BMP Evaluations. Status/Findings

Transcription

1 BMP Evaluations Status/Findings

2 Impact on Time Cattle Spend in Streams ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLIES

3 Alternative Water Evaluation Cattle Tracking quarterly using GPS collars

4 Alternative Water Evaluation GPS Collar Results % Time % Time Cattle Spent near stream with & without alternative water Statistically significant difference between treatments at 15, 35 & 50 ft No BMP 15 ft BMP 15 ft No BMP 35 ft BMP 35 ft No BMP 50 ft BMP 50 ft % Time Near Stream 15 ft 35 ft 50 ft Without Alternative Water 1.8% 4.5% 6.8% With Alternative Water 0.9% 2.2% 3.2% Percent Reduction -48% -52% -53%

5 Alternative water supply effectiveness Reduction in Time Spent near Stream Reference 48-53% Texas A&M Study ( ) 53% Clawson (1993) 75% Godwin and Miner (1996)

6 Impact on E. coli Levels in Streams ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLIES

7 Alt. Water Effect on E. coli Load Median E. coli load (without alt. water) PC1 = 1.3 G-org/day PC2 = 1.9 G-org/day Median E. coli load (with alt. water) PC1 = 0.3 G-org/day PC2 = 0.9 G-org/day E. coli load (G-org/day) E. coli loads (G-org/day) at PC1 & PC2 without & with alt. water PC1 Load No BMP PC2 Load No BMP PC1 Load BMP PC2 Load BMP

8 Alternative Water Source Bacteria Reduction 57 95% (FC) 51% (FC) Not significant Reference Byers et al Sheffield 1997 Texas A&M Study

9 Alternative Water Supply Bacteria Reduction 57 95% (FC) 51% (FC) Not significant Reference Byers et al Sheffield 1997 Texas A&M Study Exclusionary Fencing Fecal Coliform Reduction Reference 30% Brenner et al % Brenner % Line 2003

10 Impact on E. coli concentrations in runoff GRAZING MANAGEMENT

11 E. Coli Survivability Cattle Manure days Soil days Grass 99 days Water 35 days

12 12 mo SR vs E. coli - Year E. coli conc. (cfu/100 ml) SW12 SW mo. SR (ac/au)

13 12 mo SR vs E. coli - Year E. coli conc. (cfu/100 ml) SW12 SW17 WWR3 WWR1 BB1 BB3 BB mo. SR (ac/au)

14 12 mo SR vs E. coli - Year E. coli conc. (cfu/100 ml) SW12 SW17 WWR3 WWR1 BB1 BB3 BB mo. SR (ac/au)

15 12 mo. SR vs E. coli by site E. coli conc. (cfu/100 ml) BB2 BB3 BB1 WWR1 WWR3 SW12 SW mo. SR (ac/au)

16 6 mo. SR vs E. coli by site E. coli conc. (cfu/100 ml) BB2 BB3 BB1 WWR1 WWR3 SW12 SW mo. SR (ac/au)

17 Site Mean Conc. Of E. coli in Runoff ac/au ac/au ac/au ac/au 0 Welder #1 Welder #3 Brazos #1 Brazos #2 Brazos #3 Riesel SW12 Riesel SW17

18 Median E. coli Conc. By Site Median E. coli Conc ac/au ac/au 2.0 ac/au ac/au Welder #1 Welder #3 Brazos #1 Brazos #2 Brazos #3 Riesel SW12 Riesel SW17

19 Site Reference SR (ac/auy) FC Geo-Mean (#/100 ml) E. coli Geo-Mean (#/100 ml) WWR-1 This Study No grazing 2,720 WWR-3 This Study ,850 SW12 This Study No grazing 3,275 BB-1 This Study No grazing 3,893 Ungrazed pasture Doran et al No grazing 6,600 Est. 4,158 Ungrazed pasture Robbins et al No grazing 10,000 Est. 6,300 Site WA Edwards et al ,700 Est. 5,481 SW17 This Study 4.5 5,741 BB-2 This Study 4.0 6,562 Site WB Edwards et al ,000 Est. 34,650 Grazed pasture Doran et al ,000 Est. 35,910 Site RA Edwards et al ,700 Est. 2,331 Site RB Edwards et al ,000 Est. 17,010 BB-3 This Study ,118 Grazed pasture Robbins et al ,000 Est. 18,900 E. coli & fecal coliform Geo-Means in Runoff

20 Impact on E. coli loading GRAZING MANAGEMENT

21 Annual E. coli Loading (G-org/ac) ac/au Annual E. coli Loading (G-org/ac) ac/au 4.5 ac/au ac/au Welder #1 Welder #3 Brazos #1 Brazos #2 Brazos #3 Riesel SW12 Riesel SW17

22 Future Evaluations - McGregor Shade Alternative Water Rip Rap Stream Crossings

23 Future Evaluations Grazing Management Welder Wildlife Refuge Beef Cattle Systems Center Riesel

24

25

26 CAUSES FOR VARIABILITY

27 Daily beef cattle fecal coliform production Fecal coliform production (cfu/day) Reference 5.4E+09 Metcalf & Eddy (1991) 1.04E+11 EPA (2000) 1.3E+11 ASAE (2003)

28 Published daily beef cattle fecal production (kg per AU) Fecal production (kg/au/d) Reference 18.2 Yagow (2001) 23.5 Metcalf and Eddy (1991) 26.4 ASAE (2003) 27.3 PSU (2008) 28.6 NDSU (2008) 30 FFA (2002) Larson et al. (1994) 37.3 Mukhtar (2007) 47.3 NRCS (2008)

29 Published fecal coliform densities (cfu/g) in beef cattle manure (wet weight) Fecal coliform (cfu/g) Reference 6.40E+03 Yagow (2001) 1.80E+05 Cox (2005) 2.30E+05 Geldreich et al. (1962), Rosebury (1962), Geldreich (1977), Metcalf & Eddy (1991) 3.20E+05 Witzel et al. (1966) 5.30E+05 Witzel et al. (1966) 6.00E+05 Maki and Picard (1965) 1.36E+06 Yagow (2001) 1.40E+06 Hrubant et al. (1972) unconfined beef cattle 1.87E+06 Moyer & Hyer (2003) 3.30E+06 Hrubant et al. (1972) raw waste as collected 4.85E+06 ASAE (2003)

30 Diurnal Fluctuation of E. coli

31 Solar radiation effects on E. coli

32 Filter strip effectiveness in reducing Fecal coliform reduction fecal coliform levels Slope Buffer Length Runoff Source Reference 16% 0.5% 91 m Feedlot runoff 43% 9% 9 m Poultry litter on conv. till cropland Dickey & Vanderholm 1981 Coyne et al % 4% 36 m Feedlot runoff Young et al % 9% 9 m Poultry litter on Coyne et al. no till cropland % - 87% 4% 9m Manure Fajardo et al % > 99% 5% - 35% m Grazing cattle Tate et al >99% 4% 1 25 m Manure on pastureland Sullivan et al. 2007