2024 LAKES REU Student Researchers

Imagining Our Futures in the Red Cedar Watershed

• Poster: Elbert_LAKES2024.pdf

I began believing in the transformative power of agriculture as a volunteer on the 1.5 acres of Strength to Love II Farm in Baltimore, helping to grow fresh produce in a neighborhood where access to healthy food had been systemically restricted. I grew passionate about the politics of food, joining a collective garden, subscribing to a CSA, and enrolling in agriculture courses. However, these experiences in urban areas did not prepare me for life in Menomonie, where 1.5 acres was a mere tiny fraction of the seemingly never-ending expanses of corn fields. 

As I settled, I quickly learned that residents of the Red Cedar Watershed faced their own challenges within the food system. Despite being surrounded by agricultural production, many are low-income and struggle accessing fresh food. As agricultural policy encouraged farm consolidation, many small family dairy farms went out of business, not only taking people’s jobs, but their lifestyles. Many people I interviewed cited this change in agriculture as the cause of increased poverty, population decline, and environmental degradation. These changes in agriculture, in their view, also impacted healthcare access and education systems, while contributing to the green lake. 

While I can easily harp on about the never-ending problems in our world, actually imagining a better future is sometimes difficult. I was incredibly excited when I was offered the opportunity to work on this project, which challenges us all to not only complain about what exists but envision what could be possible. I was tasked with asking residents about what their ideal future in the Red Cedar Watershed looks like and what changes could be made today to achieve it. Despite this premise, I must admit that I still have more data about the existing problems than visions of a future, but I dug through my data in pursuit of hope. I heard numerous examples of existing vibrancy, including kind and supportive community members, various local businesses and outreach organizations, and close connections to the land. 

In terms of the future, almost every interviewee shared similar goals: they want clean water, economic development, and sustainable agriculture. Their responses only differ in regard to how these goals are to be achieved. Some believe that further farm consolidation is inevitable as society progresses. Larger farms may be more environmentally sustainable, as they are able to afford more efficient technology and abide by stricter regulations. Others advocate for a change in the agricultural paradigm, moving from conventional agriculture to a more grazing-based system. These farms would create more grassland habitat and reduce commodity output. Both groups agree that practices like cover crops, precision agriculture, and grassed waterways could help limit the negative ecological impacts of agriculture. 

If everyone desires some form of agricultural change, why does it not happen? The answer found in every interview was profitability. In order to make a living, farmers (like everyone else) are forced to prioritize profits in a tough market over sustainability. Even the way programs like crop insurance are formulated can encourage environmentally harmful practices. There are also ideological divisions that separate farmers from one another or farmers from conservationists, preventing knowledge about and resources for practices like grazing from gaining traction. 

In order for agricultural transform to occur, farmers must be financially incentivized to change their practices. The government can change the type of agriculture they support by revising their subsidy programs. Greater cooperation between various farmers and community stakeholders could also encourage conservation practice adaptation. This would require getting people who wear different hats in the same room, forming relationships before engaging in ideological debate. Farmer-led learning networks could offer a roadmap and support to others looking to change their practices. 

After my summer with LAKES, I am only more convinced that agricultural change is the key to a better future. Just as I believe that expanded urban agriculture can help solve environmental inequities in Baltimore, I think that permanent pasture holds the power to not only restore habitat but community vibrancy in the Red Cedar Watershed. 

Nitrate Pollution in Dunn County: Perceptions and Solutions

Poster: Erickson_LAKES2024.pdf

Nitrate is one of the most common contaminants of drinking water in Wisconsin. A recent study of 973 wells across Dunn County, the 2023 Groundwater Sampling Report, found that showed how 11.7% of wells had unsafe levels of nitrates. Unlike municipal systems, owners bear the responsibility for ensuring their water is safe to drink. However, some well owners are unaware of the high levels of nitrates in their drinking water.  

Safe drinking water formed my research this summer. I was interested in how officials at the state and local levels address the issue of nitrate contamination. To do this, I first interviewed individuals from the Dunn County Board of Supervisors, Land and Water Conservation Division, and Health Department, along with a member of the DNR, and a local geologist. Second, I surveyed Dunn County residents, asking a variety of questions on well testing and nitrate pollution in the County.

