Online Public Resources and the State of Three Indiana Lakes

Transcription

Indiana Lake Resources
SPEA Undergraduate Honors Thesis
1
Online Public Resources and the State of Three Indiana Lakes
Laura A. Hartman
Spring 2013
Lester Wadzinski
Instructor
School of Public and Environmental Affairs
1
Abstract
2
A comparative analysis of three Indiana lakes (Monroe, Geist, Dewart) from the
perspective of the average citizen based on health of the lake, values of lake association,
property values, and accessibility of credible information is extremely useful to Hoosiers (and
other visitors) who frequent Indiana Lakes. Lake Monroe, Geist Reservoir and Dewart Lake
were chosen as a representative sample of three types of lakes and associated lake issues in
Indiana.
Publicly accessible information found on the Internet (EPA, lake association and real
estate websites) was used to conduct a literature review. This information was then analyzed
for accuracy and readability to determine if the available information is reliable and could be
reasonably understood by the general public. Then, lake managers from all three lakes were
interviewed about their perspectives on the main issues Indiana lakes face and how the values
of a lake association can affect management practices and ensuing health.
The research showed that good information about Indiana lakes can be tricky to find
and difficult to understand for the average citizen. Real estate and tourism websites can be
misleading, while official government websites can be difficult to navigate. This confusion
means Hoosiers are less able to make decisions that take environmental health into
consideration. In general, lake-goers need to be more aware of lake issues and knowledgeable
about how their activities can impact the ecosystem. Altering the way this information is
presented would help to teach the general population. Interviews showed that the long-term
goals and values of lake associations could have a great effect on a person’s experience with a
lake.
2
3
Introduction
Indiana offers a wide variety of lakes on which to recreate or own property. It is
important to understand how the variables of ecological health, objectives of lake associations,
property values, and available information can affect a person’s choice of lake and experience
on lake. A comparative analysis of three Indiana lakes (Monroe, Geist, Dewart) from the
perspective of the average citizen based on health of the lake, values of lake association,
property values, and accessibility of credible information is extremely useful to Hoosiers (and
other visitors) who frequent Indiana Lakes. Lake Monroe, Geist Reservoir and Dewart Lake
were chosen as a representative sample of three types of lakes and associated lake issues in
Indiana. The key difference in these lakes is management. Lake Monroe and Geist Reservoir
were both formed by impoundments, but have very different shoreline developments. Lake
Monroe has very strict regulations regarding shoreline development. Geist Reservoir is almost
entirely surrounded by manicured lawns and seawalls. Dewart Lake is a natural lake in the
northern part of the state. Figure 1 shows a state map of Indiana with the three lakes marked
in red. Figures 2 and 3 show GIS images of Geist Reservoir from Marion and Hamilton counties.
Figures 4 and 5 show GIS images of Lake Monroe. Figures 6 and 7 show GIS images of Dewart
Lake.
The methods used to gain insight about Dewart, Geist, and Monroe were based on
primary and secondary research. Publicly accessible information found on the Internet
(government, lake association and real estate websites) was used to conduct a literature
review. This information was then analyzed for accuracy and readability to determine if the
available information is reliable and could be reasonably understood by the general public.
3
Then, lake managers from all three lakes were interviewed about their perspectives on the
4
main issues Indiana lakes face and how the values of a lake association can affect management
practices and ensuing health.
means Hoosiers are less able to make decisions that take environmental concerns into
consideration. In general, it would be helpful if lake-goers were more aware of lake issues and
knowledgeable about how their activities can have a large impact on the ecosystem. Altering
the way this information is presented would help to teach the general population. Interviews
showed that the long-term goals and values of lake associations could have a great effect on a
person’s experience with a lake by influencing recreational policies, for example. Articulating
these goals to lake goers is often over-looked and should be a primary goal of any lake
association.
Significance
Throughout history, people have held a great love for lakes. It was no different in
America. From the start, lakes in America were important for travel, trade, and settlement.
Presently, lakes are appreciated for their natural beauty, recreation, and water supply. Any
person who has gone fishing, boating, or swimming in Indiana’s lakes knows how special these
places can be. A waterfront view or lake access adds incredible value to a home or lot. Lakes
provide sanctuary and habitat for wildlife. They stabilize local climates, decrease the frequency
of floods and supply drinking water. People love lakes. People rely on lakes. As the 2009
4
National Lakes Assessment Report puts it “Protecting lake ecosystems is crucial not only to
5
protecting the country’s public and economic health, but also to preserving and restoring the
natural environment for all aquatic and terrestrial living things” (National Lakes Assessment,
2009). The great value of lakes makes lake management all the more important. Although,
America did not always protect its lakes.
From 1850-1920, Lake Menona in Wisconsin stunk. Really badly. In fact, the lake was
described in City Council minutes as “winds…drive detached masses of putrefying algae onto
shore…if stirred with a stick, [it] look[s] like human excrement and smell exactly like odors from
a foul and neglected pig sty”. All of the wastewater from Madison was being pumped directly
into the lake. (Clark, 2013). Everything that was left on the street, pumped out of a factory, or
flushed from a house ran off into the lake. The added phosphorus and nitrogen created
