Greenways + Blueways 2020 Public Comment Report

Public Comment Report

The Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission (NIRPC) held a 30-day public comment period on the draft Greenways+Blueways 2020 Plan (G+B 2020 Plan). The comment period began on February 1, 2018 and ended on March 2, 2018.

The G+B 2020 Plan combines the 2007 Greenways & Blueways Plan and the 2010 Ped & Pedal Plan, and environmental elements of the 2040 Comprehensive Regional Plan. It is the first time that the areas of conservation, transportation, and recreation have all been combined into a single document for Lake, Porter, and LaPorte Counties. The plan was formed with input from public listening sessions and stakeholders with an interest in conservation of natural areas and open lands and non-motorized transportation such as walking, biking, hiking, and paddling.

As part of the public comment period, a public meeting was held on February 15, 2018 at NIRPC offices, 6100 Southport Road, Portage, IN, 5:00 to 7:00 p.m.

A draft of the plan was made available at www.nirpc.org, and stakeholders were made aware via email, a news release, and social media. The public was able to comment via email, telephone, regular mail, and at the public meeting. In all, NIRPC received nine comments which are copied in full on the attached table.

This is the second 30-day public comment period for the G+B 2020 Plan. At the first comment period held from October to November of 2016, some comments received were deemed significant according to the definition set forth in the 2014 Public Participation Plan. Therefore, after proper edits are made, the plan was made available for another 30-day public comment period. No significant comments were identified during this latest round of public input.

Greenways+Blueways 2020 Plan – Comments & Responses

#	Comment	Manner Considered by Staff	Significant?	Need to Modify?
Comments Received by Email
1	Before more accidents occur, please stop promoting Lake Michigan as a great place to kayak. It isn't!! Lake Michigan wave conditions can change very quickly, and kayakers can easily become "stranded" along a long, rocky breakwater with no landing beach nearby. Rescuing kayakers in these situations risks the lives of first-responders unnecessarily. Lake Michigan is dangerous enough without encouraging individuals to take silly thrill- seeking risks that can endanger others. Many kayakers don't even use the proper type of kayak for Lake Michigan. Moreover, because of the low profile of a kayak, even people in small boats have a difficult time seeing a kayak in the water. When a kayaker ventures a long way from shore, it just makes it that more likely that an accident involving a kayak and a boat will occur. There are rivers and smaller lakes in the area that are fine for that activity. But, particularly around busy marinas/ports, kayakers are just an accident waiting to happen.	Lake Michigan represents an outstanding water trail, and remains popular with those using sea kayaks. There are risky areas to paddle, but these are clearly identified on maps, and there are even safe havens located at these locations.	No	No
2	Hello, just read article, wanted to make a brief suggestion regarding hiking or bicycle trail. I would start it at Woodland park to highway 20, it would then run west on south side of 20 where railroad tracks used to be and now is owned by Portage city parks. Then I would have a bicycle bridge across 20, end up at 5440 us highway 20, a property I own and is for sale, and use it for bicycle rental. Kayak rental, and an information center regarding trails beaches and parks, then the trail would go west from that property to Deep River, then follow river north to connect with National lakeshore parks and other beaches, then end at Portage City beach front.	NIRPC appreciates this idea, but the G+B 2020 Plan does not get into detail about specific projects. However, NIRPC will contact the City of Portage about the idea.	No	No

As far as the naming of La Porte's present- day blueway, this blueway lies entirely within the city's chain-of-lakes. And this chain-of- lakes lies no closer than about a minimum distance of 1200 feet from any other disjunct lakes existing in or around the city.

So, I don't think that one could realistically call any new segment of a blueway established within one of those unconnected La Porte lakes an "expansion" of that original blueway. It would be just too far away.

It's one thing to call the waters beyond an inaccessible bridge, culvert or logjam part of that blueway--especially when those waters themselves are interconnected with the main water body. Traversing such barriers is a matter of a simple portage.

But lugging even a small vessel (i.e., a kayak, canoe, rowboat, etc.) a distance of 1200 feet or longer, is entirely another matter. I don't think that one could call such a newly established blueway on a disjunct lake that far away from the original blueway to be part of the latter blueway--at least not with a straight face. Rather, you would realistically have to give that new blueway its own identity, with its own name.

For example, if in the future, it were decided that a blueway should be created on Clear Lake and possible expand it to someday include Lower Lake (if private property owners would permit this), that blueway might fittingly be called the "Clear Lake Blueway" or the "Clear-Lower Blueway".

