The environmental and social impacts of urban runoff on eutrophic lake ecosystems
The University of Wisconsin, Madison
Geography 565 Research Project
Tuesday December 13, 2010
Austin Becker
Gerald Daniels
Samuel Mathews
Steven Roanhaus
! 2
Contents
Research Question??.?????????????????3
Abstract???????????????????????.3
Literature Review of Secondary Data???????????...4
Methodology????????????????????...14
Results???????????????????????.17
Conclusion?????????????????????..30
Further Research???????????????????.32
Works Cited?????????????????????33
Appendix??????????????????????36
! 3
Research Question:
How does urban stormwater runoff afect the Lake Mendota ecosystem, fish populations,
and subsistence anglers? How are stormwater contributions identified and dealt with on campus?
Abstract
Unraveling the isue of urban runoff is a daunting task to bring into focus because of
dificulties identifying runoff sources and developing cost-efective solutions. The need to find
solutions stems from isues of eutrophication that jeopardizes lake ecosystems and fish
populations. The contributions come from sources ranging from residencies to busineses, and
actors ranging from individuals to organizations. As the urban landscape expands, understanding
surface and stormwater runoff is a necesity for responsible development and should take into
acount the resulting impacts on fish and the people who rely on them for sustenance.
! 4
Introduction
Lake Mendota, the largest of the Yahara Lake chain, the city water source and sustenance
for Madison, represents decades of water management policies. These policies have been
focused on runoff from the rural and urban Madison area, focusing primarily on urban
stormwater runoff from the Isthmus of downtown Madison.
This goal of this project is to find a correlation betwen the increase in Madison's urban
landscape and its relationship to the health of Lake Mendota and its fish populations. The health
of the lake and fish populations are important as they provide sustenance for recreational fishers
around the area. People?s livelihoods rely upon the fish in the lake; when the fish aren?t healthy
because of the over-polluted lake, they tend to suffer. The paper brings together many major
topics that could easily be one single research project. Keping this in mind, the linear
progresion of steps that occur has to be wel understood in order to establish a connection
betwen the information. This can be sen in a flow chart (Figure 1) to dismis any confusion.
The urban landscape, in relation to this project, is sen as any sort of developed land in
and around a city center. In the case of Madison, downtown is the major portion of the urbanized
area but dense residential areas surrounding downtown wil be considered developed because
they pose as big of a threat to urban runoff. It is important to understand that urban runoff does
not include any sort of sewage system or treated water. Stormwater is the primary focus for
urban runoff because it acts as an untreated water source that inevitably flows into lake systems.
Water policies have changed to counteract the increased amount of direct water runoff
into Lake Mendota. Surface drainage systems wil be analyzed to understand Madison?s
structural policies around the city. The runoff quality of the water is important when considering
its impact on the lake itself. Huge amounts of contaminants are dragged into the lake from many
! 5
diferent sources such as construction areas, lawn fertilizers and rooftops. There is an extensive
array literature on stormwater chemistry research around Madison, which is useful in trying to
understand the primary pollutants. Phosphorus is the expected major factor, which is considered
the main limiting nutrient in blue-green algae eutrophication in many lakes.
These algae blooms are a distasteful addition to the resource quality of Lake Mendota and
are expected to have numerous efects on the fish populations. The ecosystem of Lake Mendota
is clearly not as stable as it originaly was and cannot continue to lose its usefulnes to the people
who rely upon a stable population of fish. Even if the fish aren?t decreasing in number, the
number of toxins and unhealthy contaminants inside them could be increasing. This is a major
cause for concern when there are people eating the fish every day.
Much of the University of Wisconsin, Maison campus is located along the shore of Lake
Mendota near downtown and is undoubtedly a primary source of contaminated urban runoff.
Landscape observations and interviews wil lead us to draw conclusions as to what can be done
on campus to counteract stormwater runoff. The surrounding inhabitants that al rely upon the
lake directly efect the cleanlines of Lake Mendota. Focusing eforts on campus is a more
realistic goal that can stil have large positive efects on the lake?s health.
! 6
Literature Review
Lake Mendota has always been a highlight of the Madison area. However, Mendota's
unhealthy state was only noticed because of its unatractive appearance. Considering how
quickly the urban landscape has evolved in the Madison area, there is litle doubt that urban
stormwater pollution is having afects on the healthines of the lake. Acording to the city of
Madison census and state populations estimations, the area of Madison increased from 4.9 square
miles in 1850 to almost 70 square miles by the year 2000 (Dave Larson, 2000). This rapid
urbanization has greatly increased the amount of surface water making its way into Lake
Mendota.
The changing appearance of the lake was first recognized in the 1880?s, during which
time the limnology department at the University of Wisconsin was founded. Hydrology, climate
and precipitation, populations, soil erosion and transformation lead the debate on the connection
of the human impact on lake ecosystems. Over a century of water quality studies have been
conducted on Lake Mendota in order to understand the connection betwen eutrophication and
pollution runoff. One of the primary contributors to the eutrophication proces is agricultural
non-point runoff that comes into Mendota from the Yahara River (Benson, 2006). While this
provides a large portion of the pollution, the focus of this research is to determine how urban
land development and use has lasting impacts on the lake. The change from diverse grases and
plant coverage to a smoother surface and coverings, such as streets and asphalt asociated with
urban development, alters the infiltration rates of precipitation to the ground (Elis, 2010).
Documented data show surface changes in these areas and possible efects. Possible, because for
scientists to acurately measure true impacts with an ecosystem time line it would take thousands
! 7
of years to understand the full ability of the ecosystem to adapt to the changes (Turner, et. al.,
1990).
One of the primary contributors to the eutrophication proces is agricultural non-point
runoff that comes into Mendota from the Yahara River (Benson, 2006). While this provides a
large portion of the pollution, the focus of this research is to determine how urban land
development and use has lasting impacts on the lake. The chief concern in urban areas is found
to be construction-site sediment runoff (Wegener, 2001). Improper barriers and catchments
alow nutrient rich sediment to rush off into the lakes through storm drains and litle has been
done in the past to curtail this isue. On the City of Madison website, one is able to locate al of
the permit information for construction sites of a certain size or larger in the entire Madison area
that have been reviewed by the Department of Public Works. Currently, three large construction
sites on campus are listed: the Chazen Art Museum (Larry D. Nelson, 2009) expansion, the
Exploration Center (Larry D. Nelson, 2008) on engineering campus and the new Union South
(Larry D. Nelson, 2009) near Camp Randal. The construction permits are outfited with a
universal soil erosion equation that can be implemented with any construction site relative to
their location. Al three of the sites state the total amount of soil los due to erosion in tons/acre
of land. The three construction sites show formidable amounts of soil loss that wil make their
way into the surrounding lakes. Union South and the Exploration center are close to the
watershed border for Mendota and Monona so their particulate runoff could afect both lakes.
Construction is not the only contributing factor in pollution runoff. Streets, houses,
apartments, neighborhoods and busineses al contribute to the collection of the runoff. By
changing the ground cover with roads, sidewalks and buildings has altered the permeability of
the land surface. Many studies exist that quantify runoff pollution in urban residential areas of
! 8
Madison that show the masive impact single family households can have on the health of non-
point pollution entering the lakes. These wil be discussed further on. Because of the diversity of
pollution point and non-point sources, local and state policies have to stretch many boundaries.
