Comments on GRPO Natural Resource Condition Assessment
Brenda Moraska Lafrancois
Aquatic Ecologist, NPS
January 2, 2013
General Comments
This report equals or surpasses previous NRCA reports by the UW-Stevens Point group, and maintains
their characteristic thoroughness, depth of analysis, excellent organization, and strong writing. I
reviewed it in its entirety, but read the non-aquatic portions mostly for my own education. Editorially
speaking the report is nearly flawless (which is impressive for so vast a document!) so I’ve limited my
specific comments to mostly technical things, and mostly aquatic sections. Some general comments:







The assessment process and criteria are clearly explained, well referenced, and sound. It’s clear
the authors investigated a range of options for evaluating condition of each resource, and
selected and applied defensible methods.
The report is extremely well researched and referenced. Additionally, it’s apparent that the
authors took pains to consult with subject-matter experts beyond their team when necessary.
The quality of the summary and synthesis is very high throughout, making the interpretation
clear and the assessment easily understandable.
The organization formatting is clear and consistent throughout.
The maps and graphics are appropriate, informative, and of high quality.
The authors show great (and hard-won) literacy of NPS organizational structure, initiatives, data
sources, etc., and have clearly communicated closely with GRPO and Grand Portage Trust Lands
staff.
The inclusion of sites beyond the Grand Portage NM corridor provides useful context and will
also be appreciated by and useful to the Band.
Specific Comments
 Regarding the Aquatic Macroinvertebrates section (4.2.7):
o It’s great to see this level of data synthesis.
o The review of indices and metrics is pretty solid. Note that that State of Minnesota is
currently developing an IBI for streams in the Lake Superior Basin
(http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/water/water-monitoring-andreporting/biological-monitoring/stream-monitoring/stream-monitoring-aquaticinvertebrates.html). It might be worth contacting PCA to see where progress is at on
that and confirm that the metrics used in the NRCA are consistent. They probably are,
since the authors’ approach pretty well covered the bases in the world of invertebrate
metrics.
o The fact that the dataset captured a drought period sheds some light on sensitivity of
stream biota to climate and related changes in hydrology and in-stream organic matter.
The apparent sensitivity of GRPO’s invertebrate fauna to altered climate and hydrology
should be highlighted.
 Regarding Non-Native and Invasive Aquatic Species (4.2.8):
o The data sources used look appropriate.
o **Note to Brandon or GRPO staff: the NPS Ocean and Coastal Resources people are
working on an invasive species database for coastal parks. They include GRPO on the
1









list but currently no invasive species are reported there. Consider contacting Eva
DiDonato so that they can add rusty crayfish, smelt, loosestrife, etc. to their list. Or let
me know to do so. http://www.nature.nps.gov/water/marineinvasives/search.cfm.
About Didymo (4.2.10):
o Rephrase this sentence “They are major primary producers in most aquatic systems and
can be an integral portion of both benthic and planktonic food webs”.
Regarding Water Quality of Inland Waters (4.3.2), nitrate section (p. 175) or maybe TN section
(p.173), it may be worth noting that DON and nitrate-N have increased sharply since the 1990s
at the Wallace Lake monitoring site on ISRO despite little change in atmospheric N dep (this is
from a Sottlemyer and Toczydlowski annual report in 2009, not really published). This reinforces
the need for the Band to continue monitoring N species (including nitrate-N, even though it’s
often below detection now).
P. 156 – regarding atmospheric N deposition, note that a related study is currently underway,
funded by the NPS Air Resources Division (“Lake sediments as records of altered nitrogen inputs
to GLKN lakes: a pilot study using nitrogen stable isotopes”). It includes two Grand Portage Res
lakes (Swamp and Trout) and several at VOYA, ISRO, and greater northern MN and “aims to
explore the potential role of nitrogen in some recent biological changes observed in GLKN
boreal lakes. Using nitrogen stable isotope data from archived and well-dated sediment cores,
the study will determine historical nitrogen trajectories for GLKN lakes, relate these trajectories
to measured nitrogen deposition and concentration data, and evaluate relationships between
nitrogen and diatom communities.” This project shed light on nitrogen deposition history and
effects (if any) on surface waters at GRPO and the other parks.
P. 183 – in reference to daytime/nighttime fluctuations in Grand Portage Bay, replace “diurnal”
with “diel”.
P. 183 – in reference to turbidity patterns in Grand Portage Bay, I would guess the high turbidity
values are associated with storm events? This might be a good place to mention the 2012
flooding that took place in Western Lake Superior, and the effect that increased precipitation or
storm intensity might have on measures like turbidity, especially in watersheds with a lot of fine
soils. The effects of intense storms also comes up on p. 216.
P. 194 – regarding mercury reference conditions in Table 34, consider reporting the values both
in the original units they were published in and also converted to a common unit (e.g., ppm =
mg/l, etc.).
P. 199 – regarding mercury and sulfur – note that at ISRO the Wallace Lake data also shows
significantly declining sulfate concentrations over recent decades.
P. 213 – in the section about Lake Superior water temperatures and climate projections, you
might note the recent Allan et al. 2012 paper (“Joint analysis of stressors and ecosystem services
to enhance restoration effectiveness”, PNAS, online-only as of now) which features individual
stressor maps as supplemental data and shows relatively high stress values for the GRPO area
for warming summer water temps and decreasing winter ice. This paper might also be a useful
reference for other parts of the NRCA.
P. 227 – change “I suspect” to passive voice to match rest of document?
2