Despite the fact that both of these lakes were originally part of La Porte's chain-of- lakes in the 19th Century, they are now not only disjunct from the chain-of-lakes. But their present-day shores are hundreds of feet away. Treating them as though they still were part of that lake chain could end up being quite confusing to recreational boaters.

The bottom line is that blueways within this surface water-rich City deserve to be given distinct descriptive names like the "Clear

The name will be changed to LaPorte Chain of Lakes.

Existing infrastructure reduces or prevents on-water access between lakes, necessitating having to haul out if one wishes to navigate multiple lakes. NIRPC is willing to partake in or facilitate discussions on this topic in the future.

However, at this time that is beyond the scope of the current document.

Yes

Lake Blueway" and "the Chain-of Lakes Blueway", rather than a dull generic nondescript name, like "La Porte Lakes Blueway". (Which La Porte lakes are being referred-to?)

What's in a name? It turns out a quite a lot-- especially where recreational opportunities are being sought.

I have reviewed the Green Ways/Blue Ways document provided and would like to address the characterization of the Deep River in your report.

Correction: Text states in Chapter 2 page 28 “Developed access at Riverside Park and Veterans Memorial Park”. The Lake Station Riverside Park is named “Riverview Park” as printed on the large water tank overlooking the park.

A good opportunity exists for paddling on the Deep River with a minor investment in maintenance below the Hobart Lake George Dam and extending to the Liverpool Road dam. With small boat access now available at launch sites located at the Hobart Rugby Field, Lake Station Riverview Park, Lake Station Veterans Memorial Park (also known as Bicentennial Park) and at the Liverpool Road Park, the infrastructure is in place for paddlers. A few (2) log jam clearings and improvements at the railroad viaduct in Hobart would create a 7-mile water trail for paddler enjoyment.

Revise statement on page 29 “Low potential upstream of Lake George due to numerous log jams”. Recall that the East Branch of the Little Calumet River was a log choked stream two years ago. With volunteer efforts and proper funding over the past few years, 6 miles of that river is now open to paddling from Brummitt Road in Chesterton through the Bailly-Chellburg National Park Service property. The Deep River above Lake George has high potential for paddling because:

This river section is the cleanest water in northwest Indiana

The river is almost entirely wooded from Hwy 30 to Lake George.

Correction for Riverpark will be made.

The Northwest Indiana Paddling Association (NWIPA) is working on the route north of the Hobart Dam on Deep River as you mentioned.

Regarding your comments upstream of Lake George, NWIPA recognizes that this stretch does afford excellent opportunities as a potential water trail. However, significant clearing will be needed. However, NWIPA is focused on the Little Cal East Branch. In the future, NWIPA would like to work to get this water trail open. Additionally, if there is another organization willing to take this on as project, NWIPA would be able to provide some support for the project.

Yes

Most of the adjoining land is park land owned by the Lake County Park System as Deep River Water Park, Deep River County Park and the Big Maple Lake Park property. The Deep River County Park has two existing canoe access sites on their property with adjacent parking creating a 2 mile water trail for the initial stage to generate public interest in the project.

The water trail can be extended downstream into Lake George to the existing public boat launches on the lake. This 5.5 mile section is not a heavily log jammed reach of river.

The Lake County Park System is considering a canoe access site on property at the Deep River bridge on Hwy 51 (Grand Blvd.), 3.5 miles above Lake George.

The log jam removal on Deep River (7.5 miles) is comparable to the completed effort over the last 2 years on the East Branch of the Little Calumet River (6 miles).

Please consider these revisions to your current report. A recharacterization of this river as high potential will provide a supporting basis for my work with the Lake County Park System during the preparation of the Park Master Plan in 2018.

Comment

Manner Considered by Staff

Significant?

Need to Modify?

Comments Received by USPS

Full letter from the La Porte County Conservation Trust, Inc. is attached to the end of this report.