Al bases have to be covered for stormwater runoff sanitation to be efective for returning Lake
Mendota back to its healthy state.
Recently the Department of Natural Resources pased their updated runoff rules to the
state asembly and senate. These rules aim to keep down the input of suspended solids and
nutrient rich runoff from point and non-point polluters. By definition point pollution refers to
?end of pipe? (storm drain) contributions while non-point comes from surface runoff into the
lake. Development of land afects the water in both fashions; through improper construction
practices and also permanently by changing the face of surface runoff (Dane County Land
Information Ofice, 2000 & State Highway Commision of Wisconsin, 1937). The rules
proposed were pased by the Agricultural, Environment, and Natural Resources commites in
the State Senate and Asembly showing that concern for the lakes has become a political priority.
With the recent pasage of the DNR?s runoff rules there was a compromise sought
betwen the numerous stakeholders of this isue. Agriculturalists, developers, manufacturers,
environmentalists, and municipalities were involved to reach a compromise on how to reduce
runoff pollution. Rather than impose a system of bricks and mortar by creating or expanding
water treatment facilities, the rules alow for an adaptive management proces. Through this
proces buffer zones that offer natural vegetative filtration are a more cost efective and lasting
solution than building and maintaining treatment facilities to reduce the nonpoint runoff into the
lake. For construction and developers limits are set at 5 tons of sediment per acre per year and
! 9
require a storm water discharge permit, which is aimed to bring down the cost of water
treatment.
The City of Madison has as part of its annual budget a portion of funds for not only for
the maintenance for the system, to keep it unclogged and working, but also for updating and
applying new construction phases for the system. It certainly sems to be easier to deal with and
afect the ground water runoff in rural surroundings than the city. Urban developments such as
gutters, storm drains, retention ponds and collection system al provide for the belief of control
of the runoff; these run throughout the city and surrounding suburbs. The organization of runoff
from residential and industrial areas needs to be reevaluated to atempt to reduce the rate of
collection and discharge of the surface water. The implementation of techniques to create a more
permeable ground cover in the urban environment has started. With rain gardens, rain barrels
and terracing yards can change the rate over time of surface runoff into the storm system in
residential neighborhoods (Mueler, G. D. and Thompson, A. M.; 2009).
As reported by Wisconsin DNR, non-point pollution can be directly connected to the
volume of storm drain outlet discharge. The concentration of debris discharged from the urban
storm water system is releasing increased amounts of contaminants in a much more restricted
area becomes these non-point sources. This volume of discharge has increased the erosion and
compositions of soils in the discharge areas. The collection and redirecting of surface drainage
both in urban and rural areas acount for this volume increase (Harder, 1994).
By understanding how the land uses and developmental structures around Lake Mendota
contribute to surface runoff wil help create a plan to utilize methods to reduce the quantity and
increase the quality of the water. Retaining the water before it reaches lakes alows time for
sediment and nutrients to setle. It is important that policymakers and conservationists determine
! 10
the nutrient with the highest potential to harm lake ecosystems so resources and funds can be
focused and begin to have positive efects. Much scientific research around the Madison area
points towards phosphorus as being the most important factor when concerned with urban runoff
and lake contamination.
A newsleter devoted to stormwater runoff in Madison collects information from
scientific research completed by Dr. G. Fred Le and his asociates (Anne Le, G. Fred Le;
2007). The research entailed the collection of urban water samples and testing them for nitrogen
and phosphorus that make their way into the lake. It ends the research with a conclusion stating a
specific type of algal growth-promoting phosphorus, soluble ortho phosphorus, which should be
a focus for conservationists. Although it is nice to pinpoint a specific type of phosphorus to
contain, I think our project is much more general in the respect of management programs. Idealy
we would want chemical fortifications before runoff made its way into the lake, but a more
feasible application of conservation in Madison and the campus area would involve stopping al
types of phosphorus as sediment from the storm systems.
To get a diferent sense of phosphorus levels throughout Madison and on campus,
Wiliam F. Cohen and G. Fred Le (1976) presents findings with several test locations. The
locations were chosen for high, medium and low-density residential areas, a campus area and a
construction site. With the collected runoff water, samples were tested for diferent forms of
organic and inorganic phosphorus. Much of the literature is extremely scientific and tough to
understand without a good organic chemistry background. The details presented are too
extensive for our project, which is going to focus more on the general runoff and presenting a
barrier before it enters into Lake Mendota. In the conclusion section they finish by saying their
information could be calculated to determine a total phosphorus load from urban runoff but they
! 11
do not bother to do so. Unfortunately, this final number would have probably been the most
useful of al their information.
A project, by R. T. Bannerman, D. W. Owens, R. B. Dodds and N. J. Hornewer (1993)
studies surrounding residential and industrial areas of Madison for Stormwater runoff
contaminants, which wil be useful for understanding the general public?s afect on stormwater
runoff. This project looked at many diferent chemical factors that came from many sources that
we do not have time to test or observe. Most importantly, it recorded levels of total and disolved
phosphorus from al of its tested areas. The significance of their findings shows the highest levels
of total and disolved phosphorus in residential areas. Residential areas, especialy in lawns
because of fertilizers can be equated to the campus area. The campus area uses fertilizers in their
green space and obviously includes streets, roofs and driveways. This paper presents the
information in a semingly non-biased manner with its raw data. In the conclusion they do
provide some future insight into how development of runoff technology can help. They sem to
calculate that by fixing only two of the major input sources of contaminants wil bring levels
below what is considered critical for lake runoff. This is good to se, though it may be optimistic,
since campus provides only a smal fraction of the Mendota watershed. It shows eforts on
campus would not be worthles relative to the lake size.
Most of the literature involving stormwater chemistry, especialy those listed above,
presents statistical-heavy information that can get jumbled when al thrown together. This is
especialy true for readers without an extensive water biology and chemistry background. The
goal is to sort out the useful information pertaining to our project without losing key information
from the article. Al of the articles addres phosphorus in runoff, which sems to be the biggest
! 12
contaminant from stormwater runoff; therefore the research wil focus on phosphorus as the main
cause of overly eutrophic lakes.
To establish a strong connection betwen the phosphorus and the health of fish
populations, one must understand the correlation betwen phosphorus and algae blooms. Richard
C. Lathrop explains the efect eutrophication has had in the Madison chain of lakes, in causing
vast amounts of blue-green algae bloom growth (2007). Following Madison?s eradication of
direct wastewater inputs into Lake Monona in 1936, and the diversion of efluents into Lake
Mendota in 1971, Lathrop notes that the persistent algae blooms have been spurred by
agriculture and urban non-point runoff. He gives an excelent overview on how algae has been
historicaly caused and the afects changing land use has had on runoff, but stops short of any
efects these algae blooms may have on humans. This was not the primary focus of the paper,
but he gives the reader no real cause for concern in the prevention of algae formation.
Further research shows that there can be a real cause for concern for increased algae
blooms in lakes. A scientific article by H. W. Paerl, et. al. (2001) presents specific types of
toxins created by algae that can make their way into the food chain and have negative efects on
fish populations. There is also reason to be concerned because of blue-green algae?s ability to
totaly block out light from geting through to other producers in the food chain. This, along with
the creation of hypoxic conditions can have disastrous efects on lake food chains and
ecosystems. The Wisconsin DNR covers health concerns with eating fish from lakes with high
abundances of blue-green algae (2009).
