Category: The Center

The pressing threat of HABs has led to increased research activity across many governmental and non-governmental programs, including the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) Water Resources Mission Area. The Water Resources Research Act of 1964 created
a national network of Water Resources Research Institutes (WRRI), administered by USGS. In 2017, nine WRRIs in the Upper Mississippi River Basin aligned their research focus on HABs with the intent to gain, share, and synthesize knowledge on HABs in order to develop a regional product.

In 2018, with the support from the North Central Region Water Network (NCRWN), this regional coordination initiative led to the formation of a twelve-state team partnering WRRIs and Cooperative Extension to assess current HABs outreach and education efforts and establish uniform recommendations for the North Central Region. Cooperative Extension, also a part of the Land-Grant University System, is often on the front lines of communication research-based information to stakeholders. Using HABs as the focal issue, this team sought to inventory current WRRI-sponsored HABs research, inventory and identify gaps in Extension HABs publications and outreach efforts, and bring Extension and WRRIs together to assess programming needs.

After completing these inventories, the partnership identified five key topic areas in which to develop messaging for outreach materials:

• General HABs Knowledge. There is a need across the region to provide basic information on HABs. The products developed with this messaging are a “one-stop shop” for high-level HABs information. For states that are lacking in resources or public demand to provide more in-depth HABs information on specific topics, these products provide a base-level introduction to HABs.
• Identifying, Monitoring, and Treating HABs. Identifying, monitoring, and treating HABs are the logical next step for those in regions experiencing HABs. Those that see algal blooms will wonder if they are harmful algae or nuisance algae; water professionals and citizen groups like watershed coalitions and lake associations will be interested to know how they can control them. There are many resources that exist outside of Extension for identifying, monitoring, and treating HABs, particularly those offered by the Environmental Protection Agency and state agencies (who typically house a monitoring program for HABs or beach closures). Extension products can provide information specific to identifying, monitoring, and treating HABs that then refer people to these additional resources.
• Human Health and HABs. Both humans and domestic animals can come into contact with HABs, either through drinking contaminated water, eating fish, or recreating in lakes and rivers. Ingesting toxins produced by some HABs can lead to neurological problems, including respiratory distress and convulsions (neurotoxins), and gastrointestinal illnesses, liver, and kidney diseases (hepatotoxins). Contact with the skin (dermatoxins) can cause rashes and skin irritation. In addition to these acute effects, the effects of chronic exposure to cyanotoxins are difficult to study and not well understood. Human health concerns may be a key entry point for raising concern among many populations and policymakers.
• Animal Health and HABs. In some states, like North Dakota and Missouri, the primary public concern regarding HABs resulted from pet and livestock deaths from drinking or coming into contact with algal toxins. While humans might attribute their symptoms to other common illnesses, animals that ingest toxins may suffer sudden death from acute toxicity, placing more importance on preventing animals from coming into contact with blooms.
• Landscape Nutrient Management Practices and HABs. Human-derived sources of nutrients are a primary contributor to the development of HABs in aquatic ecosystems. Agricultural, or non-point source systems, are inherently leaky systems, and their impacts on aquatic systems are increased by climate change. Forecasting how nutrients leave the landscape is a challenge because of the unpredictability of weather conditions. However, the use of nutrient management practices can minimize nutrient loss from agricultural systems and benefit farmers and those downstream. Nutrient management practices that address both nitrogen and phosphorus losses are a primary prevention strategy for HABs.

 

Partnership members self-selected into sub-groups to develop key messaging for each of three audiences: the general public (any person who might encounter HABs); the engaged citizen (individuals interested in taking action with HABs knowledge learned); and water professionals (those actively working in professions that may deal with the prevention, identification, treatment, or monitoring of HABs). Additionally, the team made recommendations for products to develop for use in Extension and outreach programming. For this list, as well as the comprehensive package of key messaging, please refer to the white paper available at https://northcentralwater.org/files/2019/11/HAB-11-22-2019. pdf.