LaPorte Lakes vs. LaPorte Chain of Lakes Blueway: The term LaPorte Lakes and LaPorte Area Lakes is used by IDNR and the City of La Porte in studies, proposals, and other documentation to six or more lakes in this vicinity. NIRPC would prefer to use these general names in order to align with DNR planning.
Kingsbury Creek: The regional scale of the maps in the G+B 2020 Plan obscures the fact that the Kingsbury Creek corridor is identified on the conservation corridor maps due to the presence of core and secondary habitat patches along the waterway.
Weller Ave. Culvert: The G+B 2020 Plan does not identify specific local projects to be constructed. That said, if Weller Avenue is on the federal aid network then this project could be eligible for federal funding and submitted for competition in future NIRPC solicitations. However, since cities are responsible for roadways and counties for bridges, the commenter is correct that this project would require cooperation between the City and the County.
Forest Legacy Area: The G+B 2020 Plan is primarily focused on identifying potential connecting corridors between high quality habitat patches such as that present in the Moraine Forest. The activities and recommendations identified by the commenter are beyond the scope of this plan. The Lake Michigan Coastal Program is preparing to embark on a new habitat prioritization project that will potentially address this area.

#	Comment	Manner Considered by Staff	Significant?	Need to Modify?
Comments Received at Public Meeting on February 15, 2018
6	Riparian reforestation from Emerald Ash Borer (EAB)	Based on recent dialog between NIRPC and some local natural area land managers such as SHLT, riparian floodplains where ash trees had once dominated are shifting to marsh type habitat. This suggests that ash trees may have been aggressive colonizers of these areas and plant communities typical of marsh habitat may be the more appropriate conservation target. NIRPC believes it is most appropriate for the natural area land managers to make these restoration decisions.	No	No
7	Add waterways to conservation maps.	NIRPC will either include a layer showing waterways to the conservation map or use a baselayer that already includes the waterways such as the USGS national map	No	Yes
Comments Received at NIRPC Meetings between February 1st and March 2nd 2018
8	Add language to wayfinding section in Recreation Chapter about audible and tactile additions to signage for disabled persons.	NIRPC will add such language to expand Universal Design standards to wayfinding elements.	No	Yes
9	Changes to the Implementation Tables	Numerous suggestions were made to add content to stakeholder responsibilities, which wholly mirror existing comments for other stakeholders under the same policy or activity.	No	Yes
Comments Received by Telephone
No comments were received by telephone.

Board of Directors Elizabeth McCloskey

Presldent!Aatlng

Secretary

Robert Boklund

Vice-President

John Brugos

Treasurer

Jan Baumer Pennie Lombard Dennis Richardson Ronald Taylor

La Porte County Conservation Trust Inc.

RE: Greenways + Blueways 2020 Follow-up Commentary

February 21, 2018

Dear Sir or Madam:

In reviewing the updated Greenways-Blueways 2020 Pian, what I see is a superlative document that comprehensively covers the gamut of relevant subjects in its three segments-Conservation, Recreation and Transportation. There is really very little in the way of Improvements that are needed for the plan. But among those few improvements would be to change the name of the La Porte Lakes Blueway to the la Porte Chain of Lakes Blueway. There would also be very little in the way of additions, except to note the small watershed blueway, Kingsbury Creek, in the southern part of La Porte County. Both of these issues will be discussed further near the end of this commentary.

Most of this commentary will instead be devoted to two subject areas that were noted in the

_ .Public Gomrrll!hf'.R"efJ'att from the first release of Greenways-Blueways 2020. Given the effectiveness of this newly-released second phase of Greenways-Blueways 2020, most of this commentary here may be seen as a suggested supplement to the plan, elaborating and expanded on ideas that may be helpful in the plan's ultimate implementation.

The subjects specifically covered here Forest legacy Area and the Weller Ave. Culvert:

Forest L'eqcuiy;Area:

1.) Ferest Legacy Area: The question is how would one establish a public Identity for a

, ..,;,_))( large, mostly privately-owned r.esource, like the Moraine Forest of La Porte and

, - ·t-·:? Porter counties? There are a number of models for how such an undertaking would

. I ·1,l , :c.:.c...

be accomplished. Attached is a map of a such a project on a MEGA-scale. This mega-

.L:-t

! _JL,1r j ) : . Q_ en ompass:e: cove.r:ln g a tet rlto this J'arg waulci'"ha.ve t91 1.:!_1tgreatJy 'st al'iaid down to

.·

, ·

.·

, ·

:·j·. ,

·i l · scale exam ple is the , Ye/lc:Jwstone ta Yf; ko,d: orrf(ibc. Obviously, anything that

· - tJ('"'J••..... r· ,

0 .1-..,rf be ada p.t e.d to a resc-i:urce met elt t over_log.

-p_ at:ts:c;{f two.r c'i'H. .lri.tles. Yet; ma.ny of the

. ·rf·vl ,

lv /; /,.-. ·--:;):\ p.tlhdples used fo'r this me a.:corrtdortaifa'iso'beused fotth:a Coa·stal co.unties'

I , '. ,; .J...· ' · MOi'alne .Forest:

\J¢" · f \ V • ..