It is also important to gather just whom the contaminated fish are afecting. Many local
scholars addres the lack of local cultural knowledge and understanding demonstrated by
institutional scientific experts when developing risk asesment policies and procedures to
! 13
protect sustenance anglers from harmful afects of contaminated fish consumption. Jim Powel,
et al. (2010) argue that more information on race and clas fish consumption would provide for
more culturaly appropriate education, from language-specific warning signs to public awarenes
programs that addres disproportionately afected minorities. They admit that there is no
concrete solution to defending against anglers consuming fish with dangerous levels of toxins,
but lay out guidelines for reaching out to local health agencies and elected officials to create
change.
A good portion of this article by Jim Powel et al. is dedicated to acomplishments or
projects created and implemented by Madison Environmental Justice Organization, some which
have ultimately failed. A particular fish-consumption warning sign project, which was pushed
by the organization in earlier publications, has proven to be mostly inefective, and other projects
have had the same fate (Powel & Powel 2008). On one hand, this horn-blowing about al the
things the organization has done could be sen as a group simply looking for atention, but on the
other hand, learning about how and why these projects have been unsuccesful could prove
valuable in moving forward with further solutions and also spread the isue into the public
sphere. The later of these two asumptions is probably the more appropriate reason for their
including of past eforts with anglers.
Making these major connections betwen what is causing the pollution that contaminates
the fish, and which subsequently harms the humans that consume these fish, is vital in
understanding what can be done to make efective change both on campus on beyond. It is also
critical to collect data on the people who consume harmful amounts of fish, so we may beter
concentrate public outreach to impacted communities.
! 14
Methods
Interviews
John Magnuson ? University of Wisconsin, Limnology Department
In order to understand what has motivated changes in legislation concerning runoff
pollution John J. Magnuson Emeritus Profesor of Limnology was sought for an interview. As
co-author of Long-Term Dynamics of Lakes in the Landscape Magnuson was able to offer
insight as to how society?s perspective of lake management has changed along with the
landscape. He also was extremely helpful in teling us about campus projects that are happening
to combat the amount of runoff into the lake. In a chapter specificaly on Lake Mendota,
Magnuson?s book points out that with 15,000 lakes in Wisconsin and a water centered tourism
industry it?s no wonder that economic impact plays a major role in the efort to keep Wisconsin
waterways clean (Benson, 2006). Beyond tourism another economic aspect must be examined
and that is of course the cost/benefit analysis of possible solutions.
John Reimer - Department of Public Works, City of Madison
To understand the current procedures implemented in the City of Madison an interview
with the Department of Public Works that overses the storm sewer system, wil give an official
perception of the circumstances surrounding the efort of runoff control into Lake Mendota and
Monona to improve water quality and the local fisheries.
Madison Construction Workers
The construction workers that they were required to the City to clean out the drain
screens following a rain event. The drain had the landscape fabric mesh/cloth to capture as much
! 15
sediment as possible. Even with this extra efort to collect and contain debris stil alowed some
to drain into the storm sewer system.
Candy Schrank ? Toxicologist, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (Email)
In order to establish a strong connection betwen phosphorus afecting algae populations
and their efect on fish populations, we turned to some people who work for the DNR who
understand fish toxicology and ecosystems that have negative efects on their populations. Candy
provided us with very useful information and with other scientific articles that are present in our
secondary findings.
Maria Powel, PhD - Executive Director ? Madison Environmental Justice Organization
Dr. Powel has conducted extensive research on the sustenance-angler population in
Madison. We met with her to receive documents covering this research and to gain insight on
approaching these anglers as an outsider. She has experience interviewing anglers and prepared
tips for us to avoid offending or upseting the anglers. She also has a wealth of knowledge of
past developments concerning the protection of urban sustenance anglers. She is experienced in
handling presing isues in the environmental justice movement such as combating degrading
runoff leading to the pollution of Lake Monona, Lake Mendota, and their aquatic species.
Interviews with Anglers
In order to gain a beter understanding of how the depleted fisheries directly afect
members of the community who use them as a source of sustenance, we resolved to interview
shoreline fishermen and women on the shores of downtown Madison?s lakes. The health of the
! 16
sustenance fishing community is of the utmost importance to us, because unlike other
recreational and economic uses of the lake, the livelihood of these anglers and their families is
highly dependant on the cleanlines and productivity of the lakes. Interviewing these men and
women turned out to be rewarding for our research project as we formed informal relationships
with some of the fishers, alowing us to acquire insight on their experience, which others rarely
hear. Cognizant of the fact that many of Madison?s sustenance anglers speak Hmong, Spanish,
and other foreign languages, we decided to interview only those who could efectively
communicate in English. We recognized that this would jeopardize our results by eliminating a
large and culturaly diverse sample of sustenance anglers, but considering time and language
resource limitations, we found it necesary in order to obtain enough interviews to formulate
clear results.
Landscape Observations
In order to beter understand the efect that campus has on Lake Mendota, landscape
observations were made along the lakeshore to determine the location of as many storm drains as
possible. The locations were mapped over the Mendota watershed layer along with construction
sites on campus to give a beter perspective of the Universities non-point sources. (Figure 2).
! 17
Results
For more than a century now Lake Mendota has been the focus of extensive monitoring
ad experimentation with both cleanup of pollutants and prevention of detrimental contributions
(Magnuson, 2006). The isues of urbanization that pose the biggest threat to water quality is the
proces of changing the landscape through development and the resulting landscapes
susceptibility to surface runoff. The city of Madison is entirely aware of the runoff efects and
works on preventing and limiting the amount of untreated stormwater from entering the lake.
Their primary concern is of the welnes of the people of Madison, which is partialy a product of
the healthines and safety of the Yahara Lakes and their ecosystems (City of Madison, 2007).
The way in which runoff impacts lake ecosystems and fish populations wil be shown as a
condition of varying concern. Two diferent approaches to how fish are afected are through a
chemical reaction causing hypoxia as wel as blue-green algae presence which impairs primary
production and as a result the lakes food chain.
The watershed basin, approximately 9,566 acres, drains into Lake Mendota and acounts
for 25 percent of the 38,247 acres in the city of Madison (Figure 5). Combining this with the
Lake Monona drainage watershed of 8,017 acres the two equate to 46 percent of the land surface
in Madison (John Reimer, 2010). This gives us a view of the scale of the problem. Runoff into
lake Mendota, as stated previously, comes from many more places than just urban areas. 70
percent of the pollution in to Lake Mendota comes from agricultural practices while the other 30
percent is urban influenced (John Magnuson, 2010). Lake Monona?s pollution, on the other
hand, comes from more than 50 percent urban contributions. To continue focusing on Lake
Mendota, though both would be ideal, wil inevitably contribute to the health of Lake Monona
downstream.
