Union County Environmental Baseline Study Final Report
The Ohio State University College of Public Health Division of Environmental Health Sciences Timothy J. Buckley, PhD Liesel M. Seryak, MS January 5, 2011 This report and all of its appendices are available online: http://cph.osu.edu/biopage2.cfm?id=10
Union County Environmental Baseline Study - Final Report
Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3!
BACKGROUND & RATIONALE
4!
GOALS
7!
EXISTING DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS
7!
EVALUATING DATA RELEVANCE
9!
DISCUSSION
23!
CRITICAL INFORMATION GAPS
23!
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
25!
REFERENCES
25!
APPENDICES
1/5/11
Page 2 of 25
Union County Environmental Baseline Study - Final Report
Executive Summary In response to concerns among a variety of stakeholders over the planned expansion of animal agriculture operations in Union County, the current study was conducted to identify and evaluate existing data for establishing baseline environmental conditions within the Bokes Creek Watershed. Relevant data was identified from a number of different sources including industry, local, and state government agencies although ultimately only government data was made available. In evaluating these data, we applied criteria relating space (i.e. proximity to Bokes Creek watershed), time (i.e. was it current and did it support longitudinal analysis), and human health (rather than ecological) relevance. Against these criteria, the richest source of data was from the City of Columbus providing water quality data from locations within the Bokes Creek tributaries. These data were found to be consistent with an earlier (1999) Ohio EPA study that classified much of Bokes Creek as “impaired� against criteria for warmwater habitat due largely to high nutrient loading. The EPA study also identified exceedances for E. coli density relevant to its designation for recreational water contact. The more recent longitudinal City of Columbus data indicated worsening water quality trends (from 2000 to 2010) with respect to nitrate and ammonia (p<0.05) and were suggestive of a worsening trend for ammonia and phosphorous (p>0.05) but did not include E. coli. A number of important gaps were identified for the purpose of establishing baseline environmental conditions including the absence of E. coli densities and no air or soil monitoring data. In order to address one important data gap related to residents’ concerns over environmental health conditions, we conducted a mail survey of all residents in York, Liberty, and Taylor Townships. Accordingly, this report provides stakeholders with a comprehensive assessment of existing data that informs baseline environmental conditions in the Bokes Creek watershed region and identifies critical limitations in that data relative to what is needed for a complete assessment of environmental health baseline conditions. These data are intended to help inform stakeholders about what is known and unknown with respect to baseline environmental conditions to support decisions and actions regarding economic development, environmental health, and additional data collection efforts.
1/5/11
Page 3 of 25
Union County Environmental Baseline Study - Final Report
Background & Rationale Union County, Ohio is home to more than 2.8 million chickens being raised on three farms within a 3-mile radius. While this rural county has a rich agricultural history, the transition away from smaller family farms to larger industrial farms has become a concern to some in the community. Concern stems from air and water quality degradation, odors, flies and other potential health, environmental and quality of life impacts.1 Concern within the community and among local officials is exacerbated by plans for expanding poultry operations.2,3,4 Among stakeholders, there is a shared interest in a better understanding of the baseline conditions in order to assess current environmental conditions and capacity for expansion.5 To address this need, we identified and gathered existing environmental (air, soil, and water) data for the Bokes and Mill Creek Watersheds and organized what was available into a central repository for the purpose of establishing an environmental baseline and identifying data gaps. Data sources include Ohio EPA and City of Columbus watershed test results, and reported nuisance complaints. This project is intended to connect many of the local and regional stakeholders and provide a scientific basis for measuring incremental changes in environmental parameters from this point forward. We have identified data gaps and important topics for further research. We surveyed community residents to provide new systematic data gauging community concern over the environment and its impact on health and quality of life. Our goal is to provide an accurate and objective assessment of environmental baseline conditions and gaps to foster cooperation between industry, government and community stakeholders and encouraging evidenced-based decision-making. A map of the region of concern within Union County at distant and proximate scales depicting the egg farms, watershed streams, residences, and roadways are shown Figures 1 and 2, respectively.
1/5/11
Page 4 of 25
Union County Environmental Baseline Study - Final Report
Figure 1. Regional Union County map including watershed streams, towns, townships, egg farms and other potential pollution sources.
1/5/11
Page 5 of 25
Union County Environmental Baseline Study - Final Report
Figure 2. Local map including residences surrounding current and planned poultry operations. Due to the nature of the concern within the community, there are a broad set of vested interests including community groups and residents, industry, and local and state government agencies and officials. The stakeholders engaged in the project include those listed in Table 1. Table 1. Stakeholders engaged in project.
1/5/11
Page 6 of 25
Union County Environmental Baseline Study - Final Report
Goals The overarching project goal is to assess baseline environmental conditions for the Bokes Creek watershed region including York, Liberty, and Taylor Townships. This overarching goal was achieved through the following specific aims. 1) identify what relevant data exists; 2) acquire and compile the existing data; 3) analyze data to evaluate baseline conditions; 4) identify data gaps and recommend directions for future study; 5) measure residents' interest and concern in their local environment and how it may affect health or quality of life.
Existing Data Collection & Analysis The identification and collection of existing data involved systematically contacting all known stakeholders to track down any existing environmental data for the Bokes Creek area. The acquired data is presented in Table 2 along with a description of the type of data, its source, location and time period of monitoring.
1/5/11
Page 7 of 25
Union County Environmental Baseline Study - Final Report
Table 2. Sources and description of acquired existing data
1/5/11
Page 8 of 25
Union County Environmental Baseline Study - Final Report
Evaluating Data Relevance The acquired existing data identified in Table 2 above was evaluated for relevance to the project goals. The criteria used for evaluating relevance included: 1) time, 2) space, and 3) relevance for human vs. ecological health. The time criterion had two facets including how current and whether trend information was available. The space criterion related to proximity of the data/information to the communities of concern (i.e. York, Liberty, and Taylor Townships). The third criterion relates to whether the data/information is relevant to human health (verses ecological condition) with human health being the most important consideration. Figure 3 illustrates how the evaluation criteria were applied to the existing data. Based on these criteria, we found that although many of the existing data sources have some usefulness for informing the environmental baseline, only one data set, i.e. City of Columbus Water Quality Assurance Laboratory (CWQAL) testing in Bokes Creek, satisfied all of our criteria.
Figure 3. Relevance criteria applied to existing data sources
Based on our identification of the existing data and application of the specified relevance criteria, we present and discuss five data sets in the following order of priority relevance. 1. City of Columbus Water Quality Assurance Laboratory (CWQAL) 2. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) Report on Biological & Water Quality Study (BWQS) and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) 3. Union County Health Department (UCHD) animal agriculture-related nuisance complaints 4. Union County Health Department (UCHD) well water testing results 5. Industry Monitoring
1/5/11
Page 9 of 25
Union County Environmental Baseline Study - Final Report
In addition to presenting our findings with respect to these five existing databases, we also describe preliminary results from a new initiative conducted under this project for primary data collection based on a community survey of environmental concerns. City of Columbus Water Quality Assurance Laboratory (CWQAL). The most current available dataset with information about stream water quality in the Bokes Creek area comes from the City of Columbus Water Quality Assurance Laboratory (CWQAL). CWQAL conducts frequent (about twice monthly) monitoring of the Bokes Creek and Powderlick Run streams. They collect samples at 7 sites within the watershed to predict water quality downstream within the Scioto River that serves as a source of drinking water for a portion of the Columbus regional population. As such, their data includes measurements of nitrate, ammonia, phosphorus, and atrazine. This data allows us to examine some recent trends in water quality, although it is somewhat spatially limited and oriented toward nutrient load parameters and pesticide contamination due to their focus on drinking water quality for Columbus. (R. Dunn, personal communication, September 1, 2010). Most of the Bokes Creek watershed has an aquatic life use designation of "warmwater habitat" (WWH). This designation means that it is capable of maintaining a balanced, integrated community of diverse warmwater organisms. In order to be in attainment of this designation, any given portion of the watershed needs to have an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) greater than 40.6 Bokes Creek itself is labeled a "primary contact recreation" waterway, while it's tributaries are considered "secondary contact recreation" waterways. Attainment for recreational use categories is measured by bacterial indicators such as total coliforms and E. coli counts.6 While attainment status under these criteria does not offer a complete picture of environmental water quality, it does provide a fairly robust and consistent means for determining overall water impairment or concern. According to the OEPA, most of the Bokes Creek Basin was either "non-attaining" or only "partially attaining" its WWH status based on the biological criteria measured in 1999.6,7 This revelation prompted a stream restoration project funded by the OEPA and executed by Oxbow Stream Restoration with support from many community stakeholders. The stream restoration project (Bokes Creek Water Quality Enhancement Project) was implemented on a 3,900-foot length of the Powderlick Run, a short but extremely polluted tributary to Bokes Creek. Restoration involved excavating a new floodplain, widening the stream, changing the slope of the banks, creating riffles and pools and increasing the ability of the surrounding environment to filter pollutants. Additionally, 2.7 acres of riparian were replanted with native vegetation and trees. Success was evaluated on the same criteria used by OEPA to judge the stream inadequate. For instance, the state uses the qualitative habitat evaluation index (QHEI) as a primary indicator of the physical ability of a stream to be in attainment of the state water quality standards (WQS). A QHEI of 60 is the required minimum to meet WQS. Before the restoration, Powderlick Run had a QHEI of 39. Immediately following the restoration in 2003, it achieved a QHEI of 59, indicating a vast improvement. Other measures of WQS attainment also showed marked improvement following the restoration, including a substantial increase in the IBI (18 to 34) and a multi-fold increase in assimilative capacity for nitrogen (0.29 to 11.9 mg/L per hour). Pollutant load reductions were observed for nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment. Continued improvement is anticipated over time. Although
1/5/11
Page 10 of 25
Union County Environmental Baseline Study - Final Report
the Powderlick Stream Restoration project was small in comparison to the size of impaired watereways in the Bokes Creek watershed, it produced a significant, measureable improvement in water quality and is considered a major success.8,9 Exploratory analyses were conducted on the existing CQWAL data provided. Sampling dated back to October 2000 and data was available through June 2010 at the time of analysis. In the first couple of years of sampling, fewer sampling sites were employed than in later years. To explore the possibility of any trends in the water quality parameters over time, the data were combined into 6-month blocks (except for 2000-2004 which were collapsed into single- or multiyear blocks due to low frequency of sampling). The combined data was graphed as box plots showing the distribution of concentrations across time and in relation to applicable statewide water quality criteria. The results of this analysis are provided in Figures 4-7. For both nitrate and total phosphorus we found that WWH criteria were often exceeded substantially. Since there is no WWH standard for atrazine, we compared the observed levels to the drinking water standard of 3.0 !/L recognizing that it lacks relevance to Bokes Creek since it is not used as a source for drinking water but it is the only standard available. Even though the drinking water standards are much more stringent since they take into account direct ingestion, we observed that atrazine levels were generally well below the drinking-water protection standard. There is no indication based on this data of heavy contamination of the Bokes Creek watershed with atrazine. Spatial differences in nutrient concentrations were also examined, but no large differences in nutrient concentration across sampling locations were found (graphs not included here).