(J,.. -1) . v ,,.'{ aJ Respect pr.lveit,e. proper'ty' c:l'Wn r.slff ·. Th'e Mo·rafo·e·'Fo'test, like the·Yellowstor'le:to

\.;t ( i ) .1 · ¥ \,9, : >tf Yukon corrld.or;.lnvoives iahd mos:tiy in';prhtate hantk-lt is c:ru clalt h'atf orest

()f»\. J- . tg'*1-t) owners do NOT see such efforts as anythln$, rE!s·embllng a ;'taking''. That can

\ ·1 \ 1° do.om ot seriously impede ornahyVitatly lmportantactivltles. The

J ·. ·: (br ·J· }/

:Q: vf}J&).,Ir "

Greenways-Blueways 2020 Followup Commentary La Porte County Conservation Trust, Inc.

Page 2

"buy-in" of private owners can be critical to its success. The widespread use of the IDNR Classified Forest /Wildlands Program in this Moraine Forest is strong evidence of the desire of forest landowners to kept to keep their land forested. (See attachments.) M.aki.n .P,rl,vat e owners feel that they are partners in this

eff o'rt and that they cQn ben_efit from its continued existence is essential for its

success.

.Ea uqat lo· t ffe-:)rivolyed@i 'ri\rohrnify( rh re are numerous works that one way or
..
..
a other descr ibe the ecolog·lca1;·recre tionai, aesthetic and economic value of
\ ... . ' . \
the Moraine Forest. The a tached excerpts of one such work by Vicki Meretsky of
t I , :1.
Indiana University s rve as. an xample. ((The full report is readily available,
'•
'•
• - • \, I, ' . I\ '
onlirie.) The m ps for this_t dy alOl)f : learly illustrate the ecological value of
many parts of this Moraine Forest, especially those in the forest's northeastern portion.
iR'espectilofffecgnt:SystaliJ(.b!e1lfotesi@ses; Obviously, recreation and

conservation/ecology ar, e .,at th e.top,the ll$t of values achieved in saving the Moraine Forest. But npi,Elvery portion of it Is suitable to serve as a trail or a bike path. Nor Is every portionsuited to be a nature reserve. When such suitable portions are found, certainly every effort should be made to encourage achieving those ends. Vet,:for other portions, the value of working forests, woodlands for erosion control and other purposes that are not primarily aimed at recreational or ecological goals c. an no_netheless have.great value. Indeed, such forests-even if not pristine or easfly traversed-oijen have multiple secondary values in which

recreation and ecology pl /an irr;iportant part.

d) Develb ·.a fdtest-Ptese'('.yftic,rj·Teart, Enlisting and coordinating with other

entities that are primarily Involved in pres rving forested lands for recreational and/or ecological purpci'ses. Land trusts, county park depts., hiking/biking clubs, birding organizations and sporting groups can all play important roles in preserving such natural resources.

_Unk·6co-,Frfer1'dl5'·6 ·0 9 lt:·E"/jt er.pri's:e:t Moraine _crest
Pr es'ervat[ r)tGoosi:!'rv Jo i:i'. ,There are a number of types of private enterprise for which the presence of the Moraine Forest is mutually beneficial. Many of them are essential parts of the tourism-related economy. Hotels, motels, hostels, restaurants, vineyards, fruit farms, and even ecologically designed

8

Greenways-Blueways 2020 Followup Commentary La Porte County Conservation Trust, Inc.
Page 3

resJdtmtial developmenst. Forested settings provides and ambience that can substantially add to their attractiveness for their customers-especially those who reside in very urban areas like Chicago. This ecological-eco nomic retatlonship cannot be understated.
,fi>oaft JE!ti'Eariy;,S'etbaeksEnd J;hese·.Effort.s. That time-honored saying "Rome

wasn't built in a day",is so very true. Neither is a resource-saving effort of any magnitude. .In any project worth doing success can often be closely accompanied by failures. But persistence can pay off, in the end. So don't be discouraged and glve up.

This is the largest re.m.ai,n· ing semi contig. uous forest remaining north of the Wabash Valley-

with all of its rlq:! eatlo.na!, ecological, aesthetic and economic value . We can

either find worka .1.e, c mpatible, effective ways to conserve it. Or we can watch it gradually be winnowed away Into oblivion, rather like that other remarkable, historic Coastal County n'3turaLresource-Hoosler Slide, the largest of the lndlana Dunes - did.

