Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 123

Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Program

A View From the Lake

Jesse Schomberg

University of Minnesota Sea Grant Program

Project Partners:

Cindy Hagley, MN Sea Grant

Sue O’Halloran, University of Wisconsin Extension

March 31, 2007

Project No. 306-05-07

Contract No. A78752

This project was funded in part under the Coastal Zone


Management Act, by NOAA’s Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management, in cooperation with Minnesota’s Lake
Superior Coastal Program.
Introduction
According to the 2004 report “North Shore Survey and Policy Response: A
Comprehensive Analysis” by the Arrowhead Regional Development
Commission, residents along the north shore are very concerned about
water quality issues and want to protect water quality along the shore.
The need for outreach education in land use and water quality has been
stated as an important implementation tool in the Lakewide Management
Plan (Lake Superior Binational Program, 2000) and the Lake Superior
Basin Plan (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2003). The Coastal
Program Enhancement Study (Minnesota's Lake Superior Coastal Program,
2001) also recognizes the threat of cumulative impacts of development,
and calls for support of education, the use of GIS, planning efforts, and
public participation to help local governments manage development
appropriately.

“A View From the Lake” was designed to bring watershed and nonpoint
pollution education directly to Lake Superior coastal communities
through presentations, displays, activities, and hands-on water quality
analysis while on Lake Superior aboard the L.L. Smith, Jr. Research Vessel
(R/V). The goals of the project were to increase the knowledge and
understanding among residents and local government officials about the
Lake Superior Ecosystem, watershed processes, and the relationships
between land use and water quality, with ideas and solutions that can be
used on their properties or in their local communities.
“A View From the Lake” (VFL) is a project of Northland NEMO, a joint
Minnesota-Wisconsin educational program for land use decisionmakers
that addresses the relationship between land use and water resource
protection. The VFL project is led by educators from Minnesota Sea Grant
and the University of Wisconsin Extension, and is bi-state, working in
Minnesota and Wisconsin. The project started in 2004, and the 3rd
season was completed under this grant during the summer of 2006.

At the heart of VFL is bringing coastal residents and decisionmakers out


onto Lake Superior, and giving them a view of their community from the
water. We then use the view as a context to discuss issues of ecology,
water quality, stormwater runoff, pollution, development, land use, and
best management practices. Each year of the program the content varies,
but certain elements are covered every year:
What is a watershed, and why is it important?
What are the effects of stormwater runoff?
What can you and your community do to protect water quality?
In 2004, we focused on general stormwater and non-point pollution
impacts to local streams. During the 2005 season, the focus was on the
nearshore areas of Lake Superior, the importance of coastal wetlands,
and how community development patters can affect these resources. In
2006, the focus shifted to broader issues of climate change, mercury,
and stormwater. We discussed the science behind climate change
predictions, outlined the expected changes to the Lake Superior region,
and made the connections to water quality issues. For mercury, we
outlined the reasons it’s a significant problem for our area, sources of
mercury, and the environmental conditions required for methylmercury
generation. From this, we connected mercury to climate change through
the increased duration of the summer stratification period in lakes and
the potential for greater methylmercury production. Stormwater issues of
increased volume and velocity leading to bank destabilization and
erosion, and elevated stream temperatures were discussed, as these
impacts are expected to be exacerbated by climate change. As always,
we also discussed options that communities and individuals can pursue
to reduce or mitigate the impacts.
Each year of the project, participants were asked to fill out an evaluation
of the trip, including questions on if the information would help them
make changes. Repeat participants were asked if they did anything or
made any changed based on the previous year’s trip, allowing us to
follow up on the impacts of the project.

Work Completed
For the 2006 VFL trips, we developed new materials for use during the
trips. A powerpoint presentation was created that we presented to the
participants prior to boarding the vessel. A series of 5 posters were
created for use on the vessel on the following topics:
1. Lake Superior hydrology
2. Urban and rural Stormwater issues
3. Stormwater management regulations
4. Stormwater BMP’s: options for reducing runoff
5. Climate Change and Mercury: impacts and solutions
In addition to the posters and powerpoint, we developed a watershed
management activity that allowed participants to each “manage” a
different land use within a watershed, and “spend” their budget of
candies on various best management practices and work together to
solve a sediment problem in a fictional stream. A variety of publications
and fact sheets were also assembled and distributed to participants in a
folder at the completion of the trip, including the guidebook “Building
Superior Coastal Communities” that was funded in part with funds from
Minnesota’s Lake Superior coastal Program..

A website was created for online participant registration


(www.seagrant.umn.edu/vfl) and letters were sent to all local
governments along the shore (city councils, town boards, county
commissioners, planning/zoning committees, mayors, administrators,
and others) inviting them to register prior to the start of public
registration. Flyers were designed and printed for advertising the
program, postcards were sent to all previous year participants, and a
press release was sent to local media sources advertising the program.
The trips filled rapidly, and we had many folks who wanted to go, but
tried to register after all the trips were full. Postcards were sent to all
registered participants 1 week before the trip, with a reminder of the trip
date and time, directions to the meeting location, and suggestions on
what to bring and be prepared for.

We also held two hour-long public presentations. The first was on June
25th at the North House Folk School in Grand Marais. We had 10 people
attend that presentation. The second was held after the end of the trips
at Sugarloaf Cove on December 9th. In the past, we have been asked to
run a trip out of Taconite Harbor, but the boat cannot dock here. As an
alternative, we scheduled a public presentation of the materials we used
on the boat. We had 16 participants at this presentation. The
presentation is titled: “Climate Change, Mercury, and Stormwater:
Bringing it all Home”, and the powerpoint slideshow is included on the
accompanying CD.

Results
In Minnesota during 2006, we brought over 333 participants out during
17 trips out of ports in Grand Marais, Silver Bay, Two Harbors, and the
Twin Ports (Table 1). A summary table of participation by port is below.
Participation numbers are from
Table 1. Trips and participants per port for 2006. evaluation responses, which was
nearly 100% (but not quite). From
Port # of Trips Participants
Duluth / Superior 7 141
all trips in MN and WI, 424
Grand Marais 4 77 surveys were returned. To help
2
Silver Bay 35 assure high survey return rates,
Two Harbors 4 80
we used the completed surveys as
their “ticket off the boat” at the end.
View from the Lake Participation
by audience, 2004 - 2006

80% Out of all trips


70%
in 2006, 65%
60% 2004
2005 (275 people) of
50%
2006 participants
40%
30% were full-time
20% residents and
10%
0%
Visitor Full-time Seasonal Teacher Local Repeat

Resident Resident Officials Participants

another 5% (22 people) were seasonal residents. Full-time resident


participation increased from 2005. Local official participation remained
constant from 2005 at 15.5% (65 people) in 2006. Repeat participation
dropped in 2006. Anecdotal evidence from talking with participants
suggests that this may be due in part to folks who tried to register after
the trips were filled in 2005 registering en masse as soon as registration
opened in 2006. All Duluth/Superior and Two Harbors trips were filled
within 2 weeks of registration opening.

