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 (R/V). The goals of the project were to increase the knowledge and

analysis while on Lake Superior aboard the L.L. Smith, Jr. Research Vessel understanding among residents and local government officials about the Lake Superior Ecosystem, watershed processes, and the relationships used on their properties or in their local communities. between land use and water quality, with ideas and solutions that can be

“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 increased volume and velocity leading to bank destabilization and the potential for greater methylmercury production. Stormwater issues of 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 and others) inviting them to register prior to the start of public

commissioners, planning/zoning committees, mayors, administrators, 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 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 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. alternative, we scheduled a public presentation of the materials we used attend that presentation. The second was held after the end of the trips

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. Port Duluth / Superior Grand Marais Silver Bay Two Harbors # of Trips 7 4 2 4 Participants 141 77 35 80

evaluation responses, which was nearly 100% (but not quite). From all trips in MN and WI, 424 surveys were returned. To help assure high survey return rates,

we used the completed surveys as

their “ticket off the boat” at the end.
View from the Lake Participation by audience, 2004 - 2006

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Out of all trips
2004 2005 2006

in 2006, 65% participants

(275 people) of were full-time residents and

V isitor

Full-tim e Resident

Seasonal Resident

Teacher

Local Repeat
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 and presentations, several of the questions were used to track particular aspects of the trips, such as registration, presentations, and the level of technical information.
Participants selected a number
between 1 (being “poor”) to 5 (being “excellent”) for each 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). We asked participants on their evaluation: “Why did you decide to come on this trip?”
80% 60% 40%
20% 0%
Fun, View Scenery Education or Interest Invited or Recommended

Table 2. Participant ratings of presentation materials and activities. Ranking is from 1 = poor to 5 = excellent. % Responding with a "4" or "5" 96% Ease of registering - - - - 92%
Pre-trip presentation - - - - 92%
Watershed Management Activity - 92%

Lecture and Posters - - - - 93% Water and Sediment Sampling - 86% Time Allowed for Observing - - Why did you decide to come on this trip?

My opinion about protecting Lake Superior water resources has changed as a result of this trip
Taking 40%
35% 100%

Action at home or inction in Com unity Take A community, by m reason forMake Changes at Hom attending e

80%

30% 25%

60% 20%
15% 40%

20%

10% 5%

0% 0%

Fun, View 1 2 Scenery

1 = disagree Æ 5 = agree

Education or 3 Interest

Invited or 4 5 Recommended

Responses indicated that most participants attended to learn something or because they’re interested in Lake Superior. Smaller numbers scenery. Others indicated they were invited or the trips were attended because they thought it would be fun or wanted to enjoy the 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 changes at your own home?
100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

We asked participants if the information presented would help them make changes either at their home or in their community, and most respondents replied that Yes, it would. Between 2005 and program would help them make changes at their own home increased from 60% to 2006, the percent saying the

2005 2006

Will this information help you take 0% Not Sure Yes action Noyour community? in
70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
No Not Sure Yes

2005 2006

percent stating it would not dropped from 14% to 3%. Some participants listed the

83% of all participants, and the

changes they thought they might

make, including comments such as building rain gardens or getting rain barrels (mentioned a combined 57 times), educating friends and family, responsible. Sample comments are included in the appendix. The results for the question on taking action in their community planting native vegetation and trees, increasing buffers, and being more

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 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 inform ation help you take action in your com unity? m
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% T otal Elected O fficial N onElected O fficial Full T e Seasonal T im eacher R esident R esident Visitor Yes N o N sure ot

decisions, and community projects (see appendix for sample comments).

In 2005 and 2006, we were able to look at repeat participants also. We or made changes because of the trips in 2004. We had a total of 75

found that many of the repeat participants said that they had taken action repeat participants in 2005, and 32 (43%) said they took action. We had the question, indicated that they had made changes (45%); a similar percentage to 2005.

fewer repeat participants in 2006, but 18 out of the 40 who responded to

Since we had no way to track individual responses from year-to-year in 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.

an anonymous survey, we don’t know how many of these folks said they

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. WI, October, 2005. UT, April 2006. May 2006.

