22.01.2014 Views

Download as a PDF - CiteSeerX

Download as a PDF - CiteSeerX

Download as a PDF - CiteSeerX

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Figure 3 shows that risk of illness is insignificant at all FS input rates below the<br />

75 percentile flow. During 95 percentile flow, faecal loading needs to be reduced<br />

by 95% to give a risk of illness < 20%. These figures depend on the reliability<br />

of the extrapolation used in eq. (1) for risk of illness, and improvement of the<br />

epidemiological datab<strong>as</strong>e for such modelling should be a research priority. There<br />

is also little information on the levels of FS in animals faeces, and literature data on<br />

inactivation suggest longer survival of FS than E. coli in soil (Cools et al., 2001) but<br />

higher sensitivity to sunlight (Sinton et al., 2002).<br />

100%<br />

75 th 80 th 85 th 90 th<br />

95 th Percentile<br />

80%<br />

Risk of Illness (%) .<br />

60%<br />

40%<br />

20%<br />

0%<br />

C urrent loading 25% reduction<br />

50% reduction 75% reduction<br />

80% reduction 85% reduction<br />

90% reduction 95% reduction<br />

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12<br />

Daily C atchment Discharge (mm/day)<br />

Figure 3: Discharge and related risk of illness<br />

The WTP for avoidance of illness of BW improvement can now be compared with the<br />

costs of implementing BMPs to attempt to control diffuse pollution. Recent work h<strong>as</strong><br />

estimated the annual cost of installing BMPs on two farms in SW Scotland to be £3 k<br />

per farm plus £50 k capital cost (Merrilees, 2004). If we <strong>as</strong>sume an annualised capital<br />

cost of £10 k, and that across the River Irvine catchment there are about 70 farms,<br />

total annualised mitigation costs are (3 + 10) x 70 = £910 k. From Table 4 the required<br />

reduction of FS loading achieved needs to be > 95% to obtain a benefit/cost ratio<br />

which exceeds 1. BMPs to <strong>as</strong>sist in bathing water quality improvements include<br />

me<strong>as</strong>ures such <strong>as</strong> stock reduction, fencing, buffer strips, constructed wetlands,<br />

slurry storage, cattle access routes, and separating clean and dirty water. In practice<br />

achieving > 50% efficacy may be very difficult, particularly considering that BMP<br />

performance during high intensity flow events is critical. Dickson et al. (2005) found a<br />

40% reduction in high flow faecal indicator loadings where BMPs had been installed.<br />

If the entire Irvine catchment installed these practices, bathing waters may still pose<br />

a high risk of illness after storm events.<br />

215

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!