To guage the materials Table 2. Participant ratings of presentation materials and


activities. Ranking is from 1 = poor to 5 = excellent.
and presentations, % Responding
several of the questions with a "4" or "5"
Ease of registering - - - - - 96%
were used to track Pre-trip presentation - - - - - 92%

particular aspects of the Watershed Management Activity - - 92%

Lecture and Posters - - - - - 92%

trips, such as Water and Sediment Sampling - - 93%


registration, Time Allowed for Observing - - - 86%

presentations, and Why did you decide to come on this trip?


the level of
80%
technical
information.
60%

Participants 40%

selected a number
20%
between 1 (being
0%
“poor”) to 5 (being Fun, View Education or Invited or
“excellent”) for each Scenery Interest Recommended

aspect of the trip.


All aspects were
rated highly (Table 2). The lowest score was given for the amount of time
allowed for observing (as it has for every trip).
My opinion about protecting Lake Superior water
We asked resources has changed as a result of this trip
participants on their Taking
40% Action at home or in
Take community,
Action by
in Community
reason forMattending
evaluation: “Why did 35%
100% ake Changes at Home
30%
you decide to come 80%
25%
on this trip?” 60%
20%
15%
40%
10%
20%
5%
0%
0%
Fun, View Education or Invited or
1 2 3 4 5
Scenery Interest Recommended
1 = disagree Æ 5 = agree
Responses indicated that most participants attended to learn something
or because they’re interested in Lake Superior. Smaller numbers
attended because they thought it would be fun or wanted to enjoy the
scenery. Others indicated they were invited or the trips were
recommended by others. Their reason for attending also seemed to
affect the outcome of the trip. While most folks came away ready to
make changes at their home, those attending for reasons of education
were more likely to say the information will help them take action in their
own community.

We also asked if their opinion of environmental issues facing Lake


Superior changed as a result of the trip. Most participants (63%)
indicated that it did change their opinion (selecting either “4” or “5” on a
scale of 1-5). Many of those who said their opinion did not change
indicated in the comments that the trip reinforced previously-held
opinions.

Will this information help you make We asked participants if the


changes at your own home? information presented would
100%

help them make changes either


2005 at their home or in their
80%

community, and most


2006
60%

respondents replied that Yes, it


would. Between 2005 and
40%

2006, the percent saying the


20%

program would help them


make changes at their own
Will
0%this information help you take
action No Not Sure
in your community? Yes home increased from 60% to
83% of all participants, and the
70%
2005 percent stating it would not dropped
60%
from 14% to 3%.
50% 2006
40%
Some participants listed the
30%
changes they thought they might
20%
10%
0%
No Not Sure Yes
make, including comments such as building rain gardens or getting rain
barrels (mentioned a combined 57 times), educating friends and family,
planting native vegetation and trees, increasing buffers, and being more
responsible. Sample comments are included in the appendix.

The results for the question on taking action in their community


remained similar to 2005, with 61% responding that the trips would help
them take action. The percent replying “no” declined from 7% to 4%,
however. Comments that participants mentioned include such things as
working with their local government, getting involved in development
decisions, and community projects (see appendix for sample comments).
We saw differences between audiences in how they responded to this
question, as well, with elected and non-elected local officials showing the
highest numbers responding positively, at 84% and 79%, respectively. Of
the 31 elected officials, zero responded that this information would not
help them. Seasonal residents were least likely to say the information
would help them take action in the community.

Will this information help you take action in your community?

100%
Yes No Not sure
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Total Elected Non- Full Time Seasonal Teacher Visitor
Official Elected Resident Resident
Official

In 2005 and 2006, we were able to look at repeat participants also. We


found that many of the repeat participants said that they had taken action
or made changes because of the trips in 2004. We had a total of 75
repeat participants in 2005, and 32 (43%) said they took action. We had
fewer repeat participants in 2006, but 18 out of the 40 who responded to
the question, indicated that they had made changes (45%); a similar
percentage to 2005.
Since we had no way to track individual responses from year-to-year in
an anonymous survey, we don’t know how many of these folks said they
would take action on the 2004 or 2005 evaluation. For those that said
they took action, some commented on what they did (Table 3).

Table 3. Comments on actions that participants on previous trips


took because of information from thise trips
I became a volunteer beach monitor.
City Planning

More active in decision making.

Worked [with] my lake assoc and ICOLA.

Voted for stormwater management.

Shared info about low impact development- word of mouth.

All participant comments and additional evaluation information is


available in the evaluation data excel spreadsheet, included with the
deliverables.
Posters and presentations of this project have been presented at national
meetings across the country, including:
National NEMO Network Meeting, Washington, D.C., April 2005.
North American Lake Management Society Conference, Madison,
WI, October, 2005.
Association of Natural Resources Extension Professionals, Park City,
UT, April 2006.
International Association of Great Lakes Research, Windsor, Ont,
May 2006.

Conclusions
We believe “A View from the Lake” has been a successful project, with
participants interested in learning about the lake and what they can do to
protect it. It has been a very popular event, with trips filling up within
days of registration opening, in many cases, and many people calling in,
hoping to be added to waiting lists. The evaluation data shows that this
program is an effective way to educate residents and local officials, with
60-80% of these target audiences coming away with knowledge and plans
to make changes or take actions to protect the lake. We also have
indications that may of the past participants are making changes and
taking actions because of past trips.

We have been focused on inviting residents and local officials on the


shore, and our evaluations reveal that these groups are also the ones
most likely to take action based on the information presented. Many
participants leave the trips with the intention of taking actions, and many
do, based on our follow-up surveys with repeat participants. People
appreciate up-to-date information, and many are looking for ways they
can get involved. We plan to focus more on these actions on future trips,
looking for ways to help people take actions that they indicate they are
ready to take (such as finding sources of rain barrels, instructions on
building rain gardens, native plant suppliers, or pervious pavement
installers).

Many organizations contributed to the success of these trips.