North American Lake Management Society Conference, Madison, Association of Natural Resources Extension Professionals, Park City, International Association of Great Lakes Research, Windsor, Ont,

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 do, based on our follow-up surveys with repeat participants. People participants leave the trips with the intention of taking actions, and many 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 Minnesota Sea Grant developed the web registration site, sent out 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. presentations, posters, and watershed management activity. Staff at postcards to all trip participants prior to each trip, printed and stuffed the

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 included in the electronic version. headings in bold correspond to the directories under which the items are

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

HARDCOPY

ELECTRONI C X X

X X X X X X X X

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 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
• 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
• find out what you can do and how you can become
affected
problems and impact our streams and Lake Superior
wondered if winters are really getting warmer, if there is any

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. 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! Specify that you’re a local official on the registration form,

Jesse Schomberg Minnesota Sea Grant Program 2305 E 5th St
Duluth, MN 55812 218-726-6182 / jschombe@umn.edu

Sue O’Halloran
University of Wisconsin Superior
P.O. Box 2000
Superior, WI 54880
715-394-8525 / sohallor@uwsuper.edu

5/8/06

MN SEA GRANT NEWS RELEASE

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 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 the L.L. Smith, Jr. with citizens and the research vessel's crew to discuss

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
Gilligan’s not on this 3-hour tour, but you could be. Join educators from the Lake 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 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, 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 see displays of local geographical information and learn about Lake Superior research. You must call and pre-register to attend.
This project is funded by a grant from the Great Lakes Regional Water Quality Program and grants from 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 Resource Management.

Washburn

June 18 June 19

9:30 AM 9:30 AM & 1:30 PM 9:30 AM & 1:30 PM

Bayfield

June 21 & 22

To register, call the Inland Sea Society – 715-682-8188

Grand Marais Silver Bay Two Harbors Duluth & Superior

June 25 & 26 June 28 & 29 July 9 & 10 July 12 July 13

9:00 AM & 2:00 PM 9:00 AM & 2:00 PM 9:00 AM & 2:00 PM 9:00 AM & 2:00 PM 5:00 PM

To register, call Minnesota Sea Grant – 218-726-8106

A View From the Lake
Washburn
Gilligan’s not on this 3-hour tour, but you could be. Join educators from the Lake 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 Superior. You'll come back energized by this unique view of the landscape.

June 18 June 19

9:30 AM

9:30 AM & 1:30 PM June 21 & 22

Bayfield

9:30 AM & 1:30 PM

To register, call the Inland Sea Society – 715-682-8188

The lake view on these trips will provide context for discussing land use, development, 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 see displays of local geographical information and learn about Lake Superior research. You must call and pre-register to attend.
This project is funded by a grant from the Great Lakes Regional Water Quality Program and grants from 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 Resource Management.

Grand Marais Silver Bay Two Harbors Duluth & Superior

June 25 & 26 June 28 & 29 July 9 & 10 July 12 July 13

9:00 AM & 2:00 PM

9:00 AM & 2:00 PM

9:00 AM & 2:00 PM

9:00 AM & 2:00 PM

5:00 PM

To register, call Minnesota Sea Grant – 218-726-8106

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
moviNg too faSt NutrieNtS aNd 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 worldwide
Transportation , 28% Miscellaneous, 8%

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 •Summer temperature stratification: •Warm, sunlit, buoyant water over cold, dark, and dense water. •Bacteria living where there’s no oxygen convert Mercury to toxic methylmercury
O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2

O2 O 2 O2 O2

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 • Some of the same solutions help with all three issues • You can make a difference at the local level Climate Change Mercury

Stormwater

Where Are We Going?

Grand Marais

Silver Bay

Two Harbors Duluth Washburn Superior Ashland

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
FRONT DECK Climate change, Mercury, and Stormwater LAB Water Monitoring (and snacks!) BACK DECK Watershed Management 101

Carbon Dioxide and Temperature

curreNt c02 levelS 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.

 Plants and animals are
changing their range and behavior in response to shifts in climate, e.g., opossum & cardinals in MN.

Credit: nationalgeographic.com

Credit: nationalgeographic.com

Slide from luciNda johNSoN, Nrri

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 aS uSual data
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 you can do
Keep your runoff at home! Rainbarrels Rain Gardens Pervious pavement Green roofs Use less energy Get involved in your community

What your community can do
Compact Community Design Fewer Roads Less driving Less impervious surfaces Maintain wetlands and forests Promote energy 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 use! Reduce stormwater runoff impacts Influence global
policy

Hg- inside of flip-out

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

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

minimum lot size vs. density
1 acre 287’ x 151’
1 acre 287’ x 151’ 1 acre 287’ x 151’ 1 acre 287’ x 151’ 1 acre 287’ x 151’
1 acre
287’ x 151’ 1 acre 287’ x 151’ 1 acre
287’ x 151’ 1 acre
347’ x 125’
5 acres
696’ x 313’
1 acre
287’ x 151’
1 acre 287’ x 151’
1 acre 287’ x 151’
1 acre
347’ x 125’ 1 acre
173’ x 247’ 1 acre
347’ x 125’

