI) tested site FC004 (at Roosevelt  Rd) for 5 consecutive weeks (July -August) to get 30 Day geometric mean data.  

o AWRI actually collected data for 6 consecutive weeks vs. 5 weeks (7/20/20 – 8/25/20)  • GLEC and AWRI both collected E. coli and nutrient data, and have (or will) conduct MST analyses of high E. coli samples.  

The E. coli numbers for 2020 are once again too high. On June 10, 2020, sites FC002, FC003 and FC004  had E. coli ranging from 722 to 1011 MPN*. On October 23, 2020 sites FC002, FC003 and FC004 had E.  coli ranging from 328 to 689 MPN. These results are provided Table 14, copied below from GLEC’s 2020 final report.  

*Most Probable Number (MPN) is equivalent to cfu/100 mls 

AWRI’s E. Coli results for FC004 ranged from 569 to 2266 for testing between 7/20/2020 to 8/25/2020.  The 5-week geometric mean for E. coli for Site 4 (FC004) for July 20, 2020 to August 17, 2020 is 924  cfu/100 mls. And, the 5-week geometric mean for E. coli for Site 4 (FC004) for July 27, 2020 to August 25,  2020 is 1046 cfu/100 mls. This is an order of magnitude higher than Michigan’s total body contact (TBC) 30-day geometric mean WQS of 130 E. coli per 100 mL.  

GLEC has provided a 2020 Flower Creek Final Report, which is attached. It includes nutrients and MST  analyses (i.e. DNA). The MST analyses provided evidence of human and bovine DNA from the June  FC003 sample. The other June and October MST samples provided “non-detect” results.  

AWRI has provided their E. coli and nutrient data, which is in the attached Excel spreadsheet (“FC All  July-August 2020 Data_AWRI.xls”). The July-August MST samples are being analyzed. 

1 

The good news is that the E. coli at FC005, the mouth of Flower Creek were children often play, ranged  between 1 – 150 MPN for testing on June 10, 2020 and October 23, 2020 as shown in GLEC’s Table 14.  The E. coli at FC005 was 23 cfu/100 mls on August 25, 2020 (the only day AWRI tested site FC005 in  2020, see the AWRI Excel spreadsheet). Thus, for the 3 dates tested in 2020, the water at the mouth of  Flower Creek was found to be “clean” (i.e. less than the maximum daily geometric mean water quality  standard (WQS) for Total Body Contact of 300 cfu/100 mls) even though it was contaminated up-stream  on the same day. 

I have shared our up to-date 2020 results with Molly Rippke (EGLE E. coli POC). 

Additional Up-dates and Notes: 

EGLE 2021 Targeted Monitoring Request: On February 17, 2021, I received confirmation that our EGLE  2021 Targeted Monitoring Request for Flower Creek was received and will be evaluated. We can expect  to be informed of the decision regarding our request by about June 14, 2021. 

Statewide E. coli TMDL Addendum: On October 7, 2020 EGLE announced the U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency (USEPA) approval of the 2020 Addenda to the Statewide E. coli, Mercury, and  Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL). (EGLE Email copied below) 

This is good news for us, as Flower Creek was added to EGLE’s 2020 TMDL Addendum (“Statewide E. coli  Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Addendum –2020 Impaired Water Bodies and Percent Reductions”) which has now been approved by the EPA. 

Flower Creek is listed on the “State Wide E. coli TMDL” 2020 Addendum that can be viewed from: https://egle.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=2a060da30e25451292220861632b2c99 https://www.michigan.gov/egle/0,9429,7-135-3313_3681_3686_3728-376271–,00.html Direct link to the Addendum: 

E. coli Pollution and Solution Mapper: EGLE provided emails in November and December 2020 stating  that there have been up-dates to the State’s E. coli Pollution and Solution Mapper. (EGLE Email copied  below) 

Flower Creek is included in the Michigan’s E. coli Pollution and Solution Mapper resources, such as being  included in the E. coli TMDL Watersheds under the map at the Monitoring and Impaired Waters tab: https://egle.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=2a060da30e25451292220861632b2c99 

EGLE Water Resources Division (WRD) Water Quality Request: The EGLE WRD is requesting “ambient  water quality data (chemical, biological, or physical) that has been obtained by other governmental  agencies, nongovernmental organizations, or the public for Michigan surface waters from January 1,  2019, through December 31, 2020.” And they say that “All water quality data submitted to the WRD by  March 19, 2021, will be evaluated and potentially used to help prepare Michigan’s 2022 Integrated  Report.” (EGLE WRD email copied below) 

On February 28, 2021, I sent Kelly Turek of the EGLE WRD all our 2019 and 2020 Flower Creek test data. 

2 

EGLE Email Messages and Links 

EGLE October 7, 2020 Email: 

EGLE is announcing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) approval of the 2020  Addenda to the Statewide E. coli, Mercury, and Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) Total Maximum  Daily Loads (TMDL). This is an important step for improving and protecting water  quality. Additionally, please consider filling out the Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) Perception survey  (details below). 