Hoosier .$11de dlsqppear_e_d Into not ingness almost a century ago, because no effective, realistic ffoi:t w · a:deto save it, The choice is ours to make.

The Welier Avenue Culvert:

2.) TneW¢' He}!Avtk Cµlvert: A project like this one, to reopen a wonderful, but long-

]/ closed Interlaken water thoroughfare, must executed a step at a time. Replacing the

. , J)f [. l" Weller Ave. Culvert itself with a passable bridge is the MOST important single step.

()' .u , A .1,1( it must be done with careful planning, beforehand:

(wP , -. .,.;.?· a·) Hgw·Ca ! t.ils Be Funde.d;j> Locating and se uring the mon'.es.to undertake a

IIAJ \J·fo J,Y__ J project. hke this MUST be done before the first shovel of dirt 1s scooped. Local

\ )JJIF . '?. gover.nmet:.it s -both the City of La Porte and the La Porte County Commission-

·,i)0.". l 'I{. must be involved and supportive.

pJYb cl µ'.! , b) Hbw long: Weyjd (t Ja·ke to Const ruct a.·sridge te Replace tl:li s Culvern Some

T v v V a record somewhere of how much time was needed to complete that project?
iJ ,(]
rtfX'.·)I

. ;,fr
c,., l
. , J.
years a_go, the construction of channel bridge at Waverly Road occurred. Is there

This project would likely involve a similar length oftime to complete.
vV w-
c, J ·
(:

9

Greenways-Blueways 2020 Followup Commentary La Porte County Conservation Trust, Inc.
Page 4
1. Htiw:&,,Wller.e Would the Piec es·rif t he New-,Brliige and'the..Er-agments.oft heOld
  ·Cl.ilver.t'.b"e-:Stoted,_:\f{ht f'e CoF1st6Udtlon-: Was£JcctJr.r:lng·y How nearby these pieces could be kept and retrieved when needed would have a big effect on time to
  ·completion.
  'Wliaf are-.the lagjstles.of.sl)ort-te r.m;e'rorur:e,oU h. ls..st reet?. Weller Ave. is a small, but VERY bu.sy street. Not lpng:ago, an important part of it was closed for sewer
  repair and large tree removal. That work lasted approximately one week. It would be extremely.:important to plan a highly effective detour system, that caused as little,congestlon and accident potential as possible
2. Ensure t a,lli teri(or-s·pan: o'f..t tj, e:B'tfcf?e;.'P. ssa·.r ;l's>5)i ffi'.c_}eiil:IVHlgl!i. This is one the
  MOST IMPORTANT factors to determine, if the dream of an Interlaken boat route can once a'girn b - r1i li ed.' 1nh passage undsr the new bridge is simply too 10w,
  1
  'then'this thor ooghtar :J .iuo ld be lim'lted to kayakers, canoeists, fishermen and
  ;oiher s'mail ve'Jsel"usJ'r . These ui;' rs are_imp'.ortarit to'be sure. But If the span is hl h'e'ri ugh,'t°tie small vesskl users can shar 'this· waterway with /ow excursion b ats'that'cdn regdih the glory of La' Pbrte's storied past:
3. :utM e-ei:f .Fi'Je n r'y,Fcondmtc Enf e·rpftse·t1tt n1s'.R·e, Ex6e.-n sro·n of La ,porte s Cr.fain of
.Lake's Bfuewa'w. As oted above 'with the Moraine' Fo est, this
reassertion/reclaiming of this portion of La Porte's Chain-of-Lakes Blueway shoulcfirivolvi HJate' ht -rprise. Lakeside restaurants, boating and fishing equipment stores, other tourism-related'.Js le establishments can all find mutuaI benefit frq111 it.s "re-birth" as a wat r thoro,ug,hfar, .
For WAYtoo long the City of La Porte has acted as if it only had two lakes (Pine & Stone). Instead of the te.n deep water lakes that encircle; the northerly part of the City. Among
them, at least eight have public recreational potential (if they not already so used). By
' I .
expanding the ready accessib!llty of the City's hlst'oric chairi of lakes from Lily Lake to Pine Lake, the City would be reclaimlng a recreational resource that once brought it
1t ,.
fame all over Indiana, along with much of the Midwest beyond its borders. Because a bridge over a waterway is involved, buy-ln and support by the County is also critical to this happening. To forgo such an opportunity would be to settle for recreational/tourism mediocrity and ignore the resources in its midst that other municipalities would figuratively "kili" to have and creatively use.