1 acre
173’ x 247’

2 acres
437’ x 200’

Before…
and After

1,000 ft 500 ft 100 ft

• Reduces impervious surface • Maintains forests and wetlands • Reduces road lengths

5 acres 696’ x 313’

Build “up”
not “out”

Solutions: Conserve Energy: Home, Work, Auto Build Compact Communities Maintain Forest Cover, Wetlands Keep Stream Corridors Forested Infiltrate Stormwater Runoff Prevent Erosion

Mercury Climate Stormwater Change

Ice Cover Duration: Lake Mendota

Erosion and sedimentation

Stream and lake habitat changes for fish and critters

Recreation and tourism shifts

Data from: John J. Magnuson, North Temperate LTER Database, Cr for Limnology, UW-Madison

Preferred Temperature (°F)

Historical Trends: Extreme Rainfall Events 1931-1996

Temperature Preferences of 95 Great Lakes Fish Species 86 Warm water species: Bullhead, carp Cool water species: 68 Pike, crappie
50

More warm- and coolwater habitat…
CoolWarmWater Water Habitat Habitat ColdWater Habitat

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

Rick Lindroth

Jason Biggerstaff and Jacob Orlove , Brandeis University

Natural sources – fire, volcanoes

GLOBAL POLLUTION (30%) REGIONAL POLLUTION (40%)

People sources – coal burning power plants**, incineration, products

How could climate warming affect mercury in lakes?
• Warmer water, longer summer “stratification” – Less oxygen in bottom waters – More toxic mercury produced • Increased erosion – more mercury to lakes and wetlands • Loss of oxygen also can cause fish kills and toxic algal blooms

Cold water species: “TopLake trout, herring predators” consume fish
Mercury from Watershed

Remember, mercury: • Is sticky – moves with soil • Becomes toxic in wetlands and lake zones with no oxygen, available sulfates. • Canadian Shield lakes are more vulnerable to toxic mercury formation

Mercury “bioaccumulates” Bacteria convert mercury to toxic form No oxygen High sulfate

20,000 ng/L

1.3 ng/L

Our lakes are especially sensitive!
• Thin, poor soils • Lots of wetlands • Lakes acid sensitive (not much buffering capacity)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Canadian_Shield_Ontario.jpg

Ben Mattila

Bigger circles mean more extreme rain events since 1931

32

Cold water species: Trout, herring

and less coldwater habitat

Managing Stormwater: Reduce, Slow, and Clean the Flow
of Water Over the Landscape

Stormwater and Nonpoint Pollution -- the Number 1 Water Quality Problem in the US. But the sources include all of our roads, rooftops, and lawns How can we deal with such a diffuse and widespread problem?

EPA NPDES Phase II:

Stormwater Permit Program All MS4s within “Urban” areas are
responsible for managing stormwater,
which includes:
6 Minimum Stormwater Control Measures:
 Public Education  Public Participation  Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination  Post-Construction Runoff Control

Separate but Important!  Construction Site Runoff Control

Construction Stormwater Permits:
Separate permit REQUIRED for any construction site of 1 acre or more ANYWHERE in MN or WI. Owners share liability, so make sure your contractor gets a permit if needed!

ConstructionSite Sediment

 Pollution Prevention

150X higher than predisturbance

Ordinance Development
Identify stormwater needs and BMPs for new and existing development

Inventory Natural Resources
 Identify important natural areas, such as wetlands, parks, river corridors, etc., for conservation Identify and utilize existing forest resources in community to slow and infiltrate runoff

Stormwater Utility
 Develop and maintain infrastructure Identify drainage patterns and problems Fees based on assessment of user’s needs

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: Forest and Wetland loss Impervious Surfaces Curb and Gutter Turfgrass
Percent impervious surface in Duluth trout stream watersheds

10% soaks in

City
10% runs off

50% soaks in

Rural Impacts:  Forest Clearing Road Crossings  Removal of Wetlands

50% runs off

Forest

Nemadji Watershed Mouth of Fish Forest Clearing Creek

SEDIMENT: Where is it coming from?
Nemadji River silt/clay budget
33,000 tons of sediment dredged annually by COE
Roads 2% (3,000 Tons) Sheet & Rill 9% (12,000 Tons)

Bluffs 89% Lake Superior 74% (98,000 Tons) (117,000 Tons)

1998 Cost = $260,000.00
Bay 14% Floodplain 4% Uplands 8%

(19,000 Tons) (5,000 (10,000 Tons) Tons)

Predictions: Less summer rainfall and streamflow, higher temps
E. coli: Indicates potential presence of disease-causing bacteria Sources: human, pet, wildlife, bird fecal matter
E. coli in Stormwater Runoff
100000 90000

