Agricultural BMPs Best Management Strategies That Sustain Our Estuary Galveston, Texas January 12, 2 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 15
About This Presentation
Title:

Agricultural BMPs Best Management Strategies That Sustain Our Estuary Galveston, Texas January 12, 2

Description:

The Texas State Soil and Water Conservation ... at 2S Ranch, Lockhart, TX. Conducted by Texas A&M AgriLife researchers, funded with Clean Water Act 319(h) ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:73
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 16
Provided by: riversT
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Agricultural BMPs Best Management Strategies That Sustain Our Estuary Galveston, Texas January 12, 2


1
Agricultural BMPsBest Management Strategies That
Sustain Our EstuaryGalveston, TexasJanuary 12,
2009
  • Brian Koch
  • Regional Watershed Coordinator
  • Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board

2
Agency Authority
  • The Texas State Soil and Water Conservation
    Board (TSSWCB) is the lead state agency for
    planning, implementing, and managing programs and
    practices for preventing and abating agricultural
    and silvicultural (forestry) nonpoint source
    (NPS) water pollution.

3
Putting Ag BMPsOn-the-ground
  • TSSWCB Water Quality Management Plan Program
    achieves the goals of planning and implementing
    agricultural BMPs to control agricultural NPS
    pollution on farm and ranch land
  • Achieved through a partnership between TSSWCB,
    USDA-NRCS, and local soil and water conservation
    districts (SWCDs)

4
What is a WQMP?
  • water quality management plan (WQMP)
  • a site-specific plan developed through and
    approved by SWCDs for agricultural or
    silvicultural lands
  • includes appropriate land treatment practices,
    production practices, management measures,
    technologies or combinations thereof
  • purpose is to achieve a level of pollution
    prevention or abatement determined by the TSSWCB,
    in consultation with local SWCDs, to be
    consistent with state water quality standards

5
Extent ofWQMP Implementation
  • 187 WQMPs in Galveston Bay counties (Brazoria,
    Chambers, Galveston, Harris, Liberty counties)
  • 62,302 of acres under WQMPs in same counties
  • 50,000 generally available each year as
    financial assistance to farmers and ranchers
    (through SWCDs in these counties)

6
Watering Facility
7
Watering Facility
  • Used as alternative water source to limit amount
    of time livestock spend in or near the stream
  • Supplies clean water to livestock, helps maintain
    good animal health
  • Aids in rotational grazing, which benefits grass,
    range, and pasture health

8
Watering Facility
  • Various studies have shown that alternative water
    sources
  • Reduced time cattle spent in the stream up to 90
    (Miner et. al 1992)
  • Reduced time spent near the stream up to 75
    (Godwin and Miner 1996)
  • When available cattle drank from troughs up to
    92 of the time (Sheffield et. al 1997)

9
Alternative Water Shade Evaluationat 2S Ranch,
Lockhart, TX
  • Conducted by Texas AM AgriLife researchers,
    funded with Clean Water Act 319(h) NPS grants
    from TSSWCB
  • Preliminary Results Year 1 Pre-BMP
  • July, October and April No alternative water
  • January Alternative water provided for 2 weeks
  • time near creek reduced 75 in January
  • Consistent with published values

10
Cross Fence
11
Cross Fence
  • Used as aid in rotational grazing
  • Aids in maintaining critical grass heights
  • Which helps
  • Promote plant health and plant vigor
  • Increase water infiltration in range and pasture
  • Increase filtration of TSS, Nutrients, and
    Pathogens
  • Conserve soil moisture

12
Evaluation of Grazing Managementat Riesel
Experiment Station
  • Conducted by USDA-ARS researchers funded with
    Clean Water Act 319(h) NPS grants from TSSWCB
  • Flow weighted concentrations at Riesel
    (07/07-07/08)
  • Ungrazed SW12 10,032 cfu/100 ml
  • Mod. grazed SW17 22,815 cfu/100 ml
  • Doran et al. (1981)
  • Ungrazed 13,280 cfu/100 ml fecal coliform
  • 8,366 cfu/100 ml E. coli
  • Mod. grazed 113,700 cfu/100 ml fecal coliform
  • 71,631 cfu/100 ml E. coli
  • Robins et al. (1972)
  • Ungrazed 10,000 cfu/100 ml fecal coliform
  • 6,300 cfu/100 ml E. coli
  • Mod. grazed 30,000 cfu/100 ml fecal coliform
  • 18,900 cfu/100 ml E. coli

13
Evaluation of Grazing Managementat Riesel
Experiment Station
  • Significant Observations To Date
  • Alternative water possible 75 reduction in the
    percent time cattle spend near creek
  • E. coli levels in runoff from grazed pasture are
    significantly greater than levels in runoff from
    ungrazed native prairie
  • E. coli levels in runoff from ungrazed native
    prairie are significantly greater (i.e. 2 orders
    of magnitude) than Texas Water Quality Standards

14
Thanks! Any Questions?
15
  • Brian Koch
  • Regional Watershed Coordinator
  • Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board
  • Wharton Regional Office
  • 1120 Hodges Ln
  • Wharton, TX 77488
  • 979-532-9496 v
  • 979-532-8765 f
  • bkoch_at_tsswcb.state.tx.us
  • http//www.tsswcb.state.tx.us/
  • http//www.tsswcb.state.tx.us/cwp
  • Authorization for use or reproduction of any
    original material
  • contained in this presentation is freely granted.
  • TSSWCB would appreciate acknowledgement.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com