Timothy Rouleau and Elizabeth Yanchak (Pre-Veterinary Science)

Figure 1. GETTY IMAGES (2012).

 

Introduction

The increase of global populations necessitates a novel way of addressing land use. It is common knowledge that a significant portion of the planet’s available space is dedicated to the work and living places of both humans and managed animals. We believe space dedicated to these animals is particularly important because increases in managed animals are a direct consequence of expanding populations. Animals handled in industrial agriculture exist to sustain a growing demand for food. Most zoo animals in captivity are managed to encourage breeding, so as to mitigate loss of habitat and other effects of human population growth.  Maintaining effective space also pertains to the work and living environments of humans. Work environments are designed to maximize productivity without being overzealous in terms of decor.  We believe that architects often elaborate on the appearance of a space to increase financial value, and that those using the space are invested in making the space as utile as possible.

This foments the argument of form versus function. Form applies to design elements in a building or habitat that serve primarily for aesthetic value while function serves a more utilitarian purpose. Each has its essential value when designing a new construction; aesthetics often appeal to consumers and encourage revenue for the users of that space in order to perform the necessary function. However, in order to effectively address the growing need for efficiency in land use, alterations need to be made in instances where function of a space is sacrificed for form. This will ultimately increase profit for designers and consumers by advancing human and animal wellbeing through consideration of space efficiency. In order to be efficient, a design team’s priorities should be to identify and assuage stressors that impede productivity by inhibiting the expression of natural behaviors. Employing design elements that optimize productivity and alleviate stress will restore a harmonious balance to form and function.

For the purposes of this paper, natural behavior comprises any instinctually inspired mannerism displayed by either an animal or human that serves to satisfy a positive core emotion. We consider a positive core emotion to be an enriching mental state including, but not limited to, feelings like happiness, curiosity and general contentedness. Humans in the work environment and zoo animals in a captive breeding setting will be considered.

Case Study Design Implications

In their respective disciplines, human and animal researchers delineate how certain design elements impact productivity. Swaisgood, Ellis, Forthman and Shepherdson (2003), claim in their article, “Commentary: Improving Well?being for Captive Giant Pandas: Theoretical and Practical Issues,” that “In designing enclosures, it is essential to consider space, structural complexity (e.g., vertical dimension, visual barriers, substrate, topography, and vegetation), and microclimate variations in temperature…” (p. 349). The following sections are chosen from this list of design elements, and apply case study results from both human and animal studies. While these particular design elements are described by Swaisgood et al. (2003) as design elements important for zoo enclosures for animals, our intent is to show that human case studies are also applicable in each design element category. We have chosen to focus on structural complexities and temperature.

Structural Complexity

Our definition of a structural complexity is consistent with Swaisgood et al. (2003) and comprises any design element added within a building or habitat beyond the basic framework. The intent is usually to add dimension and visual or functional diversity. In an office this can include but is not limited to: furniture, floor layout, cubicle walls, potted plants etc. In a zoo enclosure this can allude to: slope and grade, rocks, vegetation, nest boxes, dens, floor substrate etc.

Floor Design

One element of structural complexity is substrate, or flooring. In their article “Factors Affecting Aggression among Females in Captive Groups of Rhesus Macaques,” Beisner and Isbell (2011) assert that the well-being of captive rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) can be improved by developing grass substrate in outdoor enclosures. Beisner and Isbell (2011) clarify their main position by pointing out that it is important to determine which factors influence aggression in captivity because it can be harmful to animal health and well-being. They elaborate on a few potential factors when they state: “availability and distribution of food influences agonistic relationships” (p. 1152). Here, an agonistic relationship is one of combative nature. Beisner and Isbell (2011) also claim that inability to express natural behavior is linked to aggression. The authors describe how inability to forage amongst gravel substrate exhibit floors leads to displays of intense aggression, especially during the breeding season. Beisner and Isbell (2011) conclude, “females in gravel substrate enclosures were 1.7 times more likely to exhibit intense aggressive behaviors than females in grass substrate enclosures” (p. 1156).

Assuaging similar stress-induced behaviors is also important to human productivity in the office setting. In their article “The Effect of a Redesigned Floor Plan, Occupant Density and the Quality of Indoor Climate on the Cost of Space, Productivity and Sick Leave in an Office Building – A Case Study”, Saari, Tissari, Valkama, and Seppänen (2006) scientifically elaborate on the effects of temperature and floor area designated per employee on total annual costs of the company and property owners. Within their study, one claim was in terms of space, and how the amount required varies across the globe. In one study, “[they] introduced 20 modern office buildings. Their average space index was 25.7 m²/person, with a range from 7.0 to 55.7 m²/person … [where] in most major Western cities, there was an average of 20 m² of office space per person, while in China, Japan and the UK the number was just over 10 m²” (Saari et al, 2006).