eutrophic conditions that let algae bloom out of control. Chemicals and solid materials further
polluted the waterway. To solve this problem, the city ran a diversion program for its
wastewaters from the 1920 through the 1950s, which only pushed the pollution further
downstream (Clark, 2013). Lake Menona is an example of what can happen to lakes when they
are not properly managed and looked after. At this point in America’s history, the country was
in desperate need of national public water regulations. Finally, in 1972, the Clean Water Act
(CWA) established standards for maintaining healthy public waterways. Previously, the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act had focused solely on keeping waterways free and clear of debris
to allow the efficient travel of trade barges. The CWA sets pollution standards and surface
water contaminant limits, among other tasks. This was the first step toward national policies
5
regulating water conditions. Since then, hundred of laws and protocols have been put into
6
place to protect water resources.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been charged with monitoring and
reporting on the state of the nation’s waters. To complete this task the EPA calls on individual
state’s to report on their waters. This process results in the National Lakes Assessment (NLA)
(EPA, 2013). Additionally, states have regulations for point and non point source pollution of
waterways. Constructions sites are required to put in place measurements to reduce bring
sediments on to roads and then into storm drains (Clark, 2013). The EPA calls on states to set
their own standard for the quality of surface waters. The EPA must approve these standards
and sets standard itself if the state regulations are not approved or not developed. These
standards cover specific chemicals, pH values, outline appropriate remediation methods, and
set goals among other things (Clark, 2013). State standards are lengthy and extremely detailed.
Article two of Indiana Water Quality Standard alone is eighty-three pages, single-spaced
(Repository of Documents, 2013).
Even with the EPA’s continued monitoring, lakes can have many problems. The most
recent NLA assessment shows that fifty percent of the lakes in America are eutrophic or
hypereutrophic (National Lakes Assessment, 2009). This means too many nutrients (primarily
phosphorus and nitrogen) are entering the water and feeding large populations of algae. Algae
are what make up the scum on the water’s surface. Eutrophication isn’t always a bad thing,
and is not always caused by anthropogenic factors. Eutrophic lakes better support diverse and
healthy fisheries. Oligotrophic lakes with fewer nutrients have clearer waters that are valued
by swimmers, but have less diverse fisheries. Many lakes are adversely affected by invasive
6
7
species that crowd out natural species and create a ripple of ecological issues. The number one
problem effecting America’s lakes according to the NLA is shoreline erosion, which increases
lake sedimentation and is linked to a decrease in overall biological health (National Lakes
Assessment, 2009). Of the wide array of issues affecting America’s lakes, the majority has some
anthropogenic factor contributing to them. Because healthy and functioning waterways are so
important to people, these potential problems can have many negative consequences for
people. These range from mild to severe health problems, nuisance species, to fluctuating
property values.
One of the greatest and least understood threats is toxin-producing cyanobacteria.
Blue-green algae are actually cyanobacteria, technically speaking. These bacteria can produce a
wide array of toxins that cause a wide array of health issues (Plataforma SINC, 2012). Small
annoyances such as “swimmer’s itch” all the way to cases of paralysis and death can be traced
back to toxin-producing blue-green algae. Many scientists believe cyanobacteria are
responsible for many chronic health problems in the modern age (Plataforma SINC, 2012). Last
summer the Indiana Department of Environmental Management began monitoring for a
second toxin, microcystin, in Indiana public waterways after it was found in multiple lakes last
summer (Clark, 2013). IDEM has been monitoring for one toxin, cylindrospermopcin, for many
years. (IDEM, 2013) Most Hoosiers probably are not aware of the growing concern over
possible toxin-producing bacteria in the water.
People need to know risks associated with swimming in Indiana lakes. Certain lakes
have higher risks on certain days. Much of this depends on weather. IDEM puts out a report at
the end of every week concerning algal levels for public water resources, but it is difficult to
7
8
find, hard to read, overly technical, and poorly advertised. Not only is it important to for people
to understand the risks, but they also need to be informed of how their choices contribute to
environmental problems. For example, when residents put nitrogen and phosphorus-rich
fertilizers on their lawns, the chemicals runoff into the lake and feed growing algal populations
that create the toxins in the water.
It is key to improving sustainability to educate citizens about how their every day actions
can impact the environment. Average citizens can have a huge impact on the success of
environmental programs. Effective citizen engagement can “increase the likelihood that
projects or solutions will be widely accepted”, “create more effective solutions”, and “increase
trust in community organizations and local governance” (Bassler, 2008, p.4).
Average citizens could be a great help to improving and maintaining lake quality, but
there is no good information concerning Indiana lakes easily available to the public on the
Internet. This thesis aims to analyze the information available on key public websites about
three Indiana lakes to show the difficulties of researching local water issues.
Methods
I believe one of the most important aspects of government agencies is to disseminate
information to the public. A 2004 study of college students showed that environmental
education “significantly prompted the students’ responsible environmental behavior, locus of
control, environmental responsibility, intention to act, perceived knowledge of environmental
issues, and perceived knowledge of skills in using environmental action strategies” (Hsu, 2004).