My interview results found that nitrate pollution is an important issue for public officials. Many saw the 2023 Groundwater Sampling Report as a baseline for further policies. They also felt more testing should continue so that trends can be identified. My interviews also indicate differences in policy solutions between the State and Local levels. State Administrative Codes set performance standards for overall sources of nitrate contamination such as agriculture run off, use of fertilizers, and permitting for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFOs). Townships can set ordinances related to land use since they are closest to the existing practices themselves. However, neither the State nor the County has standards when it comes to surface water or treated wastewater, which can hinder groundwater clean-up.

The results of the survey found that 67% of respondents are concerned about water quality, whether they are on well or city water, and 72% of respondents are aware of the issue of nitrate contamination. However, 18% of well owners have not tested their well. Yearly testing is recommended, but only 13% of well owners test at this rate. This indicates that the public is aware of nitrate contamination but maybe not how to combat the problem.

Nitrates have harmful health concerns for infants, pregnant individuals and adults. There are limited programs to assist eligible residents when high levels of nitrates are found in drinking water. Lacking are large scale programs to identify nitrate contamination of drinking wells.  Public education efforts by all levels of government are needed to stress the importance of yearly well testing. Continued well surveys will help identify wells at risk and develop policies designed to help all private well owners in Dunn County safe drinking water.

From Puddles to Policies: Public Perceptions of Actions Surrounding Urban Runoff

• Poster: Franklin_LAKES2024.pdf

Water quality problems in Lakes Menomin and Tainter are a result of geology, but also the choices we make when it comes to agriculture, lawn care, and urban design.  Much attention has been paid to agriculture in Dunn County, but not as much about lawn care and urban design. Personal use of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and fungicides on our lawns impact our water quality as do the impervious surfaces of our parking lots and driveways along with stormwater and construction runoff.

My research aimed to find if residents of Dunn County were aware of the impacts of urban runoff and how their individual actions contribute to this. I also wanted to see what steps local government were taking to mitigate urban runoff. Finally, my research examined the possibility that attitudes towards sustainability and political ideology were driving community actions regarding urban runoff. 

To do this, I helped develop a public opinion survey asking about these questions. Dunn County residents were invited to participate through QR codes and paper copies, and 141 responses were received. I also interviewed Dunn County committee members, Menomonie City Council members and employees, Lake District members, and UW – Stout employees to see what actions were being taken regarding urban runoff mitigation. 

Our survey results showed that most residents of Dunn County were aware and concerned about urban runoff issues and the majority did not use chemicals on their residential properties. Most residents perceived sustainability as preserving resources, environmental protection, and preserving future generations. Finally, it was found that residents did not think local government was doing enough to mitigate urban runoff issues. Through local government interviews I discovered that water quality concerns differ by area. As expected, much of the county staff are concentrating on agricultural runoff while the City of Menomonie is focused on urban runoff. They are working to overcome known problems centering on runoff policymaking and regulation, as well as public information campaigns. 

Water quality issues in Dunn County affect all residents no matter their political ideology or perception on sustainability. Based on my research, the key finding is that public information is necessary.  This includes educating the public about runoff and listening to their concerns about water quality issues. This will allow local governments to create plans directly impacting urban runoff, while filling community wants and needs.

Linking Wind to Cyanobacterial Spatial Distribution

• Poster: Hoffman_LAKES2024.pdf

Every summer cyanobacterial harmful algal blooms (cHABs) turn Lakes Menomin and Tainter bright green and smelly. These blooms can be harmful to people and pets that contact water contaminated with toxins produced by cyanobacteria. Instead of being sites of summer recreation such as tubing, swimming, and water skiing, many people avoid these lakes during warm summer months. Scientists know that excess nutrients from the watershed cause the blooms, but what is less well understood is where the blooms are going to form and where in the lake cyanobacteria toxins will be high enough to cause health concerns. Research by 2023 LAKES REU researchers found that bays on the eastern shore of Lake Menomin had the highest concentrations of one type of cyanobacteria toxin. After looking at the data, I noticed that these toxins corresponded to surface blooms that were trapped in the downwind parts of the lake.  For my summer research project, I decided to test if wind patterns were in fact causing the previously measured distribution of cyanobacteria within Lake Menomin. In order to do this, I looked at how cyanobacteria colony sizes and spatial distribution are affected by wind speed and direction. 

