Paddling While Impaired

Paddling While Impaired

For safety’s sake, I wish people would not mix boats and alcohol, but I’m writing about the other type of impairment that can get in way of having a fun and safe experience on Iowa’s lakes and rivers: water quality.  Every two years, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources takes stock of which lakes and rivers have water quality good enough to fully support recreation, fishing, drinking water supply, and other beneficial uses.  Those that don’t go on the Impaired Waters List.  The draft 2024 Impaired Waters List has been published and you can make public comment through April 12.

Kayaker with impaired waters message

Understanding the numbers

Most of the op-eds and news stories about the impaired waters list focus on the numbers.  There are 572 rivers and streams, 137 lakes, and 12 wetlands on the impaired list.  If you had forgotten that Iowa has water quality problems, here’s your biennial reminder!

This year, there are fewer impaired waters than in the 2022 cycle.  Much will be made of that, and will be much ado about nothing.  The Impaired Waters List is not very useful for evaluating water quality trends, because the number of waters assessed and the methodology used to assess them is always changing.  It’s also worth noting that the assessment period (2020-2022) included long stretches of drought, which means less runoff, so it’s possible that some of the 97 waters removed from the list will go back on the impaired list when we get some wetter weather.

Missing data

Not too long ago, the biggest category in the integrated report was waters not assessed.  This year, it has dropped to 49% of rivers, 44% of lakes, and 21% of wetlands.  We can claim a little bit of credit for this.  Eight stream segments formerly in the not assessed category were tested for E. coli as part of the Story County water monitoring program and are now in a category called Waters in Need of Further Investigation (WINOFI).  There’s a state law that prevents IDNR from using third-party data for regulatory decisions, but I still appreciate that they reached out and included our data in the report!

An example of Waters in Need of Further Investigation (WINOFI)
Seasonal E. coli averages for West Indian Creek, from our local monitoring program.

Finding clean waters

I’m most interested in which waters are impaired and why.  For rivers, the leading cause of impairment is E. coli bacteria, an indicator of fecal contamination and a proxy for other pathogens that could potentially make people sick if they swallow some water while recreating. 

I am sometimes asked where to go in Iowa to find clean water for paddling, swimming, floating in an inner tube, or just letting the kids splash and catch crayfish in the creek.  A map or list of impaired waters is not very helpful for this, because the waters that aren’t included might be clean, or they might not have been assessed.  So I made an interactive map, color-coded to show which lakes and rivers met or exceeded the primary and secondary contact recreation standards, in the last four recreational seasons.  Hopefully this a just a prototype for something even better and more comprehensive.

Interactive map of E. coli in Iowa

Improving Impaired Waters

We don’t want to just avoid the impaired waters, we want to know how to clean them up.  The Impaired Waters List is also a waiting list for a water quality improvement plan, or Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).  IDNR has studied swimming beaches at several lakes (including Hickory Grove Lake in Story County), and found that E. coli is highest in the wet sand at the beach, and lower in the lake and tributaries.  For these lakes, that suggests that the biggest sources of contamination are located at the beach, things like geese and diaper malfunctions.  For rivers impaired by E. coli, we don’t know the cause.  Many rivers have been waiting decades for a TMDL in a low priority tier, and a TMDL that was written in 2017 for the Iowa River seemed incomplete.

However, after attending the Raccoon River Watershed Association’s annual conference on March 9, I no longer feel like Iowa has given up on recreational water quality in rivers.  Robin Fortney shared reminiscences of many river trips.  Jon Wenck (IDNR) and Pat Boddy (ICON) talked about Iowa’s growing network of water trails.  It’s clear there are people who care about our rivers and see how they can benefit quality of life and economic development.  Claire Hruby (Drake University) shared some early results from microbial source tracking and microbial risk assessment research in Polk County.   With these approaches, can find out which pathogens are present in the water (not as many as we feared) and whether waste is coming from livestock, wildlife, or humans or a combination!

My contribution to the conference was a nuanced look at exactly how CAFOs (big feedlots) impact water quality.  I hope to share a video of the presentation and a report in our April newsletter.  There are far too many spills and leaking manure storage structures, and manure management plans don’t prevent over-application of nitrogen and phosphorus.  However, the claim that waste from factory farms is responsible for most of Iowa’s impaired waters is just not supported by the data.  Here is one figure from my presentation.  Notice that Iowa has many rivers with extremely high E. coli levels but fairly low livestock densities in the watershed.  To understand E. coli contamination, you have to consider not just the amount of feces produced, but how it likely it is that feces will reach the water before the bacteria die off.