1/5/11
Page 11 of 25
Union County Environmental Baseline Study - Final Report
Figure 4. Nitrate concentration as reported by the City of Columbus Water Quality Assurance Laboratory over time (mg/L) across 7 sites shown as box & whisker plot relative to WWH criteria (red line). Data provided by the City of Columbus Water Quality Assurance Laboratory.
1/5/11
Page 12 of 25
Union County Environmental Baseline Study - Final Report
Figure 5. Total phosphorus concentration across 7 sites shown as box & whiskers plot relative to WWH criteria and TMDL target (red line). Data provided by the City of Columbus Water Quality Assurance Laboratory.
1/5/11
Page 13 of 25
Union County Environmental Baseline Study - Final Report
Figure 6. Atrazine concentration over time (!g/L) across 7 sites shown as box &whisker plot relative to drinking water maximum contaminant limit (red line). Data provided by the City of Columbus Water Quality Assurance Laboratory.
1/5/11
Page 14 of 25
Ammonia concentration (mg/L)
Union County Environmental Baseline Study - Final Report
Figure 7. Ammonia concentration over time (mg/L) across 7 sites shown as box &whisker plot. Data provided by the City of Columbus Water Quality Assurance Laboratory.
We conducted an analysis for trends based on a linear regression of median concentrations of the contaminants over time (Figures 8-9). For both ammonia and nitrate, an increasing trend was observed (p=0.006 & 0.041, respectively), indicating worsening water quality over the past decade. For total phosphorus (p=0.13) and atrazine (p=0.73) the trend was suggestive but did achieve statistical significance (Figures 10 & 11). These results must be interpreted with caution because the CWQAL data is not without limitations. For instance, monitoring does not include temperature, stream flow, current/recent precipitation, or other parameters that may be of relevance to the concentrations of nutrients and pesticides measured, especially where source attribution and trends over time are of interest. Furthermore, observations were aggregated across sampling locations, and the length of time and number of observations within each date range are not equivalent because monitoring protocols changed over time. Additionally, sampling locations may not be those most relevant for human or ecological health assessment.
1/5/11
Page 15 of 25
Union County Environmental Baseline Study - Final Report
Figure 8. Median ammonia concentration plotted by time (2000-2010) with linear regression line showing trend (p = 0.006). Data provided by the City of Columbus Water Quality Assurance Laboratory.
1/5/11
Page 16 of 25
Union County Environmental Baseline Study - Final Report
Figure 9. Median nitrate concentrations plotted by time (2000-2010) with linear regression line showing trend (p = 0.041). Data provided by the City of Columbus Water Quality Assurance Laboratory.
1/5/11
Page 17 of 25
Union County Environmental Baseline Study - Final Report
Figure 10. Median phosphorous concentration plotted by time (2000-2010) with linear regression line showing trend (p = 0.13). Data provided by the City of Columbus Water Quality Assurance Laboratory.
1/5/11
Page 18 of 25
Union County Environmental Baseline Study - Final Report
Figure 11. Median atrazine concentrations plotted by time (2000-2010) with linear regression line showing trend (p = 0.727). Data provided by the City of Columbus Water Quality Assurance Laboratory.
The CQWAL data is a rich resource for the Union County community in terms of providing ongoing, multi-site water quality sampling. Much of this monitoring was at least partially motivated by the Oxbow Stream Restoration project and the inter-agency partnerships that were involved, and Rod Dunn who directs this laboratory for the City of Columbus is amiable to collaborating with the county on future initiatives. The Ohio EPA Biological & Water Quality Study of Bokes Creek and Selected Tributaries 1999 (BWQS). This study provided a comprehensive assessment of Bokes Creek water quality that including chemical and biological indicators and source contributions. However, because the most recent measurements occurred over a decade ago, its ability to describe or estimate current environmental conditions is very limited.6,7 In the 1999 OEPA water quality assessment of Bokes Creek and tributaries, the watershed was found to be widely polluted and impacted by many sources of contaminants. Briefly, water quality standards (WQS) for primary and secondary contact recreation were frequently violated based on E. coli and total coliform counts. Dissolved oxygen was often found to be lower than the corresponding minimum standards. Nutrients were also observed at high concentrations, typically above the 75th percentile for the Eastern Cornbelt Plains Ecoregion, and often
1/5/11
Page 19 of 25
Union County Environmental Baseline Study - Final Report
exceeding the 95th percentile for this ecoregion. For instance, mean total phosphorus across sampling locations along the entire main stem of Bokes Creek ranged from about 0.1 - 0.6 mg/L. Concentrations of Nitrate + Nitrite-N ranged from about 0.3 to 5.5 mg/L. Although the study did not fully assess the concentration of modern pesticides in Bokes Creek, atrazine was tentatively identified in concentrations less than 1 "g/L. Union County Health Department (UCHD) Nuisance Complaints. The Union County Health Department (UCHD) has been maintaining records of community members' nuisance complaints and the subsequent UCHD investigations for the past two years. These records reveal some quality-of-life and potential health concerns among a small number of residents; however, the data collection by nature is largely unsystematic and anecdotal with associated limitations in generalizing from these findings. There were records of eighteen (18) nuisance complaints filed by members of the community to either the Union County Health Department (UCHD) or Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA). We reviewed and summarized these reports in a spreadsheet that is included in the database. Complaints covered the period from May 28, 2008 through April 6, 2010. The primary causes for the complaints are presented in Table 3. Table 3: Summary of reasons for nuisance complaints, 2008-2010
Primary reason for complaint Odors Flies Over-spraying of egg wash water Discharge to stream or unusual appearance of stream Uncovered trucks
Number (% of 18 total complaints) 10 (56%) 3 (17%) 2 (11%) 2 (11%) 1 (5%)
Union County Health Department (UCHD) Well Water Test Results. UCHD also supplied recent drinking water well test results (2001-2009) that have human health relevance, but these records do not have a direct link with environmental quality of surface water such as the streams of the Bokes Creek watershed. County-wide, sixty-four (64) existing wells were tested in 2009, and fifty-seven (57) were deemed safe based on assessment for total coliforms (89%). There appears to be an increasing trend in the safety of drinking water wells tested, rising from 72% safe in 2001. Ninety-five (95) of the one hundred fourteen (114) new drinking water wells tested in 2009 were deemed safe based on total coliforms (83%), representing the highest percentage of safe new wells tested since 2001. Industry Monitoring. One of the industrial egg producers in the region, New Day Farms, reported to us that they have a wealth of water quality data for the Bokes Creek watershed from sampling and testing conducted by an independent laboratory. Their data is of high relevance across all three criteria identified above (relevant locations, current, includes trends, and is of human health relevance). Furthermore, this dataset is highly relevant for investigating questions of environmental pollution sources and effects. It is likely the most comprehensive, longitudinal 1/5/11
Page 20 of 25
Union County Environmental Baseline Study - Final Report
and relevant of the existing data sources for informing current environmental baseline conditions and recent trends. Although New Day Farms was willing to generally describe the data that they have, they ultimately were unwilling to turn the data over to us for our inclusion in this effort and report out of concern that once the data became public that others would use it against the company. There is a high-level of mistrust within the community around issues of current and expanded animal agriculture operations as evidenced by both political and litigation activities.10 Interim Project Communications. On August 23, 2010, the research team gave a presentation to the Union County Commissioners, project stakeholders and members of the public in the Commissioners' hearing room. There were at least 25 people in attendance, and we presented our interim findings including our evaluation of the many sources of existing data we had acquired, as well as some preliminary analyses of the Columbus WQAL monitoring data (presentation slides included in appendix). We solicited feedback from those in attendance regarding gaps in our database of existing data as well as remaining interests and concerns from the commissioners' and community's perspectives. Lin Rice of ThisWeek Marysville wrote an article about this meeting in the local edition, and it is included as an appendix with this report. We also presented our preliminary findings from this project in poster form at the Association of Ohio Health Commissioners Annual Conference on September 21, 2010 in Dublin, OH. The poster is included as an appendix. Community Survey. Early in the study it became evident that there was a lack of scientific data regarding community residents' observations and concerns related to their local environment, health and quality of life. Qualitative information existed from nuisance complaints filed with the UCHD and Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA), and anecdotal reports of quality of life impacts and environmental concerns related to animal agriculture had been raised in public meetings as well as media outlets in the community, but it was uncertain whether this information was representative of the community's views as a whole, or rather a vocal and active minority. A substantial effort was undertaken to design and administer a scientific survey of the community members to systematically measure residents' observations, activities and concerns. Survey content and focus was discussed at multiple public meetings and with the Union County Commissioners and other project stakeholders on multiple occasions. The researchers originally drafted a survey that was focused primarily on the perceived influence of animal agriculture on local environmental and quality-of-life parameters. However, through wide vetting of the early survey drafts with project stakeholders including the Commissioners, Union Soil & Water Conservation District (USWCD), UCHD and community residents, it was determined that a broader focus was needed. In response to this feedback, we re-designed the survey to reflect the overall purpose and needs of the study - specifically, establishing a baseline for current environmental conditions and concerns within the community to inform future decision-making. After several additional rounds of revisions in consultation with project stakeholders as well as additional experts, the final survey instrument consisted of 26 questions, almost entirely in multiple-choice format. Many of the questions use Likert-scale methodology, common to public health surveys, to measure respondent agreement or disagreement along a continuum11,12. The survey includes a question about residential location based on zones so as to protect participant confidentiality but allow for analysis of results based on proximity to the streams and industrial egg farms that were the original impetus for this study.