Cyanobacterial blooms in Lake Menomin are dominated by two species of toxin-producing cyanobacteria, Microcystis spp. and Aphanizomenon spp. Previous studies across the globe found that Microcystis spp. blooms were favored under low surface-level wind speeds because the colonies stayed intact and floated to the surface of the lake (causing large surface blooms). These large surface blooms were easily pushed around the lake by low winds. I collected cyanobacteria samples on two days along the path of the wind in Lake Menomin (east to west). At each sampling site along the path of the wind I measured colony size and depth of the colonies. Large colonies at the surface indicated low wind (favorable conditions) and smaller colonies mixed throughout the water column indicated high wind (less favorable conditions). 

The results of my first sampling date found limited evidence that wind speed and direction impact the number of colonies and colony size. On the second sampling date, I found weak evidence that wind affected colony depth and size. Although my data did not conclusively support the role of wind, I did find that on sampling days, Microcystis ssp. colony counts varied across the lake, meaning that lake toxicity also would vary across the lake. The high variability in space creates a human health disparity. Within the same lake, people and ecosystems in high cyanobacterial bloom parts of the lakes are exposed to greater environmental health issues. We can mitigate this concern by testing and monitoring multiple points across the lake.

My study was not conclusive, likely because wind is only one factor promoting cyanobacterial blooms. I hope that my research will encourage more emphasis towards prevention and mitigation of cyanobacterial blooms, an important water quality challenge here in Menomonie. Looking at wind in relation to algae blooms is only a small piece of this puzzle. Additionally, cyanobacterial blooms are a main threat to freshwater bodies across the globe, which are expected to get worse, perpetuated by climate-change and human pollutants. Further understanding the mechanisms propelling these blooms will initiate global solutions for human and environmental health. 

Invasive Zebra Mussel Spread in Number Throughout Lake Menomin

• Poster: Kahn_LAKES2024.pdf

Invasive species are a growing problem in lakes throughout Wisconsin, and Lake Menomin just added a new species – the zebra mussel. Invasive species are species that have been introduced, typically through human means, to an area where they were not historically found. Invasive species have numerous negative effects on the ecosystem including outcompeting and displacing native species, changing rates of primary production, and modifying lake food webs. Zebra mussels devastate invaded lake ecosystems due to their high reproductive output and ability to filter large volumes of water. Each female zebra mussel produces 25,000 surviving offspring a year, allowing zebra mussel populations to grow quickly and reach high densities. A single zebra mussel can filter algae from a liter of water a day. Algae is the base of lake food webs and depleting it in a lake can reduce food for other species like fish. Not only that, but they can also clog human infrastructure like dam turbines and pipes, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in damage and prevention per invaded lakes.

In order to understand the extent of the zebra mussel invasion in Lake Menomin, we conducted a lake-wide survey. We collected zebra mussels at different depths and in different habitats throughout the lake. To collect samples on the shoreline, we handpicked zebra mussels from rocks and sifted through the sediments. In non-wadable water, we collected a sediment sample with a ponar dredge, a bucket with a clasp to scoop sediment from the lake bottoms. We hauled the sample into a boat and sifted through the sediment for zebra mussels. There were also some rarer opportunities to sample human-made substrates that were in the lake for extended periods of time. We sampled navigational buoys located near the Red Cedar River dam and a truck that had been under the water for 40 years, recently pulled up to the surface. 

We then calculated zebra mussel densities and found that zebra mussels reached high densities on human-made substrates. Compared to other lakes, the zebra mussel density in Lake Menomin was low, which is good news ecologically. These densities could be low due to how recently zebra mussels invaded the lake or they could be limited by the lack of preferable habitat. Zebra mussels prefer hard substrates, but Lake Menomin is primarily soft substrate. Unfortunately, the high densities on human-made substrate could still lead to damage of infrastructure and personal property. Additionally, Lake Menomin is now a source of spread to other bodies of water unless boaters and other lake users are vigilant with boat cleaning.