Why so much Sediment?
Streamflow
North Fish Creek near Moquah, WI
3500 3000
Sediment yield - tonnes/storm

3X Flow

Sediment Yield

Peak of agricultural conversion

2500

2000

2X Flow

1991

Residential Streets
Residential Commercial

About 65% Open

(Geometric Mean Concentration)

80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0
lR oo fs

1000
Completely Forested

Residential Lawns

500

0

Modeled 1870

1870

C/100ml

Observed 1991

Modeled 1991

1991

1500

Modeled 1928

er cia lR oo fs In du st ria lR oo Re fs sid en tia lL aw ns

ee de rS

le ct or S

Dr ive w

er cia lP

Re sid en tia

Co m m

Re sid en tia

Re sid en tia

Urban Source

What we do on our own lawn matters!

Co m m

In du st

lC ol

lF

ria lP

ar kin g

ar ki

Fitzpatrick, et al. 1999

tr e et

ay s

tr e et

ng

• Fish and aquatic organism habitat degradation – Thermal stress – Nutrients and sediments

Too Much Too Fast Increases: Environmental Costs

Predictions: More intense storms, more winter and spring precipitation

• Human health – Toxic contaminants – Bacteria

Economic Costs

• Erosion, sedimentation, and flooding – Dredging – Road costs

1928- Ag Peak

Where Does the Water Come From?

1.4
1.6 2.1
1.2
1.5
5. 1 0.5 Runoff 1.5 Direct
Precipitation
1.0 Evaporation

Source: USEPA 1995. The Great Lakes An Environmental Atlas and Resource Book

0.4 6. 9 0.7
0.7
6. 0
Values are in thousands of cubic meters
per second. (1,000 cubic meters = Ten 48’
semi-truck trailers or a football field with just over 7 inches of water)

1.2

Great Lakes Watershed Areas Drainage Areas and Lake Surface Areas for the Great Lakes and Lake Surface Areas
200,000 150,000
100,000
50,000
0

Lake Surface Area Lake Surface Area
Retention Time (years)

Retention Time for Retention Times Great Lakeseach of the Great Lakes
200 150
100 50
0

Square miles

Watershed Area Drainage Area

The time it
would take to
refill an empty
lake

Superior Michigan Huron

Erie

Ontario

Superior Michigan

Huron

Erie

Ontario

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” • Cold-adapted critters

Canadian Shield

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Canadian_Shield_Ontario.jpg

More Climate Change Information and Data

Mass Balance of Glaciers around the world

(Average of over 300 glaciers)

Chernobyl 1986 Mt. Pinatubo 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 80
60
40
20
0

Wolf Population

Moose Population

IPCC 2001

2000
1500
1000
500
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
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
Deg F
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6

Summer

Winter

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
Moving Too Fast
Too Much Water

Nutrients and Bacteria

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 287’ x 151’

1 acre 287’ x 151’

1 acre 287’ x 151’

1 acre 287’ x 151’

1 acre 287’ x 151’

1 acre
287’ x 151’

1 acre 287’ x 151’

1 acre 287’ x 151’

1 acre 347’ x 125’

5 acres 696’ x 313’

1 acre 287’ x 151’

1 acre 287’ x 151’

1 acre 287’ x 151’

1 acre 347’ x 125’

1 acre 173’ x 247’

1 acre 347’ x 125’

1 acre 173’ x 247’

2 acres 437’ x 200’ 5 acres 696’ x 313’

More coMpact coMMunities produce less runoff
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 Greenhouse The 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

UCS 2006

*since 1880, first year with reliable data for land and sea temperatures

Other Observations:
Ben Mattila

Jason Biggerstaff and Jacob Orlove , Brandeis University

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Canadian_Shield_Ontario.jpg

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 and Temperature

current c02 levels 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 improved.
slide froM lucinda Johnson, nrri

**huMan = greenhouse gases aerosols

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

95

Temperature Preferences: Great Lakes Fish Species
Warm water species: Bullhead, carp Cool water species: Pike, crappie

Preferred Temperature (°F)

86

68

50

32

Cold water species: Trout, herring

Climate Change and Water Quality
More warm- and cool-water habitat…
CoolWarmWater Water Habitat Habitat ColdWater Habitat

and less coldwater 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

GLOBAL POLLUTION (30%)
Natural sources – fire, volcanoes

People sources – coal burning power plants**, incineration, products

REGIONAL POLLUTION (40%)

Mercury from Watershed

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

O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2

O2

O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2

O2 O2

O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2

O2

O2 O 2 O2 O2

O2

O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 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 doing right:
 Controlling sulfur emissions  Reducing mercury product use, improving disposal