! 18
The Madison area urbanized very rapidly because of the downtown area being squeezed
into the isthmus. The buffer of land was therefore, originaly quite smal betwen development
and the water. Typicaly water wil have time to sep into the ground and filter before the feding
nutrients move into the lake. It is easy to misunderstand the concept of a buffer betwen city and
lake because it may sem as solely the shoreline of the lake from preventing water flowing in
directly. John Magnuson describes this concept as too narrow, ?Many people se buffer strip as
only the shoreline of the stream or lake... wel those are al interrupted by tributaries or storm
sewers and so the management of the buffer strip is actualy not just the shoreline, it?s the whole
area of [Madison]... Every house, busines and park in Madison is on the storm sewer drainage
system. At one time when you didn?t have the storm sewers, the water would sep in and get to
the lake, but now the whole town is as if it is on the shoreline.? (John Magnuson, 2010).
The City of Madison Engineering office overses the storm water system throughout the
city. The storm system is designed to control urban flooding and improve water quality through
BMP (Best Management Practices). Each watershed has in place vast infrastructure of piping
varying in sizes needed to carry the surface water load. Lake Mendota has 131 output sources
and Lake Monona has 202 outfal basins or pipe sizes 36 inches or greater.
The city of Madison has many ordinances and rules set to help reduce the amount of
pollution going into stormwater. More street sweping and leave pickup keeps nutrients from
being carried out during heavy rains while leaves are decomposing (Figure 7). It was never
made an ordinance due to the complexity of regulation but leaf disposal ?is a major isue? (John
Magnuson, 2010). This isn?t enough in itself though. There are other smaler ordinances that add
up. These include practices such as, picking up dog feces and placing labels on storm sewers to
disuade people from dumping toxic chemicals that can be harmful to the lakes (John Magnuson,
! 19
2010). With a focus on reducing the TS (Total Suspended Solids) Madison evaluates the
instalation of underground collection basins as a big step in reducing debris flows (John Reimer,
2010). Operational maintenance within the system for both urban and residential areas is
addresed in the same manner.
The city of Madison funds many projects that aim to reduce the amount of sediment
reaching the lakes. One of the most succesful projects involves catchment basins or detention
ponds that hold erosion runoff before it enters into the lake and gives time for the sediment-filed
water to setle into the catchment. Yearly reports show the level of total phosphorus in lake
Mendota versus the total phosphorus found in detention ponds. The detention ponds tend to have
much higher levels of total phosphorus around 100-200 m/l but is highly variable. Lake
Mendota?s total phosphorus levels are much more stable over time, around 50-70 m/l. This
shows that they achieve their goal of disalowing high phosphorus concentrations into the lakes
(City of Madison, 2008 Clean Lakes Report) (Figure 3). The variability in the detention ponds is
sen in a much closer time frame than the stable P levels of Mendota. Measurements this close
together could be showing high P levels during periods of high rainfal and low P levels during
low periods of rainfall.
Throughout Madison, much scientific research has been completed and compiled
concerning urban stormwater runoff. An important thing to consider when concerned with
stormwater is the chemical (nutrient) composition of the water making its ways into lakes,
especialy lake Mendota. Nitrogen and phosphorus present themselves as the major influential
nutrients that conservationists should be concerned with in nearly every study (John Magnuson,
2010). Phosphorus is particularly important because of its known asociations with positive algal
growth in freshwater lakes.
! 20
Runoff has taken center stage in recent policy actions due to public outcry of the blue-
green algae problem in highly eutrophic lakes (Wisconsin DNR). Citizens of the state that use
the waters for recreation or sustenance have experienced a negative impact due to the input of
nutrient rich sediment. When toxic algal blooms are at their peak in the late summer, beaches get
closed due to the risk of health isues asociated with coming into contact with the blooms. Pets
have died due to ingestion of these toxic waters, but there is a greater efect that blue-green algae
has had on the lake ecosystem.
Two organisms, blue-green algae and cyanobacteria, are largely abundant in lake
ecosystems and present the possibility of negatively afecting fish populations. The phosphorus
loading into Lake Mendota is largely a reason why blue-green algae (BGA) blooms are so
frequent and unatractive. It has been observed that the BGA episodes that are so widespread can
have major direct and indirect impacts on organisms such as freshwater clams (Prepas E.E., et.
al. 1996) and more importantly, fish populations. The direct efects are those that contaminate
the fish with harmful toxins (Paerl HW, et. al. 2001). These toxins are especialy abundant in the
livers of the fish and are known as hepatoxins (Schrank, 2010). These toxins are especialy
concerning because they can eventualy build up and become harmful to humans when
consumed. Other organic compounds produced by BGA are harmful to phytoplankton and
zooplankton and can have adverse efects up the food chain (Paerl HW, et. al. 2001). A second
form of harmful organisms that rely upon the nutrient loading into lakes are cyanobacteria. These
photosynthetic prokaryotes produce similar toxins as BGA and others harmful to vertebrates
known as cyanotoxins (Wiegand C. and Pflugmacher S., 2005) that have been known to produce
masive fish mortality rates in lakes (Rodger H. D. et. al., 1994).
! 21
Under extreme eutrophic conditions fish may suffer from hypoxia due to lack of oxygen
in the waters. These hypoxic conditions are a result of a chemical reaction with decomposing
BGA. When BGA dies they create a sestan fal that eventualy penetrates through the the
thermocline of the lake and continues to decompose. The proces of decomposition uses up
oxygen supplies in the lower colder waters until fal. During fal months the lake cools and the
thermocline breaks down which alows a remixing of surface and deep waters. The oxygen that
is lost through the decomposing sestan fal would otherwise serve respiratory functions of cold
water fish. Prior to the break down of the thermocline cold water fish like the lake herring and
the sculp must venture out of colder waters to continue respiratory functions. As a result these
fish may perish in warmer surface waters leading to fish kils. These hypoxic conditions have
put fish like the lake herring and the sculp on the brink of extinction in Lake Mendota due to
excesive amounts of phosphorus which alow blue-green algal growth (John Magnuson, 2010).
Blue-green algae, as opposed to other forms of algae, do not represent major parts of food
chains in lake ecosystems, but they can stil afect it in indirect ways. Lake ecosystems and food
chains, similar to terrestrial, are hugely reliant upon primary producers converting sunlight into
usable energy. BGA blooms in eutrophic lakes can get so abundant to the point where they
reduce the amount of light penetration into the lake (Wisconsin DNR). The reduced light source
can have efects on the photosynthetic algae that many primary consumers such as zooplankton
rely upon for food. This can prove detrimental to the populations of fish who rely upon
zooplankton and similarly larger fish and secondary consumers.
Runoff?s efects on lake ecosystems are evident in fish populations, which provide a large
source of sustenance for many fishers around both Lake Mendota and Monona. The health of the
fish can directly afect the health of consumers if they have harmful toxins built from algal and
! 22
cyanobacteria intrusion. Population sizes can be afected, which reduces the amount of fish
available for consumption that can in turn, afect the health of anglers who rely on fish
populations to stay fed.
As local fisheries in close proximity to Madison?s urban nucleus decline in quality or
quantity due to the increased presence of algae growth and toxin drainage, anglers using the lake
as a source of food are often left out of the picture. They do not receive imperative information
that may influence their practices. It is evident that there is a significant disparity betwen the
level of knowledge regarding the harmful efects of fish consumption among sustenance anglers
and the recommended limitations and warnings isued by the Wisconsin DNR.
The logistical chalenges of preventing damaging urban runoff into Madison?s lakes and
the environmental justice isues it subsequently creates have not been readily acesible to the
public thus far. The interviews that have been conducted by our group as wel as those
conducted by previous organizations have alowed us to provide insight into the lives of those
who are afected the most by the deteriorating conditions of local urban fisheries. After
participating in several interviews with sustenance anglers, a few major paterns emerged that
have alowed us to pinpoint major isues faced by the English-speaking fishing community in
Madison.
