Tools to Evaluate Runoff from Animal Confinement Areas

- A Pleasant Valley Watershed Case Study -

Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Association Annual Meeting

March 10, 2015

John Panuska 1 and Laura Ward Good 2

1. Biological Systems Engineering Department 2. Department of Soil Science

UW - Madison

The Pollutants - Measured at watershed the outlet -

Water flow - volume Sources: Rainfall runoff Snowmelt runoff Groundwater (base flow)

Sediment Sources: (all delivered via rainfall or snowmelt runoff):

Erosion from overland flow (Sheet/rill) Ephemeral channel erosion (ephemeral gullies) Channel erosion (stream banks, permanent gullies)

Phosphorus

Sources: Particulate P: Same as sediment Direct deposition by cattle

Dissolved P: Same as water flow Release from stream sediments Direct deposition by cattle Nitrate

Sources: Same as water flow, but groundwater predominant

The Pollutants - Measured at watershed the outlet -

Water flow - volume Sources: Rainfall runoff Snowmelt runoff Groundwater (base flow)

Sediment Sources: (all delivered via rainfall or snowmelt runoff):

Erosion from overland flow (Sheet/rill) Ephemeral channel erosion (ephemeral gullies) Channel erosion (stream banks, permanent gullies)

Phosphorus

Sources: Particulate P: Same as sediment Direct deposition by cattle

Dissolved P: Same as water flow Release from stream sediments Direct deposition by cattle Nitrate

Sources: Same as water flow, but groundwater predominant

And for barnyards greater unit area loads ( lb/Ac.) of . . .

- Phosphorus - Total Nitrogen, Ammonia and Nitrate - BOD – Biochemical Oxygen Demand - Pathogens

Sediment and P Sources

Upland Pastures

Stream Bank Erosion

Crop Lands

Barnyards & Exercise Lots

Cattle Access

The animal confinement areas in the watershed included barn yards and exercise lots.

Not all animal confinement areas were inventoried

Barnyards were selected based on best professional judgment

Select criteria included:

- Proximity to a stream or water course

- Size and condition of the facility

Barnyard Selection

The animal confinement areas in the watershed included barn yards and exercise lots.

Not all animal confinement areas were inventoried

Barnyards were selected based on best professional judgment

Select criteria included:

- Proximity to a stream or water course

- Size and condition of the facility

Barnyard Selection

The animal confinement areas in the watershed included barn yards and exercise lots.

Not all animal confinement areas were inventoried

Barnyards were selected based on best professional judgment

Select criteria included:

- Proximity to a stream or water course

- Size and condition of the facility

Barnyard Selection

Barnyard Selection

The animal confinement areas in the watershed included barn yards and exercise lots.

Not all animal confinement areas were inventoried

Barnyards were selected based on best professional judgment

Select criteria included:

- Proximity to a stream or water course

- Size and condition of the facility

Focus on barnyards associated with high P index pastures/lots and croplands

X

Barnyard project

Practices Applied

The Pleasant Valley watershed project completed 8 barnyard runoff control projects

Components:

Clean water diversion Heavy use area protection Vegetative treatment strips Fencing Roof runoff Animal trail and walkway Milk house waste treatment

Pleasant Valley BARNY Results

BARNY (1990) estimated P Loading for all focus barnyards

Before After 605 lb/yr 31 lb/yr

~ 95% Reduction

Pleasant Valley BARNY Results

BARNY estimated P Loading for all focus barnyards

Before After 605 lb/yr 31 lb/yr

574 lb/yr Reduction

Is this equivalent to 574 lb/yr reduction from P Index or P trade report assessments?

Pleasant Valley Case Study Before Project

Lot area: 12,300 Sq. Ft. = 0.28 Ac

Lot type: Earth and concrete mixed

Animals: 100 slaughter steers

Vegetated Filter Area (VTA): None

Tributary Area: 14,010 Sq. Ft. = 0.32 Ac

After Project

Lot area: 12,300 Sq. Ft. = 0.28 Ac

Lot type: Paved with settling basin

Animals: 23 + cow – calf pairs

Vegetated Filter Area (VTA): 32 ft x 226 ft , 1.7 %

Tributary Area: 970 Sq. Ft. = 0.022 Ac

Evaluation Tools

SNAP-Plus NM Planning Tool

Evaluation Tools

Originally developed by USDA – ARS in the late 1970’s as a feedlot rating system. BARNY was created by cooperative effort of WDNR, SCS

(NRCS), WDATCP to agree to the parameters used in the model.