In future years, the zebra mussel population needs to be monitored. Annual population estimates will help assess if the population is still growing or if it has peaked at low abundances. If the population continues to grow, dam infrastructure will need regular preventative maintenance. Regular monitoring is necessary for knowing if and when they may become a serious problem in Lake Menomin. 

From Here to Tyrone: Environmental Values Among Activists

• Poster: Krueger_LAKES2024.pdf

At the end of the day, environmental activism (and indeed, all activism) is about values – what we value informs what we protect, and what we see as (un)just. This summer, I interviewed 15 people involved in caring for the earth to learn more about their values and memories of environmentalism. They had diverse interests and aims – from homesteading, to religion, to groundwater, to public land – but something that came up again and again was the Tyrone Nuclear Plant, which was an Northern States Power-proposed nuclear plant that was going to be on the banks of the Chippewa river, 2 miles from where the Red Cedar and the Chippewa meet.

The plant was initially proposed in 1972, and soon after its proposal, homeowners along the Chippewa were contacted to sell their land, or have it condemned via eminent domain. While some people were willing to sell, others did not. Many of them had farmed there for a long time, and felt a strong attachment to the land there. Richard Ihirg, a lawyer who worked pro-bono for Northern Thunder, an organization associated with opposing Tyrone, said, at the July 1978 Tyrone picnic: “As far as I’m concerned, the livelihood and the time and effort that Harold and Lucille Bauer, Henry and Clara Falkner, and Stan and Joe Cider have put into this land is far more important than our ability to blow our hair dry in the morning with combs to dry our clothing in electrically-heated revolving drums, and have air conditioning.” 

This concern in combination with a number of others – about human health and safety, the safety of the river and wildlife, promotion of a nuclear culture, and about the state and availability of farmland – motivated a lot of different people to oppose the plant in different ways.  

Given that I found the movement against the plant still reverberated through people's experiences today, although in different ways, I was curious if there were similarities in what people valued in action, now versus then. Although scope and (of course) focus differed, I found three primary similarities, all of which had to deal with values of care and connection – to the larger world, to each other, and to the land itself. I described them loosely as this:

• Systems Thinking: Tyrone was seen both as a symptom of a greater problem in American culture – both of nuclear weaponry, and of consumerism. In the modern day, watershed thinking also took this approach
• Community: Nuclear, at the time, was a national effort, and a strong coalition builder with other movements, such as movements against power lines in central Minnesota. People often had events with food – ranging from the annual Tyrone picnic, to formal Basque fundraiser dinners – which deepened people’s connection with the land and with each other.
• Inhabitation:  People involved with Tyrone wanted a variety of outcomes – some saw a better future in energy conservation, and others in investing in other renewables, but almost all wanted to see land protection in the form of farmers still being on their land. Similarly, in the contemporary day, nobody I talked to saw conservation as a ‘blank slate’ affair – i.e., the ideal state of nature being one without people in it. From homesteading, to foraging, to regenerative grazing, to hunting and fishing, being on the land was told as a way of knowing and caring for it.

Ultimately, while the efforts against Tyrone could be considered mixed – the plant was never built (the petition being formally dropped in 1980) but the land was also never returned to the people it was removed from – I was impressed by the amount people cared about it. Several people I spoke to mentioned the time commitment, often hours a day on top of their other work, and yet kept going to hearings and doing outreach and other activities. Today, too, people are incredibly dedicated to their causes, spending impressive amounts of time, energy, effort, and care. The examples of citizen activism – for example, the Ethanol plant in Menomonie, frac sand mining across the state – are numerous. Comparative studies like these can tell us more about what motivates people to care, and how they express that care, especially here in the upper Midwest.

That being said, this poster only scratches the surface of the rich and deep stories and cannot represent the thoughts and feelings of an entire movement, yet alone a whole watershed. Nevertheless, I am incredibly thankful for the time, patience, warmth, consideration, and grace shown to me by the people I interviewed, and I hope more stories about this place can be told in the future. 