• Statewide E. coli TMDL Addendum 

• Statewide Mercury and PCB TMDL Addenda 

• HABs Survey 

Statewide E. coli TMDL Addendum 

The Statewide E. coli TMDL was approved by the USEPA in 2019  

and was designed to be expanded as new water quality data  

becomes available. The 2020 Addendum contains the justification  

and data summary for adding water bodies to the TMDL. 

EGLE is committed to monitoring the quality of Michigan’s surface  

waters and protecting public health from the pathogens  

associated with E. coli. As a result of new E. coli data obtained by  

EGLE and local partners, about 4,830 miles of rivers were added  

to the TMDL. Additionally, about 560 miles were determined to  

be meeting the Total Body Contact recreation standards and one  

TMDL beach was restored. 

EGLE’s responses to public comments and the 2020 Addendum to the Statewide E. coli TMDL are  available at Michigan.gov/EcoliTMDL. The E. coli Pollution and Solution interactive mapper will be  updated later in October to reflect this approval. 

Contact: Molly Rippke (517-342-4419) 

EGLE November 4, 2020 Email: 

Updates to the E. coli Pollution and Solution Mapper 

Several layers in Michigan’s E. coli Pollution and Solution Mapper have been updated in order to provide  the most up-to-date information. The interactive mapper supports the Statewide E. coli TMDL by  providing access to E. coli monitoring results, locations of impaired waters, and information about the  potential sources and solutions to bacterial pollution. The below updated information can be accessed  in the Mapper tab and in the Solutions subject tab: 

• Approved TMDL watersheds have been updated to include the newly approved 2020 Addendum  to the Statewide E. coli TMDL. These watersheds define the areas used for implementation of  the TMDLs in permits and nonpoint source programs.

3 

• The number of Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program verifications have been  updated and are now available at the township level (previously the data were county level). • The approved Watershed Management Plan (WMP) layer has been updated to reflect the  approval of the Upper Pine and Little Manistee WMPs. 

Contact: Molly Rippke (517-342-4419) 

EGLE December 16, 2020 Email: 

2020 E. coli results have been added to the Pollution and Solution Mapper 

The River E. coli Monitoring Sites layer on  

the Michigan’s E. coli Pollution and Solution  

Mapper has been updated in order to provide  

important public health information. E. coli monitoring  

results collected by EGLE in 2020 have been added and are  represented as yellow stars, while historic sites are  

represented by white circles. Data summaries can be  

viewed by clicking on the site. Complete results are  

available upon request. 

These results will be considered in the 2022 Clean  

Water Act Sections 303(d) and 305(b) reporting. Areas of  focus in 2020 included portions of the Shiawassee, Pere  

Marquette, St. Joseph, Wiscoggin, Quanicassee,  

Escanaba, White, and Chippewa Rivers, and tributaries to  Lakes Charlevoix and Erie. 

The interactive mapper supports the Statewide E. coli TMDL by providing access to E. coli monitoring  results, locations of impaired waters, and information about the potential sources and solutions to  bacterial pollution. 

Contact: Molly Rippke (517-342-4419) 

EGLE February 12, 2021 Email: 

Request for Ambient Water Quality Data for Michigan’s Surface Waters 

The Water Resources Division (WRD) is requesting ambient water  

quality data (chemical, biological, or physical) that has been obtained  

by other governmental agencies, nongovernmental organizations, or  

the public for Michigan surface waters from January 1, 2019, through  

December 31, 2020. All water quality data submitted to the WRD by  

March 19, 2021, will be evaluated and potentially used to help  

prepare Michigan’s 2022 Integrated Report. 

The WRD prepares and submits a biennial report to the United States 

4 

Environmental Protection Agency to satisfy the listing requirements of Section 303(d) and reporting  requirements of Sections 305(b) and 314 of the federal Clean Water Act. The Integrated Report  describes the status of water quality in Michigan and includes a list of water bodies that are not  attaining Michigan Water Quality Standards. Additional guidance on preferred data sets may be found  by going to the Integrated Report Web site. 

All ambient water quality data (including associated quality assurance/quality control information) for  Michigan surface waters may be sent to Kelly Turek (TurekK@Michigan.gov, 517-930-0096), Lakes Erie,  Huron, and Superior Unit, Surface Water Assessment Section, Water Resources Division, at Department  of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy, P.O. Box 30458, Lansing, Michigan 48909-7958. If submitting  ambient water quality data from a secondary location (e.g., WQX) please provide details to Ms. Turek.

5 

The post 2020 FC water test update appeared first on R.O.A.D..

The post Michigan Does Not Need Another Public Health Crisis appeared first on R.O.A.D..

Posted Mar 21, 2:24 PM      Click here to see the full story: 

By Michael Kransz | mkransz@mlive.com

The post Manure spill turns portions of West Michigan trout stream ‘ink black’ appeared first on R.O.A.D..

A community forum to discuss the health of Flower Creek–which flows directly into Lake Michigan in Muskegon County–will feature a presentation by Dr. Richard Rediske, Ph.D., GVSU Professor of Water Resources at the Annis Water Resources Institute.   The forum will be held in Montague City Council Chambers at 8778 Ferry Street on Tuesday March 12 at 7:00 pm.