Visual Barriers

Another aspect of structural complexity is a visual barrier. According to the article “Employee Reactions to an Open-Plan Office: A Naturally Occurring Quasi-Experiment”, Oldham and Brass (1979) explore the mental changes of job satisfaction, internal motivation, and changes in the work environment in terms of job expectations while taking place in an open or closed office setting. Oldham and Brass (1979) analyze this through experimentation of workers in a closed, classic architecture (partitioned with interior walls) versus open, modern architecture (non partitioned, no interior walls) environment. They cede, through previous studies not conducted by them, that there was in fact a benefit to an open office plan, “[T]heir results showed… ease of communication improved significantly after the move [from an classic office to a new office]” (p. 269). But, Oldham and Brass (1979) state, “Although the results of these investigations support the general social relations position that ease of communication and interaction are likely to be greater in an open-plan office than in a conventional office, they have not demonstrated that improvements in key social interaction variables are responsible for increases in employee work outcomes (p.269).”

Oldham and Brass (1979) observed the subjects’ job before (T1) and after (T2) the change from the classic environment to the modernist and numerically show that there was a decrease in productivity. Comfort, space and separation are all now scientifically proven to enhance quality of life and ultimately increase productivity.  According to Table 1 (Oldham and Brass, 1979, p.278), the concentration decrease is attributed to an open office system, “suggesting that the open office adversely influenced these dimensions” (p. 278).

Table 1, An Average Value Comparison of Traits Throughout an Experiment, Oldham, G. R., & Brass, D. J. (1979). Employee reactions to an open-plan office: A naturally occurring quasi-experiment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), pp. 278

A visual barrier is also important in the design of many animal enclosures, particularly that of prey species which instinctually hide from predators and other stressors. Many animals seek solitude and take comfort in the opportunity for privacy, just as the preceding study in the office setting indicated for humans. According to a 2010 article based on survey results from sixty-nine zoos, authors Eriksson, Zidar, White, Westander, and Andersson argue that neighboring enclosures holding carnivores can have a negative effect on prey species like the red panda (Ailurus fulgens). The study was focused on identifying possible reasons for breeding failures and neonatal deaths in captive red panda populations. Eriksson et al. (2010) state that, “Some argue that predators are a natural part of an animal’s life. However, forced and constant proximity to a predator without the option to escape can be stressful” (p. 739). The authors suggest that a visual barrier from neighboring carnivores could be a solution to alleviate that stress. The majority of respondents admitted that three quarters of the red panda enclosures had visitor viewing access. Eriksson et al. assert that viewing access by visitors (potentially viewed as predators by a prey species) should be restricted to one or two sides of the red panda enclosure.

Temperature

In their article “The Effect of a Redesigned Floor Plan, Occupant Density and the Quality of Indoor Climate on the Cost of Space, Productivity and Sick Leave in an Office Building – A Case Study”, Saari et al. (2006) argue that work productivity in the office building is related to temperature. With information gathered from several studies between 1968 and 2002, one definitive conclusion was reached that productivity decreased by 2%, measured in terms of hours decreased per person, at any temperature over 25º C (77º F), making temperature a crucial factor when creating a space (Sarri et al., 2006).

Litchfield, Dorrian, Davis, Lushington, and Dawson (2011) assert in their article, “Lessons in Primate Heat Tolerance: A Commentary Based on the ‘Human Zoo’ Experience” that providing shelter for cooler microhabitats is an important factor to consider when designing a zoo enclosure. These authors explain that excessive heat is temperatures that exceed the thermoneutral zone, which is approximately 24-30 degrees Celsius (75-86 degrees Fahrenheit) for most primates. Litchfield et al. (2011) further note that in the wild, primates seek shelter such as shade or water sources. The authors correlate excessive heat and lack of sufficient shelter with negative impacts on estrous cycles, which play a significant role in captive breeding.

Discussion

It is essential to recognize that humans and animals are comparable in regards to natural behaviors. In the article “Subcortical and Cortical Brain Activity During the Feeling of Self-Generated Emotions,” Damsio et al. (2000) concluded from their studies that core emotions in humans and animals are located in the subcortical parts of the brain. The authors’ definition of core emotions (positive and negative) includes happiness, anger, fear and sadness.  Panksepp (1998) further elucidates in his book, Affected Neuroscience, that core emotions are linked to behavior because there is consistency in the resulting behaviors when the brain system for a core emotion is stimulated with electrodes. Grandin and Johnson (2009) also state this in other words when they explain, “If you stimulate the anger system, the animal snarls and bites. If you stimulate the fear system, the animal freezes or runs away…When you stimulate these parts of the brain in people, they don’t snarl or bite, but they report the same emotions animals show” (pp. 5-6).

