Download to read offline
Uploaded bySoil and Water Conservation Society
Sharpley - The Importance of Monitoring to Determine Farm Impacts
The document discusses water quality monitoring of the C&H Hog Farm located near the Buffalo National River in Arkansas. Key findings from monitoring the farm's impact on nutrient, sediment, and bacteria levels in nearby Big Creek and springs include: 1) Nitrate-N and phosphorus levels were similar or slightly lower downstream than upstream; 2) E. coli levels were highly variable between sites and storms; and 3) No consistent trends have emerged so far to indicate water quality issues. The document emphasizes that monitoring must continue to provide transparency and data for permitting agencies, while acknowledging extreme views on either side may not be swayed.
More Related Content
Similar to Sharpley - The Importance of Monitoring to Determine Farm Impacts
More from Soil and Water Conservation Society
Sharpley - The Importance of Monitoring to Determine Farm Impacts
- 1. o The Importance ofMonitoring to Determine Farm Impacts on Water Quality: Can Science Really Change Public Perceptions? Andrew Sharpley
- 2. Farm establishedin early 2013 Capacity for 6,500 hogs; operating at 2,500 pig $350,000 from the State legislature to monitor impact of farm on area water quality C&H Hog Operation
- 3. • In theBuffalo River Watershed • Nation’s first Scenic River – 1972 • Tourist attraction • Many people oppose factory / industrial farming • In 2014 - 1.5 m tourists spent $47m locally
- 4. 2/14: Pig FarmThreatens Buffalo River 4/14: E. Coli Soars in Big Creek 6/14: EPA Finds No Issues at C&H Hog Farms 4/15: Moratorium On New Industrial Hog Farms Near Buffalo River Extended
- 5. • Right-to-farm • Allplanning requirements met • Helps local rural economy, providing jobs • More tourists to the river = more trash in the river • Park Service closed restrooms due to a lack of funding
- 6. Chert formation St. Joeformation Boone formation Chattanooga formation Sink holes- rapid infiltration Dissolution channels Springs Surface runoff Water flow pathways & residence times are highly variable
- 7.
- 8. Spring Ephemeral stream Big Creek Field5a Field 1 Field 12 Field runoff sites
- 9. Storm &weekly sampling of base flow in Big Creek & springs samples Nutrients, sediment, bacteria Field runoff & leaching sampling on application fields Measurements taken
- 10.
- 13. Storm flow ISCO autosampler Baseflow weekly grab samples
- 15.
- 16. What have wefound so far?
- 17. 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 Upstream of farm 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 9/1/2013 12/1/2013 3/1/20146/1/2014 9/1/2014 12/1/2014 3/1/2015 6/1/2015 Downstream of farm Storm flow Base flow Storm flow Base flow Slurry applications start 0.003 mg/L 0.005 mg/L
- 18. -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 9/1/2013 12/1/2013 3/1/20146/1/2014 9/1/2014 12/1/2014 3/1/2015 6/1/201 Greater downstream Greater upstream Storm flow Base flow
- 19. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 Storm flow Base flow 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 9/1/2013 12/1/2013 3/1/20146/1/2014 9/1/2014 12/1/2014 3/1/2015 6/1/2015 Storm flow Base flow Upstream of farm Downstream of farm 0.100 mg/L 0.095 mg/L
- 20. -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 9/1/2013 12/1/2013 3/1/20146/1/2014 9/1/2014 12/1/2014 3/1/2015 6/1/2015 Greater downstream Greater upstream Storm flow Base flow
- 21. -1,000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 9/1/2013 12/1/2013 3/1/20146/1/2014 9/1/2014 12/1/2014 3/1/2015 6/1/2015 Greater downstream Greater upstream 60 MPN/100 mL Storm flow Base flow98 MPN/100 mL
- 22. No consistenttrends to date System variability creates uncertainty Transparency is critical A lot of rhetoric comes from outside watershed, even outside the State Those at the extremes of opinion will likely not be swayed Monitoring data will be used by permitting & regulatory agencies
- 23. Big Creek With permission: BarbaraHinton, Prof. Emeritus, U of A