1/5/11
Page 21 of 25
Union County Environmental Baseline Study - Final Report
Any time research is conducted that involves human participants, it may be subject to Institutional Review Board (IRB) review and approval. The process of applying for IRB review and achieving approval is often lengthy and complex. The role of an IRB is to protect the rights and well-being of research participants by ensuring that research is conducted ethically, with minimal risk to participants. Because the issues underlying this study and the survey itself have become extremely sensitive, with political and legal components at play, we felt it was most responsible and posed the least possible risk of harm to participants by ensuring anonymity for survey respondents. After making this decision, we then pursued IRB review and approval as an "exempt" category project, meeting the guidelines set forth by the IRB to protect participants from any potential risk by maintaining their anonymity. Typically for surveys and other research that involves human participants, incentives are offered to those who agree to respond in order to help motivate participation and increase overall response rates. Because anonymity was important in this survey, we devised a creative method for providing an incentive without collecting identifying information linked to participants in the survey. Anyone who received the survey packet had the option of returning a post card with his or her address in order to enter a drawing for one of five $50 Walmart gift cards, regardless of his or her choice to participate in the survey. Survey responses were mailed back anonymously in a separate enclosed postage-paid envelope. After about a month-long process, the survey portion of this study earned IRB exemtion approval and at that point we were able to move forward with administration of the survey. Addresses for residents in the three townships surrounding the Bokes Creek watershed and the egg farms of initial concern related to this project (Liberty, Taylor and York) were obtained from the Union County Auditor through Kaylee Port at USWCD. Any addresses that were clearly business rather than residential were removed from the list, as well as any out-of-state post office boxes. Duplicates were removed from the list as well. The cleaned list included 1,690 addresses to which we mailed survey packets. Printing, assembling and addressing of the survey packets was coordinated by the research team and executed by UniPrint, OSU's printing and mailing service. The process of creating and reviewing proofs, printing, assembling and addressing took approximately 3 weeks, and the survey packets were mailed out on December 17, 2010. The survey instrument (provided in the appendix) was mailed in an envelope with a cover letter explaining the nature of the project and survey as well as participants' rights, including anonymity and an explanation of the incentive being offered. Respondents were provided an enclosed postage-paid envelope for returning completed surveys, and the aforementioned incentive post card was also enclosed. Respondents were given until December 27, 2010 to postmark their replies. Three hundred fifty-one (351) survey responses were received as of December 30, 2010, yielding a to-date response rate of 21%. We received 316 postcards for the incentive by the same date. We anticipate continuing to receive responses through the first week of January 2011. The five gift card incentive winners will be drawn the second week of January 2011 Post cards will all be
1/5/11
Page 22 of 25
Union County Environmental Baseline Study - Final Report
destroyed by shredding immediately following the drawing, and no record will be kept as to the names or addresses of those received other than the winners. An Excel database was created for managing survey responses, and the data will be entered by the research team during the first two weeks of January 2011. Data will then be cleaned and formatted for analysis. We plan to report overall survey response rates, descriptive statistics showing the distribution of respondents' environmental concerns and interests. The key component of the analysis will assess whether there are differences in environmental concerns based on the zone of residence. The results of survey analyses will help Union County Commissioners and other stakeholders to prioritize additional research and environmental activities taking into account the needs and concerns of community residents. The survey data will help to inform evidence-based decisionmaking in Union County.
Discussion Our analyses show that the Bokes Creek watershed has been and continues to be impacted by elevated levels of nutrients (nitrate and phosphorus) in excess of water quality guidelines, thus suggesting that the watershed is impaired and still unlikely to be in full attainment of its WWH aquatic use designation, as was found by the Ohio EPA in their 1999 study of the watershed. Although atrazine is consistently detected in area streams, levels generally do not exceed the safe drinking water standard.
Critical Information Gaps A multitude of critical gaps in the existing data were identified through this study. No existing air quality monitoring data (past or present) was identified. The only indication of agriculturerelated ambient air contamination comes from anecdotal nuisance reports filed by residents with the UCHD. These generally center around odors and therefore are important with respect to quality of life. Although there is much more existing water quality data available compared to air quality data, there are still major gaps in the information needed for environmentally protective decisionmaking. For instance, although the UCHD offers drinking water well testing for new wells and for those who request it, there is no systematic data on the safety of residents' drinking water county-wide. This area may be the most important for the protection of public health. Furthermore, although the Bokes Creek watershed streams are labeled as primary and secondary contact recreation waters, there is no ongoing testing for bacterial indicators of fecal contamination, which could pose a direct public health threat to those using the streams for recreation such as swimming, boating, wading, and fishing. Water quality information of ecological relevance that is lacking includes water monitoring at strategic locations over time to evaluate source contributions. Furthermore, the existing current data from the CWQAL does not include as many environmental indicators as would be necessary to get a full picture of the watershed's ecological health.
1/5/11
Page 23 of 25
Union County Environmental Baseline Study - Final Report
In addition to the data gaps described above, information is sparse in terms of making water quality comparisons statewide to similar watersheds and similar communities impacted by crop and animal agriculture, municipal run-off and septic system failure. Based upon our analysis of existing data, our identification of critical data gaps, and our primary data collection and analysis of community observations and concerns regarding the local environment and quality of life/health, we propose the following solutions for targeted action. Air Monitoring. The most serious information gap in terms of an environmental baseline for Union County is a lack of air monitoring of any kind. Target analytes that would be relevant for the potential sources of pollution in this area would include: ammonia, particles, and airborne pathogens (infectious agents). An ideal sampling plan would include testing of emissions from large agricultural facilities, modeling dispersion of contaminants and community impact, evaluation of the effect of meteorology on dispersion of air pollutants, and paired indoor/outdoor measurements within the community. Water Quality. Although some information on water quality exists in Union County, our assessment has shown that it is extremely limited in terms of relevance, timeliness, and extent. If the protection of human health is of most concern to the community stakeholders, it will be important to broaden water sampling to include increased testing of drinking water wells as well as monitoring area streams for bacterial indicators that pose a threat to human health through recreational use of the watershed. In order to have a more complete picture of the ecological health of the Bokes Creek Watershed, frequent, repeated monitoring at strategic locations needs to be implemented. Locations and sampling times should be selected carefully to attempt to evaluate source contributions (i.e. are the elevated levels of nutrients coming primarily from animal agricultural sources, failing septic systems, or other influences?). This watershed and region needs a more complete and current assessment of water quality to determine whether stream restoration and other efforts have led to improvement over the past decade. The OEPA began a partial re-assessment of the watershed in summer 2010, and data from that study will be available within the next year or two, which will shed light on these remaining questions. However, this study may need to be supplemented with additional targeted monitoring and analysis to provide a more comprehensive picture. The data we have gathered, organized and analyzed through this study serves a number of important purposes. First, it provides stakeholders with a comprehensive assessment of existing data that informs baseline environmental conditions in the Bokes Creek watershed region. Second, it identifies important gaps in the data that are needed in order to establish environmental baseline conditions. Third, we have generated novel data based on a survey or residents that provides an indication of resident’s baseline concern over their environment and its impact on the health of their family. In addition to being responsive to stakeholder questions, these data provide a strong rationale for additional applied research funding from industry and government (local, state, and federal) sources.
1/5/11
Page 24 of 25
Union County Environmental Baseline Study - Final Report
Acknowledgements This study was funded through a contract with the Union County Commissioners. We are grateful for the time many regional stakeholders gave in meeting with us and providing data and context for this study.
References 1
Cordell M. Opposition to HI-Q may have few options to stop facility. Marysville JournalTribune. March 28, 2008. 2 Mast JE. Residents voice concerns over HI-Q megafarm. Bellefontaine Examiner. December 18, 2008. 3 Mast JE. Alliance shares message with West Mansfield residents. Bellefontaine Examiner. March 14, 2008. 4 Zachariah H. State set to deny egg farm permits. The Columbus Dispatch. August 27, 2010. 5 Rice L. Bokes Creek watershed focus of study. This Week Community Newspapers Marysville. August 28, 2010. 6 State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water. Biological and Water Quality Study of Bokes Creek and Selected Tributaries 1999. OEPA Technical Report MAS/2000-12-7. July 6, 2001. 7 State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water. Total Maximum Daily Loads for Bokes Creek: Final Report. September 2002. 8 The restoration of Powderlick Run. Land & Water. March/April 2007; p. 30-36. 9 Phillips S and Gibson R. Making a Difference: An Ohio Non-point Source Project. OHIO Non-point Source Success Stories. Ohio EPA and Oxbox Stream Restoration Report. 10 Cordell M. Group files suit against egg farm. Marysville Journal-Tribune. May 10, 2010. 11 Likert R. A technique for measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, pp.5-53. 1932. 12 Vagias, Wade M. Likert-type scale response anchors. Clemson International Institute for Tourism & Research Development, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management. Clemson University. 2006.
1/5/11
Page 25 of 25
!"#$%&'(&)**%+,-.%/& SURVEY INSTRUMENT
2
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD (IRB) APPLICATION MATERIALS
11
INTERIM PROJECT PRESENTATION - AUGUST 23, 2010
22
NEWS COVERAGE OF PUBLIC MEETING
48
ASSOCIATION OF OHIO HEALTH COMMISSIONERS POSTER PRESENTATION
51
INDEX OF ACQUIRED DATA
53
!
!"#$%&'()*+#",%)+!