The connection to stress and productivity must be made, now that we acknowledge core emotions are linked to behavior and are applicable in both human and animal situations. Efficiency of space can be quantified by observing productivity in relation to the design elements of the office or exhibit, respectively. For the purposes of this paper, productivity refers to motivation and completion of work for humans, and reproduction amongst zoo animals. The latter is because the main goal for most captive endangered species is reproduction, in order to propagate genetic diversity and increase numbers of dwindling populations, as explained by Holt, Pickard, Roger and Wildt (2003) in their book Reproductive Science and Integrated Conservation

Humans have a broader purpose when it comes to motivation and productivity rather than reproduction. It is our opinion that industrialized societies are dominated by work: we go through multiple years of education, fight to show that we are the brightest and most capable of learning, that we are able to do the best job in a given position. Short of success, humans as a species have a wide range of motivations to work better. The preceding case study examples suggest that, despite personal differences and preferences, remaining mentally content has a universal influence on the ability to work in a productive manner.

Generally, the link between stress and lack of motivation or inability to complete work is more intuitive in humans, but may require the following explanation when considering animal reproduction. Unhappy animals typically do not breed or reproduce successfully in the captive setting. In their comprehensive book, Wild Mammals in Captivity: Principles for Zoo Management, Kleiman, Thompson and Baer (2010) assert that animals in captivity are often susceptible to chronic stress: excessive and prolonged hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal activity. Kleiman and others conclude that decreased reproductive function is a common side effect in a highly stressed animal. The authors of this book state that, “Greater knowledge of and sensitivity to how animals…perceive and experience life in a captive environment could help prevent a host of stressors…Since we humans are usually only temporarily exposed to these stimuli within exhibits, we may not perceive the stimuli as strong, offensive, or even detect them at all” (Kleiman et al., 2010, p. 15).

Conclusion

An individual’s incentive to improve net worth is augmented by most societies: the ability to bring value to a job or environment to, in turn, make a living and provide for oneself. By working harder in an industrialized society, productivity increases along with wage compensation, which motivates an individual to, in turn, be more productive. We can potentially maximize productivity (and consequently efficiency) by experimenting with an individual’s environment.

Similar biological incentives exist in animal populations and evolutionary instinct is to propagate an individual’s genetic line. Increasing productivity in the form of reproduction is also important for zoo managers and researchers, because successful captive breeding programs help make important research possible, receive more funding, and inspire customers to visit when babies are born.

We believe that improving the efficiency of current and future spaces in office and zoo settings will help increasing global populations cope with decreasing land availability. This can be done by addressing design elements to account for aspects that encourage natural behaviors (e.g. privacy, homeostatic temperatures). We would also like to note that several other stressors exist in a human or animal environment beyond what we discussed specifically in our case study examples (e.g. vertical dimension, lighting, air quality). We suggest that architects and designers focus their talents on whichever design elements most impact the user of the space, as they are tangible and can be changed to suit the consumer.

 

References

Beisner, B. A., & Isbell, L. A. (2011). Factors affecting aggression among females in captive groups of rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). American Journal of Primatology, 73(11), 1152-1159. doi: 10.1002/ajp.20982

Damasio, A. R., Grabowski, T. J., Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Ponto, L. L. B., Parvizi, J., & Hichwa, R. D. (2000). Subcortical and cortical brain activity during the feeling of self-generated emotions. Nature Neuroscience, 3(10), 1049–1056. doi:10.1038/79871

Eriksson, P., Zidar, J., White, D., Westander, J., & Andersson, M. (2010). Current husbandry of red pandas (Ailurus fulgens) in zoos. Zoo Biology, 29(6), 732–740. doi:10.1002/zoo.20323

Grandin, T. & Johnson, C. (2010). Animals make us human. Boston, MA: First Mariner Books.

Holt, W., Pickard, A., Rodger, J., & Wildt, D. (2003). Reproductive science and integrated conservation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kleiman, D. G., Thompson, K. V., & Baer, C. K. (2010). Wild mammals in captivity: principles and techniques for zoo management. University of Chicago Press.

Litchfield, C., Dorrian, J., Davis, J., Lushington, K., & Dawson, D. (2011). Lessons in primate heat tolerance: A commentary based on the ‘human zoo’ experience. Journal Of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 14(2), 162-169. doi:10.1080/10888705.2011.551630

Oldham, G. R., & Brass, D. J. (1979). Employee reactions to an open-plan office: A naturally occurring quasi-experiment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), pp. 267-284. doi:10.2307/2392497

Saari, A., Tissari, T., Valkama, E., & Seppänen, O. (2006). The effect of a redesigned floor plan, occupant density and the quality of indoor climate on the cost of space, productivity and sick leave in an office building–A case study. Building and Environment, 41(12), 1961-1972. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.07.012

Swaisgood, R. R., Ellis, S., Forthman, D. L., & Shepherdson, D. J. (2003). Commentary:

Improving well?being for captive giant pandas: Theoretical and practical issues. Zoo Biology, 22(4), 347–354. doi:10.1002/zoo.10111

Image:

GETTY Images. (2012), Collaboration [Photograph]. www.encefalus.com &

www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews. Retrieved April 24th, 2012.