Programmable FarmBot Water Control and Kidney Bean Growth Tracking

• Poster: Qualich_LAKES2024.pdf 

In the Red Cedar watershed, farming plays a significant role, but weather, as an unpredictable factor, impacts both agriculture and experimental data collection on plant development. Controlling this variable by growing plants in a greenhouse can enhance the accuracy of plant growth experiments. This controlled environment is ideal for gathering data.

Through this project, I designed an experimental setup using a 3-axis farming robot, FarmBot, aiming to create a replicable protocol for measuring plant growth under different conditions. As a case study, I selected the growth of 29 kidney bean plants from Chippewa Valley Bean. Each plant was photographed from above to monitor its development. To introduce a variable, I decided to alter the water volume delivered to each plant. The farm bed was divided into four quarters, with each quarter receiving a different volume of water ranging from 30 ml to 60 ml.

Each of the plants were planted at the same time, and once the seeds began to sprout, they were photographed. To minimize manual intervention during the study, I developed code that downloads each photograph from the FarmBot server and matches each photograph with its corresponding plant. These photographs are automatically organized into folders named after each plant and its ID, offering an efficient way to track a specific plant's growth by arranging the images chronologically. 

An experimental procedure like this could be used to efficiently test factors affecting plant growth, enabling researchers to create better agricultural models and potentially improve crop yield in the field. With an experimental design, numerous variations can be explored. Instead of modifying the water volume, for example, the type of soil could be changed to determine if soil moisture impacts plant growth. In the future, the photographs can be further analyzed to identify potential threats to the plants, such as early signs of disease or pests. 

Drinking Water: Household Source and Awareness of Dunn County Water Quality

• Poster: Riley_LAKES2024.pdf

The 1972 Clean Water Act resulted in massive improvement of our nation’s waterways. Water pollution, however, has not been eliminated. Serious concerns remain, particularly at the local level. While the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is tasked with regulating drinking water in Wisconsin, not all drinking water falls under this umbrella. In particular, private wells are not subject to the same regulations as public water systems. As a result, drinking water quality is the responsibility of well owners. Dunn County’s 2023 Well Survey indicated high levels of nitrates in many parts of the county where private wells constitute the main source of household drinking water. This regulatory gap raises a question: Is there a relationship between a household’s awareness of the local nitrate issue and their indoor water source?

To explore this issue, a survey of Dunn County residents was conducted, revealing some troubling insights. 55% of those surveyed were private well owners, and of these individuals 76% believed their water was safe to drink. Yet only 13% reported testing their wells annually. Further investigation of the survey data (through computer assisted learning analysis) highlighted knowledge gaps between renters and homeowners. First, renters reported being less aware of nitrate issues than homeowners. Second, while homeowners are more knowledgeable than renters, homeowners who consume news media are more aware of nitrate issues in Dunn County than homeowners who don’t pay attention to the news.  While there wasn’t a statistical correlation between water source and awareness of nitrate issues, the survey data points to a significant knowledge gap among Dunn County residents about the safety of their water supply. 

These findings are important. Water safety should not be a matter of chance; it should be a community priority. The lack of awareness regarding nitrate issues can have serious health implications, particularly for vulnerable populations such as children and pregnant women. Nitrates can lead to a variety of health problems, including methemoglobinemia, commonly known as “blue baby syndrome,” which affects the ability of blood to carry oxygen.

To address this concern, I propose that policy leaders and local news outlets collaborate to provide accurate and consistent coverage of nitrate-related issues. Awareness campaigns targeting both renters and homeowners who may not actively follow news reports should be prioritized. These campaigns can inform residents about the potential risks associated with nitrate contamination and emphasize the importance of regular water testing for private well owners. Community workshops can be organized to educate residents about safe water practices and the implications of nitrate contamination. Engaging local stakeholders, such as schools, health departments, and environmental organizations, will be crucial in fostering a culture of awareness and action.

While the Clean Water Act marked a step forward in addressing water pollution in the United States, the situation in Dunn County reveals that we still have much work to do. Residents must take the initiative to educate themselves and others about the risks associated with contaminated drinking water. With increased awareness and proactive measures, you can ensure that your water is safe and healthy for generations to come. It is time to make water quality a priority because every drop counts.