This comprehensive and partnered approach to tackling one of the region’s most pressing water issues is a good start to building a culture of collaboration among the major players in water research and education. It is important to engage with the diverse breadth of interested parties: soil and water conservation district staff, agricultural and environmental engineers, local watershed groups, county conservation boards, municipal and county staff, farmers and ranchers, neighborhood associations, and citizen scientists, to name a few. Partnering to solve water resource issues in our states is the best path forward.

Melissa Miller

Former Associate Director for the Iowa Water Center

Two common planting methods used by Native American gardeners, noted throughout archeological literature of the early twentieth century, include garden ridges and corn hills (Delabarre and Wilder, 1920; Figure 1). Corn hills are small rounded humps of soil that typically measured around eight inches high and up to 4 feet across. Depending on the community that was using them, early archeologists state that they might either be oriented in an organized fashion or haphazardly (Delabarre and Wilder, 1920). Garden ridges are tubular shaped, often found beside one another, creating a field of ridges. Sometimes these ridged fields were broken up by corn hills interspaced within them (Sasso, 2003). Some of these ancient ridged field sites spanned over 100 acres (Fowler, 1969).

Annual soil amendments to the garden ridges and corn hills were used to enhance soil fertility; this is important as these cropping areas were used multiple years in a row (Delabarre and Wilder, 1920). Native farmers used various soil amendments to build soil health, including river muck (Hurt, 1987), the use of fallow periods (Caduto, 1996), mulches (Wilken, 1972), and dead fish (Delabarre and Wilder, 1920). Native farmers’ use of biodiverse cropping systems, such as growing corn, squash, and beans (colloquially known as the three sisters) in the same space at the same time, also allowed for a highly productive agronomic system (Monaghan et al., 2014; Mt. Pleasant, 2011)

What Can We Learn?

Currently, in the Midwestern United States, corn (Zea mays) is king. However, this large grain crop has had an intimate relationship with humans for over 6,000 years (Piperno and Flannery, 2001). By harnessing its productive capacity, and that of soybean (Glycine max.), through crop breeding (new genetics) and management practices, we have made much progress with increasing yields. However, this progress has come with major problems with soil and water quality.

We now face soil erosion rates that are ten times or greater what would ‘naturally’ occur (Montgomery, 2007), soil organic matter levels that are on average 50% less than before cultivation (Gebhart et al., 1994; Guo and Gifford, 2002), and severely impaired local and downstream water quality (Rabalais et al., 2001; Sharpley et al., 1994; Turner and Rabalais, 2003). Where did we go wrong? Traditional ecological knowledge is emerging as a new concept that crosscuts across multiple disciplines – like anthropology and agronomy. Recent studies on TEK have shown its importance to informing modern, mainstream science. Some of these studies highlight the hubris of modern, mainstream science by showing that modern scientists sometimes “discover” something that has been known for centuries (Nicholas, 2018). But TEK shows potential for informing modern ecological or agricultural knowledge (Bonta et al., 2017; Bowman et al., 2015; Mantyka- Pringle et al., 2017).

At Iowa State University, our lab researches how to reduce nitrate leaching and denitrification to nitrous oxide gas. We are particularly interested in how topography plays a role in both processes. In north-central Iowa, the topography
of the Des Moines Lobe is dominated by former depressional wetlands, commonly referred to as potholes. Despite extensive attempts to drain potholes to prevent their flooding and allow crops to be cultivated, the potholes still flood in wet years and generally have higher soil moisture than the surrounding uplands (Logsdon, 2015). As water is required for leaching and is expected to promote denitrification by limiting oxygen availability, we wanted to investigate if potholes had higher rates of both.

To answer these questions, we installed lysimeters in a line from the center of
a pothole to the surrounding uplands (Figure 2). Each lysimeter diverted soil water as it flowed through the soil to a collection container (Figure 1). After each precipitation event, we measured the volume of water and the concentration of nitrate and other forms of nitrogen in the diverted water to quantify how much nitrogen was leached. Our results suggest higher rates of leaching in potholes than in the surrounding uplands (N. Lawrence, unpublished). Thanks to a grant from the Iowa Water Center, we were also able to quantify total denitrification across the pothole through a cutting-edge isotopic technique. Our results indicate that the potholes support only slightly higher rates of denitrification than the surrounding uplands. Collectively, these results suggest that potholes are a source of nitrate leaching to downstream ecosystems and are poorly effective at removing nitrogen through denitrification.