Alex McCarthy (Environmental Science), Brendan Kavanagh (Building Materials & Wood Technology), and Noah Hillbert (Natural Resource Conservation)

Introduction

Imagine if the water in your home stopped working one day. How many simple daily activities would you be unable to accomplish? How would you take a shower or wash the dishes? And how difficult would it be to get the water you need through another source? Residents in areas where hydraulic fracturing for natural gas has occurred are claiming they are facing a similar situation. Their water still works, but it is contaminated with high levels of methane gas and other chemicals (Amos, n.d.). This can cause the water to become cloudy, gain color and odor, and pose potential health hazards. The risk of water contamination, no matter how small, is not an issue to be taken lightly. Access to clean water is a resource taken for granted until it is gone. Now that this vital resource is in jeopardy, we must do everything we can to protect it. We must improve the process of hydraulic fracturing in order to minimize the risk of water contamination.

What is hydraulic fracturing and what does it involve? Jackson et al. (2011) define hydraulic fracturing as a process that “typically involves millions of gallons of fluid that are pumped into an oil or gas well at high pressure to create fractures in the rock formation that allow oil or gas to flow from the fractures to the wellbore” (p. 1). Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking”, for natural gas in shale rock formations is referred to as an “unconventional development”, along with tight gas, coalbed methane, and methane hydrates, because fracking is a more complex process than the early methods of simply drilling and pumping gas out of the ground (Arthur et al, 2008, p. 1). Typically, in shale gas developments the well is drilled vertically into the shale rock formation, then turned sideways and drilled horizontally through the shale. Once the shale is fractured it releases pockets of natural gas trapped in the rock (Arthur et al, 2008, p.1 ). These gas shale basins are located at varying depths from as close as 1,000 ft to 13,500 ft below the surface.

 

In February 2012, the Energy Institute at the University of Texas Austin released a study that natural gas proponents claim proves that hydraulic fracturing is a safe method for extracting natural gas and oil (Nearing, 2012). Executive director of the Independent Oil and Gas Association of New York State, Brad Gill, stated, “Once again objective research has concluded that the technology used to free gas from shale deposits is not a threat to fresh water aquifers” (Nearing, 2012, Par. 1). Yet, in the same study the researchers state, “The greatest potential for impacts from a shale gas well appears to be from failure of the well integrity, with leakage into an aquifer of fluids that flow upward in the annulus between the casing and the borehole” (Groat et al, 2012, p. 19). Thus, the very study that hydraulic fracturing proponents are referencing suggests possible aquifer contamination due to fracking operations. The risk of contamination due to a failure of well integrity is unacceptable, and hydraulic fracturing should not be allowed to continue without safeguards to protect water supplies.

The Debate

The debate over shale gas fracturing is being waged between good Americans on opposing sides, both supporting what they believe is good for their country. Those in support of shale gas development want energy independence and an energy source that emits fewer air pollutants than coal or oil. Those opposing hydraulic fracturing want to secure America’s water resources and protect families from the potential dangerous consequences associated with hydraulic fracturing.

There are many claims that the hydraulic fracturing process can cause ruptures in the ground that can lead to chemical seepage into groundwater. The result is leaks of methane, benzene, 2-Butoxyethanol and many other chemicals into public water sources (Earthworks,n.d.). Methane is lethal at high doses, and poses a possible combustion risk. Earthworks, an environmental advocacy group, cites an Environmental Working Group study that links the chemical Benzene to fracking fluid in petroleum distillates that are used as gelling agents and friction reducers. The study further describes Benzene as “a known human carcinogen that is toxic in water at levels greater than five parts per billion” (Earthworks, n.d., “Toxic Chemicals”). The American Cancer Society states that extended exposure to benzene causes “leukemia and cancer of other blood cells” (American cancer society, 2010, “Does benzene cause cancer?”). With many Americans dying each year from cancer, an industry on the cutting edge of energy production should not be contributing to this problem.

The chemical 2-Butoxyethanol is also linked to cancer. A specific case in Silt, Colorado, provides an example of the risk. Local resident Laura Amos discovered that the drilling company Encana had been lying to her about the use of 2-Butoxyethanol in the nearby fracking well, and about the serious health threat posed by high levels of Methane in her water. 2-Butoxyethanol is known to cause kidney damage and failure, liver cancer, and to raise the toxicity of the spleen and bones (mainly in the spinal column). The worst effect is that 2-Butoxyethanol is known to cause malignant and benign tumors in the adrenal gland. That was the unfortunate case that Mrs. Amos suffered. In response, the Amos’ were told to keep a window open to prevent the accumulation of methane gas, which could lead to an explosion in their home (Amos, n.d.). Stories like this have been observed in many towns across the Unites States.