10
.,J -,
'
\9-1f ··'.' ..
.;,..P'- ·tp- ux.?
1 _e. ,:f .:. . _..
- y Greenways -Blueways 2020 Followup Commentary

o-\ .f1 f J.L-·Q·

oY" " Lfd' (p,.,\

i1qi.t La Porte County Conservation Trust, Inc,

Page 5

1c.f ' ' J "' <\,fui rn to the two subjects listed in the fl"t paragraph of th is commentary:

'\: -

-..

\ • J,).. .

·vt rf . qY(!,.3Y The reasons that the name of the La Porte Lakes Blueway should be changed to the

,cv \lt.

, c ..,. _. ,·:. · Lo Porte Chain of Lakes Blueway are partly described in the above narrative. The

\ . ....\: , _ ·. .' ' -. , .' , · .· .,:

blueway itself Is entirely limited to the existing chain of four lakes in La Porte. There

. · l j . ',r e six addition,I deeper water lakes _that are not intercon- ected, that Iiein relatively

V . close proximity to La Porte's lake chain. They are not spec1f1cally part of the blueway

,ft> ; itself. Therefore, the present all-inclusive name should changed to reflect that it

-ll0'.,J.·fa-·.: .: specifically refers to La Porte's Chain of Lakes, where the blueway actually exists.,. _

: Al'·' : .. !he Klngs ,ury Creek Watershed represents one of the few tributaries of the

r.,. f.,i !.j., u. . (. 1 e':

:kee. in La Port County, that was neve.r ditched. As uch, It has still has· '. 'CL ,

) , V}'\jj - f")( features IJke:.fens, along With an assortment of native biota. Native fauna are 0/1.J) t;:+

r 41.'v<.. dfi J)i,rr particularly ab n ant withl t at:rsh d. The atershed is.located in s ut_h -\::J·.VJ ,u;Q_

.\!] ':... · i'. cent al La Poret j nyt. It s- o arat l ve.ly small m area and 1s mostly sur un ed (r/J•. JJ,..

" , 1, · _ . 1 by agrlcultural l·an cf.:and a few ·small housing developments. Its vegetative·cG>v r ...,, v

\JI - · provides sheltered habitat for wildlife that would otherwise have almost no cover, in

a this part of La Porte County. (See attachment aerial maps.) Thank you for the opportunity to provide this commentary.

Robert J. Boklund,

Vice President, La Porte County Conservation Trust, Inc. Attachments

' .. ·,:·....:. .. ."...

to Yukon R giou

Y1:1:1, W:STO.Nf T·O l'tlKO,N

• ,. .. .- ••I it

•- ·-- .·- ·- - .,....,.... ·. .,. -··

(

.,...,.

.North.e.rn La-l?orte County Forest Areas and Protected Land,s

. .

I-'

. ,.. , .....AN

Legend

Managed Lands c:JCounty Boundary

CJ Classified Forest & Wtldlands

20f1-1

.....,

·Nor,therr1 LaPort ¢0,\,intyf :0$S t Are $· a:nd Proteeled: Langs·

1 ·- . ·--- -·

b. "W WWWi idli&W ·- :- .

t--'

,i,,

·N

0 1.5 a 6"1es ,i

A .

legend

Managed Lands CJ County Boundary .1!1111 Evergreen Forest [=:J Shrub Scrub

CJ Classified Forest & Wildlands· - Deciduous For.est CJ Mixed Forest 1111·11 Wooded Wetlands

Amended Draft Final Report

Biodiv.er sity Conservation Possibilities and Threat Assessment for the Indiana Lake Michigan Coastal Managem nt Program: an update and analysis of part of the

Northwest Morainal Natural Region asse.ssment of the Indiana Biodiversity Initiative

Prepared by

Vicky Meretsky

School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, .J3Joomington, IN

and Forest Clark

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington Field Office, )aomin_gtan, IN

with:

EnkhboJd Sumiya: lead GIS analyst, change assessm&)Ilt\Bn, d upQm,i g

Elizabeth Zelasko: aquatic biodiversity atidthreats ·

and additional assistance frQm

Debasish Ghosh: urban and suburban change

Adam Walker: field truthing

Cynthia Luxford: field truthing

Submitted 1 March 2006 to Michael Molnar, Director

lpdiana Lake Michigan Coastal Program Division of Nature Preserves Department of Natural Resourc_es