Things to work on:
 Reduce energy use!  Reduce stormwater runoff impacts  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 • Some of the same solutions help with all three issues • You can make a difference at the local level Climate Change Mercury

Stormwater

A View From the Lake 2006 Evaluation
Today’s trip

Location _________________________ Date __________________ Start Time
About you (Check all that apply)

AM

PM

____Visitor to the area ____Elected official

____Full time area resident ____Non-elected official

____Seasonal resident ____Teacher ____Other: ____________________________

What community is your primary residence? __________________________________________ Why did you decide to come on this trip? ______________________________________________ Evaluation

Please rate the following:

Poor ⇒

Excellent
3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5
5 5 5

Comments:

Time allowed for observing Quality of the:
pre-trip presentation - - lecture at the front of the boat map activity at the stern - water and sediment sampling

-

1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2

Indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following:

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:

Disagree ⇒ Agree

Will this information help you: 1. Take action in your community? 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?

___Yes ___No ___Not Sure

2. Make changes at your own home? ___Yes ___No ___Not Sure

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 make changes at your own home?
‘ Catch gutter run-off - be sure to have "rain garden" areas. (note: rain gardens mentioned 19 times in comments) ‘ Develop rain barrels for run off on both sides of Roof (note: rain barrels mentioned 38 times in comments) ‘ Educate my family and friends ‘ I am in education so l can give info. I can make my home more energy efficient. ‘ I am putting in a new driveway and will deal with it in a good way. ‘ I can do the home activities: rain barrel, water garden. Harder to change the community. ‘ I can use this info. In my class room and I know what I can do at home. ‘ I now have a good idea of how to handle the erosion problems! ‘ I teach 5th grade & will pass on the info. ‘ I think I'll try to put in 1-2 rain barrels. ‘ I will plant more trees. ‘ I won’t drain water collection area on property surrounding my house. ‘ I can get a rain barrel, reduce
lawn area, plant more native
plants.
‘ Increase buffer zone to lake ‘ Long answer, big waves ‘ More so than before this trip. I now know simple, effective & practical practices to [put] in place. ‘ Need to be responsible for my own community actions. ‘ Plant more vegetation, preserve whatever wetland in area.

Will this information help you make changes in your community?
‘ Now I am more aware and can push officials locally to make the right choices and me at home too. ‘ On planning commission helps in deciding issues and educating public. ‘ This should help inform me for policy discussions. I am going to encourage friends to get rain barrels. ‘ Want to make a rain garden at home and in the community

‘ Will be more active in zoning issues, able to participate w/more ideas. Have rain barrel now - will plant more trees by river - already started this spring. ‘ Work with ICOLA in Itasca
County and in Ill
‘ I would like to start a discussion at work about rain gardens to slow run off ‘ Might Look at changes in land use. ‘ Attend more mtgs with storm
H20 mgmt in mind
‘ Be more vigilant at home and at work ( city council) protecting the lake. ‘ Talk to my elected officials ‘ I am going to be more proactive in the community decision making and voting.

(As a result of this trip,) How has your opinion changed?
‘ Superior is more important than I ever recognized. ‘ As individuals, we can make a difference. ‘ I honestly didn’t know very much at all- I didn’t care a whole lot either. I felt that things were exaggerated when I heard more about them before. I care more now. I think the main reason was the information, the way it was presented, it was very nonthreatening, fun, and the environment was beautiful! ‘ Better understanding of watersheds and how they work, and impact. ‘ Didn't know the factors to protect our lake, now I feel I can help make a difference.

‘ Didn't realize all the impacts and how they connect. ‘ Hasn’t changed I have always felt strongly about protecting the lake. ‘ I am more aware of things I can personally do to make a difference. ‘ I am protecting more after your presentations. ‘ I didn't realize how big of a deal it was really; even little things over time have impact. ‘ I liked the game--it made clear the level of interaction and trade off. ‘ Land use planning has trade offs. And cooperation and education is the key to getting things done with all sectors of the community. ‘ Learned more about Lake Superior specifically and how it differes from other lakes in state. ‘ Learned more about mercury. ‘ learned more about the storm water problem ‘ Learned more ways of protecting lakes and want to use information. ‘ More aware of all the influence on lake quality and what can be done to reduce impact ‘ My opinion didn't change, but my knowledge of how to make [positive] changes to improve/protect the lake did. ‘ Our City needs to do more. ‘ This trip along with a previous one made me realize the importance of the watershed and well as my role. ‘ We need less impervious surfaces & more natural plants.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.