A large percentage of the anglers we spoke with were unaware of the risks asociated
with consuming too much fish from the lakes, and a lack of knowledge was displayed regarding
the problems which local fisheries are faced with (Figure 6d & 6f). Amongst this majority, two
overarching trends were indicated in the level of desired knowledge regarding the fish
populations they depend on. There was a tendency among some anglers towards a lack of desire
to obtain information pertaining to the risks they may be facing, possibly due to anxiety of what
! 23
they might find. Almost every angler we spoke with had been fishing on Lake Mendota or
Monona for at least two years, and some as many as sixty (Figure 6b). A few joked that if there
were damage to be done, it was now irreversible. One fisherman named Lance Davenport
claimed to have been fishing Mendota and Monona for 62 years, and although he was wel aware
of the consumption warnings, said that to stop eating self-caught fish would put an end to the
way of life he has been acustomed to since a young boy (Interview, Nov. 2010).
Some anglers who claimed to have litle knowledge of how the fish populations are
afected reflected an eagernes to learn more about the resource they use on a monthly, wekly,
and even daily basis (Figure 6c). When posed with the question, ?What have you heard about the
health risks asociated with eating fish from Mendota and Monona??, some anglers became
anxious and asked what information they were mising out on. This represents a lack of
community outreach by officials in sharing with anglers the negative efects that the
acumulation of toxins in the fish can have on the human body.
The interviews showed that a large percentage of shoreline anglers consume nearly al of
the fish they catch (Figure 6a). Many were surprised that anyone would ask the question, ?How
much of the fish that you catch do you eat??, as they simply asumed it would be foolish to waste
good food if one had put in the efort to catch it. Others found the idea of catch-and-release to be
foolish, and said that they almost always consumed each and every fish that they were able to
succesfully reel in. The majority of anglers noted that they fish the lakes an average of three to
fives times a wek, revealing that a large portion of their diet is made up of fish caught in
Madison. These anglers, who consume al or most of the fish they catch, are primarily catching
panfish, usualy bluegil and crappie (Figure 6i). It is worrisome that the diet of these anglers is
composed of multiple meals of bluegil or crappie per wek or even per day, as the DNR
! 24
recommends limiting consumption of these species to one meal per wek (WI DNR). People
prefer cooking the fish in a variety of ways, but deep-frying, pan-frying, and baking the fish were
the prevalent responses (Figure 6e). Some anglers said they leave the skin on the fish, which can
hold concentrated levels of dangerous toxins (WI DNR).
Much to our surprise, many people who regularly acquire fish from Madison do not live
in Madison or even its surrounding region (Figure 6h). People seking beter fishing conditions
frequently make daily trips from the Milwaukee area, the Rockford, Ill area, as wel as smaler
urban areas in the southern portion of Wisconsin. Many noticed and had heard through felow
anglers that the Madison lakes are cleaner and fish are healthier in Mendota and Monona than
their respective hometowns. It may be true that the lakes are cleaner than bodies of water in
surrounding regions, but as our research has shown, Madison is not a safe haven from polluted
waters and contaminated fish. As mentioned earlier, Madison?s location on an isthmus may
make the city even more prone to urban runoff problems.
By speaking with local environmental activists, it is clear that the current chalenge in
keeping anglers safe lays in the communication of warnings and postings concerning fish
consumption to them in an efective manner. The activists maintained that the focus, however,
should also consistently remain on the ways we can reduce detrimental urban runoff that are
slowly ruining the fisheries. Once a healthy, nutritious, and free source of food, the fisheries
must now be warned against rather than promoted. This is especialy frustrating to
environmental justice advocates who know that sustenance anglers drawn away from the lake
may resort to inexpensive and unhealthy procesed foods in order to fed their families. Of
particular interest in an interview with Dr. Maria Powel of the Madison Environmental Justice
Organization was her response to a question asking how activists suggest alternatively feding
! 25
the anglers who they warn from consuming significant amounts of local fish. Unlike Mr.
Davenport who is convinced that pollution is an unavoidable aspect of modern ecosystems and
must be acepted at moderate levels, Powel insisted that adequate steps should be taken to
reduce harmful runoff generators in order to eventualy return Madison?s fisheries back to a
healthy, flourishing resource (Interviews, Nov 2010).
Although some of the anglers confesed wanting aces to more information regarding
the dangers of eating Madison fish, they are reasonably unenthusiastic about being told they can
no longer safely depend on the free food source. Even with ample notification of the hazards
asociated with eating fish from Madison?s lakes, many of the anglers cannot aford to obtain
food from elsewhere and wil continue to consume the fish. The anglers who purposely avoid
seking fish consumption warnings for fear of what they might find is a prime example showing
that the only fundamental way to create change is to reduce input of pollution into the natural
resource they can no longer safely utilize.
Establishing a healthy connection betwen the lake ecosystem and anglers health can be
worked on from the campus level. Considering the campus area isn?t regulated by the City of
Madison, it is continualy sen as having ?...a reputation for being a bad actor.? (Magnuson,
2010). Considering how much research is conducted al around the campus, there is no reason
why we should be perceived as a weak link in the chain of protecting the lakes that provide the
community with so much information and sustenance.
Keping Magnuson?s theory of an extended buffer, we performed landscape observations
along the shoreline and on campus to understand how campus is having negative efects on the
lake. Many of our photos show sediment from construction flowing into storm drains without
prior sanitation (Figure 4a). There are also completely full storm drains that are simply holding
! 26
leaves like they were a teabag and alowing the nutrients to sep into the lake (Figure 4b). At a
construction site outside of the Wisconsin State Historical Society, there is a form of erosion and
sediment leching prevention. There sems to be a machine pumping standing water into a
porous bag that captures sediment and alows water to run through. Unfortunately there are many
holes along the entire bag (Figure 4e). Along the waterfront there are storm drains consistently
pouring into Lake Mendota from the storm sewer system in the Mendota watershed (Figure 4c &
4d). These exit points as wel as the Mendota watershed are put together on a map with
construction sites overlayed for an understanding of the sources of pollution on campus and their
direction into the lake (Figure 2). The major construction projects on campus that afect Mendota
are the addition to the Chazen Art Museum, the work in front of Science Hal and the Wisconsin
State Historical Society, and the reconstruction of the Ecology Building on Linden avenue. Also,
the recent completion of the Educational Science building can be considered a recent
construction activity that has afected the lake.
As has been said before, the sediment from construction is one of the most important
factors in stormwater runoff through the addition of phosphorus into lakes. In order to prevent
sediment eroding with storms the Wisconsin DNR requires a number of permits and prevention
methods. Besides their requirement of a legal permit that involves an inspector to visit the
construction site multiple times, they list off many diferent means of physical erosion
prevention. These are listed on their site and each has its own research and implementation
strategy with it. The Chazen Art Museum construction near Library Mal is almost as close to the
lake one can get for such a large construction project. The permit includes tables for the
?Universal Soil Loss Equation for Construction Sites? that is used to estimate the total amount of
sediment lost due to erosion at construction sites. Acording to the permit the Chazen Museum
! 27
of Art construction project estimates that 8.3 tons of soil per acre wil be lost due to erosion
(Larry D. Nelson, 2009). The construction area is about two acres in area, producing a total of
16.6 tons of soil lost. This amount of sediment wil eventualy make its way into Lake Mendota
and be a huge source of phosphorus for algae populations that wil, over time have efects on the
food chain and fish populations.