For this reason, I wanted to look at lakes from their perspective. I began researching
simply by asking around my friends and family. Where are the best places to go boating in
8
Indiana? Where would be a good place to buy a lake house? Living near Geist Reservoir, I
9
heard many mixed reviews about the water quality. Some people will say you really shouldn’t
even get in. Others boat all summer and say the water is fine. So, whom should I believe?
The next step was just some basic researching. Statista reports that 77% of search
engine users use Google (Richter, 2013). That is 1.17 billion users per day, making it by far the
most popular search engine (Richter, 2013). The average search term is only three words long
and over a quarter of all searches are a single word (Fox, 2012). I Google searched “Indiana
lakes” and just read around. I read the Wikipedia pages for each of the three lakes I am
interested in. I searched for their lake associations. After this initial research, I didn’t really
have much to compare the lakes. I knew the history of Geist and the community initiatives. I
knew some basic statistics about the size of Lake Monroe and that is has very restricted
shoreline development. Dewart Lake has the most helpful Wikipedia page. So, further down
the Google search, there are real estate websites. These sites made every lake seem like the
greatest lake to go see. The pictures were taken at angles the made each lake look expansive.
Again, I was at a loss for really useful information about water quality, fisheries, boat ramps,
and public swimming areas. This prompted a look at government websites. There are plenty to
choose from, national, or local. The first three that came to mind were the Indiana
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), but there are certainly
more. The Office of Wetlands Oceans and Watershed (OWOW) could be helpful, and the little
known Indiana Clean Lakes Program website provided the most hard data about Indiana Lakes.
9
I reviewed these websites for general, user-friendly information that would be useful to most
10
Hoosiers.
Literature Review
There is not much academic work concerning Indiana lakes. There are many useful
journal articles about Midwest region lakes and their ecological and managerial issues. This
paper uses articles concerning specific issues such as Eurasian Milfoil and Blue-Green algae.
Most scholarly articles specifically concerning Indiana lakes deal with the Indiana shores of the
Great Lakes.
Luckily, there are a great many governmental resources that have informed this thesis
on Indiana lakes and lake issues. The Indiana Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation
Plan, 2011-2015 has useful information about how Hoosiers use parks and other recreational
resources. The National Survey on Recreation and the Environment has similar data to the
SCORP report, but takes a national viewpoint. The National Lakes Assessment was the most
useful governmental report. It contains statistics about lakes nationally and by region. It has
data about different ecological issues and calculates their effects on overall lake health.
Preliminary Results from Online Resources
The first step for the average citizen researching Indiana lakes is to simply Google it.
This is a good way to get some beginning background information. It is a good starting point.
So, what happens when you Google “Indiana lakes”? Hit enter, and under the search bar
appear several photos of nice looking lakes, presumably in Indiana. The first hit is a Wikipedia
page that gives a list of all the lakes in Indiana with about one third having links to full pages
about specific lakes. Geist Reservoir and Lake Monroe have links, but Dewart Lake does not.
10
11
Following the Geist Reservoir link leads to a page primarily about the history of the damming of
Fall Creek and the decision to create Geist Reservoir (Geist Reservoir, 2013). The Wikipedia
page for Lake Monroe gives a similar historical account along with a folktale about an escaped
convict and a brief overview of the lake’s recreational opportunities (Lake Monroe, 2013).
Searching Dewart Lake by itself results in a surprisingly helpful Wikipedia page. It gives the
hydraulic residence time, trophic level, visibility, and dissolved oxygen implication. It does an
okay job of relating the statistics to real life implications. For example, it says the lake can
support fish twenty feet deep. The page also lists some future goals of the lake association to
encourage natural fisheries and eliminate the invasive Eurasian Milfoil. This information is
great, but it is in the last paragraph on the page. The first paragraph is bogged down with
numbers. (Dewart Lake, 2013). While each Wikipedia page may have some merit as a starting
point for research, Wikipedia is not a credible source of information. In fact, there are definite
instances of misinformation on these pages. The second hit off the Google search leads to the
official website for the Indiana Lakes Management Society. From this website, it is a bit of a
process to find information about specific lakes. One must go to the resources tab, click on lake
associations, and then read down the page to find the specific lake association website and
then follow the link. The best feature of this website, is its scrolling news bar on the homepage
that stays updated with current articles related to Indiana lakes (ILMS, 2013). The third Google
hit leads to lake-link.com. This site makes it easy to look at information about a specific lake,
but the information is geared toward fishing, not to mention the pages are cluttered with
advertisements (Lake-Link, 2013). After futilely searching these first three links, there are a
series of map images, and then real estate sites. It is not until near the bottom of the page that
11
12
any government-sponsored sites are listed, and really, most people don’t make it to the bottom
of the page anyway. Figure 18 demonstrates that 94% of Google users don’t click on the
second page of search results (Jensen, 2011). In fact, 76.65% of clicks are on the first five
search results, or the top half of the page (Jensen, 2011). Figure 8 shows a screenshot of a
Google search of “Indiana lakes.”
If a person were to follow the real estate links to look for information about lakes, or if
