1. Jurij Homziak Lake Champlain Sea Grant/University of Vermont

3. Increased Awareness Change in attitude personal connection: a “home” in the watershed seek added information Change in behavior

4. Cost and Effort Effectiveness – What’s the Benefit? No evaluation of watershed signage efforts available

5. 404 (d) Impaired for bacteria, phosphorous, storm water, sediment Lake Champlain phosphorous TMDL Burlington and So. Burlington MS4 communities

12. Upper watershed – golf course, large lots, campus

13. Mid/lower watershed – smaller lots, commercial, industrial

14. Signs Project Education required for MS4 communities Partners: Burlington Public Works Lake Champlain Sea Grant Burlington School District

15. Grade 4-5 Sign Design and Final Version

17. Sign locations

18. Survey Signs erected late June 2008, 15 locations Interviews May-August 2008 8 pedestrian interview locations 8 interviews pre sign, 8 interviews post sign Randomized locations, 1 per week for 8 weeks (both AM and PM) Target: 20-30 responses/location/pre + post.

19. Sign/Interview locations Sign locations

20. Do you live in a watershed? Do you know the name of the watershed? Are you concerned about water quality? Have you recently looked for information about water quality? (Post- only): Were you aware of your local watershed before the signs went up? Survey Questions

22. 36%

23. χ² Analysis Pre/Post Do you live in a watershed? p <.0001, significant difference Do you know the name of the watershed? p <.0001, significant difference Are you concerned about water quality? P>.05, no significant difference Have you recently looked for information about water quality? p <.05, significant difference

24. CONCLUSIONS In a small urban watershed, pedestrians significantly increased awareness of their local watershed the name of their local watershed Smaller significant increase in seeking out local water quality information No effect of signs on respondents level of concern for water quality