Currently, Dr. Keiser’s research interests are in environmental and natural resource economics, mostly focusing on the economics of water quality policies. “These policies include legislation such as the Clean Water Act that governs surface waters – lakes, rivers, streams – and the Safe Drinking Water Act that governs drinking water quality,” he says. Dr. Keiser cites his interest in nature and love for outdoor recreation – such as swimming, fishing, and boating – as well as his enjoyment of math-based problem solving and statistics, as the reasons behind his research interests. “Economics utilizes a lot of quantitative tools to help society figure out how
best to allocate scarce resources, such as government funds. The combination of my interests in economics and the environment were a perfect fit,” he says.

Tile drains are commonly installed on poorly drained soil, lowering the water table to improve crop yields. Drainage water often contains elevated concentrations of soluble nutrients, including nitrate. The 17.4 million acres of drained land in the Midwest act as the largest source of nitrogen to the Gulf of Mexico, contributing to an annual Hypoxic Zone. Hypoxia is caused in the Gulf of Mexico from excess nitrogen and phosphorus contributing to algal blooms and the subsequent depletion of oxygen from algal decomposition. Each state in the Mississippi River Basin has implemented a nutrient reduction strategy to reduce the size of the Hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Iowa is one of the largest nutrient contributors to the Gulf and was the first state to implement a nutrient reduction strategy. Iowa’s strategy uses both in-field and edge-of- field conservation practices to reduce nutrient losses from Iowa. One of these edge-of-field practices redesigns traditional riparian buffers to also remove nitrogen from tile drainage. Referred to as saturated riparian buffers (SRBs), nitrate is removed from tile water by rerouting the water back into the buffer before it reaches the stream.

“Nobody would put any money into their homes, and you couldn’t blame them for the simple fact that the water would ruin everything,” said Cletus Cashman, 90-year-old lifelong Dubuque resident and participant of the Bee Branch Healthy Homes (BBHH) Resiliency Program.

In 1999, the City hired a consultant to study the nature of the flash flooding. The study, called the Drainage Basin Master Plan, determined that approximately 1,150 homes and businesses were at risk of flood damage. It also recommended major infrastructure projects to eliminate risk from flood damage. In 2003, the city began working on a multi-phased, watershed- wide approach to protect its residents.

Since then, millions have been invested to slow the rate of stormwater, reduce the amount of stormwater runoff, and safely channel stormwater through the city’s North End neighborhood. Several strategies have been used including retention basins, permeable pavement systems, storm sewer capacity improvements, and daylighting one-mile of the Bee Branch Creek and its associated floodplain.

Helping watershed residents living with residual issues from flooding was the city’s top priority when applying for Community Development Block Grant – National Disaster Resilience Competition (CDBG-NDR) funds in 2014 and 2015. The grant team made the strategic move to incorporate repairs and renovations to homes in addition to public infrastructure improvements.

The application was successful, and in 2016 the State of Iowa was awarded $96 million to make flood improvements in nine watersheds as part of the Iowa Watershed Approach including Dubuque’s Bee Branch Watershed. The City received $23 million for infrastructure improvements and $8.4 million for the Bee Branch Healthy Homes Resiliency Program.

Dubuque’s approach includes right sizing public infrastructure, repairing
and renovating homes to reduce water intrusion and address damage, and family advocacy support. This triangle represents a comprehensive plan to simultaneously improve neighborhood, structural, and social resilience. Knowing this innovative approach could serve as a replicable model for other communities, the city has captured data throughout the program.

To date, BBHH has helped 200 families address water intrusion and prepare for future rain events. On average, improvements range between $10,000 – $28,000 depending on project scope and property type. The program is available to owner-occupied homes, single-unit rentals, and multi-family residential units that are located in the eligibility area and meet income requirements established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

 

Every participating household is required to visit with a BBHH advocate. They talk about any barriers or challenges the family is facing. These self-identified challenges are sorted into five categories: health, education, financial, social, and built environment. Classifying the challenges has helped evaluate gaps in services throughout the community. Disaggregating the data by subgroups such as race/ethnicity and tenant versus owner-occupied has been integral in understanding that subgroups experience different challenges and require different approaches in order to create positive outcomes.