The funding from Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Program allowed us
to hold these trips at a low cost, develop new material, and reach the
Grand Marais and Silver Bay ports, which are expensive to reach due to
fuel costs. Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Program also provided an
intern, Ben Mattila, who helped on the boat, running programs, helping
with the water quality sampling, answering questions, and helping
distribute folders and collect evaluations. Myself (Jesse Schomberg) and
Cindy Hagley at Minnesota Sea Grant, inconjunction with Sue O’Halloran
and Emy Eliot with University of Wisconsin Extension developed the
presentations, posters, and watershed management activity. Staff at
Minnesota Sea Grant developed the web registration site, sent out
postcards to all trip participants prior to each trip, printed and stuffed the
folders handed out, and entered all the evaluation data into a
spreadsheet. Wisconsin DNR and Wisconsin’s Coastal Management
Program also contributed significant funding for this project.
Appendices
Electronic versions of all documents are included, when available. Many
items, such as posters, presentations, maps, and evaluations, are not
provided in hardcopy form. Items included are listed below, as well as if
they are included as hardcopy, electronic copy, or both. Product
headings in bold correspond to the directories under which the items are
included in the electronic version.

PRODUCT HARDCOPY ELECTRONI


C
Advertising Products
Local Officials Invitation X
Letter
VFL 2006 Press Release X
View From the Lake Card X
Boat Trip Materials
Watershed Management X
Activity
Posters X
Folders with Handouts X
Public Presentation X
Evaluation
Evaluation Data X
Sample Participant X X
Comments
April 1, 2006

There’s nothing like a view from the lake


to give you a different perspective on Lake
Superior’s communities! Join us aboard the L.L. Smith, Jr. this
year as A View From the Lake goes global. Have you ever
wondered if winters are really getting warmer, if there is any
way to control mercury pollution, or what these global
pollution problems mean for us in our own backyards? Join
us for an absorbing three hours, where we’ll:
• find out how climate change could affect stormwater

problems and impact our streams and Lake Superior

• discover why mercury is such a complex problem


• do hands-on water sampling to see what’s living in the

Big Lake

• learn how local communities and local issues could be

affected

• find out what you can do and how you can become

involved to help your community prepare now for

changes ahead

We have 24 trips this year, all listed on the right. Because


you are a local official, we want you to have first choice.
Registration opens to the public on May 1, and many of the
trips fill up fast, so register early! The cost is free for local
officials (councils, commissions, boards, etc.) and staff.
Specify that you’re a local official on the registration form,
and feel free to register your entire group.

Registration is simple. Just visit our Web site at www.seagrant.umn.edu/vfl and select
the trip you want. The username and password you’ll need are “lake” and “superior”. If
you have questions, just call one of us at the number below, and feel free to hand out
the enclosed flyers in your community.

See you on the lake!


Jesse Schomberg Sue O’Halloran

Minnesota Sea Grant Program University of Wisconsin Superior

2305 E 5th St
P.O. Box 2000

Duluth, MN 55812 Superior, WI 54880

218-726-6182 / jschombe@umn.edu 715-394-8525 / sohallor@uwsuper.edu

MN SEA GRANT NEWS RELEASE


5/8/06
Contact: Marie Zhuikov (218) 726-7677, mzhuikov@umn.edu

Lake Superior Cruises Offered

Registration is open for a third season of "A View From the Lake" cruises.
Water quality specialists from the University of Minnesota Sea Grant
Program and the University of Wisconsin Extension are again boarding
the L.L. Smith, Jr. with citizens and the research vessel's crew to discuss
Lake Superior.

For $15, participants can consider research on climate change,


stormwater, and mercury pollution in the context of community planning
and decision making. Returning participants should find the information
new and thought provoking. During the 3-hour boat tour, participants
will also collect water samples and see some of the critters that live in
Lake Superior.

These educational cruises typically sell out quickly. Participants must


pre-register on the Web at www.seagrant.umn.edu/vfl or by calling
Minnesota Sea Grant at (218) 726-8106. A total of 24 trips are scheduled
for the following ports (call Sea Grant or visit the Web site for trip times):

Ashland, WI: June 13-14


Washburn, WI: June 16-17

Grand Marais, MN: June 23-25


Silver Bay, MN: June 27
Two Harbors, MN: July 14-15
Duluth/Superior: July 6-8 and 20-22

"A View from the Lake" is funded by grants from the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, and the Coastal Programs in Wisconsin
and Minnesota through the Coastal Zone Management Act, which is
administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management.

--30--
A View From the Lake
a guided tour of Lake Superior & its coast

A View From the Lake Washburn June 18 9:30 AM


June 19 9:30 AM & 1:30 PM
Gilligan’s not on this 3-hour tour, but you could be. Join educators from the Lake Bayfield June 21 & 22 9:30 AM & 1:30 PM
Superior Research Institute and Minnesota Sea Grant Program aboard the L.L. Smith, Jr.
Research Vessel to find out what your community looks like from the waters of Lake To register, call the Inland Sea Society – 715-682-8188
Superior. You'll come back energized by this unique view of the landscape.
The lake view on these trips will provide context for discussing land use, development,
Grand Marais June 25 & 26 9:00 AM & 2:00 PM
natural resources and water quality issues. Participants will have time to take a gander
at the surroundings and can even try their hand at collecting water samples. You'll also Silver Bay June 28 & 29 9:00 AM & 2:00 PM
see displays of local geographical information and learn about Lake Superior research.
Two Harbors July 9 & 10 9:00 AM & 2:00 PM
You must call and pre-register to attend.
Duluth & Superior July 12 9:00 AM & 2:00 PM
This project is funded by a grant from the Great Lakes Regional Water Quality Program and grants from July 13 5:00 PM
the Wisconsin and Minnesota Coastal Programs through the Coastal Zone Management Act, which is
administered through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Office of Ocean and Coastal To register, call Minnesota Sea Grant – 218-726-8106
Resource Management.
A View From the Lake Washburn June 18 9:30 AM
June 19 9:30 AM & 1:30 PM
Gilligan’s not on this 3-hour tour, but you could be. Join educators from the Lake Bayfield June 21 & 22 9:30 AM & 1:30 PM
Superior Research Institute and Minnesota Sea Grant Program aboard the L.L. Smith, Jr.
Research Vessel to find out what your community looks like from the waters of Lake To register, call the Inland Sea Society – 715-682-8188
Superior. You'll come back energized by this unique view of the landscape.
The lake view on these trips will provide context for discussing land use, development,
Grand Marais June 25 & 26 9:00 AM & 2:00 PM
natural resources and water quality issues. Participants will have time to take a gander
at the surroundings and can even try their hand at collecting water samples. You'll also Silver Bay June 28 & 29 9:00 AM & 2:00 PM
see displays of local geographical information and learn about Lake Superior research.
Two Harbors July 9 & 10 9:00 AM & 2:00 PM
You must call and pre-register to attend.
Duluth & Superior July 12 9:00 AM & 2:00 PM
This project is funded by a grant from the Great Lakes Regional Water Quality Program and grants from July 13 5:00 PM
the Wisconsin and Minnesota Coastal Programs through the Coastal Zone Management Act, which is
administered through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Office of Ocean and Coastal To register, call Minnesota Sea Grant – 218-726-8106
Resource Management.
A View From the Lake
a guided tour of Lake Superior & its coast
A View From the Lake 2006