that person were interested in purchasing a property on a lake, they would find several search
engines for looking at lake properties across the nation. Lakehouse.com and
LakeHomesUSA.com allow a person to search for properties by lake. If the lake is at all visible
from a window in the house, it is considered lake front property. These websites are not
helpful in providing information about water quality, ecology, or management. They focus on
the homes (this is expected) and really only acknowledge the lake for its aesthetic or
recreational value.
There are a plethora of government websites and publicly accessible data out there to
inform citizens about water quality and environmental health. In fact, one goal of most
government agencies is to make their findings available to the public and help people interpret
their meanings. The problem is that much of this can get lost in translation. Government
websites can be difficult to navigate, outdated, and overly technical.
Indiana Department Environmental Management (IDEM)
The IDEM website is a bit overwhelming to look at, just like the Indiana Department of
Natural Resources website. They are both part of the same Indiana.gov website. There are a
few different ways to further navigate into the IDEM site. There is a search bar in the top left
12
corner. There is a list of links down the left side of the page. Across the top, there are nine
13
categories that appear across the top of all Indiana.gov sites. Following the link on the left to
“your environment” doesn’t lead to anything related to lakes. None of the other tabs on the
left look promising, so that leaves the top categories or the search bar. The categories across
the top all lead to the same general Indiana.gov search engine. Assuming the IDEM search bar
will be best for searching about the environment (lakes), type in “lakes.” That will pull up news
articles about specific lake issues, but offers options to “narrow your search.” Searching
specific lakes may be the best way to go. Searching “Dewart Lake” ends in a series of technical
looking articles that the average person would likely not click on. The same happens for “Lake
Monroe.” “Geist Reservoir” is a little more useful because it includes a link to the Lake and
River Enhancement grant summary page. The page is brief, but it offers other potential
resources (IDEM, 2013). Figures 9 and 10 show screen shots of the IDEM website.
Indiana Department of Natural Resources
The Indiana DNR website has similar issues as the IDEM website because they are from
the same, larger Indiana.gov website. The left side links are more suited to the information the
average Hoosier may be looking for about lakes. Following the “recreation” tab and then
clicking on “boating” leads to information about boating permits and regulations. It is helpful,
but is still not practical information about lakes in Indiana. The best feature of the DNR page is
that it has a changing image board that advertised the different recreation and wildlife guides
put out by the DNR. The Indiana Recreation Guide- 2013 is thirty-six pages, organized
geographically into northern, central, and southern properties. With close to one hundred
properties, and plenty of photos that leaves each property with barely a paragraph of
13
description (Indiana Recreation Guide, 2013). Geist Reservoir and Dewart Lake are not DNR
14
properties and do not appear in the guide, even thought they are public access lakes.
As a whole the government websites didn’t provide the important accessible
information I was looking for. This prompted further investigation to find out the real issues
going on in Indiana lakes. This part of the research goes beyond what the everyday person
might do and shines light on what can be found out with a little more digging and background
information.
Extended Methods
After researching on the Internet, I interviewed representatives from each lake and took
a look at the technical information online. Now, the average citizen may not go so far to learn
about Indiana lakes. Lake Monroe, Geist Reservoir and Dewart Lake were chosen as a
representative sample of three types of lakes and associated lake issues in Indiana. They each
have very different management practices.
The greatest difference is in shoreline development. Lake Monroe has very restrictive
shoreline development and therefore has a very natural feel. Geist is the opposite. It is lined
with million dollar homes and almost entirely surrounded by seawalls. Dewart Lake is
somewhere in the middle. It has mostly small homes and still some areas of natural shoreline.
Each lake has been more or less affected by eutrophication, invasive species, and recreational
users.
I interviewed Scott Rogers on March 1st about Geist Reservoir. He is a founding
member of the Geist Lake Coalition and has a great knowledge of current lake issues and their
recent history. To learn about Dewart Lake, Lester Wadzinski referred me to Betsy Watson.
14
She lives part-time on the lake, is part of the lake association, and a concerned and well-
15
informed citizen. I talked to three professionals about Lake Monroe. First, Jim Roach is the
Property Manager of Lake Monroe for the Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Next, I
interviewed Phil Wilson, who works with Jim Roach in the INDNR. Phil Wilson graduated from
Indiana University and has been working in the Indiana Department of Natural Resources at
Lake Monroe for nineteen years. Finally, I interviewed Dave Cable, Operations Manager from
the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
I grouped the results of my interviews into three categories: ecological issues,
managerial issues, and comments that show the importance of regular people in keeping lakes
healthy.
Results from Interviews
Ecological
Each lake has its own set of ecological concerns. According to Rogers, the most pressing
issues facing Geist Reservoir are water quality, invasive species, and sedimentation. Geist has a
huge problem with blue-green algal populations in the summer (Rogers 2013). Geist is
immediately banked by sprawling suburbs, which are surrounded by expansive farmlands. Both
the suburbs and agriculture emit excessive phosphorus and nitrogen into the lake, feeding algal
populations. Figures 11-13 show suburban sprawl on Geist shores. Invasive species have all but