Graph of E. coli vs livestock density in 58 Iowa watersheds

The Fine Print

If you explore the Impaired Waters List and the rest of the assessment database, you will likely run across some things that don’t make sense.  I share your frustration!  This pair of short videos from our “Clean Water Act: 50 Years, 50 Facts” series contrasts how Section 305(b) and 303(d) of the Clean Water Act should work in theory, and how it can go wrong in practice.  However, I continue to see improvements in the assessment database (ADBNet) and water quality database (AQuIA) and want to express my appreciation to IDNR for the data they collect and their efforts to be make it available to the public.

Thumbnail for Clean Water Act Fact 44
Thumbnail for Clean Water Act Fact 45
Green Stuff in the Skunk River

Green Stuff in the Skunk River

On Tuesday, March 12, residents on the north edge of Ames noticed that the South Skunk River was cloudy and had turned an unusual shade of bluish green.  By the time I looked at it on the afternoon of March 13, the color had faded and the water was less cloudy, but it still had a soupy, streaked appearance that I’ve seen before in lakes following a toxic algae bloom.  I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say it’s blue-green algae (cyanobacteria).

Cyanobacteria bloom in the South Skunk River
Cyanobacteria bloom, showing paint-like streaks.
Cyanobacteria bloom in the South Skunk River.

“Algae” is a word that gets lazily applied to any living thing that does photosynthesis but that isn’t a plant: from tiny glittering diatoms in a drop of pond water to giant kelp in the oceans.  The other kind that I noticed in the South Skunk River this week is filamentous green algae, which forms slimy hair-like strands on rocks and globs on the water’s surface.  Color is the least of the differences.

Cyanobacteria are tiny and simple.  There’s strong evidence that the chloroplasts in the cells of plants and green algae are the captured descendants of cyanobacteria. This amazing phenonemon is called endosymbiosis, and it’s happened multiple times in the history of life on earth.  If you’ve never heard of it, I’d recommend this YouTube video, which explains the concept with cartoons.

The practical reason to know if the green stuff in the water is cyanobacteria is because they can produce toxins.  I wasn’t able to get a sample tested for microcystin (and chances are, this algae bloom will have dispersed by the time you read this), but I would recommend keeping your dog out of water that looks like paint or pea soup, to be on the safe side.

Green algae in the South Skunk River (Rick Dietz)
A simple guide for green stuff in the water.

Why is the water so green, so early?  Algae growth is limited by the availability of light, heat, and fertilizer–phosphorus in freshwater, and to a lesser extent nitrogen.  We’re getting unseasonably warm weather before there’s any leaves on the trees to shade the water.  As for the fertilizer, I’m not sure where it came from, or when.  Rick Dietz and I tested nitrate and phosphate with field kits on Wednesday and measured 0 mg/L.  Nitrate and phosphorus levels were also fairly low at this site when we collect grab samples in February.  Maybe something was washed into the river earlier in the week, but it has since been used up by the algae or has washed downstream.  I’ll amend this article if I find out something conclusive.

Metrics from the 2023 monitoring season

Metrics from the 2023 monitoring season

Amelia Whitener leads a water monitoring demonstration at a trash cleanup event.

Monitoring a stream once or twice a month is a big commitment, but our locally-led water monitoring program (which started in Story County but has expanded to Hamilton County) has no shortage of committed volunteers!  The following metrics show the continued growth of the program in size and consistency. 

Also, let’s give a shoutout to the people who work behind the scenes to make it happen!  Sara Carmichael of Story County Conservation keeps everyone on track and equipped with supplies.  Heather Wilson of the Izaak Walton League of America helps train volunteers and has been leading up the new Nitrate Watch initiative.  We rely on the IWLA’s  Save Our Streams program for training materials and the Clean Water Hub for data entry.  In addition to volunteer monitoring, Maryann Ryan and her team at the City of Ames Laboratory Services Division process weekly samples from 3 sites and monthly samples from 15 sites.

2022 Season

Volunteers participating

Sites tested at least once

Sites tested at least 20 times

Data sheets entered in the Clean Water Hub

2023 Season

Volunteers participating

Sites tested at least once

Sites tested at least 20 times

Data sheets entered in the Clean Water Hub

In March, Prairie Rivers will release a report detailing the findings.  Here are a few preliminary numbers that give a sense of how 2023 stacks up to the previous year.  