Funding Sources:

This year’s trip:

Presentation – 20 minutes
• Setting the stage
On the Boat
• Stormwater
• Mercury
• Climate change

View from the Lake Goes Global!

NoNpoiNt Source impactS from Stormwater


NutrieNtS aNd
moviNg too faSt Bacteria

too much water

road Salt aNd


other
pollutaNtS

eroSioN SedimeNt
Pollutant Sources
Precipitation

Runoff from the


watershed

Groundwater
inflow
Development Impacts
on the Water Cycle

10% 20%
Natural runoff patterns

Altered runoff patterns


Original stream channel

Normal flow after rainfall

www.usda.gov/stream_restoration/chap1.html
Original stream channel

Post-rain flow without wetlands in watershed

www.usda.gov/stream_restoration/chap1.html
Original stream channel

www.usda.gov/stream_restoration/chap1.html
new stream channel

Original stream channel

Post-rain flow without wetlands

Help
New stream baseflow !
What have you observed?
Positive Proof of Global Warming
What have you observed?
The
Greenhouse
Effect and
Planet Earth

The Earth would


be about 91 oF
colder without
the “greenhouse
effect”

warmerS: co2, methaNe,

cfcS

coolerS: duSt, SulfateS,

cloudS aNd water vapor

Many Factors
contribute to
climate

Sources of Greenhouse Gasses Miscellaneous,


worldwide 8%
Transportation
, 28%
Electricity,
33%

Buildings and
Industry, 31%
based on Meehl et al. (2004)
Climate Change Predictions for the
Great Lakes Region

 Warmer Winter and Summer Temperatures


Earlier snow melt
Lakes ice-covered for shorter periods
Warmer water temperatures

 Shifting Precipitation Patterns


More winter and spring precipitation
Less summer rainfall
Increased evaporation
More extreme rainfall events
Mercury: An Atmospheric Pollutant

• One of the main sources is the burning


of coal
• Mercury (Hg) is converted to its more
toxic form, methyl-mercury, by bacteria
in the water
precipitatioN:
mercury
•Mercury enters lakes
from the atmosphere
O2
•Summer temperature O2 O2 O2 O2 O2
O2 O2 O2
stratification: O2
O2 O2 O2
O2
O2 O
O2 O2 2 O2
O2 O2
•Warm, sunlit, buoyant O2 O2 O2 O2
O2 O2
water over cold, dark,
and dense water.
•Bacteria living where
there’s no oxygen
convert Mercury to toxic
methylmercury
Mercury:
Bioaccumulation in the food web

http://memBerS.aol.com/djl4looNS/looN.gif http://artSci.Shu.edu/Biol3341aa/eNvtoxweB/BeacheS%201.htm
Take home messages:

• All three are inter­


related
Mercury
• Some of the same
solutions help with
all three issues
• You can make a Climate
difference at the Change Stormwater
local level
Where Are We Going?

Grand Marais

Silver Bay

Two Harbors

Duluth
Washburn

Ashland
Superior
Climate Change,

Mercury, and Stormwater:

bringing it all home

7 p.m. SuNday, juNe 25th at the North houSe



folk School

A public presentation based on this year's “A View From the Lake” boat trips
along the North and South Shores. Jesse Schomberg (Minnesota Sea Grant)
will present information on water quality, its relationship to mercury, how both
may be affected by climate change in the great lakes region, and what we as
individuals and communities can do.
On the Boat…

• We’ll have two groups


– Group 1: Front Deck
– Group 2: Back Deck
– Monitoring
– EVALUATIONS
BACK DECK
FRONT DECK LAB
Watershed
Climate change, Water
Management
Mercury, and Monitoring
101
Stormwater (and snacks!)
Carbon Dioxide curreNt c02 levelS
and Temperature higher thaN iN paSt
2004 377.4 ppmv

Source: Jerry Meehl, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Potential Impacts of Climate Change


Associated Climate Changes

• Global sea-level has increased 1-2 mm/yr


• Duration of ice cover of rivers and lakes decreased by 2 weeks in N.
Hemisphere
• Arctic ice has thinned substantially, decreased in extent by 10-15%
• Reduced permafrost in polar, sub-polar, mountainous regions
• Growing season lengthened by 1-4 days in N. Hemisphere
• Retreat of continental glaciers on all continents
• Poleward shift of animal and plant ranges
• Snow cover decreased by 10%
• Earlier flowering dates
• Coral reef bleaching

Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001 Report


SourceS of pollutaNtS (iNclude atmoSpheric
depoSitioN)

Adapted From: Maine NEMO


Arctic Ice Pack Melting
Plant and Animal Range Shifts
• The Arctic ice pack
has lost about 40% of
its thickness over the
past four decades.

Credit: nationalgeographic.com

 Plants and animals are


changing their range and
behavior in response to
shifts in climate, e.g.,
Credit: nationalgeographic.com opossum & cardinals in
Slide from luciNda johNSoN, Nrri
MN.
Notes to Sue, etc.

• Slide 3 has notes to help you through it. If the pictures make it hard to talk about, Slide 4 kind of covers the same
stuff so you could skip slide 3.
• Go though presentation as slide show first and see how slide 5 plays (don’t be fooled by its blank appearance.
There is a lot of stuff there that animates. The underwear come in one by one. If you don’t want it to work that way,
move the last slide into its place, the underwear are all on there right from the start. You’ll see what I mean.
• Consider deleting details on “what do we expect for Minnesota” and leaving those to poster on the boat. Makes
slide really cluttered and will just be a list at this point, since no examples. I have an alternate slide at the end.
• I will email notes to go with mercury slides. I’m out of time. The Holiday Inn in Alpena MI has free internet so I’ll
send notes tomorrow night. After all I have twelve hours of driving time to work in the van.
• I really didn’t have time to do much with the stormwater piece and am really not happy with it. It doesn’t really tell
people a whole lot, but I’m not sure what to do with it. See what you think. At least some pictures of stormwater
coming in. I think Jesse’s slides are nice but not in the little bit of time we have, especially without some real
pictures to relate them to.
• We need a concluding slide that ties climate, mercury, and stormwater back together. Probably more valuable than
the standard concluding slide about natural resource inventories, etc. that we have in there now.
• I suggest you save this under a different name before you start working on it. It would be awful to have a problem
and lose parts of it.
• Call my cell if you need help. I’ll keep it with me.
The greenhouse effect and your car:
How do scientists figure out
what’s happening?