The Muir Woods area provides as an extremely efective natural buffer to erosion runoff
from upper campus that fails to make it into the drainage system. The exit points along the
campus waterfront would be the best places to begin a water runoff program specificaly
targeting stormwater erosion. But, as Mr. Magnuson aluded to, the waterfront is not the only
place to focus eforts for cleaning the lakes. Magnuson had much to say about the past and
present campus projects that afect the lake and its ecosystem. There are green roof projects
going up around campus including the new addition to the Educational Science Building on
Bascom Hil (Figure 2). Sedimentation ponds detain water and hold it for absorbing sediment
before it makes its way into the lakes like the one near parking lot 34 (Figure 2). There is another
one down by the Bay fields near the University Hospital to prevent harmful nutrients into the
wetlands area of Mendota. The campus is also experimenting with permeable surfaces to
implement into parking lots and roads to alow for the permeation of water into the water table
before draining straight into the lakes.
Considering how many things can have negative efects on stormwater draining into Lake
Mendota, the opposite is also true. John Magnuson says, ?There are so many of these litle
[projects]...people who look for a grand thing and fix it, wel, the grand thing that fixes it is al of
the litle things.? The best way to continue working towards a healthier lake is, ?Continuous
presure, at least on campus, for more green roofs, more infiltration facilities, stopping the
! 28
erosion of lakeshore path,? and other smal projects. These smal projects are apparent
throughout the entire campus area. One of such is a smal length of storm drains at the end of a
downhil sidewalk. The sidewalk ends at lakeshore path, which is unpaved and holds much
sediment that is prone to erosion. The drain is solely placed so water running down the sidewalk
either runs off into the gras to be absorbed or into the storm drain an into the lake (Figure 4-f).
Another such project is on Muir Knoll, which overlooks Lake Mendota. The paths leading down
to lakeshore path are very step and prone to erosion, so runoff barriers were positioned at the
top of the lookout. These barriers are simply cylindrical absorbing obstacles that slow down the
flow of water and alow it to infiltrate the ground (Figure 2). It?s the litle projects like these that
add up in helping prevent the lake from being polluted with sediment.
Not only is a great resource, Lake Mendota, in jeopardy but so is the healthines of many
people relying upon the sustenance the lake provides. One fisherwoman reflected the sentiment
among some of her felow anglers when asked her if she had ever gotten sick or noticed any
health problems from eating fish. She cleverly responded by saying, ?Child, if I don?t eat food, I
get sick.? When posed with the same question, another angler humorously noted that it is, ?Good
for (his) health to go out fishing and se al the prety women run past on the bike trail.? It is
apparent that partaking in the activity of fishing is a positive experience for the anglers, as they
are able to obtain a free source of food while enjoying their time spent outdoors amongst friends.
It is important to keep the anglers in our community safe, and at this point and time, it is evident
that the need for increased outreach and education regarding fish consumption warnings are
necesary. To solve the larger problem, however, strategies to reduce fish contamination and
depopulation should be thoroughly examined, and the root of the problem must be addresed.
! 29
Action must be taken at ever step in the chain for this urban-to-lake contamination crisis to be
cured.
! 30
Conclusion
In order to understand the problem of pollution in urban runoff we sought to answer the
question: How does urban stormwater runoff affect the Lake Mendota ecosystem, fish
populations, and subsistence anglers?
Our research has concluded that urban runoff has carried phosphorus into the lake and
has stimulated excesive blue-green algae growth. Such growth has limiting efects on
zooplankton and phytoplankton, it has the potential to block out light from primary producers,
and reduces oxygen levels in the proces of decomposition jeopardizing some fish populations.
As lake ecosystems continue to undergo adaptations to the increased BGA growth, fish with
sustained exposure to toxins may afect consumers.
In order to define the scope of the isue in a given area we asked: How are stormwater
contributions identified and dealt with on campus?
Construction projects are dealt with in a fairly straightforward permit and inspection
proces. Issues of construction runoff are mitigated to the best extent possible by utilizing
catchments with marginal results for preventing erosion. Aside from construction projects the
campus has put in retention ponds to filter water, built green roofs, experimented with permeable
surfaces, and worked to preserve Muir woods.
What we can gather from this research is that there is a need to respond to the isue of
eutrophication in Madison lakes. The increase in nutrients has reduced stability in the lakes food
chain and ecosystems. Within the scope of the watershed preventative measures can help reduce
the strain on lake ecosystems. Individuals and busineses within the watershed should be
! 31
conscious to how they contribute to runoff pollution. Construction projects should continue to
employ current catchment practices in a responsible fashion. Storm systems need to have a
means of aleviation as the urban footprint within the watershed grows. Developing land
utilizing permeable surfaces could reduce the amount of runoff into lakes as wel. The diversity
of efective projects is promising but comes slowly as investment in such practices is slow
moving.
! 32
Future Research
The diferent approaches to handling runoff pollution are constantly evolving as the
scope of contributions expands. Not every project gets implemented in the form of legislation
though. For example the city can only urge people to participate in leaf pick-up eforts. Further
research could be tailored to examine how individuals respond to recommendations by
authorities. Since al the litle things contribute to the aggregate problem, identifying how and
why citizens understand and comply with such authoritative requests could shed some light on
how projects should be tailored in the future.
Urban contributions into Lake Mendota may not be as significant as agricultural ones.
However, the urban contributions into Lake Monona are much greater (Magnuson, 2010) than
agricultural. With the agricultural inputs being fairly straightforward, i.e. erosion of heavily
fertilized croplands, it sems rather prudent to mitigate those identified problems while
identifying the urban isues with a litle more detail. Urban contributions are a result of the
aggregate practices of lawn fertilization, gardening, pet waste disposal, construction
sedimentation, shoreline erosion, drainage isues, retention filtration, and surface permeability.
For a community to properly addres this isue it needs to become more aware of the wide range
of isues, which play a role in urban runoff. To understand and quantify the efectivenes of
implementing these practices would take extensive time and resources but could ensure that
development can continue without posing a risk to the surrounding lakes.
! 33
Works Cited
Bannerman, R. T.; D. W. Owens; R. B. Dodds and N. J. Hornewer. 1993. Sources of Pollutants
in Wisconsin Stormwater. Water Science Technology. 28 (3-5): 241-259.
Benson, Barbara; Kratz, Timothy & Magnuson, John. 2006. Long-Term Dynamics of Lakes in
the Landscape: Long-Term Ecological Research on North Temperate Lakes. New York,
New York: Oxford University Pres. 236-256.
City of Madison. 2008. Clean Lakes Report: 2008 Update. pp: 2-28.
Construction workers, City of Madison. Personal Interview. Interviewer: Gerald Daniels.
October, 2010.
--------. 2007. Erosion and Stormwater Runoff Control: The Public Stormwater System Including
Erosion Control. Common Council of the City of Madison in acordance with Section
66.0103, Wisconsin Statutes. Chapter 37.