Potential For Contamination

 

 

The potential risks and hazards associated with hydraulic fracturing can be separated into two distinct groups. The first are deterministic events that are planned for and certain to occur. An example of a deterministic event during hydraulic fracturing is the expected negative effect on aquifer production by removing large quantities of water for use as fracking fluid. The second, probabilistic events, cannot be predetermined, and whether or not they occur is uncertain (Rahm et al., 2012). Probabilistic events during hydraulic fracturing are the primary cause of groundwater contamination (Rahm et. Al, 2012). The failure of well integrity is an example of a probabilistic event. Although it is impossible to entirely eliminate the situations that allow for probabilistic events to occur, it is possible to minimize the severity and frequency of such events. In order to limit the health and environmental risks associated with water contamination, methods that provide greater oversight of drill sites, in addition to full disclosure, should be required when implementing hydraulic fracturing.

Preventing Contamination

As stated by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SWDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has full power to regulate any underground injection, “defined as the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection” (Pontius, 2009, p. 24). If the fluid contains hazardous materials that could severely degrade water quality, then the EPA has even greater power to regulate injection. However, the inability of the USEPA to regulate fluid injection during fracking, even if those fluids are possibly detrimental to drinking water, is due to the fact that “the SDWA does not grant authority for USEPA to regulate oil and gas production” to any extent (Pontius, 2009, p. 26). In effect, this allows drilling companies to avoid full disclosure of the chemicals used during the high-pressure process. The Fracturing and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act seeks to make hydraulic fracturing a federally regulated industry by placing it under the SDWA Underground Injection Clause (Norton and Wyckoff, 2012). The act would call for companies to be readily prepared to present full disclosure of chemicals in the case of an environmental hazard or health emergency. This provides regulatory bodies with an important resource when handling probabilistic events that have already occurred.

Limiting the negative consequences of probabilistic events associated with hydraulic fracturing is also possible before the development of a drill site begins. The requirement of an environmental impact assessment prior to site construction would allow for a greater ability to manage a hazard in the event that one arises. Each drill site is geographically unique and will require different techniques when managed. As a result, the preliminary assessments of each drill site will differ in their “description of the activities associated with high-volume hydraulic fracturing and shale gas development in general, the potential environmental impacts associated with those activities, and proposed measure and regulations that have been identified to mitigate those impacts” (Rahm et. Al, 2012). Although each assessment will be independent of one another, requiring drill companies to gather as much information as possible about their respective hydraulic fracturing sites produces a greater awareness of the possible costs associated with probabilistic hazards. In turn, companies would be more inclined to self-regulate and carry out certain techniques and methods that limit the probability of accidental events (Pontius, 2009).

Carrying out a mandatory environmental impact assessment also provides greater criteria for the overall management of a fracking site. The specificity of dealing with a unique geological location leads to a more in depth solution when attempting to mitigate the effects of a negative probabilistic event. In other words, the assessment would impart a drilling company with the appropriate criteria necessary to prevent a high impact event or, at the very least, drastically limit the consequences to the environment. The standards that result from the assessment allow a regulatory agency to determine where the greatest amount of oversight would be needed. Although regulation would be site specific, oversight would be possible from the beginning of development of the site to the treatment of fracking fluid. For example, an environmental impact assessment leads to the development of a contingency plan. In hydraulic fracturing, these plans are essential in minimizing the potential that contamination will occur when handling hazardous material.

“If a release does occur, the operator should be prepared via proper contingency and spill planning to quickly recover the chemicals. Spill-response planning includes training employees and subcontractors in the proper response techniques, having appropriate equipment on hand, such as absorbent materials and booms, and/ or having prearranged contracts with specialized spill-response contractors who can quickly and efficiently respond to larger losses with the required equipment.” (Swartz, 2011).

The ultimate goal is to draw these types of conclusions and appropriate requirements from a site-specific environmental impact assessment. By applying a mandatory impact assessment, regulatory agencies and drill companies can collaborate in utilizing the best practice methods that limit the high cost of the environmental and health issues associated with water contamination.

In conclusion, the environmental and health impacts associated with water contamination from fracking can be limited both after an event and before the process of fracking even occurs. By requiring full disclosure of fracking chemicals and establishing a required environmental impact assessment, both regulatory agencies and gas companies can determine the best ways to prevent health and environmental degradation. As a result, these requirements provide a greater method for managing a hydraulic fracturing site by holding the environment as the top priority.