• Observation and monitoring


• Experimentation
• Modeling
– Look at actual data from the past to develop
equations that fit the data
– Use those equations to predict future trends
– Predictive models get better as we get more
actual data to improve the equations
So… what are the predictions?
Predictions for summer

temperatures in Minnesota

• Warmer summer and

winter temperatures

• Shifts in timing of
precipitation
• More intense rainfall
events

hiStoric

BuSiNeSS
data
aS uSual
lower emiSSioN SceNario
Worldwide Glacier Melt

Franz Josef Glacier, New Zealand


Slide from luciNda johNSoN, Nrri
outside

PREDICTIONS FOR THE GREAT LAKES REGION:

Warmer Winter and Summer Temperatures


Earlier snow melt
Lakes ice-covered for shorter periods
Warmer water temperatures

Shifting Precipitation Patterns


More winter and spring precipitation
Less summer rainfall
Increased evaporation
More extreme rainfall events
inside

What your community


What you can do
can do
Keep your runoff at Compact Community
home! Design
Rainbarrels Fewer Roads
Rain Gardens Less driving
Pervious Less impervious
pavement surfaces
Green roofs Maintain wetlands and
Use less energy forests
Get involved in Promote energy
your community conservation
How could
climate warming
affect lakes?
• Longer ice free
season
• More extreme
precipitation
events
Hg- outside of flip-out

Things we’re
doing right:
Controlling sulfur
emissions
Reducing mercury
product use,
improving disposal
Things to
work on:
Reduce energy
Hg- inside of flip-out

use!
Reduce
stormwater
runoff impacts
Influence global

policy

• Options:
–Reduce Precipitation
–Increase Evaporation 20%

–Increase Infiltration

• Reduce impervious surfaces


• Keep the water on the land:
• Forests
• Wetlands
• Best Management Practices Superior WWTP

1 acre
287’ x 151’

1 acre
287’ x 151’
1 acre 1 acre 1 acre 1 acre

287’ x 151’
1 acre 1 acre

1 acre

minimum lot size vs. density


287’ x 151’ 287’ x 151’ 287’ x 151’
287’ x 151’ 287’ x 151’
347’ x 125’

5 acres

696’ x 313’

1 acre
1 acre

1 acre 1 acre 1 acre

287’ x 151’
347’ x 125’
287’ x 151’
287’ x 151’
173’ x 247’ 1 acre

347’ x 125’

1 acre

173’ x 247’

2 acres

Before…

437’ x 200’

696’ x 313’
5 acres

1,000 ft
and After

500 ft
100 ft

• Reduces impervious surface


• Maintains forests and wetlands
• Reduces road lengths
Build “up”

not “out”

Solutions: Mercury Climate Stormwater


Change
Conserve Energy: Home,
Work, Auto
Build Compact Communities
Maintain Forest Cover,
Wetlands
Keep Stream Corridors
Forested
Infiltrate Stormwater Runoff
Prevent Erosion
Ice Cover Duration:
Lake Mendota Erosion and Stream and lake Recreation
sedimentation habitat changes for and tourism
fish and critters shifts

Temperature Preferences of
95 Great Lakes Fish Species
Preferred Temperature (°F) 86 Warm water species:
Data from: John J. Magnuson, North Temperate LTER Database, Cr for Limnology, UW-Madison

Historical Trends: Bullhead, carp More warm- and cool-


Extreme Rainfall Events Cool water species: water habitat…
1931-1996 68 Pike, crappie
Cool-
Warm-
Water Water and
Habitat Habitat less
50
Cold- cold-
Cold water species: Water water
32 Trout, herring Habitat
Bigger circles habitat
mean more
extreme rain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Canadian_Shield_Ontario.jpg
events since
1931
Ben Mattila

http://biology.clc.uc.edu/graphics/taxonomy/plants/ Rick Lindroth

Jason Biggerstaff and Jacob


Orlove , Brandeis University

How could
Natural sources
– fire, volcanoes climate warming
People sources affect mercury in
GLOBAL POLLUTION (30%) – coal burning
lakes?
power plants**,
incineration, • Warmer water, longer
products
REGIONAL summer “stratification”
POLLUTION (40%) – Less oxygen in
bottom waters
– More toxic
mercury
Cold water species: produced
“TopLake trout, herring • Increased erosion –
predators” more mercury to lakes
consume fish
and wetlands
• Loss of oxygen also
Mercury from can cause fish kills
Watershed 20,000 ng/L and toxic algal blooms
Remember, mercury: Mercury
“bioaccumulates” Our lakes are
• Is sticky – moves with soil
Bacteria convert
especially
• Becomes toxic in wetlands
and lake zones with no mercury to toxic 1.3 ng/L sensitive!
oxygen, available sulfates. form • Thin, poor soils
No oxygen
• Canadian Shield lakes are High sulfate • Lots of wetlands
more vulnerable to toxic • Lakes acid sensitive (not
mercury formation much buffering capacity)
Managing Stormwater: Reduce, Slow, and Clean the Flow

of Water Over the Landscape

Stormwater and
Nonpoint Pollution -- the EPA NPDES Phase II:
Number 1 Water Quality Stormwater Permit Program
Problem in the US.
All MS4s within “Urban” areas are

But the sources responsible for managing stormwater,

include all of our


roads, rooftops, and which includes:

lawns 6 Minimum Stormwater Control Measures:


How can we deal  Public Education
with such a diffuse
and widespread  Public Participation
problem?  Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
Separate but Important!  Construction Site Runoff Control

 Post-Construction Runoff Control


Construction Stormwater Permits:
 Pollution Prevention
Separate permit REQUIRED Construction-
for any construction site of 1 Site Sediment
acre or more ANYWHERE in
MN or WI. 150X higher
Owners share liability, so make
sure your contractor gets a than pre-
permit if needed! disturbance

Ordinance Development
Inventory Natural Resources
Identify stormwater needs and BMPs for
new and existing development  Identify important natural areas,
such as wetlands, parks, river corridors,
Stormwater Utility etc., for conservation
 Develop and maintain infrastructure Identify and utilize existing forest
Identify drainage patterns and problems resources in community to slow and
Fees based on assessment of user’s needs
infiltrate runoff

Watershed Planning: Watersheds

Cross Political Boundaries!

