1 / 27

Steven Patrick Agriculture & Natural Resources Habersham County – Northeast District

Soque River Watershed Assessment National Association of County Agricultural Agents AMIC Tulsa, OK 2010. Steven Patrick Agriculture & Natural Resources Habersham County – Northeast District University of Georgia Cooperative Extension. Steven Patrick.

kosey
Télécharger la présentation

Steven Patrick Agriculture & Natural Resources Habersham County – Northeast District

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. Soque River Watershed AssessmentNational Association of County Agricultural Agents AMICTulsa, OK 2010 Steven Patrick Agriculture & Natural Resources Habersham County – Northeast District University of Georgia Cooperative Extension

  2. Steven Patrick Agriculture & Natural Resources Agent 98 – 10 Hatchery Manager Sam’s Tropical Fish Farm, AL MS Fisheries Mgmt & Aquaculture UGA BSFR Fisheries Mgmt & Aquaculture UGA www.ugaextension.com/habersham stevep@uga.edu

  3. Land Use 17% National Forest 48% Private Forest 22% Agriculture 12% Urbanized

  4. Habersham County Figures • The County generated ~ $330 million in farm gate value in 2009. • Habersham is ranked #3for GA farm gate value. • Agriculture is 1/4thof our local economy. Poultry is $305 Million in Habersham

  5. The Watershed Partnership

  6. Project Objectives • Perform a comprehensive baseline assessment of stream health (physical, chemical, & biological parameters) • Characterize non-point source (NPS) pollution inputs in the watershed • Build consensus about water protection practices • Develop a community based watershed protection plan to preserve high quality areas and restore threatened areas

  7. Watershed assessment • “Hot spot” bacterial sampling • E. Coli as indicator organism • Suspended sediment concentration • Baseflow and stormflow • Biological assessment • benthic macroinvertebrates (RBP)

  8. Headwaters Raper Creek • Sample protocols focus on sub-watersheds of the Soque River • characterizing biological health • identifying NPS pollutant sources • quantifying pollutant loads Shoal Creek Beaverdam Creek Deep Creek Yellowbank Creek Hazel Creek

  9. 19 benthic macro-invertebrate samples • Index period Oct-Feb • 2004-2006

  10. Pearson Correlations (r) • Reflect the degree to which variables are related • Do not demonstrate cause and effect • Range from +1 to -1

  11. +1 indicates perfect positive linear relationship

  12. -1 indicates perfect negative linear relationship

  13. Positive correlations (p < .05)

  14. Negative correlations (p < .05)

  15. Fecal Coliform Bacteria • From the gut of warm blooded animals (including us) • Must consider all potential sources • Livestock • Pets • Wildlife • Humans • Failing septic systems and broken sewer lines

  16. Bacteriological Data • E. coli indicator • Used to prioritize locations for corrective action • Requires landowner cooperation

  17. Bacteria - North of Clarkesville • Major tributaries: • Headwaters (Left Fork and Right Fork) • Raper Creek • Shoal Creek • Deep Creek • 17 of 42 sample sites do not meet water quality standards (40%) • Most of the high counts are in the Deep and Shoal Creek watersheds • Need a reduction of 2% - 87% to meet criteria (average = 49%)

  18. Bacteria – South of Clarkesville • Major tributaries: • Beaverdam Creek • Yellowbank Creek • Hazel Creek • 26 of 34 sites do not meet water quality standards (76%) • 15 of 20 highest levels found in these watersheds • Need a reduction of 24% - 93% to meet criteria (average = 64%)

  19. Corrective Actions • Additional grant awarded 2010 • Targeted actions to reduce bacterial and sediment loads • Put BMPs on the ground • 100% funding available to landowners in critical areas • Specs based on NRCS standards/price list • We are looking for folks to work with

  20. Shoal Creek Example • Two tributaries in Shoal Creek tested high for bacteria. • Partnership members visit with the landowners in the area.

  21. The potential source:

  22. The Solution: • Installation fencing, watering tanks & hay rings at the Gosnell and Parker Farms. • Reduced access to the stream = hope of reduced bacteria readings after BMP installation.

  23. Project Benefits • Grant funding extended to 2015 for BMP installation • Data from the assessment may be used by stakeholders for water protection and land use considerations • Water supply watersheds may remain protected • Solutions to address NPS inputs that are equitable to all stakeholders may be developed

  24. For more information… http://www.ugaextension.com/habersham/anr/

More Related