 

There have been several lessons learned throughout the program. Property drainage is critical. This includes soil modifications and effective gutter and downspout systems. Keeping water away from the home is more important
than any other modification. Once inside the home, raising furnaces and water heaters off the floor as little as six to eight inches can save them from flood damage. Dehumidification with permanent high-power vent fans, sump pumps, and tuck pointing have been equally common modifications to create a drier and healthier home.

What happens upstream effects downstream. This is equally as true in urban watersheds as it is for our rural neighbors. This can be applied at all levels – from stormwater management in our streets to a home gutter system dumping water directly on an adjacent property. Part of being a good neighbor is looking at how your home impacts others. It also means checking on your neighbors during flash flood events to make sure they are safe. Hearing that neighbors are talking to each other because of the program is the greatest compliment the city can receive. Relationships among neighbors and structural improvements to both public and private infrastructure is creating greater neighborhood resilience, and the city couldn’t be more proud to tell that story.

 

Sharon Gaul

Grants Project Manager
City of Dubuque

Rural sociologists and other social scientists have been studying farmer behavior since the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s. One of the most important findings from this research has been that farmers are an incredibly diverse group of people with a wide array of beliefs, motivations, attitudes, values, and social norms that influence their behavior in very complex ways. This means that there is no singular strategy that natural resource professionals and policy makers are able to use to help encourage farmers to adopt conservation practices on their land. That being said, two recent projects led by researchers at Iowa State University and Purdue University analyzing decades of research studies have identified a number of factors that have most consistently been found to have an influence on adoption.

These meta-analysis research papers found that in general, farmers with larger farm sizes and income, farmers with higher levels of formal education, younger farmers, and those with farmland more vulnerable to erosion were more likely to adopt conservation practices. Additionally, farmers that identify with an environmental stewardship ethic, those who actively seek information about conservation practices, those who have previously adopted a practice, and those who have influential conservationist farmer leaders within their communities are more likely to adopt conservation practices.

Cost-share programs provided by state and federal agencies that help farmers pay for part of the cost of conservation practices have a positive influence on adoption. However, farmer awareness of these programs, as well as having positive attitudes about the programs themselves and the practices they pay for, are key to the amount of influence these programs have. Farmers who interact with natural resource professionals through conservation networks and programs are also more likely to adopt conservation practices. My own research has found a correlation between how often a farmer visits their local USDA office for conservation assistance and the likelihood that they will adopt certain conservation practices.

When considering the factors that influence farmers’ decisions, it is crucial to understand that farming is an enterprise that involves very high risks, and farmers often operate on extremely thin profit margins. The ISU and Purdue research teams identified several common barriers associated with risk that have a negative influence on adoption of conservation practices. The financial cost of practices, perceived reduction in crop yields, practice compatibility with existing farming practices, market fluctuations in crop prices, distrust of community or government agencies, neighbors’ lack of success with practices, complicated program application processes, and farmer uncertainty about potential practices can all decrease the likelihood that a farmer will adopt conservation practices.

Based on these findings, the authors of the two meta-studies also included several recommendations for natural resource professionals who work with farmers. Identifying and collaborating with farmer leaders in rural communities to facilitate conservation social norms through workshops and field days can be highly influential on other farmers. Increasing awareness by educating farmers about the benefits and potential risks, as well as how conservation practices can reduce risk, decreases uncertainty and can therefore increase adoption. Assisting farmers with cost- share programs helps offset financial risks, and accentuating other farmers’ positive experiences with adoption can be especially effective. Finally, one of the most important factors that influences farmers to adopt conservation is facilitating the development of long-term relationships and opportunities for knowledge transfer between natural resource professionals and farmers and between farmers themselves!

 

Chris Morris

Graduate Research Assistant Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Sociology, Iowa State University