"#$!%&'$(!)$**$(+!,-('$.!/-$,*0&1120($!213!01%$1*0'$!($4).!4&,*!%2(3!2($!2**2%#$3!2,!*#$.! 5$($!01%)-3$3!01!*#$!&-*6&016!,-('$.!42%7$*8!
College of Public Health
!"#"$%"&'()* +,(,
Division of Environmental Health Sciences !"##$%$&"'&()*#+,&-$.#/0 Starling Loving Hall !0;0/072'7@'L2;0&72$"23-9'P"-93>'M#0"2#"/ 320 W 10th Avenue M3-&902?'E7;02?'P-99 Columbus, OH 43210-1240 X+,'5H'(,3> ^;"28" Phone (614) 293-4980 B798$%8/*'NP'VX+(,J(+V, Fax (614) 293-7710 E-mail: tbuckley@cph.osu.edu O>72"'CU(VG'+WXJVW\, Web http://cph.osu.edu Z-_'CU(VG'+WXJYY(, LJ$-094'3%8#:9"<`#=>H7/8H"18 5"%'>33=4aa#=>H7/8H"18
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
F0$73><']H'A8#:9"<*'O>!'CO&02#0=-9'I2;"/30?-37&G
Union County Environmental Baseline Study
The Ohio State University College of Public Health is conducting a survey of residents of York, Liberty and Taylor townships in Union County, Ohio to learn about how you interact with the local environment (water, air, soil) and what your concerns are related to the environment. Only one adult per household should complete the survey. PERSONAL The first two questions ask for information about you. 1. What is your age?
years
2. What is your sex? ! Female
! Male
HOUSEHOLD The next few questions ask about your home and the people who live with you. 3. How many adults (at least 18 years old) live in your home today, including yourself? 4. How many children (infant through 17 years old) live in your home today? 5. Do you own or rent your home? ! Own
! Rent
6. How long have you lived in this home?
years
7. Do you earn income farming your own land in Union County? ! Yes
! No (please skip to #8) 7-A. If you answered “Yes” to question #7 above, do you raise any livestock? ! Yes
! No (please skip to #8)
7-A-1. If you answered “Yes” to question #7-A above, please list the types of animals you raise and the number of each below. Type of animal
December 6, 2010
Number (#)
Union County Environmental Baseline Study
WATER Next we will ask you a few questions about your water use. Drinking Water 8. How many times have you had your well water tested for safety in the past 5 years? !0
!1
!2
!3
!4
!5
! more than 5
9. How do you use your well water (mark all that apply)? ! Drinking
! Cooking
! Bathing
! Washing dishes, laundry
Please respond whether you agree or disagree with the following statements: 10. My well water is safe to drink. ! Strongly Agree ! Agree
! No opinion ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree
! Don't Know 11A. My well water has an unpleasant smell or taste. ! Strongly Agree ! Agree
! No opinion ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree
11B. Do you have a water softener or filter to treat your well water? ! Yes
! No
! Don't Know
Recreational Water 12. In the last year, have you or members of your household used streams of the Bokes or Mill Creek Watersheds for recreation such as fishing, boating, wading or swimming? ! Yes
! No (please skip to #13)
! Don’t know (please skip to #13)
12-A. If you answered “Yes” to question #12 above, what is the nature of the recreation? (Check all that apply) ! ! ! ! !
Fishing – If yes, do you eat the fish you catch? ! Yes ! No Canoeing or Kayaking Wading Swimming Other, please specify: _____________________________
12-B. If you answered “Yes” to question #12 above, who in your household uses the streams for recreation? ! Adults only
December 6, 2010
! Children only
! Both adults and children
Union County Environmental Baseline Study
Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with the following statements: 13. Recreational water contact with streams of the Bokes and Mill Creek Watersheds is safe. ! Strongly Agree ! Agree ! No opinion ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree 14. Streams of the Bokes and Mill Creek Watersheds look or smell unpleasant. ! Strongly Agree ! Agree
! No opinion ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree
15. Streams of the Bokes and Mill Creek Watersheds provide a healthy habitat for plants and animals. ! Strongly Agree ! Agree
! No opinion ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree
Wastewater 16. What type of septic system do you have? ! Aeration
! Septic tank & mound system
! Septic tank & subsurface sand filter
! Septic tank & leach field
! Don’t know
AIR First, we will ask a couple of questions about how you condition the air in your home. 17. What type of air conditioning system do you have? ! Central
! Window unit(s)
! None
18. Do you use an air filter or purifier to clean your home air (do not include your air conditioner or furnace filter)? ! Yes
! No
! Don’t know
19. Do any members of your household smoke? ! Yes
! No
20. Is smoking allowed inside your home? ! Yes
! No
Please respond to how you agree or disagree with the following statements: 21. The outdoor air near my home is safe to breathe. ! Strongly Agree ! Agree ! Don't Know
December 6, 2010
! No Opinion ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree
Union County Environmental Baseline Study
22. Odors from outdoors adversely affect quality of life among household members. ! Always
! Sometimes
! Rarely
! Never
23. Contact with the soil in the environment around my home is safe. ! Strongly Agree ! Agree
! No Opinion ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree
Please indicate your level of concern associated with the following statements. 24. The local environment (water, air, soil) affects the health of my family. ! Not concerned
! Slightly concerned
! Moderately concerned
! Extremely concerned
25. The local environment (water, air, soil) affects the ecology (systems of plants and animals) of my community. ! Not concerned
! Slightly concerned
! Moderately concerned
Please use the attached map to indicate the region where you live. 26. In what zone is your home located? !A !B !C !D
December 6, 2010
! Extremely concerned
York, Liberty and Taylor Townships of Union County, OH
!
RY BOUNDA
5
6 Miles
N
D FORD REE
FAWL EY
FORR ID
FORD REED
BITLE R
MCMAH A
SNYD E
R
YEAR S
LEY
DDY
TAYLOR
C
WHEELER GREEN
MOORE
D
WOLFORD MASKILL
4
D
E 347
31
3
ND O YM DOG LEG RA
2
BEAR SWAMP
ON
1
SHIRK
UT E RO STAT
UTE E RO STAT
T LIBERTY WES
S HN JO
0.5
ULT
9 73
ON NT BE
0
ER BA
C
GANDY E
REED
R
B
PATRICK BRUSH RUN
LIBERTY E AT ST
7
K
TITUS
TE OU
UTE 4
COT TON SLAS H
N
A
FOX
LUND A
NEWT ON PE RKINS EA
HOOV
STATE RO
POWD ER LIC
B
ERTY
D PP
STATE ROUTE 739
STOR MS
EVAN S
Residential zones
L ES MEDD
BROADWAY
RA
S
E RS MO
Townships
E CLAIBOURN
CAH ILL
PERK IN
IB EAST L
DAVIS
A
Roads
ILL ER
ER LL MI
YORK
Legend
ER
PHEL PS
HOOV ER
BENE DIC
JANU A
T
RY
MOFF ITT
E TREATY LIN
OS BO RN E
RIC HW OO DM
!"#$%#&#'(#)&*#&+'&(,#&-)$.+'/&01)&1'#&10&0+2#&345&6$"*$)(&/+0(& 7$)-%&$%&8$)(&10&(,#&9'+1'&:1;'(<&='2+)1'*#'($"&>$%#"+'#&?(;-<@&& A1&B#&#'(#)#-&+'(1&(,#&-)$.+'/C&(,+%&7$)-&*;%(&B#&81%(*$)D#-&B<& E#7#*B#)&FGC&F5H5@& &
I&;'-#)%($'-&(,$(&(,#&'$*#&J&$--)#%%&I&$*&8)12+-+'/&B#"1.&.+""&'1(&B#&;%#-&01)&$'<& 8;)81%#%&1(,#)&(,$'&(1&-)$.&$'-&*$+"&(,#&/+0(&7$)-%@&&K'7#&(,#&-)$.+'/&+%&71*8"#(#C&(,+%& 7$)-&.+""&B#&-#%()1<#-&B<&%,)#--+'/@&&I&$"%1&;'-#)%($'-&(,$(&(,+%&-)$.+'/&+%&8)12+-#-&$%&$'& +'7#'(+2#&(1&71*8"#(#&(,#&#'7"1%#-&%;)2#<L&,1.#2#)C&8$)(+7+8$(+1'&+%&'1(&)#M;+)#-&(1&#'(#)& (,#&-)$.+'/@&
& N$*#O&PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP& & Q--)#%%O&PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP& & :+(<O&PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPC&K,+1& R+8&71-#O&PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP& &
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! "#$!%&'()*+!,$!-./012+! 344(/&5)2!6#(7244(#!8!9*5&#:!;<=&#(<'2<)51!>251)*!?/&2</24! 9(112@2!(7!6.A1&/!>251)*:!%*2!B*&(!?)5)2!C<&=2#4&)+! ?)5#1&<@DE(=&<@!>511:!F(('!3GGG! GHI!J$!KI)*!3=2<.2! 9(1.'A.4:!B>!LGHKI! !
!"#$%$&$%'"()*+,-%,.*/'(01*2!+/3*455)%6($%'"*7($,0%()#!
"#$!%&&'()%*(+,!%,-!%**%)#.$,*/!0$12(0$-!3+0!456!%&&'()%*(+,!%0$!&0+7(-$-8!$9)$&*!:#$0$! *#$;!%0$!-2&'()%*$/!+3!+*#$0!%&&$,-()$/!#$0$(,<
APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION
OFFICE USE
Office of Responsible Research Practices (ORRP) 300 Research Administration Building, 1960 Kenny Road, Columbus, OH 43210 Phone: (614) 688-8457 Fax: (614) 688-0366 www.orrp.osu.edu DATE RECEIVED:
DATE VERIFIED COMPLETE:
OSU PROTOCOL NUMBER:
1. PROJECT TITLE The Union County Environmental Baseline Study 2. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR (or Advisor) - see Qualifications for service as a PI Name (Last, First, MI):
Buckley, Timothy
Degree(s):
PhD, MHS, BS
University Academic Title:
Associate Professor
College (TIU):
College of Public Health
Department Name (TIU):
Division of Environmental Health Sciences
Department # (TIU):
25051
Campus Mailing Address:
320 W. 10th Ave. A-333C Starling Loving Hall Columbus, OH 43210
OSU ID Number:
05151492
E-mail:
tbuckley@cph.osu.edu
Fax:
(614) 293-7710
Phone:
(614) 293-7161
Emergency phone:
(614) 330-4653
3. CO-INVESTIGATOR(S) Yes ! Complete Appendix A1 No
Are there any OSU Co-Investigators on this protocol? Signatures of Co-Investigator(s) are required on Appendix A1. 4. KEY PERSONNEL
Yes ! Complete Appendix A1 No
Are there any OSU key personnel on this protocol?