2022 Season

Weeks in Drought

E. coli (geomean) at best site

E. coli (geomean) at worst site

%

"Poor" readings in Clean Water Hub

2023 Season

Weeks in drought

E. coli (geomean) at best site

E. coli (geomean) at worst site

%

"Poor" readings in Clean Water Hub

Drought continues to limit where we have flowing water.  Sometimes, most of the water in a creek is coming from sewage treatment plants, which are able to remove some pollutants but not others.  E. coli bacteria (an indicator of fecal contamination) continues to be high in most waters, likely coming from multiple sources.  Looking at E. coli averages (geometric means) for the 2023 recreation season,  two swimming beaches in the county met the primary contact recreation standard (126 colonies/100mL) but only 1 of 14 streams with enough data to evaluate did, and three exceeded the secondary contact recreation standard (630 colonies/100mL).   Due to restrictive state laws about “credible data”, these sites might appear on a list of “Waters in Need of Further Investigation” but won’t be counted on the 2024 Impaired Waters List.

We continue to work with partners locally and around the state on ways to interpret water quality data and make it more accessible.

Can Infrastructure Spending Help Iowa’s Polluted Rivers?

Can Infrastructure Spending Help Iowa’s Polluted Rivers?

The display department for the plans.  If you've read Douglas Adams, you'll appreciate the joke.

“But look, you found the notice didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard.”

 

– Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy 

I was reminded of this scene after spending a long day cross-referencing the Raccoon River TMDL (a pollution budget for nitrate and E. coli) with permits and monitoring data for wastewater treatment plants.  In this case, I suspected that polluters were getting away with something, but I’ve had just as much trouble finding information when I wanted to document a success story.

Effluent limits for nitrogen are not strict.  Wastewater treatment plants and meatpacking plants in the Raccoon River watershed routinely discharge treated wastewater with nitrate 4-6x the drinking water standard.  Why is this allowed?  The 2008 Raccoon River TMDL capped pollution from point sources at the existing level, rather than calling for reductions.  Due to limited data, the wasteload allocations were an over-estimate, assuming maximum flow and no removal during treatment. 

Water Treatment

That’s all above board, but someone else at the DNR went a step further.  Wasteload allocations in the TMDL were further inflated by a factor of two or three to arrive at effluent limits in the permits, using a procedure justified in an obscure interdepartmental memo.  The limits are expressed as total Kjeldahl nitrogen, even though the authors of the TMDL made it clear that other forms of nitrogen are readily converted to nitrate during treatment and in the river.   In short, the limits in the permit allow more nitrogen to be discharged than normally comes in with the raw sewage!

For example:

  • The Storm Lake sewage treatment plant has an effluent limit of 2,052 lbs/day total Kjeldahl nitrogen (30-day avg).  Total Kjeldahl nitrogen in the raw sewage is around 1000 lbs/day.
  • The Tyson meatpacking plant in Storm Lake has an effluent limit of 6,194 lbs/day total Kjeldahl nitrogen (30-day avg).  Total Kjeldahl nitrogen in the raw influent is around 4,000 lbs/day.
  • I also checked a permit affected by the (now withdrawn) Cedar River TMDL.  Same story.  The Cedar Falls sewage treatment plant has an effluent limit of 1,303 lbs/day total nitrogen (30-day avg).  Average total nitrogen in the raw sewage is between 1000-1500 lbs/day.
  • Confused about the units?  That may be deliberate.  Total Kjeldahl nitrogen includes ammonia and nitrogen in organic matter.  Nitrogen in raw sewage is mostly in these forms, which need to converted to nitrate or removed with the sludge in order to meet other limits and avoid killing fish.  Nitrogen in treated effluent is mostly in the form of nitrate.  At the Tyson plant, the effluent leaving the plant has around 78 mg/L nitrate, versus 4 mg/L TKN, but figuring that out required several calculations.  At smaller plants, the data to calculate nitrate pollution isn’t even collected.

As part of the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy, large point source polluters are supposed to evaluate the feasibility of reducing nitrate to 10 mg/L, and phosphorus to 1 mg/L.  Tyson did a feasibility study for phosphorus removal, and is now adding new treatment to its Storm Lake plant.  However, it is not required to evaluate or implement further nitrogen reduction, “because it is already subject to a technology-based limit from the ELG.”  This federal Effluent Limitation Guideline was challenged in court by environmental groups this year, and is now being revised by the EPA.  It allows meatpacking plants to discharge a daily maximum of 194 mg/L total nitrogen!