taken over the lake’s natural vegetation. The lake cannot be treated to eliminate all Eurasian
Milfoil, for example, because it makes up so much of the vegetative mass, killing it could harm
fisheries and other species, and potentially affect dissolved oxygen levels in the lake (Rogers,
2013). Zebra muscles and Chinese snails also affect Geist (Rogers, 2013). The average lifespan
15
16
for a reservoir is fifty to one hundred years (Roach, 2013). Geist was constructed in 1943 and
has been slowly filling with sediment ever since. Lake managers face the possibility of massive
dredging to extend the life of the lake (Rogers 2013).
The most important issues to Dewart Lake are weed control and water level (Watson,
2013). Eurasian milfoil has all but taken over the lake in recent years. This summer it was so
thick in the lake, many people didn’t even want to swim in it. In previous years, chemical
treatments were sprayed on the milfoil to try and kill it. The chemical treatments were
generally effective for a weed-free lake in the summer, but the milfoil always came back the
next year. This year, the lake association made the decision to try a natural remediation
method (Watson, 2013). They purchased weevil larvae and left them to eat and borrow
through the milfoil. While this method has seen some success in other midwestern lakes, the
weevils have not been proven effective at Dewart. The 2012 summer drought may have
contributed to the perceived failure of this initiative. Watson said she can barely tell a
difference in the milfoil and doesn’t know what to believe anymore as to which methods are
best for the lake. Watson also said that most residents got together and chemically treated the
milfoil that grew near their docks anyway. When it comes to water level, the summer 2012
drought hit Dewart pretty hard. The extreme circumstance lead to a rumor that someone was
tampering with some small stream dams to divert water onto his or her properties (Watson,
2013). This rumor is an example of how extreme ecological circumstances, such as drought, can
cause strife within small lake communities.
Lake Monroe has similar issues. Jim Roach (INDNR, Lake Monroe) says the biggest
change to Lake Monroe in his career has been the increased recreational pressures. Lake
16
Monroe is the second biggest draw to the area, after Indiana University. In 1986, the lake
17
experienced approximately 800,000 visitors. In 2012, there were 1 million and 6 (Roach, 2013).
Lake Monroe is the largest lake in Indiana with 11,000 acres of lake and an additional 13,000
acres of surrounding land (Roach, 2013). It is the second busiest state park in terms of boaters
(Roach, 2013). The most common questions he fields from the public have to do with the
facilities and other users. Users want new restrooms, and buildings. They have conflicts with
other users. He recommends the DNR staff as the best resources to the public if they are
concerned with wildlife, geology, or botany. They are friendly and can answer most questions
or provide contacts for people who can. Roach tries to ensure that everyone stays safe and
helps protect the environment. Lake Monroe is defined by its diversity. It serves a variety of
uses from boating, fishing, skiing, and swimming, to hunting, camping, rowing, and racing
(Roach, 2013). Indiana University draws many international students and visitors, which effects
lake management and can make boater safety and communication difficult for DNR
representatives.
Phil Wilson, also representing the INDNR at Lake Monroe, says he commonly receives
questions from realtors and people looking to build on the lake. He continually has to set the
record straight that you cannot buy lakefront property, there are no houses on the lake, and
you cannot build personal docks. Nonetheless, many real estate agencies advertise “lakefront”
property. Wilson also fields questions from citizens about lake/land uses. Can they go offroading or ATVing? Can lake Monroe host a triathlon or similar event? The average lifespan of
a reservoir is fifty to one hundred years, (Roach, 2013). Studies conducted by the Army Corps of
Engineers show that Lake Monroe will greatly exceed that (Wilson, 2013). This is because of its
17
extremely slow sedimentation rate. Even though the reservoir is nearly fifty years old, no
18
dredging has yet been necessary (Wilson, 2013). The buffer zone of forest surrounding the
lake likely contributes to limiting sediment and nutrient runoff into the lake.
Managerial Results
In addition to ecological concerns, all lakes are overseen by political structures that
influence management. Geist Lake Coalition is one of many organizations, governments, and
stakeholders who take part in the management process of Geist Reservoir and the upper White
River watershed. The Indiana Department of Environmental Management, the Indiana
Department of Natural Resources, the Army Corps of Engineers (concerned with the dam and
water supply), Marion County, Hamilton County, residents, stake-holding businesses, and
activist volunteers, to name a few, all play an important role in the management of the
reservoir (Rogers, 2013). Geist stands out from many other lakes in the state because of its
varied and involved “investors”. So many competing interests can be good for the lake. No one
person or entity has the power to make decisions about the lake without hearing from the
other side. However, with so many organizations overseeing so many different aspects of the
lake, where does the average citizen turn with a question? It can be very difficult for a lake goer to identify the proper person or organization to contact to voice their concerns or seek
answers to their questions. The people involved with the management of Geist Reservoir have
all different educational backgrounds. Many have full-time jobs in other private sector
businesses. The information coming from these varied sources is often inconsistent and even
biased. Rogers says the best resources for citizens are the Geist Lake Coalition, Upper White
18
River Watershed Alliance, and Indiana Department of Natural Resources websites (Rogers,
19
2013).
Dave Cable is an Operations Manager with the Army Corps of Engineers. He oversees
four Indiana reservoirs, including Lake Monroe. He says the defining characteristic of Lake