Cohen, Wiliam F. and G. Fred Le. 1976. Phosphorus availability in particulate materials
transported by urban runoff. Water Pollution Control Federation. 48 (3): 580-591.
Dane County Land Information Ofice. ?Dane County Wisconsin 2000, 9-14, 10-13, 10-15, 11-
11, 11-12, 11-15, 12-12, 12-13, 12-15? [aerial photograph]. 1:20,000. Madison, WI: State
Ofice Building?, 2000.
Davenport, Lance. Long term Madison fisherman. Personal Interview, November 10, 2010.
Interviewer: Austin Becker
Elis, Erle. Land-use and land-cover change. 2010. Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. Cutler J.
Cleveland; Robert Pontius Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition,
National Council for Science and the Environment. [First published in the Encyclopedia
of Earth April 18, 2010; Last revised Date April 18, 2010; Retrieved October 24,
2010. (last acesed
April 18, 2010).
Harder, Paulete J. 1994. Land use in Wisconsin: a draft report of the DNR Land Use Task
Force. Internal Land Use Task Force, Wisconsin: Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources.
21.
Larson, Dave. 2000. City of Madison Population and Area. City of Madison Department of
Planning and Development.
Lathrop, Richard C. 2007. Perspectives on the Eutrophication of the Yahara Lakes. Wisconsin
Dept. of Natural Resources Bureau of Science Services. 23: 345-365.
! 34
Le, Anne; G. Fred Le. 2007. Stormwater Runoff Water Quality Newsleter Devoted to
Urban/Rural Stormwater Runoff Water Quality Management Issues. Stormwater Runoff
Water Quality Newsleter. 10 (2): 1-5.
Magnuson, John. University of Wisconsin, Limnology Department. Personal Interview.
November 23, 2010. Interviewers: Steven Roanhaus and Sam Mathews.
Mueler, G. D. and Thompson, A. M. 2009. The Ability of Urban Residential Lawns to
Disconnect Impervious Area from Municipal Sewer Systems. Journal of the American
Water Resources Asociation, 45: 1116?1126.
Nelson, Larry D. 2008. Erosion Control and Stormwater Management Permit: Exploration
Center. Madison Department of Public Works, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources.
Paerl HW, Fulton RS 3rd, Moisander PH, Dyble J. 2001. Harmful freshwater algal blooms, with
an emphasis on cyanobacteria. Institute of Marine Sciences, University of North
Carolina. ScientificWorldJournal. Apr 4;1:76-113.
Powel, James, Maria Powel, Ly V. Xiong, Kazoua Moua, Jody Schmitz, Benito Juarez Olivas,
and Vamej Yang. 2010. Invisible People, Invisible Risks: How Scientific Asesments
of Environmental Health Risks Overlook Minorities?And Community Participation Can
Make Them Visible. Madison Environmental Justice Organization & Kennedy Heights
Comunity Center. 1-42.
Powel, Maria, James Powel. 2008. The State of Shoreline Fishing Dane County: A Report on
Fishing, Fish Consumption, and Public Health Advisories.
Powel, Maria. Personal Interview. November, 2010. Interviewer: Austin Becker.
--------. 2009. Erosion Control and Stormwater Management Permit: Chazen Art Museum
Addition. Madison Department of Public Works, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources.
--------. 2009. Erosion Control and Stormwater Management Permit: Union South. Madison
Department of Public Works, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
Prepas E.E., Kotak B.G., Campbel L.M., Evans J.C., Hrudey S.E., and Holmes C.F.B. 1997.
Acumulation and elimination of cyanobacterial hepatotoxins by the freshwater clam
Anodonta grandis simpsoniana. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences.
54(1): 41?46.
Reimer, John. 2010. City of Madison, Department of Public Works. Interviewers: Gerald
Daniels.
! 35
Rodger H.D., Turnbull T., Edwards C. and Codd G.A. 1994. Cyanobacterial (blue-green alga)
bloom asociated pathology on brown trout, Salmo trutta L., in Loch Leven, Scottland, J.
Fish Dis. 17 pp. 177?181.
Schrank, Candy S. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Information gathered via email.
2010.
State Highway Commision of Wisconsin. ?Dane County Wisconsin 1937, wu-7-504, wu-7-505,
wu-7-507, wu-7-537, wu-7-538, wu-7-542, wu-7-585, wu-7-586, wu-7-588, wu-7-589,
wu-8-627? [aerial photograph]. 1:20,000. Madison, WI: State Ofice Building, 1937.
Shoreline sustenance anglers on Lake Mendota and Lake Monona. Series of 15 personal
interviews, November 8-13, 2010. Interviewer: Austin Becker.
Turner II, B. L., W. C. Clark, R. W. Kates, J. F. Richards, J. T. Mathews, and W. B. Meyer.
1990. The Earth as Transformed by Human Action: Global and Regional Changes in the
Biosphere Over the Past 300 Years. Cambridge University Pres with Clark University,
Cambridge; New York.
United States Geological Survey. ?Wisconsin (Dane County) Madison Quadrangle? [map]
1:62500. 15 Minute Series (Topographic), sheet N4300-W8915/15. Washington D.C.:
United States Dept. of the Interior, 1904.
--------. ?Wisconsin Madison Sheet 1890, 1-1, 1-2? [map] 1:62500. 15 Minute Series
(Topographic), sheet Madison. Washington D.C.:United States Dept. of the Interior,
1890.
Wegener, M. W. 2001. Long-Term Land Use/Cover Change Paterns in the Yahara Lakes
Region and Their impacts on Runoff volume to Lake Mendota. Environmental
Monitoring. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison. 49-76.
Wiegand C. and Pflugmacher S. 2005. Ecotoxicological efects of selected cyanobacterial
secondary metabolites. Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries.
Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology: Volume 203, Issue 3, pp. 201-218.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2009. Blue-Green Algae in Wisconsin Waters:
F.A.Q. - Fish Consumption Concerns.
! 36
Appendix
Figure 1: The linear progresion of data this paper looks at can be visualized through this flow
chart. Any of these steps could be an entire project but our goal was to establish a solid
connection betwen the diferent types of occurrences and data.
i i i i i
Ur baniza tion
P hosphorus I n t o
Lake M endota
thr ough S t or m w a t er
A lgal Blooms
F ish P opula tions
Subsist enc e
F ishers
T o xins
H ypo xiaF ood Chain
E f_f ec tsf_f
! 37
Figure 2: Original Map
! 38
Figure 3: Phosphorus graphs of levels in Lake Mendota and certain detention ponds around
Madison. The graphs are from the City of Madison 2008 Water Report.
! 39
Figure 4: Original photos taken during landscape observations. Photos A and B are of two
diferent storm drains that have sediment flowing into them. B is overflowing with water because
of the leaf bag hanging underneath acting as a tea bag and seping nutrients into the system. C
and D are drains into Lake Mendota. E shows a type of sediment bag used at a construction site.
F is a downhil sidewalk with a perpendicular drain at the end before water could cause erosion.
!" #"
$" %"
&" '"
! 40
Figure 5: Map showing the boundaries of the separate watersheds. Lake Mendota?s is
surrounding the lake and covers the north side of downtown as wel as huge amounts of
residential areas. This is overlain with major storm drains.