Flower Creek drains over 20,000 acres in Muskegon and Oceana counties, most of it farmland.  Recently the Lake Michigan coastline south of its mouth has become a land preserve under the sponsorship of the Land Conservancy of West Michigan, an organization which helped to underwrite a water quality research project.  Other funders include the Big Flower Creek Association and ROAD (Reviving Our American Democracy).  ROAD is the sponsor of this forum.

For this 2018 water study on Flower Creek, Dr. Rediske was the lead scientist. The design was approved   by Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).

Dr. Rediske’s Ph.D. was earned in 1986 from the University of Michigan in Environmental Health Sciences.  He has served at Grand Valley State University’s AWRI in Muskegon for 25 years.  In addition, he volunteered on the Allendale Township Planning Commission for 15 years and on the White Lake Public Advisory Board almost 20 years.   His wide-ranging expertise includes environmental toxicology and harmful algae.  Projects for which he has received grants include Lake Michigan and inland lake beach monitoring through the Muskegon County Department of Public Health.  His work has included examining the health of fish populations in various waterways as well as the protection of human health.

This presentation comes at a key moment for our local environment.  The land surrounding Flower Creek’s watershed is expected to be where most of the waste from a controversial pig CAFO is to be spread.  This 1.5 million gallon slurry of manure, chemicals, and antibiotics will come from Flower Creek Swine’s Concentrated Animal Feed Operation of over 8,000 sows per year.   Although the DEQ approved its permit last May, the facility has been under construction, so is not yet producing any manure. Its Individual Permit from the DEQ specifies it cannot spread manure on frozen or snow-covered land belonging to the family.  For any DEQ permit, farmers who spread CAFO waste are required to monitor their land to ensure that the amount used is appropriate to the crop grown on it and the soil content, as well as to avoid spreading it when heavy rains are predicted or taking place.

Among the 200-plus attendees at the DEQ hearing about this CAFO last year, none spoke in favor of permitting it.  Many objected to its proximity to Flower Creek and Lake Michigan.  A number of speakers called for a water quality study of Flower Creek to be conducted before issuing a permit.  Now, the scientific results of this water quality study are available to share with the White Lake Community.

You may find more information on this topic by visiting our website RoadAactivist.org select topics, CAFO Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation.

Please click the facebook share button to share on your facebook.

Click the following link to print a brochure to share about this meeting. Printable copy of brochure

The post Please Help Protect our Water: Community Forum on Flower Creek March 12, 2019 at 7:00 pm. appeared first on R.O.A.D..

The post Right to Pollute: Factory Farms in Michigan, Part 2 appeared first on R.O.A.D..

The post Right to Pollute: Factory Farms in Michigan appeared first on R.O.A.D..

To the editor:

I want to thank The Beacon for its article last week concerning the Flower Creek Swine CAFO (Confined Animal Feeding Operation).  This began to explain the process for challenging State DEQ approval of 1.5 million gallons of manure to be inflicted White River and Claybanks Townships.

This CAFO and its planned manure spreading are in the wrong place, too close to Flower Creek floodplains and wetlands, especially too close to Lake Michigan.  How can we claim “Pure Michigan” when we are allowing swine manure into a central recreation attraction in this area, a drinking water source for communities like Muskegon all up and down the coast?

In the opinion of (State Senate candidate) former Representative Bumstead, this CAFO is wrong due to its “Location, Location, Location.”  (But Rep. Hughes, also running for State Senate, has refused to say anything at all about it, apparently playing for support from both sides).

Perhaps the public should know that their tax moneys are backing this CAFO.  This week, I drove to Big Rapids to read the US government document which justifies USDA backing the huge loan. Prepared by the Farm Service Administration (FSA), this report is supposed to justify U.S. tax dollars being used to pay off the the loan if Flower Creek Swine is not able to make its payments to a bank in Indiana.

This document ignores the current oversupply of pork in this country, mostly due to the tariff war between China, Mexico, and the U.S.  It cites the “…consistent demand for the products produced.”  But then the document (p. 15) states, “The current economic climate has also created incentives for lenders to reduce risks for higher risk agricultural loans.” What does this mean? We taxpayers should be backing the loan so that the bank takes less of a risk on this otherwise risky loan?  And this is used to argue why our taxpayer funds should bear the risk instead?

This document’s “Cumulative Analysis also says, “If not managed appropriately, the pollutants potentially leaving the CAFO may affect public health, watersheds, air quality, soil erosion, and fertility directly or indirectly” and cites stressors such as “nutrients, pathogens, sediments, EDCs, antibiotics, and metals…”

Folks, do we really want to take this risk to Flower Creek and Lake Michigan and offer the backing of our own taxpayer money to do so?

If you want to help ROAD (Reviving our American Democracy) contest the operation of this CAFO, please visit our website to find out how to fight back:  Click on https://roadactivist.org/ “Donate Now” to send a check or just click on the picture of the pigs for GoFundMe.

Margot Haynes, Montague MI 894-0651 or 894-4138

The post Resist the Flower Creek Swine CAFO: Please donate. appeared first on R.O.A.D..

The post Press Release: CAFO Contested Case Filing appeared first on R.O.A.D..