Monroe is its rich clientele. There are still fishermen, but there are also many big boats. In the
1960’s the USACE never thought recreation would be such a draw to the lake. Presently,
recreation is at least as valuable as the flood control (Cable, 2013). Lake Monroe was also
needed to supply water to the growing university. Having the Indiana University School of
Public and Environmental affairs so close has made Lake Monroe a high priority for the USACE
and the Indiana DNR because personnel that work for the school and visit Lake Monroe are
highly educated about environmental issues and put pressure on the managers to maintain
high standards for water quality. Cable says that the history of Griffy Lake in Bloomington has
also impacted the management and public concern for Lake Monroe. Griffy Lake became so
over-run with algal scums and invasive species, most reaction activities are severely limited.
The USACE is responsible for the operating the dam, inspecting the property boundaries and
patrolling the water for safety. The primary management goals of the USACE for Lake Monroe
are to maintain the dam, maintain water quality, and minimize lake sedimentation (Cable,
2013). Figures 16 and 17 shoe Lake Monroe shoreline. Comparing this figures to figures 11-13,
one can see how drastically different the shoreline of Monroe is to that of Geist.
When it comes to lake management, Roach (INDNR) works very closely with the Army
Corps of Engineers. The lake and surrounding land is leased by the state of Indiana from the
federal government. Lake Monroe is unique in the fact that Title 36 makes the lake
19
management plan very restrictive (Roach, 2013). For the most part, there are no buildings
20
within several hundred feet from the shoreline. There are only five houses on the lake that
were not originally purchased by the federal government (Roach, 2013). Even a footpath down
to the water from a private home must be approved by the INDNR (Roach, 2013). The Army
Corps of Engineers controls how the water level of the reservoir to prevent downstream floods.
The water entering the lake comes in mostly through Brown County, not Monroe. They are also
responsible for conducting historical preservation and archaeological and ecological
assessments (Roach, 2013).
As the property manager, Roach has some latitude in making decisions. He writes
annual reports and biannual budgets that are submitted to the Indiana Department of Natural
Resources. Eventually, five-year plans are developed in conjunction with the Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE). Lake Monroe division of the Indiana DNR receives funding from the state of
Indiana, but not from the federal government or the USACE (Roach, 2013). Times are difficult
economically and the goal is survival. The challenge is providing a high quality experience to
people with a decreased budget. Much of the equipment and facilities are outdated and
overused from the incredible amount of lake visitors each year. The fee to use the lake is set
by the state legislature (Roach, 2013). Roach could not change it, nor would he want to. Roach
believes everyone should have access to the lake regardless of economic status. He says they
do the best they can with the resources they have available at the time (Roach, 2013).
Phil Wilson (INDNR) also sites a decreased budget as a challenge for Lake Monroe.
When he began, in 1994, the department had a “rehab” budget of approximately $350-
20
21
400,000. It was used to improve shelters, restrooms, and other onsite facilities. Since then, it
has been turned into a project-based general budget of about $50,000 (Wilson, 2013).
Wilson says that recent economics conditions and trends in government have led many
officials to attempt to run government like a business. Government employees are encouraged
to do as much as they can with as few resources as possible. This is a valid goal, but it rubs
many DNR personnel the wrong way because it implies that the DNR should pay for itself
(Wilson, 2013). For that to happen, fees would have to increase so much so that many
Americans couldn’t afford to use the public lakes (and other natural resources) (Wilson, 2013).
Wilson and Roach want to keep fees as low as possible to allow everyone equal access.
Personal values are constantly reflected in policy. The officials at the Indiana DNR all share
similar values. They cherish natural places and recreation. They value protection of natural
resources not prohibition. (Wilson, 2013)
Hope
At the end of the day, there is still hope for healthy lakes for generations to come. Each
conversation ended on a note that emphasized how committed and passionate people can
really make a difference. For example, Geist Reservoir is a drinking water sources, a public
recreational asset, and one of three main water bodies in the Indianapolis Metropolitan area
(Rogers, 2013). About ten or eleven years ago one of the Geist homeowner’s associations
proposed a law to make 45 miles per hour the absolute maximum speed for all areas of the
lake. Scott Rogers, Brian Hall, Tom Britt and a few others had some other ideas. They believed
the speed limit would be difficult and costly to enforce. It would be a burden on lake users and
somewhat ineffective at preventing shoreline erosion and boater safety (Rogers, 2013). Rogers,
21
22
Hall, and Britt proposed a few other ideas and eventually got together to create the Geist Lake
Coalition to educate, fundraise, and coordinate volunteer initiative to take care of Geist Lake
and the upper White River watershed (Rogers, 2013). Now, the Geist Lake Coalition has
achieved full non-profit status in the state of Indiana. Every year they put on a huge 4th of July
fireworks show that bring the whole Geist community together and funds the majority of their
annual budget (Rogers, 2013).
Community is important at Dewart too. Betsy Watson is a member of the Dewart Lake
Association she and her husband own a summer home on the lake. Their search for a lake
home began more than fifteen years ago on a vacation to Lake Michigan. They loved the lake
front lifestyle, and shortly thereafter began contacting realtors to look at lake properties in
Indiana. Having never owned a boat or lake front property, they set out on quest to find the
perfect summer home. Lucky, they had a patient realtor. The Watsons spent more than five