 

References

American Cancer Society. (2010, November 5). Benzene. Retrieved from http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/OtherCarcinogens/IntheWorkplace/benzene

Amos, Laura. (n.d.). Earthworks. Retrieved from http://www.earthworksaction.org/issues/detail/hydraulic_fracturing_101

Arthur, D. J., Bohm, B., & Layne, M. (2008). Hydraulic fracturing considerations for natural gas wells of the Marcellus shale. Transactions /, 59, 49-60. Retrieved at http://www.thefriendsvillegroup.com/HydraulicFracturingReport1.2008.pdf

Earthworks. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.earthworksaction.org/issues/detail/hydraulic_fracturing_101

Groat, C. G., Grimshaw, T. W. (2012). Fact-based regulation for environmental protection in shale gas development. The University of Texas at Austin: The Energy Institute. Retrieved at http://energy.utexas.edu/images/ei_shale_gas_regulation120215.pdf

Jackson, R.B., Pearson, B.R., Osborn, S.G., Warner, N.R., & Vengosh, A. (2011). Research and policy recommendations for hydraulic fracturing and shale?gas extraction. Center on Global Change, Duke University, Durham, NC. Retrieved at http://www.ela-iet.com/EMD/HydraulicFracturingWhitepaper2011.pdf

Manuel, J. (2010). EPA tackles fracking. Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(5), A199-A199. Retrieved at http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=673ef2d4-6489-4e77-a11f-922ed086214c%40sessionmgr110&vid=2&hid=107

Nearing, B. (2012). Study proclaims natural gas hydrofracking safe for groundwater. Timesunion.Com, Environmental and Energy Issues(The Green Blog), 4/3/2012. Retrieved at http://blog.timesunion.com/green/study-proclaims-natural-gas-hydrofracking-safe-for-groundwater/3716/

Norton, R. K., & Wyckoff, M. A. (2012). Lessons from Michigan’s perfect storm: term—limited legislature restores mining’s exemption from local zoning. Planning & Environmental Law, 64(1), 3-10. doi:10.1080/15480755.2012.646231

Pontius, F. (2009). Hydraulic fracturing: is regulation needed? Journal: American Water Works Association, 101(9), 24-32.

Rahm, B. G., & Riha, S. J. (2012). Toward strategic management of shale gas development: regional, collective impacts on water resources. Environmental Science & Policy, 17, 12-23. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2011.12.004

Swartz, T. (2011). Hydraulic fracturing: risks and risk management. Natural Resources & Environment, 26(2), 30-59. Retrieved at http://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?sgHitCountType=None&sort=DA-SORT&inPS=true&prodId=AONE&userGroupName=mlin_w_umassamh&tabID=T002&searchId=R1&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&contentSegment=&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&currentPosition=1&contentSet=GALE%7CA271595075&&docId=GALE|A271595075&docType=GALE&role=

 

by Savannah Lloyd (Pre-Veterinary) & Nathan Bush (Natural Resource Studies)

Annoyed with people telling you how to run your farm? Hesitant to lose money in purchasing a new wastewater treatment system?  Many farmers feel the same way.  Negative media forms when a lagoon wastewater treatment system overflows from a hurricane, but you don’t want to spend a chunk of money to change your wastewater system in order to make the media think positively about your farming techniques when you have to lose money in the process. Well, The positive environmental benefits of a constructed wetland outweigh the initial monetary loss, because you can convert an already existing wastewater lagoon system into a vegetative sand bed.

Factory farming began at the end of World War II when a rapid increase in the population caused modern farming techniques to fall short in sustaining the population. CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations) are large, industrial operations that house thousands of food animals (hogs, cattle, chickens) in confined space. In an article by Constance and Bonanno (1999), they describe in a chart the “estimates of number of hogs produced annually by site, in 1997” (p.16) and clearly show how some farms are containing “15,000 to 400,000” (p. 16) hogs on one farm.  When there are this many animals kept on-site, a lot of waste consisting of  “nitrogen, phosphorus,..and suspended solids” (Marks, 2001, p.43) builds up.  In order to maintain waste, a lagoon system was incorporated. Lagoons are on-site with livestock housing buildings. Livestock waste goes through slits in the floor and flows through pipes outside into the lagoon. In a report, Robbin Marks (2001) states that lagoons “have a size as great as six to seven-and-a-half acres and can contain as much as 20 to 45 million gallons of wastewater” (p.3).  He describes an example “[i]n North Carolina, a facility of 2,500 swine may generate 26 million gallons of lagoon liquid, close to one million gallons of lagoon sludge, and 21 million gallons of slurry” (p.3).  Although these lagoon systems have worked in the past, there are some negatives associated with lagoon system overflow.

Most lagoon systems are located near water sources and when it rains, the lagoons overflow into nearby streams, damaging wildlife and water quality.  The three major components in the waste that cause the most harm are nitrogen, phosphorus, and sludge.  “Nutrient pollution fosters the growth of a type of algae known as Pfiesteria piscicida, which has been implicated in the death of more than one billion fish in coastal waters” (Marks, 2001, p.29). Pfiesteria piscicida causes sores on the bodies of fish, which in more cases than not, leads to death in many fish. In his article, David Holt (2008) paints a vivid picture of environmental impact when he states that “North Carolina was devastated by two hurricanes, leading to an environmental catastrophe due to flooding.