Fortunately, all this creative permitting has little impact on the cost and safety of drinking water in the Des Moines metro.  According to research in the TMDL, point sources only account for about 10% of the nitrogen load, on days when nitrate in the Raccoon River exceeds the drinking water standard.  However, the figure is much higher (30%) for the North Raccoon River.  I started looking at permits and effluent monitoring because I was trying to explain some unusual data from nitrate sensors, brought to my attention by friends with the Raccoon River Watershed Association.  During a fall with very little rain (less than 0.04 inches in November at Storm Lake), nitrate in the North Raccoon River near Sac City remained very high (8 to 11 mg/L).  The two largest point sources upstream of that site can easily account for half the nitrogen load during that period.

Figure from Raccoon River TMDL

I was glad to be able to solve a mystery, and hope that this investigation can lead to some tools and teaching materials to help others identify when and where point sources could be influencing rivers.   The load-duration curves in the 200-page Raccoon River TMDL are very good, but some people might benefit from something simpler, like this table.  In general, the bigger the facility, the smaller the river, and the drier the weather, the more point sources of pollution can influence water quality, and the more wastewater treatment projects can make a difference. 

Spreadsheet for estimating impact of wastewater.

I made this table to estimate how biological nutrient removal in Nevada and Oskaloosa (about 1 MGD each) could improve water quality in the South Skunk River (about 1000 cfs on average near Oskaloosa, but there could be greater benefit in tributaries, or when rivers are lower).

Dan Haug standing by Raccoon River

In this work, I’m supported by partners around the state and a grant from the Water Foundation.  The project (Movement Infrastructure for Clean Water in Iowa) focuses on building connections and shared tools around water monitoring, and will continue through this spring and summer.  The funders’ interest is in helping the environmental movement make the most of the “once-in-generation opportunity” presented by the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.  This fiscal year, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is adding $28 million to Iowa’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which provides low-interest loans to communities to replace aging sewer systems and treatment plants.  Can that infrastructure spending help Iowa’s polluted rivers?  We won’t know for sure without better use of water quality data, and greater transparency in state government.

Five Stages of Watershed Awareness

Five Stages of Watershed Awareness

October is Watershed Awareness Month, by proclamation of Story County Conservation Board and city councils in Ames, Nevada, and Gilbert. Okay, so what exactly do we want people to be aware of? I would suggest the following progression…

Stage 1 of watershed awareness

Stage 1: What’s a watershed?  Who cares?

A watershed is the land area that drains to a common outlet. Imagine a river valley between two mountain ridges. Now replace that mental image with gentle hills–we’re in Iowa. But more important than knowing the definition is understanding why it’s important: because water flows downhill, actions on land can have consequences for downstream water bodies.

Perhaps the best illustration of this principle is an incident from 2020. Following a power outage, some Hy-Vee employees in Ankeny poured 800 gallons of spoiled milk down a storm sewer, turning the nearby creek white, killing 2,000 fish, and costing their employer almost $25,000 in fines and restitution. The silver lining of this boneheaded decision was that it made the news and reminded many Iowans that yes, storm sewers drain to rivers (usually without any treatment) and so we should think twice about what we pour or let wash in. The same principle applies to ditches, gullies, and drainage tiles.

Want a more positive framing? Watch this one-minute video we created with the City of Ames about the South Skunk River, and how cities and farms in the watershed can make a difference.

Stage 2 of watershed awareness.

 Stage 2: What’s my watershed(s)?

It’s one thing to know that my actions could (in principle) help or harm some downstream water body. It’s another thing to know that what goes down my neighborhood storm drain ends up in Ioway Creek at Brookside Park, a place where I’ve taken my kids to play. In 2018, we partnered with Story County Conservation to put up watershed and creek signs, in hopes that more people make those kinds of connections.

Creeks flow to rivers and rivers flow to the sea (except in endorheic basins) so we live in multiple, nested watersheds.  A convenient way to represent this is with the US Geologic Survey’s Watershed Boundary Dataset, which has mapped American watersheds at six levels and assigned them each a unique hydrologic unit code (HUC).  You can look up your “watershed address” with our interactive map.  For example, that grocery store in Ankeny is in the lower Fourmile Creek watershed, within the watershed of Red Rock Lake, within the watershed of the Des Moines River, and within the upper part of the giant Mississippi River basin.

Watershed awareness, stage 3

Stage 3: Who are the other people in my watershed?