Key personnel are defined as individuals who participate in the design, conduct, or reporting of human subjects research. At a minimum, include individuals who recruit or consent participants or who collect study data. 5. ADDITIONAL CONTACT(S) N/A
If further information about this application is needed, specify the contact person(s) if other than the PI (e.g., study or regulatory coordinator, research assistant, etc.). Name (Last, First, MI):
Seryak, Liesel M.
Phone:
(937) 474-5191 (cell – no office phone)
E-mail:
Seryak.2@osu.edu
Fax:
(614) 293-7710
Name (Last, First, MI):
Phone:
E-mail:
Fax:
All OSU individuals listed on this protocol will have access to information about protocol actions and the completion status of each individual's administrative and training requirements (CITI, COI disclosure). Note: Personal financial information provided in COI disclosures is not included. 6. EDUCATION Have all OSU investigators and key personnel completed the required web-based course (CITI) in the protection of human research subjects?
Yes No
Educational requirements (initial and continuing) must be satisfied prior to submitting the application for review. See CITI Training or contact ORRP for more information. Page 1 of 7
Form Date: 07/20/2010 Version 3.2
The Ohio State University – APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION
7. FINANCIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST Yes No
Does any OSU investigator (including principal or co-investigator), key personnel, or their immediate family members have a financial interest (including salary or other payments for services, equity interests, or intellectual property rights) that would reasonably appear to be affected by the research, or a financial interest in any entity whose financial interest would reasonably appear to be affected by the research?
All OSU investigators and key personnel must have a current COI disclosure form (updated as necessary for the proposed research) filed before review. Examples of financial interests that must be disclosed include (but are not limited to) consulting fees or honoraria; stocks, stock options or other ownership interests; and patents, copyrights and royalties from such rights. For more information, see Office of Research Compliance COI Overview and COI Forms . 8. FUNDING OR OTHER SUPPORT If the research is federally funded and involves a subcontract to or from another entity, an IRB Authorization Agreement may be required. Contact ORRP for more information. a.
Is the research funded or has funding been requested? If Yes ! Specify sponsor:
Yes No
Union County Commissioners, Ohio
Provide a copy of the grant application or funding proposal. The University is required to verify that all funding proposals and grants (new or renewals) have been reviewed before funds are awarded. b.
Yes No
Is any support other than monetary (e.g., materials, equipment, etc.) being provided for the study? If Yes ! Specify support and provider:
9. SCREENING QUESTIONS a. Will the research expose participants to discomfort or distress beyond that normally encountered in daily life?
Yes No
b. Could disclosure of participants’ responses outside the research reasonably place participants at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to participants’ financial standing, employability, or reputation?
Yes No
c. Does any part of the research require deception or incomplete disclosure of information to participants?
Yes No
d.
Yes No
Will prisoners (or their data and/or specimens) be participants in the research?
e. For research proposed under category 1, will the research be conducted outside of commonly accepted educational settings or deviate from normal educational practices?
Yes No or N/A
f. For research proposed under category 2, will the research involve surveys or interview procedures with children?
Yes No or N/A
g. For research proposed under category 2, will the research involve observations of the public behavior of children, during which an investigator participates in the activities being observed?
Yes No or N/A
h. For research proposed under category 4, will any of the data, documents, records, or biological specimens be collected or created after the date of this application for exemption?
Yes No or N/A
i. For research proposed under category 4, will any of the information obtained from private sources of data, documents, records, or biological specimens be recorded by the investigator in such a manner that participants could be identified directly or through identifiers linked to the participants?
Yes No or N/A
j. For research proposed under categories 1-5, is the research subject to FDA regulations?
Yes No or N/A
Page 2 of 7
Form Date: 07/20/2010 Version 3.2
The Ohio State University – APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION
If you checked YES to ANY of the questions above, your research is NOT EXEMPT. Do not complete this application. Submit an IRB Application for Initial Review of Human Subjects Research. For more information on exempt research, see OSU HRPP policy Exempt Research. 10. EXEMPT CATEGORY Please check the categories of exemption for which you are applying. You may check more than one box.
1
2
3
4
5
6
See IRB Exemption Categories for the list of categories and their descriptions. 11. LOCATION OF THE RESEARCH Research to be conducted at locations other than approved performance sites will minimally require a letter of support and may require another institution’s approval if personnel are engaged. See OHRP Engagement Guidance or contact ORRP for more information.
a. List the specific site(s) at which the OSU research will be conducted (include both domestic and international locations). Location Name (or description)
The Ohio State University College of Public Health
b.
Address (street, city and state, or country)
A333 Starling-Loving Hall, 320 W. 10th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210
Are all the sites named above on the OSU list of approved research performance sites? If No !
Yes No
Domestic sites ! Provide letter(s) of support, as applicable International sites ! Complete Appendix U
12. SUMMARY OF THE RESEARCH a.
Briefly summarize the purpose and procedures of the proposed research using non-technical language that can be readily understood by someone outside the discipline. Use complete sentences (limit 300 words). Attach a copy of the research protocol. See Guidelines for writing a research protocol for more information. We propose to conduct a mail survey of residents in three townships in Union County for the purpose of evaluating concern over the environment and its impact on health. The survey is motivated by community stakeholders (Commissioners, residents, farm owners, environmental agencies) who share an interest in evaluating baseline environmental conditions within the region in advance of planned expansion of poultry concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). The region is home to more than 2.8 million chickens on three farms within a 3-mile radius. Concern stems from air and water quality degradation, odors, flies and other potential health, environmental and quality of life impacts. To address these concerns, in addition to the proposed survey, we have gathered all existing water- and air-quality data for the Bokes and Mill Creek Watersheds and organized them into a central repository for the purpose of establishing an environmental baseline and identifying data gaps. The survey will give voice and scientific credibility to concerns that heretofore can only be recognized as anecdotal. These data will be of interest to local and state government officials whose responsibility is to protect the environment and public health. We will be able to use the data as a basis for future community-based participatory research. The research design is a simple 25-question survey that will be mailed to all residents (a census approach) within Liberty, York, and Taylor Townships of Union County. Respondents will respond by return mail. No individual identifying information will be included in the survey. Respondents will self-identify their home location in one of four zones surrounding the poultry operations so that we can generally investigate survey responses by distance from the major poultry operations. b.
Describe how the proposed research meets the criteria for exemption. Reference the exemption category or categories (see question #10 above) and the category’s corresponding requirements.
This research meets the criteria for exemption under Category #2. Specifically, it consists of survey procedures for which the information will not be recorded in a way that will permit identification of subjects directly or indirectly. The surveys will be completed anonymously, and no personally identifiable information will be recorded. All of the subjects will be >18
Page 3 of 7
Form Date: 07/20/2010 Version 3.2
The Ohio State University – APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION
years old. c.
Provide the estimated beginning and end dates of the project.
The overall project began June 1, 2010, and the survey portion of the study (the only part that involves human subjects) is scheduled to begin as soon as IRB exemption approval is received, with a target of November 15, 2010. We plan to conclude the entire project, including collection, analysis and reporting of survey data, by December 31, 2010. 13. RESEARCH METHODS & ACTIVITIES Check all research activities that apply. Attach a copy of materials to be used (e.g., interview/focus group questions, instruments, data collection forms, etc.). Audio, video, digital, or image recordings
Record review (which may include PHI)
Existing data, not publicly available
Specimen research (must be existing at time of application)
Existing data, publicly available
Surveys, questionnaires, or interviews (one-on-one)
Focus groups
Surveys, questionnaires, or interviews (group)
Internet or e-mail data collection
Taste-testing
Observation of participants (including field notes)
Other (specify):
Oral history (does not include medical history) 14. PARTICIPANT POPULATION a. Specify the age(s) of the individuals who may participate in the research: Age(s): b.
c.
! 18
Specify the participant population(s) to be included (check all that apply): Adults
Non-English Speaking
Children (< 18 years)
Unknown (e.g., research using secondary data/specimens, non-targeted surveys, program protocols)
Students from Participant Pools (e.g., REP)
Other
Specify:
Specify:
Provide the total number of participants (or number of participant records, specimens, etc.) for whom you are seeking OSU approval.
2,000
The number of participants is defined as the number of individuals who agree to participate (i.e., those who provide consent or whose records are accessed, etc.) even if all do not prove eligible or complete the study. d.
Describe the characteristics of the population(s). If requesting exemption under category 4 (see question #10 above), include the date range of records/specimens to be accessed (e.g., patients admitted to the hospital between 01/01/2005 and 01/01/2009).
Union County, OH is a mostly rural community. According to the 2006-2008 American Community Survey, an update of the U.S. Census, the median annual household income for Union Co. in 2008 was $67,879, and the average household size is 2.62 persons. The county is fairly racially homogeneous, with 93.4% of residents being white. The three townships that are the target of this survey are York, Taylor and Liberty. All together they contain approximately 1,800-2,000 households. These three townships consist primarily of farmland, where both crops and animals are raised. 15. PARTICIPANT IDENTIFICATION, RECRUITMENT, & SELECTION a. Describe how potential participants will be identified (e.g., advertising, individuals known to investigator, record review, etc.). Explain how investigator(s) will gain access to this population, as applicable. Participants will be identified from a list of household addresses in York, Liberty and Taylor Townships in Union County, Ohio that was originated at the county auditor's office, processed and provided to us through our project stakeholder, the Union County Soil & Water Conservation District.