402 W. Washington, Rm W267 Indianapolis, IN 46204"22J2

- Land Cover -		2003 acres (GAP updat )	% of total area (update)	1992 acres (GAP)					Change (acres)	Change (ha)				Change (%)
Pasture/Grassland		331s:a	BJ ,	46278					-13120	-5310				-28.4
Row Crop		991 t:4	25 ,8	111685					-12511	-5063				-11.2
Terr trial Fo st O iduous -	--	755 { 4_	19.7	. ·as 937 ·					-11323	I -4582				-13.0
Developed Non-Veae ted		9t ot	i	2.4 I	12 6 82				-3580	:		--1149		-2:8.2
l)nctassii'i d @!cud/ Shadow_	--	93 .":..	O.Q			809		-	-716	I		-290		-88.5
Water		.. - -	6#5	1.7 ' .	7146				-701	..;	,.		-284- -		9.8 -
P alu trine. Herbaceous Deciduous		972-5	,:	2.5	10411				I -aae	-	l		-27&		. -6_.6
Pah.istrif-le F:c> f b eciduou-s -.		.. 25421	e:s	25745 . .					-324	-13:t				-1 .3
Ter:res.triaJ airiubJand·pecfduous . ,		46H		1.0 .	· 4.178' '_,				-167_ _	.		. -6_8-		-4.0
Terr.estoal EQ Mixed		·- 1035	0.3 ·	1093.,.					-59	:,	-24 .		_	- .4
Terr:Esi tnaJ folJis(Evergreen--- :		- 89.7		0.2'	I			949			-52	.	-21		-5.5
Palu bine Sbiji bland;O cidtiliU:·s· .		·-... 98-	o. l	10!3					-30	:	.'		..12 _		-2.9
Palll5ttjr;l .Wqci dil U1d;Q ecidubu.s _..			0.0			15-2		'	-28	I	-11			.:Ja.1
Te-rre- sfrial.\No". odiand Deciducfos _		2744 ,.:	_ 0.7	2 747_					- -3		-1			-0.1
P alustrjne. SpatselY V eaetate-d· · ·:.		457	OJ .	I		40..6.		_ ·	51	_ · _21				12 .5
Developed Urba' n High· Density	- ·· 1		41 ()92 '	10.7	32245				8847			3580_		27.4
Developed Urban Low Densitv		74610		19.4	.. -		39954			34656	1402q			86.7

- Land Cover -		2003 acres (GAP updat )	% of total area (update)	1992 acres (GAP)					Change (acres)	Change (ha)				Change (%)
Pasture/Grassland		331s:a	BJ ,	46278					-13120	-5310				-28.4
Row Crop		991 t:4	25 ,8	111685					-12511	-5063				-11.2
Terr trial Fo st O iduous -	--	755 { 4_	19.7	. ·as 937 ·					-11323	I -4582				-13.0
Developed Non-Veae ted		9t ot	i	2.4 I	12 6 82				-3580	:		--1149		-2:8.2
l)nctassii'i d @!cud/ Shadow_	--	93 .":..	O.Q			809		-	-716	I		-290		-88.5
Water		.. - -	6#5	1.7 ' .	7146				-701	..;	,.		-284- -		9.8 -
P alu trine. Herbaceous Deciduous		972-5	,:	2.5	10411				I -aae	-	l		-27&		. -6_.6
Pah.istrif-le F:c> f b eciduou-s -.		.. 25421	e:s	25745 . .					-324	-13:t				-1 .3
Ter:res.triaJ airiubJand·pecfduous . ,		46H		1.0 .	· 4.178' '_,				-167_ _	.		. -6_8-		-4.0
Terr.estoal EQ Mixed		·- 1035	0.3 ·	1093.,.					-59	:,	-24 .		_	- .4
Terr:Esi tnaJ folJis(Evergreen--- :		- 89.7		0.2'	I			949			-52	.	-21		-5.5
Palu bine Sbiji bland;O cidtiliU:·s· .		·-... 98-	o. l	10!3					-30	:	.'		..12 _		-2.9
Palll5ttjr;l .Wqci dil U1d;Q ecidubu.s _..			0.0			15-2		'	-28	I	-11			.:Ja.1
Te-rre- sfrial.\No". odiand Deciducfos _		2744 ,.:	_ 0.7	2 747_					- -3		-1			-0.1
P alustrjne. SpatselY V eaetate-d· · ·:.		457	OJ .	I		40..6.		_ ·	51	_ · _21				12 .5
Developed Urba' n High· Density	- ·· 1		41 ()92 '	10.7	32245				8847			3580_		27.4
Developed Urban Low Densitv		74610		19.4	.. -		39954			34656	1402q			86.7

I-' ·1 ··- - .,-.. -

°'

Table 6. Comparison of Phase 2 solutions of the LMCP rerun and of the original Northwest Moraine Natural Region within the LMCP boundary.