One reason to learn which watershed you live in is to connect with other people who are concerned with flooding, water quality, fisheries, and recreation.

Twenty-eight watersheds in Iowa have a Watershed Management Authority with representatives from local governments in the watershed (cities, counties, and soil and water conservation districts) who might collaborate on water quality or flood control projects.  Fourmile Creek WMA is one of the more active WMAs; its member jurisdictions pooled money to hire a watershed coordinator who can work with farmers and landowners.  In some watersheds, farmers and landowners have access to additional cost-share programs or receive higher priority when they apply.

In some watersheds, a volunteer group, land trust, or other non-profit organization organizes projects to protect the water or raise public awareness.  For example, the lake at Ada Hayden Heritage Park in Ames has a friends group, while the Raccoon River has a volunteer Watershed Association in addition to three WMAs.

Caveat

Unfortunately, I’m not aware of any central clearing house where one can find out what groups and projects are active in your watershed. I’m also not aware of any plans by state leaders to provide WMAs with stable funding or to delegate to them any powers that would help them accomplish their tasks. Watershed projects tend to be grant-funded (and thus short-lived) and watershed coordinator jobs often have high turnover.

Stage 4 of watershed awareness

Stage 4: What are the issues in my watershed?

Some watersheds have management plans (like this one for Fourmile Creek) that identify creek- or lake-specific problems and solutions. However, in many cases, the data needed to evaluate a problem and track progress toward solutions is missing until volunteers, universities or local government step up to do monitoring.

Knowing which issues go with which watershed can help us prioritize and find solutions.

  • Not every stream has the right conditions to support a trout fishery (like Bloody Run in Clayton County).
  • Not every stream has a history of destructive floods (like Fourmile Creek in Polk County).
  • Not every lake or reservoir has suffered from toxic algae blooms (like Brushy Creek Lake in Webster County).
  • Not every river is deep enough and has access for canoeing (like the South Skunk River in Story County).
  • Not every river affects the supply and safety of drinking water for thousands of people (like the Raccoon and Cedar rivers).
Stage 5 of watershed awareness

Stage 5: How big are the problems and solutions in my watershed?

The most difficult thing to understand about a watershed is the scale.  It helps to have some familiar reference points.  Here are some of mine.  (I’ve used an app that makes it easy to delineate a watershed for any point of interest.  The area is rounded to the nearest 100 acres.)

  • 1,000 acres: Creek at Tedeco Environmental Learning Corridor, Ames.
  • 5,900 acres: Peas Creek at the Ledges State Park.

At the HUC12 scale, most creeks are too wide to jump across, but shallow enough to wade.  Watersheds are small enough to fit in one county.

  • 14,100 acres: Walnut Creek at Neil Smith National Wildlife Refuge
  • 24,000 acres: Bloody Run at Marquette.
  • 56,800 acres: Fourmile Creek at Sargent Park in Des Moines.

At the HUC10 scale, it might be called a creek, but it often has enough water to float a canoe, and watersheds usually cross a few county and city lines.

  • 132,700 acres: Ioway Creek at Brookside Park in Ames.
  • 173,500 acres: Maquoketa River at Manchester.
  • 209,300 acres: South Skunk River at River Valley Park in Ames.
  • 356,100 acres: Rathbun Lake

At the HUC8 scale and beyond, the rivers are big and the watershed meetings can involve many jurisdictions and long drives.

  • 586,400 acres: Floyd River at Sioux City
  • 1,285,200 acres: North Raccoon River at Squirrel Hollow Park in Jefferson
  • 2,306,200 acres: Racoon River at Waterworks Park, Des Moines
  • 3,733,300 acres: Des Moines River at Saylorville Reservoir
  • 97,191,700 acres: Mississippi River at Dubuque

For each of these watersheds, you’d need to plant about a third of the cropland to cover crops to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus in the stream by 10%.  Most watershed plans will include more ambitious long-term goals and more complicated scenarios to achieve them, but this is a handy benchmark for thinking about the scale of change needed.  Reaching the 1/3 mark for cover crops in a watershed would be good progress toward our 45% nutrient reduction goals and could produce a big enough improvement in water quality in the stream that we could conceivably measure it, though maybe not with test strips (i.e. from 10 to 9 mg/L of nitrate, from 0.40 to 0.36 mg/L of total phosphorus).

I don’t mean to discourage anyone, but I’m not aware of any watershed project in Iowa that has achieved success on this scale.