U
S
H
5
1
M C
TH
C
C
T
H
U
S
H
1
4
Lacy Rd
Q
C
T
H
Un
ive
rs
ity
A
ve
McKee Rd
U
S
H
5
1
Whalen Rd
R
iv
e
r
R
d
Airport Rd
West Beltline Hwy
M
M
C
T
H
U
S
H
1
51
S
y
e
n
e
R
d
E.
W
as
hi
ng
to
n
A
ve
Femrite Dr
B
a
ile
y
R
d
MN CTH
Woodland Dr
Irish Ln
C
.T
.H
.
A
B
Mineral Point Rd
Ve
ro
na
R
d
H
w
y
12
Burke Rd
N
o
rt
h
p
o
rt
D
r.
Riles Rd
R
e
in
e
r
R
d
Meffert Rd
A
B
C
T
H
In
te
rs
ta
te
H
w
y
9
0
P
a
rk
S
t
C
.T
.H
.
M
Bong Rd
18 USH
G
a
m
m
o
n
R
d
C
.T
.H
.
C
V
In
te
rs
ta
te
H
w
y
9
0-
94
Milwaukee St
Cottage Grove Rd
F
is
h
H
a
tc
h
e
ry
R
d
U
.S
.
H
w
y
1
2
Lien Rd
M
on
ro
e
S
t.
Schneider Rd
U.S
.H.
12
& 18
Hoepker Rd
H
ig
h
R
d
USH 30S
h
e
rm
a
n
A
v
e
L
a
lo
r
R
d
S
e
m
in
o
le
H
ig
h
w
a
y
F
it
c
h
ro
n
a
R
d
Nelson Rd
F
e
lla
n
d
R
d
MV C
TH
Buckeye Rd
W
h
it
n
e
y
W
a
y
M
o
n
o
n
a
D
r
L
o
c
u
s
t
D
r
Kickaboo Rd
H
ig
h
P
o
in
t
R
d
P
h
e
a
s
a
n
t
B
ra
n
c
h
R
d
C
h
u
rc
h
R
d
F
is
h
H
a
tc
h
er
y
R
d
Siggelkow Rd
M
id
v
a
le
B
lv
d
Interstate Hwy 94
Broadway Rd
Fisher Rd
Oncken Rd
G
or
ha
m
S
t
O
ld
P
B
Se
go
e
R
d
L
o
d
i-
S
p
ri
n
g
fie
ld
R
d
Valley Rd
C
la
rm
a
r
D
r
Raymond RdMid-town Rd
D
o
o
r
C
re
e
k
R
d
Grandview Rd
Cross Country Rd
Moorland
Rd
O
ld
M
C
th
Regent St
V
ila
s
H
o
p
e
R
d
T
h
o
rs
o
n
R
d
P
io
n
e
e
r
R
d
.
Balzer Rd
Wheeler Rd
D
y
re
s
o
n
R
d
K
in
g
s
le
y
R
d
S
p
re
c
h
e
r
R
d
Pflaum Rd
Ne
sb
itt
Rd
Jo
hn
N
ol
en
D
r
Elderberry Rd
E
.
T
o
w
e
r
R
d
P
le
a
s
a
n
t
V
ie
w
R
d
S
.
W
o
o
d
la
n
d
D
r
L
a
rs
e
n
R
d
U.
S.
H.
1
4
B
a
lt
e
s
R
d
Atwo
od
Ave
Blackhawk Rd
South Beltline
Hwy
Valley View Rd
P
a
h
l
R
d
R
im
ro
ck
R
d
Aberg
Ave
T
h
o
m
p
s
o
n
R
d
Meier Rd
Elvehjem Rd
Daentl Rd
Goodland Park Rd
M
u
tc
h
le
r
R
o
a
d
Stace Rd
S
h
ad
y
O
a
k
Ln
N
N
in
e
M
o
u
n
d
R
d
H
o
g
a
n
R
d
W
o
o
d
s
R
d
K
e
e
n
a
n
R
d
Buckl
ey Rd
N
ak
om
a
R
d
S
.
P
o
in
t
R
d
Siggelkow
Rd
Ol
d R
ay
mo
nd
R
d
Hanson Rd
Evans Rd
M
a
h
o
n
a
y
R
d
H
w
y
1
2
M
e
a
d
o
w
R
d
Mc
Co
y R
d
K
en
ne
dy
Rd
In
d
ia
n
R
d
Libby Rd
L
a
k
e
F
a
rm
R
d
W
C
lay
to
n
Rd
Fairview St
Alma Rd
C
a
p
it
o
l
V
ie
w
R
d
Meadowview Rd
Mahoney
Rd
H
o
ls
c
h
e
r
R
dE
. Clayton Rd
E
v
e
rg
re
e
n
R
d
R
a
e
m
is
c
h
R
d
Anderson Rd
S
c
h
e
w
e
R
d
Mar
shvi
ew R
d
Greenbriar
Rd
Tumbledown
Trl
Koch
Rd
W
a
lte
r
D
r
T CTH
N
e
sb
itt
R
d
1
1
3
S
T
H
P
o
rt
ag
e
R
d
P
o
rt
a
g
e
R
d
K Cth
Jahnke
Dr
Va
lle
y
R
d
M
a
ry
L
a
k
e
R
d C
.T.
H.
C
V
!"##$%&'()'
*+(,&-((.'/"##0
!"##$%&'()'
1$2#&'3#4))
!"##$%&'()'
5$46$7&&
8"9:'()'
*46';,$","&
!"##$%&'()'
1<=$,#$6.
8"9:'()'
1(6(6$
8"9:'()'
1"..#&9(6
8"9:'()'="9<+>4,%
?$7&
'''1&6.(9$
?$7&
'''1(6(6$
?$7&
'''5$4>&0$
?$7&
'''5"6%,$
8"9:'()'
!&,(6$
!"#$%&'(''''%)*''+,-.
!"#"$"%"&"'"("'")"*"+","'""%"-".")
/012345062'725895:6
/;<063
8"9:'()'1$."0(6'@&2$,9A&69'()';#$66"6%'$6.'@&B&#(2A&69C';#$66"6%'D6"9
@$9$'*(4,<&E
!/01"23"$45/627
!
, + .
%8=6<
>80;'1?'%5@8<19
A59B52;'.,,C
7D)EF
1$."0(6'F,&$'1&9,(2(#"9$6';#$66"6%'G,%$6"H$9"(6
%
GH
5
2
I
H5
J
@
5
05
HI
K
L
=5
9
HI
L
K
3
5
L
<
H?
89
5
='
3
5
L
H+
,
-
.
'<
0
1
2
3
4
5
0
6
2
'@
2
5
89
5
:
6
'<
;
<
06
3
M3
N
@
''
'=
5
<
0
'6
@
80
0
6
@
G'
C
-
O
-
,
C
''
'.
G,
C
'L
3
/012345062'725895:6'E5I8=8086<
'''&N8<089:'/0123'*8L6'1J62'POQ
'''&N8<089:'725895:6'R266945;<
'''&N8<089:'760690819'E5I8=8086<
%8912'/BS-T506280;'1?'%5@8<19
"0U62'>8086<'59@'!8==5:6<
! 41
Figure 6: Graphs quantifying angler interview data
"! #!
$! %!
&!
'!
(! )!
*!
! 42
Figure 7: Original photo taken by Steven Roanhaus of leaf collection in Madison, Wisconsin.
11/3/2010