·- - -· - · .. . -- '

.. LMCP rerun NWM within LM P

I-'

-..J

change in % change acres grid cells _ acres ,grid cells area in area

Ar.neci.ctm badger 41198 17 7,134 29 -2,936 -41%

Blanding's turtle 23,396 96 13,494 55 9,902 73%

Blue-spotted salamander 78,967 323 34,050 139 44,917 132%

Eastern massasauga 51,199 209 26,805 109 24,394 91%

Golden-winged warbler 1,647 7 1,972 8 -325 -16%

Kamer blue butterfly 33,467 145 11,248 46 22,219 198%

Red-shouldered hawk 16,574 69" 32,827 141 -16,253 -50%

Scarlet tanager 13,:S:94. 59 29 ,.Z47 90 -t .553 -53%

TOTAL 52,384 538

-. 40-

5 .. 7-

416 11,817 129%

.I.-··-··--··-··-··-··-··-··-···-··-··-··-··-··---·-··-·

Lake M;chigan

•

...••

.ti '

•

... -.

•

... -.

I-'

CXl

I-'

CXl

= -

s .--

.,..

, : 1•,

,_J,I,

.••....

, ;· -

'll

-. L "'- , I ••

.,...'-,..

-. L "'- , I ••

.,...'-,..

•4. . .- (.'&; .-·--.-.

.. { .., rl' • I ._ r

. .ti . a. I; . _ •

,Y-

..--1.r. ,..

.. .. • .

. If'. •

.: · . , . .

• .. ' i I .. . , - - - f'I

. If'. •

.: · . , . .

• .. ' i I .. . , - - - f'I

I:•

· · - ·· - '··· ·•·-··- -.!I..

II....". '

Figure 2. Areas selected during the original Northwest Morainal natmal region assessment that fell within the LMCP boundary. Existing managed areas (parks, preserves, etc.) are shown in blue; additional areas added during Phase I are green and additional areas added during Phase II are shown in brown (some cells were selected during both phases).

f--'

Figure 3. Recommended cells updat.ed during the current project. Green areas indicate potential high conservation cells identified in the original IBI process that did not have changes requiring updating. The violet cells are those containing one or more polygons that were modified (corrected and/or updated) during the present project.

Figure 4. LMCP. boundary showing the original extent of developed d urban areas in r.ed and additional areas detected on 2003 color orthophotographs in black.

Indiana Biodiversity Initiative • biodiversity and threats in the LMCP area 14

Ii!]

Figure 9. Upper pane: original phase 1 solution clipped from Northwest Moraine Natural Region. Lower pane: rerun Phase 1 solution showing managed areas (blue outline) and additional selected areas (green outline) over the updated GAP map. The GAP map shows urban areas in red, forested areas ingreen, wetlands and water in blues. and agricultural areas in light brown.

t-..J

cQJ

Figure 10. LMCP blue-spotted salamander solution (blue) with original natural region solution (outline).

wN IP a

[I]

Fieure 11. LMCP Blandine:'s turtle solution farev) with orilrinal natural ree:ion solution (outline).

Cb. Cl

""' cB DJ

Figure 12. LMCP American badger solution (orange) with original natural region solution (outline).

8 a 8

Figure 13. LMCP golden-winged warbler solnfion (gold) with original natural region solution (outline).

[JJ

°'

Figure 14. LMCP red-shouldered hawk solution (rust) with original natural region solution (outline).

-.J

Figure 15. LMCP scarlet tanager solution (red) with original natural r gion solution (outline).

ffl

EPD

go§ 9'13 Eh

f \ fp

I\J

(X) B

93 °A

0 D ti

UIIJ

D D

D D 0

0 0-

Figure 16. LMCP eastern massasauga solution (brown) with-o riginal natural region solution

(outline).

I.O

Figure 17. LMCP Kamer blue butterfly solution (blue) with original natural region solution(outline). Changes here are not the result of modeling but only of more complete communication with species specialists to obtain the full set of conservation areas.

Google Maps

Kin gsbu ry,Creek Watershed

Go gleMaps

Kingsbury Creek Watershed