• Marengo Watershed Pilot Project


• A model watershed health planning strategy that
includes the 8 townships within watershed
• Characterizes the watershed by collecting data on
hydrology, channel morphometry, wetland & riparian
areas, soils, geology, forest age class and human
influences.
• Information will help establish current and
historical hydrology used to plan for future
hydrology.
• Planning tools will be available on web for all Lake
Superior basin communities.
Urban Impacts: 10% 50% Rural Impacts:
soaks soaks
Forest and Wetland in City in  Forest Clearing
loss
Road Crossings
Impervious Surfaces 10%
runs off  Removal of
Curb and Gutter Wetlands
Turfgrass 50%
runs off
Percent impervious surface in

Forest
Duluth trout stream watersheds

Nemadji Watershed
Mouth of Fish Forest Clearing
Creek
SEDIMENT: Where is it coming from?
Roads 2% Sheet & Rill 9%
Nemadji River (3,000 Tons) (12,000 Tons)
silt/clay budget
33,000 tons of Bluffs 89%
sediment dredged Lake Superior 74% (117,000 Tons)
annually by COE
(98,000 Tons)

1998 Cost =
$260,000.00
Bay Floodplain Uplands
14% 4% 8%
(19,000 Tons) (5,000 (10,000 Tons)
Tons)

Predictions: Less summer rainfall Why so much Sediment?


and streamflow, higher temps
North Fish Creek near Moquah, WI
E. coli: Indicates potential presence Streamflow 3500

Sediment Yield
Peak of

of disease-causing bacteria
agricultural

3X Flow 3000
conversion

Sources: human, pet, wildlife, bird


1928- Ag Peak
Sediment yield - tonnes/storm

fecal matter
2500

2000
E. coli in Stormwater Runoff
2X Flow
100000 1500
1991

Residential Streets
1991

About
90000
Residential 65% Open
80000 1000
(Geometric Mean Concentration)

70000
Commercial Completely
Forested
1870
C/100ml

500
60000
Residential Lawns
50000

40000
0
30000 Modeled 1870 Observed 1991 Modeled 1991 Modeled 1928

20000

10000

Fitzpatrick, et al. 1999


fs

s
fs

ns
et

fs

ng

g
et

ay

kin
oo

oo

oo
tr e

tr e

aw

ki
w
lR

lR

lR

ar

ar
rS

ive
lL

lP

lP
ria
or

tia

cia
de

tia

Dr

ria
ct

cia
en

st
er

en
ee

le

du

st
er
sid

m
ol
lF

sid

du
In
m

m
lC

Re
tia

Re

In
m
Co
tia
en

Co
en
sid

sid
Re

Re

Urban Source

What we do on our own lawn matters!


Predictions: More intense storms,
more winter and spring precipitation
Too Much Too Fast Increases:
Environmental Costs Economic Costs
• Fish and aquatic organism • Human health • Erosion, sedimentation,
habitat degradation – Toxic contaminants and flooding
– Thermal stress – Bacteria – Dredging
– Nutrients and sediments – Road costs
Where Does the Water Come From?

1.4

1.6 2.1

1.2

1.5

5.
1 0.4
0.5
1.2 6.
Runoff 9
1.5
Direct
0.7

Precipitation

0.7

1.0 6.
0
Evaporation

Source: USEPA 1995. The


Values are in thousands of cubic meters

Great Lakes An Environmental


Atlas and Resource Book
per second. (1,000 cubic meters = Ten 48’

semi-truck trailers or a football field with just


over 7 inches of water)

Great Lakes Watershed Areas


Drainage Areas and Lake Surface
and Lake Surface Areas Areas for the Great Lakes RetentionLakes
Great Time for each of the Great Lakes
Retention Times
Watershed
Drainage AreaArea
Retention Time (years)

Square miles

200,000 Lake
LakeSurface
Surface AreaArea
200 The time it

150,000

150

would take to

refill an empty

100,000

100 lake
50,000

50

0
Superior Michigan Huron Erie Ontario Superior Michigan Huron Erie Ontario

Canadian Shield Canadian Shield


• Thin, poor soils (scraped by glaciers)
• Poor drainage (lots of lakes,
wetlands, streams)
• Lakes very sensitive to acid-rain,

nutrients, and other pollutants,

especially from the atmosphere

• Low “productivity”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Canadian_Shield_Ontario.jpg

• Cold-adapted critters
More Climate
Change Information
and Data

Mass Balance of Glaciers around the world

(Average of over 300 glaciers)

Chernobyl Mt. Pinatubo


1986 1991

Volume of Lake Michigan

Glaciers and the Changing Earth System: a 2004 Snapshot. By Mark B.


Dyurgerov and Mark F. Meier. 2005.
IPCC 2001

Moose and Wolf Populations on Isle Royale

2500
100

Moose Wolves

Wolf Population

IPCC 2001
Moose Population
2000
80

1500
60

1000
40

500
20

0 0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

based on Meehl et al. (2004)

From EPA fact sheet on MN impacts

Projected Temperature Increase in

the Great Lakes Region (by 2070-99)

Deg F

16

15

14

13

Summer
12

11

10

Deg F

16

15

14

13

Winter
12

11

10

Lower emissions Higher emissions


2006 NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

2006 NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies


Climate Change,

Mercury, and Stormwater:

bringing it all home

A View From the Lake 2006

Funding Sources:

Outline

• Great Lakes and Lake Superior


• Impacts of Development on Runoff

• Some solutions
• Climate Change
• Effects on Water Quality
• Adapting and Minimizing
• Mercury
• Climate change interactions
View from the Lake Goes Global!