Page 4 of 7
Form Date: 07/20/2010 Version 3.2
The Ohio State University – APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION
b.
Describe the recruitment process, including the setting in which recruitment will take place. Explain how the process respects potential participants’ privacy. Provide copies of proposed recruitment materials (e.g., ads, flyers, website postings, recruitment letters, and oral/written scripts). Recruitment will consist of a cover letter that will accompany the survey explaining the purpose of the research, introducing the project and asking an adult in the household to participate. Participants will receive the recruitment materials and the survey instrument in their own home and will never need to interact by phone or in person with the researchers (unless they have a question, in which case a phone number will be provided for contacting the researchers). Local project stakeholders, such as the county health department and the soil and water conservation district, will be asked to post fliers on public bulletins boards (library, etc.) and organizational websites introducing the study and reminding area residents to look for the survey materials to arrive in the mail and asking for their participation. These procedures respect the privacy of potential participants because they are only contacted once by mail, and no one will know who responds or who does not respond to the survey. No personally identifiable information will be collected. 16. INCENTIVES TO PARTICIPATE Will participants receive compensation or other incentives (e.g., free services, cash payments, gift certificates, parking, classroom credit, travel reimbursement) to participate in the research study? Compensation plans should be pro-rated (not contingent upon study completion) and should consider participation withdrawals, as applicable.
Yes No
If Yes ! Describe the incentive, including the amount and timing of all payments. We will provide an incentive consisting of the option to participate in a drawing where five $50 Walmart gift cards will be awarded. In order to enter the drawing, residents must return a postcard that is enclosed with the survey within a specified time frame. Residents are eligible to participate in the drawing whether they complete the survey or not. The postcard must be postmarked within 10 days of the date that the survey is mailed and include their full mailing address. Fifteen days after the survey has been mailed, we will take all the postcards that have been received and place them in a bin where they will be mixed. Five cards will be drawn at random. Gift cards will be sent by mail to each of the five winners. After the drawing and disbursement of the incentive, all of the post cards will be shredded and no record of the addresses will be retained. 17. INFORMED CONSENT PROCESS a.
Indicate the consent process(es) and document(s) to be used in the study. Check all that apply. Provide copies of documents, as applicable. See Exempt Research for instructions or contact ORRP for more information. Assent – Form
Parental Permission – Form
Assent – Verbal Script/Online/Unsigned
Parental Permission – Verbal Script/Online/Unsigned
Informed Consent – Form
Translated Consent/Assent – Form(s), Script(s), etc.
Informed Consent – Verbal/Online/Unsigned
Other (Specify):
Not Applicable (existing data or specimens) b.
Describe the consent process. Explain when and where consent will be obtained and how subjects and/or their legally authorized representatives will be provided sufficient opportunity (e.g., waiting period, if any) to consider participation.
N/A
The content of the informed consent will be contained within the cover letter. Completing the survey and returning it will serve as consent. Participants will have a period of 10 days to consider participating, completing, and returning the survey.
18. PRIVACY OF PARTICIPANTS a. Describe the provisions to protect the privacy interests of the participants. In order to protect the privacy of the participants, we will not collect or record any personally identifiable information on the survey, nor will we require a signed informed consent form to be returned. In order to preserve anonymity but still investigate one of the research questions of interest (whether knowledge and opinions related to the environment and health differ based on household proximity to animal agricultural operations) we will use a zoned approach for Page 5 of 7
Form Date: 07/20/2010 Version 3.2
The Ohio State University – APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION
participants to estimate within what radius from the farms they reside. They will not identify their address, but simply the zone in which their household is located. We have divided the region into 4 concentric rings with 2, 4, 6, and 8 mile radii, respectively. The County estimates that there are approximately 2,000 households within the three townships of interest. Assuming that the residences are evenly distributed, we would expect 126, 374, 624 and 876 households in each concentric ring from inner to outer, respectively. Thus, self-identification of zone will NOT provide sufficient resolution for identification of individuals. b.
Does the research require access to personally identifiable private information?
Yes No
If Yes ! Describe the personally identifiable private information involved in the research. List the information source(s) (e.g., educational records, surveys, medical records, etc.).
19. CONFIDENTIALITY OF DATA a. Explain how information is handled, including storage, security measures (as necessary), and who will have access to the information. Include both electronic and hard copy records. Completed surveys will be stored in a locked filing cabinet in Dr. Tim Buckley’s locked office where only he and the research assistant (Liesel M. Seryak) will have access to them. Once the data has been entered into an electronic database and quality assured, the paper surveys will be destroyed. b.
Indicate what will happen to the identifiable data at the end of the study. Research-related records should be retained for a period of at least three years after the research has been discontinued (i.e., no further data collection, long term follow-up, recontact, or analysis of identifiable/coded data.) Identifiers permanently removed from the data and destroyed (de-identified) Identifiable/coded (linked) data are retained Identifiable data not collected
20. HIPAA RESEARCH AUTHORIZATION Will individually identifiable Protected Health Information (PHI) subject to the HIPAA Privacy Rule requirements be accessed, used, or disclosed in the research study? No Yes ! Check all that apply: Written Authorization ! Provide a copy of the Authorization Form Partial Waiver (recruitment purposes only) !Complete Appendix N Full Waiver (entire research study) ! Complete Appendix N Alteration (written documentation) ! Complete Appendix N
21. APPLICATION CONTENTS Indicate the documents being submitted for this research project. Check all appropriate boxes. Application for Exemption
Page 6 of 7
Form Date: 07/20/2010 Version 3.2
The Ohio State University – APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION
Appendix A1: OSU Co-Investigators & Key Personnel (questions 3 & 4) Appendix N: Waiver of HIPAA Research Authorization (question 20) Appendix U: Research in International Settings (question 11) Consent form(s), Assent Form(s), Permission Form(s), and Verbal Script(s), including translated documents (question 17) Data Collection Form(s) involving protected health information (question 13) Recruitment Materials (e.g., ads, flyers, telephone or other oral script, radio/TV scripts, internet solicitations) (question 15b) Script(s), Instructions, or Information Sheet(s) (question 13) Instruments (e.g., questionnaires or surveys to be completed by participants) (question 13) Other Committee Approvals/Letters of Support (questions 11) Research Protocol Complete Grant Application or Funding Proposal (question 8) Other supporting documentation and/or materials 22. ASSURANCE: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR (or Advisor) I agree to follow all applicable policies and procedures of The Ohio State University and federal, state, and local laws and guidance regarding the protection of human subjects in research, as well as professional practice standards and generally accepted good research practice guidelines for investigators, including, but not limited to, the following: • • •
• • •
• • • •
Perform the research as approved under the direction of the Principal Investigator (or Advisor) by appropriately trained and qualified personnel with adequate resources; Initiate the research after written determination of exemption has been received; Obtain and document (unless waived) informed consent and HIPAA research authorization from human subjects (or their legally authorized representatives) prior to their involvement in the research using the final version of the consent form(s) and process submitted for determination; Promptly report to ORRP events that may represent unanticipated problems involving risks to subjects or others; Provide significant new findings that may relate to the subjects willingness to continue to participate; Inform ORRP of any proposed changes in the research or informed consent process (via a new Exempt Application) before changes are implemented, and agree that no changes will be made until an exempt determination is made by ORRP (except where necessary to eliminate apparent immediate hazards to participants); Maintain research-related records (and source documents) in a manner that documents the validity of the research and integrity of the data collected, while protecting the confidentiality of the data and privacy of participants; Retain research-related records for audit for a period of at least three years after the research has ended (or longer, according to sponsor or publication requirements) even if I leave the University; Contact ORRP for assistance in amending (to request a change in Principal Investigator) or terminating the research if I leave the University or am unavailable to conduct or supervise the research personally (e.g., sabbatical or extended leave); and Inform all Co-Investigators, research staff, employees, and students assisting in the conduct of the research of their obligations in meeting the above commitments.
I verify that the information provided in this application is accurate and complete. November 8, 2010
Signature of Principal Investigator (or Advisor)
Date
Timothy J. Buckley Printed name of Principal Investigator (or Advisor)
Page 7 of 7
Form Date: 07/20/2010 Version 3.2
THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
Institutional Review Board
APPENDIX A1 OSU Co-Investigators & Key Personnel Complete this form to list OSU Co-Investigators and key personnel on the research study. Signatures are required of all OSU Co-Investigators. Use Appendix A2 to list external (non-OSU) Co-Investigators and key personnel. Key personnel are defined as individuals who participate in the design, conduct, or reporting of human subjects research. At a minimum, include individuals who recruit or consent participants or who collect study data. All OSU individuals listed on this protocol will have access to information about IRB actions and the completion status of each individual's administrative and training requirements (CITI, COI disclosure). Note: Personal financial information provided in COI disclosures is not included.
PI Name: Buckley, Timothy J. OSU CO-INVESTIGATORS As Co-Investigator, I agree to comply with all policies and procedures of The Ohio State University and federal, state, and local laws and guidance regarding the protection of human subjects in research, as well as with professional practice standards and generally accepted good research practice guidelines for investigators. Name (Last, First, MI): University Academic Title: Department Name (TIU): Department # (TIU): OSU ID Number:
Degree(s): College (TIU): Phone: E-mail:
Signature of Co-Investigator
Date
Printed name of Co-Investigator
Name (Last, First, MI):
Degree(s):
OSU KEY PERSONNEL Name (Last, First, MI): Department Name:
E-mail:
Page 1 of 1
Seryak, Liesel M. Division of Environmental Health Sciences, College of Public Health Seryak.2@osu.edu
OSU ID Number:
Graduate Research Associate (GRA) 07176483
Phone:
(937) 474-5191 (cell – no office phone)
University Title:
Form date: 09/25/09 Version 2.2
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
We need your help. The Ohio State University College of Public Health is conducting a survey in Union County, Ohio to learn about how residents interact with the local environment (water, air, soil) and what your concerns are related to the environment. Please look for a packet of information in your mailbox in December. The pencil & paper survey will take less than 15 minutes of your time and will provide valuable information for measuring community concern about environmental issues.