years looking at over a hundred lakes before they settled in at Dewart Lake in Kosciusko
County. They liked Dewart because it has a nice feeling of community, it is family oriented, and
the properties are affordable. Many homeowners live on the lake permanently. The Watsons
are learning from their neighbors and lane chair (neighbor who relays information from the lake
association to other residents) about the lake association and lake issues (Watson, 2013).
Figures 14 and 15 show typical homes on Dewart Lake. Watson says, “The most important
factors in a lake are having residents who are interested in water quality and the environment
and maintaining the environment. They need to be willing to work and compromise to
preserve the wonderful treasure that is Indiana lakes” (Watson, 2013).
22
23
Jim Roach, the Property Manager at Lake Monroe, graduated from IU, majoring in parks
and recreation and started working in the Indiana Department of Natural Resources in 1974.
His first placement was McCormick’s Creek, and he went on to become property manager of
Lake Monroe in 1986 (Roach, 2013). He now has twenty-seven years of experience in his
position and has a great knowledge of the recent history and current state of Lake Monroe. He
says, in the political world we live in, state government politics play a role in managing facilities
and personal values are reflected in policy (Roach, 2013). This is not necessarily a bad thing.
People naturally advocate for things they believe in. When he began at Lake Monroe, Roach
believed he was an environmentalist, and now he would call himself a conservationist. His
ultimate goal is to make sure the resource of Lake Monroe is available to his great, great
grandkids (Roach, 2013).
Conclusion
means Hoosiers are less able to make decisions that take environmental health into
consideration. In general, lake-goers need to be more aware of lake issues and knowledgeable
about how their activities can impact the ecosystem. Altering the way this information is
presented would help to teach the general population. Interviews showed that the long-term
goals and values of lake mangers can have direct effects on recreational policy and lake health.
Articulating these goals to lake goers is often over-looked and should be a primary goal of any
lake association.
23
24
The first step to correcting this problem is to improve government and lake association
websites. The webpages should be less cluttered and more user-friendly. It would be helpful if
there were links to important information about water quality and current issues. Anything
very scientific should have explanations for the average citizen.
The main ecological problems affecting Indiana lakes are shoreline erosion,
eutrophication, and invasive species (National Lakes Assessment, 2009). Implementing policies
that encourage natural shorelines would do wonders for Indiana lakes. More vegetative
shoreline decreases eutrophication because plants absorb and use the excess nutrients before
they enter the water. Planting native species along shorelines could help to eliminate invasive
species.
The most significant managerial problems come from budget cuts, overuse, and too
many stakeholders. Budget cuts are happening across the board in government. Private
fundraising could make a huge difference in the daily operations of Indiana’s natural resources.
In the summer, many Indiana lakes feel the pressure of millions of visitors wanting to swim,
boat, and fish. Increasing the fee to use the lakes would decrease the pressure in the lakes and
could provide more funds to take care of it. In many cases, the lines of communication about
lake management are unclear or overly complicated because of the multiple government
jurisdictions and private organizations that are invested in the lake. This is confusing to the
public. Different counties have different policies and standards in regards to the lake. These
policies can be conflicting and at least confusing. Streamlining the number of governing bodies
concerning lakes could create more unified management goals for Indiana lakes.
24
25
Indiana lakes are facing many of the same ecological and managerial problems as lakes
throughout the nation. Lake associations and governing bodies could do a better job of keeping
citizens informed about potential risks and how to make better choices for their lakes. Luckily,
there are passionate Hoosiers willing to work to conserve Indiana lakes for posterity. Both
government employees and citizens are interested in the problems and working to come up
with creative, community-based solutions.
Figure 1
(IndianaMap, 2013)
Figure 2
25
26
(Marion County, 2013)
Figure 3a
Figure 3b
26
27
(Hamilton County, Indiana, 2013)
Figure 4a
Figure 4b
27
28
(IndyGIS, 2013)
Figure 5
(IndianaMap, 2013)
28
Figure 6
29
(IndianaMap, 2013)
Figure 7
(IndianaMap, 2013)
29
Figure 8
30
Figure 9
30
Figure 10
31
Figure 11
(Stills, 2009 )
31
Figure 12
32
(GeistLake.com, 2012)
Figure 13
(Neal, 2011)
32
Figure 14
33
(IndianaMap, 2013)
Figure 15
(Direct Homes)
Figure 16
33
34
(Water basics, 2013)
Figure 17
(Water basics, 2013)
Figure 18
34
35
(Jensen, 2011)
References
Bassler, A. (2008, April). Developing Effective Citizen Engagement: A How-To Guide for
Community Leaders (Rep.). Retrieved April 26, 2013, from The Center for Rural
Pennsylvania: A Legislative Agency for the Pennsylvania General Assembly website:
http://www.rural.palegislature.us/Effective_Citizen_Engagement.pdf
Cable, D. (2013, March 13). [Telephone interview].
Clark, M. (2013, February 21). Wastewater Treatment. Lecture presented at Lake and
Watershed Management, Bloomington, IN.
Clean Lakes. (2012, August 15). Home. Retrieved April 26, 2013, from
http://water.epa.gov/type/lakes/index.cfm
35
36
Cordell, K., & Leeworthy, B. (2010). National Survey on Recreation and the Envrionment (Rep.).
Athens, GA: USDA Forest Serivce.
Cyanobacteria: Life History and Ecology. (n.d.). Life History and Ecology of Cyanobacteria.
Retrieved April 26, 2013, from http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanolh.html
Cyanobacterial Toxins. (n.d.). Toxic Cyanobacteria Methods on Cyanosite. Retrieved April 26,
2013, from http://www-cyanosite.bio.purdue.edu/cyanotox/toxins.html
Dewart Lake. (2013, April 18). Wikipedia. Retrieved April 26, 2013, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewart_Lake