Nonpoint Source Impacts from Stormwater


Nutrients and
Moving Too Bacteria
Fast

Too Much Water

Road Salt and


other
Pollutants

Erosion Sediment
Where’s the water come from?
Precipitation

Runoff from the


watershed

Groundwater
inflow
Retention Time

Retention Time for each of the Great Lakes

Retention Time (years)

200

150

100

50

0
Superior Michigan Huron Erie Ontario

Canadian Shield

• Thin, nutrient-poor soils


• Lots of wetlands
• Lakes acid sensitive
(not much buffering capacity)
Development Alters
the Water Cycle

10% 20%
Natural runoff patterns

Altered runoff patterns


Original stream channel

Normal flow after rainfall

www.usda.gov/stream_restoration/chap1.html
Original stream channel

Post-rain flow without wetlands in watershed

www.usda.gov/stream_restoration/chap1.html
Original stream channel

www.usda.gov/stream_restoration/chap1.html
new stream channel

Original stream channel

Post-rain flow without wetlands

Help
New stream baseflow !
Reducing Runoff: what are our options?

• Options:
– Reduce Precipitation
– Increase Evaporation
– Increase Infiltration
20%

• Reduce impervious surfaces


• Keep the water on the land:
• Forests
• Wetlands
• Best Management Practices
1 acre 1 acre 1 acre 1 acre 1 acre 1 acre
1 acre 1 acre
287’ x 287’ x 1 acre
287’ x 287’ x 287’ x 287’ x 287’ x 287’ x
151’ 151’ 347’ x
151’ 151’ 151’ 151’ 151’ 151’ 125’

5 acres
696’ x
313’

1 acre 1 acre 1 acre


1 acre 1 acre
287’ x 287’ x 347’ x 1 acre
287’ x 173’ x
151’ 151’ 125’ 347’ x
151’ 247’
125’

1 acre
173’ x
247’

More coMpact
coMMunities produce
2 acres
437’ x
200’

less runoff
5 acres
696’ x
313’

minimum lot size vs. density


1,000 ft
500 ft
100 ft

• Reduces impervious

surface

• Maintains forests and

wetlands

• Reduces road lengths


Best Management Practices
Rain Barrels, Rain Gardens

Vegetated Buffers
Superior WWTP

Pervious Pavement
What have you observed?
Positive Proof of Global Warming
What have you observed?
The
The Greenhouse
Greenhouse
Effect and your car
Effect and
Planet Earth

The Earth would


be about 91 oF
colder without
the “greenhouse
effect”

WarMers: co2, Methane,


cfcs
coolers: dust, sulfates,
clouds and Water vapor
Climate Change
How do scientists figure out what’s happening?

• Observation
• Monitoring
• Experimentation (??)

• Modeling
– Look to past
– Look to the future

Observations: Glaciers Melting

It is estimated that at the current


rate of retreat, the glaciers in
Glacier National Park will be gone
in 30 years.

Franz Josef Glacier, New Zealand


Observations
Hottest 7
years all
since 1997

All but 1
since
1983

*since 1880, first year with


reliable data for land and sea
UCS 2006
temperatures
Other Observations:

Ben Mattila

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Canadian_Shield_Ontario.jpg
Jason Biggerstaff and Jacob
Orlove , Brandeis University
Monitoring: Precipitation Patterns

Historical
Trends:
Extreme
Rainfall
Events

1931-1996

Bigger circles mean


more extreme rain
events since 1931
Monitoring: Ice Cover Duration

Lake Mendota
Monitoring: Global Temperatures
Monitoring: Global Temperatures

2006 NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies


Monitoring: Carbon Dioxide
Carbon Dioxide current c02 levels
and Temperature higher than in past
2004 377.4 ppmv

Modeling:
what factors
contribute to
climate
change?

based on Meehl et al. (2004)


Natural* Only Modeling:
Doesn’t fit towards
the end!

Better fit
*natural = solar radiation
volcanoes Natural and Human** Combined

As climate models have


used more and better
data and included more
factors, they have **huMan = greenhouse gases
aerosols
improved.
slide froM lucinda Johnson, nrri
Modeling:
What does this mean for Minnesota?

Note: Based on average temperature and precipitation for mid-range emissions.

Does not account for variability or regional characteristics.

Climate Change Predictions for the


Great Lakes Region

 Warmer Winter and Summer Temperatures


Earlier snow melt
Lakes ice-covered for shorter periods
Warmer water temperatures

 Shifting Precipitation Patterns


More winter and spring precipitation
Less summer rainfall
Increased evaporation
More extreme rainfall events
Climate Change and Water Quality
Erosion and
sedimentation
Climate Change and Water Quality

Stream and lake


habitat changes for
fish and critters
Temperature Preferences:
95 Great Lakes Fish Species
Warm water species:
Preferred Temperature (°F)

86
Bullhead, carp

Cool water species: Pike, crappie


68

50

Cold water species:


Trout, herring
32
Climate Change and Water Quality

More warm- and cool-water habitat…


Cool-
Warm-
Water
Water
Habitat
Habitat
Cold-
and less
Water
Habitat cold-
water
habitat
Climate Change and Water Quality

Invasive Species

Rick Lindroth
What can we do?

• Address Global Climate Change

– Energy consumption
– Energy supplies
• Adapt to Minimize the Impacts
Addressing Global Climate Change
• Will it make any difference?

Predictions for summer temperatures in Minnesota

14 degree

difference

Addressing Global Climate Change

Sources of Greenhouse Gasses


Miscellaneous,
worldwide 8%
Transportation
, 28%
Electricity,
33%

Buildings and

Industry, 31%

Adapting to minimize impacts


What you can do
 Keep your runoff at
home!
Rainbarrels
Rain Gardens
Pervious pavement
Green roofs
 Get involved in your
community
Adapting to minimize impacts
What your community can do
 Compact Community
Design
Fewer Roads
Less driving
Less impervious
surfaces
 Maintain wetlands and
forests
Mercury: An Atmospheric Pollutant

• One of the main sources is the burning


of coal
• Mercury (Hg) is converted to its more
toxic form, methyl-mercury, by bacteria
in the water
People sources – coal
GLOBAL POLLUTION (30%) burning power plants**,
incineration, products

Natural sources – REGIONAL


fire, volcanoes
POLLUTION
(40%)

Mercury from Watershed


How is Mercury
converted to
methylmercury?
Mercury comes in
Algae and
from
Algae the
andairwind
and in
bacteria collect at O2
Summer
watershed
sunlit water in a O2 O2 O2 O2 O2
interface of upper O2 O2 O2
temperature
non-toxic
contribute form. O2 O2 O2
and lower layers. O2 O2 O O2
stratification:
oxygen. O2 O2
O2
2 O2
Bacteria living O2 O2 O2
Lots of biological O2 O2 O2
Warm,there
where
Bacteria sunlit,
in is no
dark O2
activity.
buoyant
oxygen
water use water it
convert O2
O2
O2
over cold,it dark, O2 O2
to
Fishmethylmercury,
love
oxygen. there. O2
O2 O2
and
its dense
toxic form. water. O2 O2
O2 O2
O2
Mercury: Bioaccumulation in the food web

Loons, otters,
people eat bigger
fish
Small fish eat
invertebrates,
bigger fish eat
small fish
Invertebrates
eat bacteria
Bacteria convert
mercury to toxic
form
Mercury: What can we do?
Things we’re
Things to work on:
doing right:
 Reduce energy
 Controlling sulfur use!
emissions
 Reduce
 Reducing mercury stormwater runoff
product use, improving impacts
disposal
 Influence global
policy
Build Compact Communities
Conserve Energy
Maintain Forest Cover, Wetlands
Keep Stream Corridors Forested
Minimize Impervious Surfaces

Keep your runoff at home!