If you would like additional information, please contact Liesel Seryak at The Ohio State University College of Public Health (LSeryak@cph.osu.edu).
Timothy J. Buckley, Principal Investigator Division of Environmental Health Sciences OSU College of Public Health Starling-Loving Hall, A333 320 W. 10th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210
(614) 293-7161
!"#$%&'()%*+$,#()%$-$"#.#&*"(/(0121-#(345(3676!
"#$%&'('!)*(!+,(!-%.'(-!/*01!2*3!4&$5%(67-!8*(-(#+)+.0#!+0!+,(!9011.--.0#(*-:!8*0;($+! -+)5(,0%'(*-!)#'!$011&#.+6!1(1<(*-!1.'=>)6!+,*0&?,!+,(!8*0;($+3
Preliminary Report of the Union County Environmental Baseline Project August 23, 2010 Union County Commissioners’ Hearing Room
Presented by: Tim Buckley, Associate Professor & Chair Liesel Seryak, Graduate Research Assistant Division of Environmental Health Sciences OSU College of Public Health tbuckely@cph.osu.edu & lseryak@cph.osu.edu
Project Goals !!
Assess baseline environmental conditions for Bokes Creek watershed Identify existing data "! Acquire and compile existing data "! Analyze to evaluate baseline conditions "! Identify data gaps and recommend directions for future study "!
!!
2
Rationale: Baseline will provide means to assess future incremental environmental changes Preliminary Report as of August 23, 2010
Data & Sources Have we missed anything?
3
*Unavailable at this time
Preliminary Report as of August 23, 2010
Criteria for Evaluating Data Relevance !! Time "! Current "! Trend !! Space "! Proximity
to area of concern
!! Indicator "! Human
health "! Ecology 4
Preliminary Report as of August 23, 2010
Relevance Criteria Applied to Existing Data Sources Current, ongoing, timely data access
Time
Within watershed, upstream and downstream of points of influence and usage
UC Health Dept. •! Nuisance complaints •! Drinking water well tests Columbus water quality
Union S&W GIS data
Health, Recreational or Ecological
Ohio EPA data Summaries of student research
Space 5
Indicator Preliminary Report as of August 23, 2010
Existing Data & Limitations !!
UCHD nuisance complaints & investigations "! "!
!!
UCHD drinking water well test results "! "!
!!
"!
"!
Longitudinal, trends, relevant sampling sites Data is not available at this time
City of Columbus Water Quality Assurance Lab "! "!
6
Fairly comprehensive Most recent data is for 1999
New Day Farms "!
!!
Has human health importance Lacks relevance to surface water & releases
Ohio EPA Biological & Water Quality Studies and TMDL Reports "!
!!
Reveal some quality-of-life and potential health concerns Unsystematic
Frequent monitoring, trends Limited spatially and oriented toward nutrient load
Preliminary Report as of August 23, 2010
Water Quality Criteria !!
Warmwater Habitat aquatic life use designation (WWH): Capable of maintaining a balanced, integrated community of diverse warmwater organisms "! Needs IBI > 40 (Index of Biotic Integrity) "!
!!
Primary (Bokes) and Secondary (tributaries) Contact Recreation: "!
Attainment measured by bacterial indicators
Union County Map
10
Preliminary Report as of August 23, 2010
Ammonia concentration over time (mg/L): Columbus WQAL monitoring Bokes Creek area
Total phosphorus concentration over time (mg/L): Columbus WQAL monitoring Bokes Creek area
TMDL Target and Statewide WWH criteria
Nitrate concentration over time (mg/L): Columbus WQAL monitoring Bokes Creek area
Statewide WWH criteria for Nitrate + Nitrite
Atrazine concentration over time (!g/L): Columbus WQAL monitoring Bokes Creek area
Criteria for protection of public water supply = 3.0 !g/L
Ammonia Concentration by Sampling Location
Bokes Creek Brush Run @ 2000-2010 Yearsley Rd. 2006-2010 N=115
N=83
Brush Run @ SR 739 2005-2010 N=88
Daylay Trib. Powderlick @ Powderlick Run 2006-2010 2006-2010 N=89
N=96
Note: Time frames are not identical across locations
Powderlick @ Powderlick @ E. Fawley Rd. SR 739 N of 2003-2010 Davis Rd. 2003-2010 N=125 N=99
Total P Concentration by Sampling Location
Bokes Creek Brush Run @ 2000-2010 Yearsley Rd. 2006-2010 N=111
N=76
Brush Run @ SR 739 2005-2010 N=83
Daylay Trib. Powderlick @ Powderlick Run 2006-2010 2006-2010 N=84
N=90
Note: Time frames are not identical across locations
Powderlick @ Powderlick @ E. Fawley Rd. SR 739 N of 2003-2010 Davis Rd. 2003-2010 N=115 N=93
Nitrate Concentration by Sampling Location
Bokes Creek Brush Run @ 2000-2010 Yearsley Rd. 2006-2010 N=116
N=83
Brush Run @ SR 739 2005-2010 N=88
Daylay Trib. Powderlick @ Powderlick Run 2006-2010 2006-2010 N=89
N=96
Note: Time frames are not identical across locations
Powderlick @ Powderlick @ E. Fawley Rd. SR 739 N of 2003-2010 Davis Rd. 2003-2010 N=127 N=99
Atrazine concentration by Sampling Location
Bokes Creek Brush Run @ 2000-2010 Yearsley Rd. 2006-2010 N=118
N=82
Brush Run @ SR 739 2005-2010 N=88
Daylay Trib. Powderlick @ Powderlick Run 2006-2010 2006-2010 N=89
N=94
Note: Time frames are not identical across locations
Powderlick @ Powderlick @ E. Fawley Rd. SR 739 N of 2003-2010 Davis Rd. 2003-2010 N=127 N=99
Information Gaps !! !!
Air quality Community observations "! "!
!!
Quality of life / nuisance / odors Health concerns
Water quality "!
Human health relevance •! Testing of drinking water •! Recreational water contact & water quality
"!
Ecological relevance •! Strategic locations to evaluate source contributions •! More indicators
"! 19
Statewide water quality comparisons Preliminary Report as of August 23, 2010
Air Quality !!
Target analytes Ammonia "! Particles "! Airborne pathogens "!
!! !! !! !!
20
Testing of emissions Modeling dispersion / community impact Evaluation of meteorology Community indoor / outdoor measurements Preliminary Report as of August 23, 2010
Community Observations !!
Conduct a representative community survey "!
Assess environmental concerns •! •! •! •!
Air quality Water (drinking & recreation) quality Soil Quality of life (flies, odors, traffic)
Demographics (age, no. in household, etc.) "! Household characteristics "!
•! Well water •! Septic system status •! Heating and air conditioning (HVAC) 21
Preliminary Report as of August 23, 2010
Water Quality !!
!!
Community-based approach emphasizing local action and decision-making based on scientific data (Sugar Creek model) Human health relevance Systematic testing of drinking water "! Recreational water contact & water quality "!
!!
Ecological relevance Strategic locations to evaluate source contributions "! More complete & current assessment "!
22
Preliminary Report as of August 23, 2010
Next Steps !! Verify
all relevant data has been collected !! Compile into a usable data set and provide to Union Co. Soil & Water !! Develop and conduct survey of community general environmental concerns !! Prepare final report
Acknowledgements !! Funding
provided from Union County Commissioners !! Stakeholders who have met with us, answered questions, and provided data for this project
24
Preliminary Report as of August 23, 2010
Thank You! !! If
you would like an electronic copy of this evening’s presentation, please feel free to contact Kaylee Port at Union Soil & Water: "! kaylee.port@oh.nacdnet.net
25
Preliminary Report as of August 23, 2010
!"#$%&'(")*+"%',%-./01&%2""314+!
"#$!%#&'!()!!"#$%&&'()*++,-#./(0&1$232&4$(5(634/$7#88&!*+(,'!-$!-+,#&.'!'$,#,.'/!01(2'3! &+''2!*-,'+34'/!)(&53!()!3,5/60!-7(5,!,4'!8+(9'&,!-),'+!-,,'$/#$:!,4'!;5:53,!<=>!<?@?! 857.#&!A'',#$:B
Bokes Creek watershed focus of study | ThisWeek Community...
http://www.thisweeknews.com/live/content/marysville/stories/2...
BY LIN RICE ThisWeek Community Newspapers Learning exactly what is in the water in the Bokes Creek is important, residents agreed during a special presentation to the Union County commissioners last week, but their main concern is with what's in their air. The commissioners, amid a roomful of northern county residents, heard a preliminary report on Aug. 23 on the Union County Environmental Baseline Project, a study being conducted by Ohio State University to gather environmental data for the Bokes Creek watershed. The study is estimated to take about five months to complete, said Tim Buckley, associate professor and chair of Ohio State University's College of Public Health, Division of Environmental Health Sciences. Buckley said the study is at about the half-way mark. The commissioners have said that the study, which comes with a price tag of $24,961, is important to the future development of the county, as the Bokes Creek watershed flows past the site of the proposed Hi-Q egg farm and other already-operating egg farms in the county. While the commissioners have asserted that the baseline study is not intended to hold up Hi-Q's building process, having it in place beforehand will let officials know the cause if pollution levels rise. "Our goal is to assess the baseline environmental conditions for the Bokes Creek watershed," Buckley said during his presentation. "The rationale behind that is, that baseline will provide us the means to assess future incremental environmental changes." Buckley said that in the first few months since the study began, he and other researchers have gathered data from the Union Soil & Water Conservation District, the county Health Department, the Ohio EPA, the Columbus Water Quality Assurance Lab and other sources. Through that data, the study can track concentrations of ammonia, phosphorus, nitrate, and atrazine in the water. A lack of data in some areas however (in some cases the most recent samples were taken regularly 10 years ago) mean that some results just aren't clear yet, according to Buckley. "How this compares to current conditions (in surrounding areas), I think that that answer is unknown," Buckley said. "That research needs to be conducted." Residents voiced concerns during the meeting about air quality in the area, which they say is the real concern. Neither the study's organizers nor the Ohio EPA are set up to gather that sort of data, Buckley said. "In general there's a lack of air quality data," he said. "We have the anecdotal complaints, but we lack the ongoing assessments of the quality of life and the effect on human health." The EPA would be in charge of conducting any sort of air-quality testing, but there are not specific standards that would be applicable to agricultural air testing, he continued. Commissioner Gary Lee said that he was glad the residents took part in the meeting, as a way to let the commissioners know what they think is important for the study. "What we've heard tonight is that air quality is more of a concern than water quality to the group gathered here," Lee said. "I think we'll have to take a look at what that means and quantify it." Commissioner Tom McCarthy said the county needs the data in place before a large business like Hi-Q comes into that area of the county. "We have limitations on what we can do, but we feel an obligation to do
2 of 3
12/22/10 10:34 AM
Bokes Creek watershed focus of study | ThisWeek Community...
http://www.thisweeknews.com/live/content/marysville/stories/2...
what we can," he said. "But if another large (business) comes in, if we don't define what the problem is today, then anyone can say that there's always been a problem." Buckley said that the baseline study is scheduled for completion by the end of October.