[S]cenes of overflowing hog lagoons…had a lasting impact on the public perception of the risks associated with CAFOs” (p.171). It’s for these reasons that the public and others are trying to change the current system, which in turn angers farmers who are constantly being pestered to change.  A constructed wetland can fix these problems and lead to better relations between groups with different opinions whether they are environmentalists, the public, or farmers.

Wetlands are naturally occurring ecosystems where “water covers the soil, or is present either at or near the surface of the soil all year or for varying periods of time during the year, including during the growing season” (Environmental Protection Agency, n.d., p.1). Wetlands include a variety of habitats: from acidic coniferous forests, to sedge and grass dominated wet meadows, from coastal salt marshes to river floodplains. A major similarity is that the soil is wet for most of the year and the vegetation is uniquely different compared to nearby upland habitats. Natural wetlands have many ecological functions, such as improving water quality through nutrient transformation, flood mitigation, acting as groundwater recharge points, and performing processes which are vital for the natural hydrologic regime. Constructed wetlands mimic the biological, chemical, and physical processes of natural wetlands and in some cases provide additional habitat for animals. “[B]ecause constructed wetland systems are designed specifically for wastewater treatment; they work more efficiently than natural wetlands” (Pipeline, 1998, p.1). Unlike natural wetlands where the hydrological regime varies in frequency and timing, constructed wetland’s “water level is usually maintained uniform throughout the year…” (Gopal, 1999, p. 29). Having a regulated flow, Cronk (1996) discusses the ability of chemical processes to be maximized:

In addition, slow water flow causes suspended solids to settle from the water column in wetlands. Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) is reduced by the settling of organic matter and through the decomposition of BOD causing substances. Besides solids and BOD, the most important constituents in animal wastewater are nitrogen and phosphorous and these can both be reduced in constructed wetlands if conditions are appropriate. (p.98)

Once suspended solids, excess nutrients, and BOD is reduced within the wetland, a high quality effluent is produced which can be directly deposited into a stream, or, the effluent can be re-circulated through the wetland for further treatment if pathogens exist. Although constructed wetlands are a relatively new technology to wastewater treatment, they “are under study as a best management practice to treat animal wastewater from dairy and swine operations” (Cronk, 1995, p. 97). Constructed wetlands are able to provide an alternative solution to conventional high-energy wastewater systems or environmentally unfriendly settling lagoons. However, like all systems, constructed wetlands have limitations and certain factors must be carefully considered.

Two types of constructed wetlands have been established for wastewater treatment purposes: free water surface flow and subsurface flow. Both systems require much more land than conventional systems. However, in farms, existing lagoons can potentially be converted into wetlands. According to Cronk (1995) “wastewater may receive primary solids separation in a settling basin and then it may flow into a lagoon and/or be land spread. Constructed wetlands could replace or be downstream from a lagoon and they could replace or precede land spreading” (p. 100).

Another limiting factor is the remaining sludge within the settling basin or drying bed. With respect to constructed wetlands, there are two options; according to Baillon-Dhumez, Bernstad, Gill, and Street (n.d.), reed “beds are constructed using a variety of methods depending upon the site conditions, or may even be converted using existing drying beds”(p. 2), or secondly, the sludge can be directly pumped into a newly constructed reed bed from the settling basin. The present method of dewatering sludge is using a filter press, but reed beds provide a much more efficient method of dewatering and will reduce the annual expense of disposal. “Compared to a typical filter press, a reed bed system will produce 1/6th the tonnage of dewatered sludge for disposal” (Baillon-Dhumez, Bernstad, Gill, and Street, n.d., p. 8).

Lastly, plants take time to grow. There is an initial start-up period before vegetation is established and optimal quality effluent is produced. “In some cases, two or more growing seasons may be needed before plants are established enough in the system to realize their full treatment potential” (Pipeline, 1998, p.4). Those being the cons for switching systems, there are more pros in which it’s evident that switching wastewater systems is more beneficial than harmful.

Constructed wetlands provide a relatively low cost, require little energy, look more aesthetically pleasing than current systems, and provide habitat for birds and other small animals. “The integrated constructed wetland approach to the management of livestock wastewater provides…a construction process of low relative cost requiring minimal complex management…” (Harrington, McInnes, 2009, p.5504) compared to conventional systems. To find the exact cost and size of a subsurface flow wetland, certain parameters are taken into consideration. Calculations concerning influent flow rate, detention time for contaminants, and what standards are desired for effluent quality can be found with the following equations:

1.  Q(t)= L2 (h)(f). Q is flow rate, t is detention time, L is length of wetland, h is height of wetland, and f is the porosity of soil (usually 0.35). Variations of this equation will give you the size of the wetland. 2. Ln(Co/Ct) = K(t). Co is the concentration of contaminants desired, Ct is total concentration of contaminants entering, K is a rate constant of bacteria dying and decaying, t is time. Variations of this equation give the rate at which bacteria grow, die, and decay, and the retention time of wastewater to get desired quality. Other monetary considerations include price of plants, soil media, and labor for construction. “For new beds, assuming satisfactory consideration, average costs for the design and installation of a reed bed system will be close to $10.00 to $12.00 per square foot” (Baillon-Dhumez, Bernstad, Gill, and Street, n.d., p. 2).