Dewart Lake Protective Association. (2012). Dewart Lake Protective Association. Retrieved April
26, 2013, from http://www.dewartlake.org/
DNR: DNR Home. (n.d.). DNR: DNR Home. Retrieved April 26, 2013, from
http://www.in.gov/dnr/
DNR: Monroe Lake. (n.d.). DNR: Monroe Lake. Retrieved April 26, 2013, from
http://www.in.gov/dnr/parklake/2954.htm
Fox, V. (2012). Marketing in the age of Google: Your online strategy IS your business strategy.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Geist Reservoir. (2013, April 19). Wikipedia. Retrieved April 26, 2013, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geist_Reservoir
GeistLake.com. (2012). GeistLakecom. Retrieved April 26, 2013, from http://geistlake.com/
GIS. (n.d.). GIS. Retrieved April 26, 2013, from http://www.co.monroe.in.us/tsd/GIS.aspx
Hamilton County, Indiana. (n.d.). / Maps, Aerial Photos & GIS. Retrieved April 26, 2013, from
http://www.hamiltoncounty.in.gov/category/subcategory.php?categoryid=65
36
37
Holdren, C., Jones, B., & Taggart, J. (2001). Managing lakes and reservoirs. Madison, WI: North
American Lake Management Society.
Hsu, S. (2004). The Effects of an Environmental Education Program on Responsible
Environmental Behavior and Associated Environmental Literacy Variables in Taiwanese
College Students [Abstract]. The Journal of Environmental Education, 35(2), 37-48. doi:
10.3200/JOEE.35.2.37-48
IDEM: Home. (n.d.). IDEM: Home. Retrieved April 26, 2013, from http://www.in.gov/idem/
ILMS - Indiana Lakes Management Society. (n.d.). ILMS - Indiana Lakes Management Society.
Retrieved April 26, 2013, from http://www.indianalakes.org/
Indiana Recreation Guide (Rep.). (2013). Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Department of Natural
Resources.
Indiana Statewide Outdoor Recreation Plan 2011-2015 (Rep.). (2012). Indianapolis, IN: Indiana
Department of Natural Resources.
IndianaMAP. (n.d.). IndianaMAP. Retrieved April 26, 2013, from http://www.indianamap.org/
IndyGIS. (n.d.). Official Website of the City of Indianapolis and Marion County. Retrieved April
26, 2013, from http://www.indy.gov/egov/county/isa/services/gis/Pages/home.aspx
Jensen, T. (2011, April 12). First Page vs Second Page Rankings on Google. Utah SEO Utah
Search Engine Optimization 2nd Page Rankings Youre the 1 Loser Comments. Retrieved
April 26, 2013, from http://www.gravitateonline.com/google-search/2nd-place-1stplace-loser-seriously
Lake Monroe (Indiana). (2013, April 19). Wikipedia. Retrieved April 26, 2013, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Monroe_%28Indiana%29
37
38
Lakehouse.com Home Page real estate, lakefront properties, lake property, lake homes for sale,
waterfront properties, lakefront, waterfront. (n.d.). Lakehouse.com Home Page Real
Estate, Lakefront Properties, Lake Property, Lake Homes for Sale, Waterfront Properties,
Lakefront, Waterfront. Retrieved April 26, 2013, from http://www.lakehouse.com/
LOUISVILLE DISTRICT. (n.d.). Louisville District Missions Civil Works Recreation Lakes Monroe
Lake. Retrieved April 26, 2013, from
http://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Recreation/Lakes/MonroeLake.aspx
Lund University. (2012, October 04). Lakes React Differently to Warmer Climate. ScienceDaily.
Retrieved April 26, 2013, from
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121004093153.htm
National Lakes Assessment: A Collaborative Survey of the Nation's Lakes (841-R-09-001, Rep.).
(2009). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Neal, A. (2011, November 22). The Andrew Neal Group. DealwithNealcom Waterfront Homes
Sold on Geist Reservoir in 2011 Comments. Retrieved April 26, 2013, from
http://dealwithneal.com/waterfront-homes-sold-on-geist-reservoir-in-2011/
Plataforma SINC. (2012, July 03). Global Warming Favors Proliferation of Toxic Cyanobacteria.
ScienceDaily. Retrieved April 26, 2013, from
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120703142609.htm
PRE SEASON EXCLUSIVE! (2013). Lake-Link: Beyond the Water. Retrieved April 26, 2013, from
http://www.lake-link.com/
Repository of Documents: Indiana. (2013, February 6). Home. Retrieved April 27, 2013,
fromhttp://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/wqslibrary/in_index.cfm
38
Richter, F. (2013, February 12). • Chart: 1.17 Billion People Use Google Search | Statista.
39
Statista RSS. Retrieved April 26, 2013, from
http://www.statista.com/topics/1001/google/chart/899/unique-users-of-searchengines-in-december-2012/
Roach, J. (2013, March 5). [Telephone interview].
Rogers, S. (2013, March 1). [Telephone interview].
Ruby, D. (2010, May 25). The Value of Google Result Positioning | Chitika Online Advertising
Network. The Value of Google Result Positioning | Chitika Online Advertising Network.
Retrieved April 26, 2013, from http://chitika.com/insights/2010/the-value-of-googleresult-positioning/
Stills, B. (2009, October 10). House on Geist Reservoir or Geist Lake. Flickr. Retrieved April 26,
2013, from http://www.flickr.com/photos/billbutler/3998151788/
Syracuse, IN. (n.d.). Direct Homes. Retrieved April 26, 2013, from
http://www.directhomes.com/Real-Estate/IN/SYRACUSE/
US EPA. (2012, March 6). Use of Aquatic Weevils to Control a Nuisance Weed in Lake
Bomoseen, Vermont. Home. Retrieved April 26, 2013, from
http://water.epa.gov/type/lakes/bomoseen.cfm
Water Basics. (n.d.). City of Bloomington. Retrieved April 26, 2013, from
http://bloomington.in.gov/documents/viewDocument.php?document_id=1838;type=M
edia;page=7
Watson, B. (2013, February 22). [Telephone interview].
39
Welcome to America's Largest Water-Related Real Estate Guide. (2013, April 26). Waterfront
40
Real Estate, Realtors, Lakefront Property, Oceanfront Property & Riverfront Property
Listings Across America. Real Estate Guide. Retrieved April 26, 2013, from
http://www.lakehomesusa.com/
Wilson, P. (2013, March 5). [Telephone interview].
40

Online Public Resources and the State of Three Indiana Lakes

Transcription

Similar documents

Captain Geech

Loyalist Township - County of Lennox and Addington

WE ARE THE PLACE TO CHILL AT THE LAKE

Get Your Kicks this Fall with LWYSA!

Providence at Harbour Club

Silver Lakes Ranch

Cutty`s Okoboji Resort Club

Aseel , Dania , , Dania , , Dania , Jumana , Muna , Ru`a Alain Sara

Wild, Wet and Untamed - VirginiaLiving.com

For Immediate Release: March 23, 2011