Š 2010 ThisWeek Community Newspapers
Online home to 23 newspapers serving central Ohio
3 of 3
12/22/10 10:34 AM
!"#$%&'!&%#%($)$*"('+',##"-*)$*"('".'/0*"'1%)2$0'3"44*##*"(%&#' 3"(.%&%(-%' !"#$"%&"'()*+(),*,(
Establishing an Environmental Baseline Relevant to Animal Agriculture and Community Environmental Health in Union County, Ohio Liesel M. Seryak and Timothy J. Buckley, PhD Environmental Health Sciences, The Ohio State University College of Public Health Abstract
Data & Sources Table 1. Existing data & sources
Union County, Ohio is home to more than 2.8 million chickens being raised on three farms within a 3-mile radius. While this rural county has a rich agricultural history, the transition away from smaller family farms to larger industrial farms has become a concern to some in the community. Concern stems from air and water quality degradation, odors, flies and other potential health, environmental and quality of life impacts. Concern within the community and among local officials is exacerbated by plans for expanding poultry operations. Among stakeholders, there is a shared interest in a better understanding of the baseline conditions in order to assess current environmental conditions and capacity for expansion. To address this need, we have gathered all existing water- and air-quality data for the Bokes and Mill Creek Watersheds and organized them into a central repository for the purpose of establishing an environmental baseline and identifying data gaps. Data sources include Ohio EPA and City of Columbus watershed test results, and reported nuisance complaints. This project will serve to connect many of the local and regional stakeholders and provide a scientific basis for measuring incremental changes in environmental parameters from this point forward. We will identify data gaps and important topics for further research. Plans are underway to develop and implement a community survey to provide new data gauging community concern over the environment and its impact on health and quality of life. Our role as impartial scientists will be critical to fostering cooperation between industry, government and community stakeholders and encouraging data-based decision-making as well as local ownership of environmental monitoring data.
Discussion Strengths and limitations of existing data #! UCHD nuisance complaints & investigations $! Reveal some quality-of-life and potential health concerns $! Unsystematic #! UCHD drinking water well test results $! Has human health importance $! Lacks relevance to surface water & releases #! Ohio EPA Biological & Water Quality Studies and TMDL Reports $! Fairly comprehensive $! Most recent data is for 1999 #! New Day Farms $! Longitudinal, trends, relevant sampling sites $! Data is not available at this time #! City of Columbus Water Quality Assurance Lab $! Frequent monitoring, trends $! Limited spatially and oriented toward nutrient load Current, ongoing, timely data access
*Unavailable at this time
Time
Table 2. Criteria for evaluating data relevance Current Time Trend Space Proximity to area of concern Human health Indicator Ecology
Project Goals !! Assess baseline environmental conditions for Bokes Creek watershed region including York, Liberty, and Taylor Townships "! Identify what relevant data exists "! Acquire and compile the existing data "! Analyze data to evaluate baseline conditions "! Identify data gaps and recommend directions for future study
Within watershed, upstream and downstream of points of influence and usage
UC Health Dept. •! Nuisance complaints •! Drinking water well tests Columbus water quality
Union S&W GIS data
Health, Recreational or Ecological
Indicator
o! Warmwater Habitat aquatic life use
designation (WWH): •! Capable of maintaining a balanced, integrated community of diverse warmwater organisms •! Needs IBI > 40 (Index of Biotic Integrity) o! Primary (Bokes) and Secondary (tributaries) Contact Recreation: •! Attainment measured by bacterial indicators
95th percentile 75th percentile Median 25th percentile 5th percentile
Figure 3. Total phosphorus concentration over time (mg/L) across 7 sites shown as box & whisker plot relative to TMDL target (red line).
Air Quality: !! Target analytes !! Ammonia !! Particles !! Airborne pathogens !! Testing of emissions !! Modeling dispersion / community impact !! Evaluation of meteorology !! Community indoor / outdoor measurements
Water Quality: !! Community-based
approach emphasizing local action and decisionmaking based on scientific data (Sugar Creek model) !! Human health relevance !! Systematic testing of drinking water !! Recreational water contact & water quality !! Ecological relevance !!Strategic locations to evaluate source contributions !! More complete & current assessment
Next Steps
Atrazine concentration (µg/L)
Nitrate concentration (mg/L)
Area of concern in Union County
Total phosphorus concentration (mg/L)
Preliminary Analyses: Columbus WQAL Data 2000-2010
!! Rationale: Baseline will provide means to assess future incremental environmental changes
Community Observations: Conduct a representative community survey !! Assess environmental concerns !! Air quality !! Water (drinking & recreation) quality !! Soil !! Demographics (age, no. in household, etc.) !! Household characteristics !! Well water !! Septic system status !! Heating and air conditioning (HVAC)
Ohio EPA data
Figure 2. Relevance criteria applied to existing data sources
Relevant water quality criteria:
Information Gaps Identified #! Air quality #! Community observations !! Quality of life / nuisance / odors !! Health concerns #! Water quality !! Human health relevance "! Testing of drinking water "! Recreational water contact & water quality !! Ecological relevance "! Strategic locations to evaluate source contributions "! More indicators !! Statewide water quality comparisons
Proposed Solutions
Summaries of student research
Space
Our preliminary analyses show that the Bokes Creek watershed has been and continues to be impacted by elevated levels of nutrients (nitrate and phosphorus) in excess of water quality guidelines, thus suggesting that the watershed is impaired and still unlikely to be in full attainment of its WWH aquatic use designation, as was found by the Ohio EPA in their 1999 study of the watershed. Although atrazine is consistently detected in area streams, levels generally do not exceed the safe drinking water standard.
1.! Verify all relevant data has been collected 2.! Compile into a usable data set and provide to Union Co. Soil & Water 3.! Develop and conduct survey of community general environmental concerns 4.! Prepare final report
Figure 1. Map of study region showing Bokes & Mill Creek and tributaries, and relevant environmental sites
Figure 4. Nitrate concentration over time (mg/L) across 7 sites shown as box & whisker plot relative to WWH criteria (red line).
Figure 5. Atrazine concentration over time (µg/L) across 7 sites shown as box & whisker plot relative to drinking water maximum contaminant limit (red line).
5.! Use baseline data as preliminary data in support of grant proposals
Acknowledgements: This study was funded through a contract with the Union County Commissioners. We acknowledge the time many regional stakeholders gave in meeting with us and providing data.
!"#$%&'(&)*+,-.$#&/010!
"##!$%&'()*+!+$,$!-(##!.*!/)01(+*+!,0!23456!$7+!,8*!27(07!50'7,9!50::(;;(07*);! *#*%,)07(%$##9!<1($!23=!>#$;8!+)(1*?@!!"7!(7+*A!0>!(7%#'+*+!>(#*;!(;!/)01(+*+!8*)*@!
Union County Environmental Baseline Project Index of Acquired Data Time Period
Data Source
Description
Location
Union Soil & Water Conservation District
ArcGIS shapefiles for watersheds, poultry farms, residential properties, streams, etc. Nuisance complaints and correspnding investigation records Drinking water well testing results
Union County, Bokes and Mill Creek areas Union County, mostly near poultry farms Union County
2008-2010
Powderlick Stream Restoration Fact Sheets & Reports Bokes & Mill Creek TMDL and TSD Reports
Powderlick Run
2003-2004
Bokes & Mill Creek watersheds
Bokes & Mill Creek Watersheds Action Plan Water quality overview memo (summary of OEPA sampling) Bokes Creek Info Graphic
Bokes & Mill Creek watersheds Bokes Creek and Powderlick Bokes Creek watershed Bokes Creek
1999 (also 1990, 1995) 2008
Union County Health Department Union County Health Department Oxbow Stream Restoration (website) Ohio EPA (website) Ohio EPA (website) Ohio EPA (Jon Bernstein) Ohio EPA (Jon Bernstein) Ohio EPA (Dave Thornton) Ohio Department of Agriculture - LEPP Franklin County Board of Health (Paul Rosile)
Ohio EPA lab testing results from Bokes Creek Complaint information
2000-2009
May-June 2009 2008-2010
City of Columbus Water Quality Assurance Lab
Ammonia, ortho_P, Total_P, Nitrate and Atrazine with Lat/Long
Bokes, Blues and Mill Creeks and Powderlick Run Powderlick, Brush Run and Bokes Creek Area
Published Articles
Description
Location
Winpisinger et al., Journal of Medical Entomology, 2005 Sharp and Tucker, Rural Sociology, 2005
Spread of flies from two caged layer facilities to neighboring residences in rural Ohio Awareness and Concern about LargeScale Livestock and Poultry: Results from a Statewide Survey of Ohioans Water quality up- and down-stream from Marysville WWTP-elevated metals in Mill Creek
Northwestern Ohio
Time Period 1997-2000
Ohio
2002
Mill Creek watershed
1995
Mensing and Faure, Ohio Journal of Science, 1998
Summary reports of undergraduate student water quality research
Union County
2001-2009
1991-1998 2000-2010