Last DOS version (2.5) was developed in1995. Spreadsheet versions available through NRCS and DATCP (NRCS Buffer Design Tool).

The BARNY Model

Evaluation Tools APLE - Lots Model

APLE – Lots TP validation used 12 published studies with 35 site-years of data; r2 = 0.91.

Evaluation Tools

SnapPlus P Index or P Trade Report

Not suitable

Suitable

P Index pasture, sparse vegetation, dry lot option is suitable for lots with observed erosion (RUSLE2).

Not suitable for earthen lots that are scraped or completely manure covered year-round.

Pleasant Valley Case Study

Before

After

BARNY 2.5 (DOS)

88

85

BARNY (Spreadsheet)

80

56 1

APLE-Lots

105

81 2

Edge of Lot Phosphorus Loss (lb / yr)

1 Load reduction from removing tributary areas flowing into the lot. 2 Load reduction from regular cleaning of concrete lot.

Pleasant Valley Case Study

Before

After With basin and

filter

BARNY 2.5 (DOS)

88

85

0

BARNY (Spreadsheet)

80

56 10

APLE-Lots

105

81

NA

Lot Runoff Phosphorus Loss (lb/yr)

Phosphorus Loss Prioritization

The P Index / P Trade Report (SnapPlus) gives TP loss estimates similar the BARNY 2005

spreadsheet or APLE lots for cropland / pastures

- - - - - - -

These tools appear adequate for

prioritization

Model Summary

There are several barnyard evaluation tools available. The BARNY DOS model is not supported and will not

run on newer operating systems. APLE-Lots (Vadas et. al., 2015) improves the algorithm

accuracy for lot P export from the original BARNY.

APLE-Lots does not account for tributary inflow or Buffer removal levels.

Model Summary

There are several barnyard evaluation tools available. The BARNY DOS model is not supported and will not

run on newer operating systems. APLE-Lots (Vadas et. al., 2015) improves the algorithm

accuracy for lot P export from the original BARNY.

APLE-Lots does not account for tributary inflow or Buffer removal levels.

Model Summary

There are several barnyard evaluation tools available. The BARNY DOS model is not supported and will not

run on newer operating systems. APLE-Lots (Vadas et. al., 2015) improves the algorithm

accuracy for lot P export from the original BARNY.

APLE-Lots does not account for tributary inflow or Buffer removal levels.

Model Summary

There are several barnyard evaluation tools available. The BARNY DOS model is not supported and will not

run on newer operating systems. APLE-Lots (Vadas et. al., 2015) improves the algorithm

accuracy for lot P export from the original BARNY.

APLE-Lots does not account for tributary inflow or Buffer removal levels.

Challenges Moving Forward

BARNY Spreadsheet, APLE-Lots, and SnapPlus/P Index (exercise lots) appear to be adequate at this time to prioritize remediation efforts.

TMDLs / pollutant trading will drive the need to improve loading estimates from all tools.

Model consistency and maintenance will be an ongoing challenge.

Efforts are needed to develop a single “best science” tool that is supported.

Challenges Moving Forward

BARNY Spreadsheet, APLE-Lots, and SnapPlus/P Index (exercise lots) appear to be adequate at this time to prioritize remediation efforts.

TMDLs / pollutant trading will drive the need to improve loading estimates from all tools.

Model consistency and maintenance will be an ongoing challenge.

Efforts are needed to develop a single “best science” tool that is supported.

Challenges Moving Forward

BARNY Spreadsheet, APLE-Lots, and SnapPlus/P Index (exercise lots) appear to be adequate at this time to prioritize remediation efforts.

TMDLs / pollutant trading will drive the need to improve loading estimates from all tools.

Model consistency and maintenance will be an ongoing challenge.

Efforts are needed to develop a single “best science” tool that is supported.

Challenges Moving Forward

BARNY Spreadsheet, APLE-Lots, and SnapPlus/P Index (exercise lots) appear to be adequate at this time to prioritize remediation efforts.

TMDLs / pollutant trading will drive the need to improve loading estimates from all tools.

Model consistency and maintenance will be an ongoing challenge.

Efforts are needed to develop a single “best science” tool that is supported.

QUESTIONS ????