Prevent Erosion
Take home messages:

• All three are inter­


related
Mercury
• Some of the same
solutions help with
all three issues
• You can make a Climate
difference at the Change Stormwater
local level
A View From the Lake 2006 Evaluation
Today’s trip
Location _________________________ Date __________________ Start Time AM PM
About you (Check all that apply)
____Visitor to the area ____Full time area resident ____Seasonal resident ____Teacher
____Elected official ____Non-elected official ____Other: ____________________________
What community is your primary residence? __________________________________________
Why did you decide to come on this trip? ______________________________________________
Evaluation

Please rate the following: Poor ⇒ Excellent Comments:

Time allowed for observing - - 1 2 3 4 5


Quality of the:

pre-trip presentation - - - - 1 2 3 4 5

lecture at the front of the boat - 1 2 3 4 5

map activity at the stern - - 1 2 3 4 5

water and sediment sampling - 1 2 3 4 5

Indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following: Disagree ⇒ Agree
I felt knowledgeable about protecting Lake Superior water resources prior to this trip 1 2 3 4 5
The level of technical information was appropriate for me - - - - - - 1 2 3 4 5
I was comfortable asking questions/sharing information - - - - - - 1 2 3 4 5
My opinion about protecting Lake Superior water resources has changed as
a result of this trip - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 2 3 4 5
How has your opinion changed? _______________________________________________________
Comments:

Will this information help you:


1. Take action in your community? ___Yes ___No ___Not Sure
2. Make changes at your own home? ___Yes ___No ___Not Sure
Please explain your answer:

“A View From the Lake” has been supported by grants which are now ending.
In future years, how much would you be willing to pay for this program? $_________
Any other comments or suggestions?

Did you participate in past years? ___ 2004 ___ 2005 (check all that apply)
If you checked either year, please answer the following:
Did you read, use, or pass on any of the publications, fact sheets, or cards we distributed?
___Yes ___No ___Not Sure Comments:

Did you take any actions or make any changes because of information from past trips?
___Yes ___No ___Not Sure Please explain your answer.
Sample Comments from Evaluations 2006

Will this information help you ‘ I won’t drain water collection


make changes at your own area on property surrounding my
house.
home?
‘ I can get a rain barrel, reduce

lawn area, plant more native

‘ Catch gutter run-off - be sure to


plants.

have "rain garden" areas. (note:


‘ Increase buffer zone to lake
rain gardens mentioned 19 times
‘ Long answer, big waves
in comments)
‘ More so than before this trip. I
‘ Develop rain barrels for run off
now know simple, effective &
on both sides of Roof (note: rain
practical practices to [put] in
barrels mentioned 38 times in
place.
comments)
‘ Need to be responsible for my
‘ Educate my family and friends
own community actions.
‘ I am in education so l can give
‘ Plant more vegetation, preserve
info. I can make my home more
whatever wetland in area.
energy efficient.
‘ I am putting in a new driveway
and will deal with it in a good Will this information help you
way. make changes in your
‘ I can do the home activities: rain community?
barrel, water garden. Harder to
change the community. ‘ Now I am more aware and can
‘ I can use this info. In my class push officials locally to make the
room and I know what I can do right choices and me at home
at home. too.
‘ I now have a good idea of how ‘ On planning commission helps in
to handle the erosion problems! deciding issues and educating
‘ I teach 5th grade & will pass on public.
the info. ‘ This should help inform me for
‘ I think I'll try to put in 1-2 rain policy discussions. I am going to
barrels. encourage friends to get rain
‘ I will plant more trees. barrels.
‘ Want to make a rain garden at
home and in the community
‘ Will be more active in zoning ‘ Didn't realize all the impacts and
issues, able to participate how they connect.
w/more ideas. Have rain barrel ‘ Hasn’t changed I have always
now - will plant more trees by felt strongly about protecting the
river - already started this spring. lake.
‘ Work with ICOLA in Itasca
‘ I am more aware of things I can
County and in Ill
personally do to make a
‘ I would like to start a discussion difference.
at work about rain gardens to ‘ I am protecting more after your
slow run off presentations.
‘ Might Look at changes in land ‘ I didn't realize how big of a deal
use. it was really; even little things
‘ Attend more mtgs with storm
over time have impact.
H20 mgmt in mind
‘ I liked the game--it made clear
‘ Be more vigilant at home and at the level of interaction and trade
work ( city council) protecting off.
the lake. ‘ Land use planning has trade offs.
‘ Talk to my elected officials And cooperation and education
‘ I am going to be more proactive is the key to getting things done
in the community decision with all sectors of the
making and voting. community.
‘ Learned more about Lake
(As a result of this trip,) How Superior specifically and how it
has your opinion changed? differes from other lakes in state.
‘ Learned more about mercury.
‘ Superior is more important than I ‘ learned more about the storm
ever recognized. water problem
‘ As individuals, we can make a ‘ Learned more ways of protecting
difference. lakes and want to use
‘ I honestly didn’t know very information.
much at all- I didn’t care a whole ‘ More aware of all the influence
lot either. I felt that things were on lake quality and what can be
exaggerated when I heard more done to reduce impact
about them before. I care more ‘ My opinion didn't change, but
now. I think the main reason was my knowledge of how to make
the information, the way it was [positive] changes to
presented, it was very non- improve/protect the lake did.
threatening, fun, and the ‘ Our City needs to do more.
environment was beautiful! ‘ This trip along with a previous
‘ Better understanding of one made me realize the
watersheds and how they work, importance of the watershed and
and impact. well as my role.
‘ Didn't know the factors to ‘ We need less impervious
protect our lake, now I feel I can surfaces & more natural plants.
help make a difference.