Compared to other treatment systems “operating costs are low because energy is not required to provide treatment” (Pipeline, 1998, p. 1). Rather than aerators, circulating tanks, and filtering presses, which can cost thousands of dollars to operate, wetlands provide the same functions with near zero energy demand.

Lastly, wetlands are aesthetically appealing to the public. Harrington and McInnes (2009) say that constructed wetlands are “landscape-fit to improve aesthetic site values and enhanced [the] biodiversity” (p. 5498). Rather than huge aerator tanks which have a potential for odors, wetlands conceal the odor within the soil media, especially in subsurface flow designs. Urban sprawl and unsustainable livestock management threaten biodiversity. “The restorations and enhancement of biodiversity is an essential component of intergraded constructed wetlands. This is achieved through intrinsic design, which aims to maximize the inherent species richness associated with freshwater wetlands” (Harrington, McInnes, 2009, p. 5501). Constructed wetlands are not only a great idea in theory, but also in practice.

Constructed wetlands have been put into effect to make lagoon systems more updated and efficient.  Marks (2001) states that “constructed wetlands have been used successfully…to further reduce concentration of nitrogen, phosphorus, biochemical oxygen demand, and suspended solids” (p.43).  This is further proof that constructed wetlands have been used and have worked. Wetland systems decrease contaminants and can accept high amounts of rainfall to account for flooding. This alternative is easy to associate into a farm, saves the farm more money in the long run, and can dissolve negative effects by pleasing not only the farmer, but nearby residents as well.

References

Baillon-Dhumez, A., Bernstad, A., Gill, N., & Street, S.I. (2010, October 12). Constructed Wetlands For Wastewater Treatment. Retrieved from http://www.chemeng.lth.se/vvan01/Arkiv/Wetlands%5B1%5D.pdf

Constance, D. H., & Bonanno, A. (1999). CAFO controversy in the Texas panhandle region: The environmental crisis of hog production. Culture & Agriculture, 21(1), 14–26. doi: 10.1525/cag.1999.21.1.14

Cronk, J. K. (1996).  Constructed wetlands to treat wastewater from dairy and swine operations: A review.  Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 58(2-3), 97-114. doi: 10.1016/0167-8809(96)01024-9

Environmental Protection Agency (n.d.). America’s Wetlands: Our Link Between Land and Water. Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. Retrieved November 2, 2010 from http://water.epa.gov/type/wetlands/toc.cfm

Gopal, B. (1999). Natural and constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment: Potentials and problems. Water Science and Technology, 40(3), 27-35. Harrington, R., & McInnes, R. (2009). Integrated constructed wetlands (ICW) for livestock wastewater management.  Bioresource Technology, 100(22), 5498-5505. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2009.06.007

Holt, D. M. (2008).  Unlikely allies against factory farms: animal rights advocates and environmentalists.  Agriculture and Human Values, 25(2), 169-171. doi: 10.1007/s10460-008-9122-4

Marks, R. (2001). Cesspools of shame: How factory farm lagoons threaten environmental and public health.  National Resource Defense Council and the Clean Water Act, 1-60.  Retrieved from http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/cesspools/cessinx.asp

Pipeline (1998, Summer). Constructed Wetlands: A Natural Treatment Alternative, 9(3).

Volland, C., Zupancic J., Chapelle J. (2003). Cost of remediation of nitrogen-contaminated soils under CAFO impoundments. Journal of Hazardous Substance Research, 4, 1-18.

Figure 1. Lighthawk. (2010). A CAFO with sewage lagoons. Retrieved from http://sierraclub.typepad.com/scrapbook/2010/09/family-farmer-kos-cafos.html?cid=6a00d83451b96069e20133f4908c1f970b

Figure 2. Marks, R. (2001). Pfiesteria sores on fish from a river in lagoon-flooded river. Retrieved from Cesspools of Shame report.

Figure 3. Marks, R. (2001). Hog CAFO overflow caused by Hurricane Floyd.  Retrieved from Cesspools of Shame report.

Figure 4. MedLibrary.org. (n.d.) Typical treatment plant via subsurface flow constructed wetland (SFCW) as shown here in a flow diagram. Retrieved November 29, 2010 From http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Sewage_treatment