Grantee Research Project Results
Final Report: Sustainability and Risk of Fragmented Habitats: Development and Regulatory Variables in Shoreline Residential Development Planning in Southwest Michigan
EPA Grant Number: R827584Title: Sustainability and Risk of Fragmented Habitats: Development and Regulatory Variables in Shoreline Residential Development Planning in Southwest Michigan
Investigators: Lemberg, David , Fraser, Rolland
Institution: Western Michigan University
EPA Project Officer: Chung, Serena
Project Period: July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000 (Extended to February 28, 2002)
Project Amount: $104,042
RFA: Futures: Detecting the Early Signals (1999) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Water , Sustainable and Healthy Communities , Land and Waste Management , Aquatic Ecosystems , Ecological Indicators/Assessment/Restoration
Objective:
The objectives of this research project were to: (1) reveal the current state of the landscape and habitats of the shorelines in the Southwest Michigan area; (2) uncover the perceptions and desires of developers, landowners, real estate agents, and residents on shoreline development; (3) discover how the local, regional, state, and national regulations on shoreline development shape local land use practices; (4) recognize the impacts of alternative types of shoreline landscaping on the sustainability of shoreline habitats; and (5) understand how the combination of physical and landscape attributes, market forces, regulatory background, and development practices result in differential risk levels to shoreline habitats.
Summary/Accomplishments (Outputs/Outcomes):
Current State of the Landscape and Habitats of the Shorlines in Southwestern Michigan. We conducted onsite surveys of the physical landscapes at selected residential lakeshores in Kalamazoo and Barry Counties in Southwest Michigan. A geographic information system (GIS) of all lakes in Kalamazoo and Barry Counties (Southwestern Michigan), including shoreline and plat boundaries, was overlaid on aerial photographs. Base files for 60 lakes in Kalamazoo County and 71 lakes in Barry County were created. Aerial photographs were too obscured by tree cover to make detailed analyses of landscape and shoreline conditions. To get this level of detail, oblique photo surveys for every built lot on 10 of the most densely settled lakes in Barry and Kalamazoo Counties (more than 3,000 digital photographs) were taken from approximately 50 meters offshore (clear navigation permitting). Each image for each residential lot was classified for vegetation (subsurface, shoreline, and upslope), landscaping style, habitat quality, erosion, setbacks, and slope (more than 20 different classification operations for each photograph).
Perceptions and Desires of Developers, Landowners, Real Estate Agents, and Residents. We developed a survey for the perceptions of lakeshore development, the problems associated with lakeshore living, and the perceptions of potential alternatives for policies to mitigate these problems. A series of prequestionnaire interviews were conducted with real estate agents, developers, and public officials on issues related to lakeshore development. Based on the results of these interviews, a questionnaire was developed for a mail-in survey to be applied to 1,229 residents on five lakes. The survey included questions in four areas (reasons for living on the lake, problems on the lake, what regulations are necessary to preserve lake quality, and what educational programs for lakeshore protection would be desirable), as well as a section generally describing the landscaping appearances and practices of the resident for subsequent comparison with the physical landscape survey.
In the first main question area (lakeshore location decision factors), respondents were asked to rate importance in a five level Likert scale with the following choices: completely unimportant, not important, relatively important, important, and extremely important. In the other three main question areas (problems, regulation, and education), respondents were asked to rate importance in an alternative five level Likert scale with the following choices: strongly disagree, disagree, undecided, agree, strongly agree. These responses were coded from 1 to 5 to allow statistical analysis of ordinal responses. The decision attributes for residential lakeshore living included: viewshed, natural contacts, rurality, isolation from neighbors, security, open spaces, recreational access, and real estate value. The lakeshore problems to be evaluated included: high lake levels, low lake levels, water clarity, lake weediness, lake pollution, ground water quality, exotic flora, and exotic fauna. Questions pertaining to lakeshore protection included: adequacy of regulation, need for stronger setbacks, need for stronger landscaping ordinances, need for stronger runoff ordinances, whether lake association covenants provide adequate protection, and whether voluntary lake protection measures would be adequate. Education alternatives included: landscaping classes, water quality classes, exotic species control classes, and workbooks.
Local, Regional, State, and National Regulations on Shoreline Development and Their Influence on Local Land Use Practices. We collected a set of regulations covering lakeshore development in Kalamazoo and Barry Counties. These included federal, state, county, city, village, and township regulations. The set of regulations then was analyzed for coverage on landscaping, setbacks, septic systems, pumping and irrigation, lot sizes, shoreline habitat protection, water quality, wetland development, point-source runoff, regulations controlling old septic systems, and point source and nonpoint source runoff. Within the scale of analysis, differences between local level (townships and incorporated areas) and counties (Kalamazoo and Barry) were examined.
Impacts of Alternative Types of Shoreline Landscaping. We created 12 field test locations on a lakeshore site (Asylum Lake in Kalamazoo) and on a riverfront site (the Kalamazoo River in Cooper Township, Kalamazoo County). Each experimental site included four controls (no clearing), four footpaths (two 1-meter wide straight shoreline access paths and two 1-meter angled access paths), and four boatpaths (two 3-meter straight access paths and two 3-meter wide angled access paths). We monitored microclimatic impacts of these paths using HOBO data-loggers in custom-designed and fabricated weatherproof cases. The inexpensive ($95) data-loggers are designed for indoor use. Weatherproof cases were fabricated with PVC plumbing parts and lexan windows to allow the measurements of sensors for temperature, relative humidity, and ambient light. Further design of a separate radiation shield for an external temperature sensor (an addition $21 expense) was necessary after field testing showed temperature fluctuations within the sealed instrument case. Impacts of the limited access paths on the shoreline habitats were observed through monitoring macrofauna at the test sites. After many unsuccessful repetitions using cameras on timers, nightscopes, and livetraps, a successful methodology was developed using "track-traps" of shallow pans of sand and powdered dolomite to record animal track impressions crossing the paths, or using the paths for shoreline access themselves.
Combination of Physical and Landscape Attributes, Market Forces, Regulation, and Development Practices and Differential Risk Levels of Shoreline Habitats. We conducted a general literature search on the landscape ecology of lakeshores and shoreline corridors. The data from the previous subprojects were integrated to determine patterns of risk and prospects for risk mitigation for shoreline development in Western Michigan. Based upon these results, a model was developed to locate shoreline access paths in lakeshore subdivisions.
Discussion. Findings on the 10 lakes show the majority of lakeshore parcels having a traditional open lawn with limited shrub or tree cover, often mowed to the edge of the waterline. A minority of naturally landscaped parcels had deeper setbacks, native shoreline buffer plantings, and denser forested upslopes near the structures. The most impacted shorelines (eroded and poorly landscaped) tended to be the older "cottage" communities and higher density developments on the larger lakes, characterized by shallow setbacks and denuded lawns. Results from the physical landscape surveys of the 10 study lakes were compiled separately as an overall composite. The composite will serve as a baseline for future onsite comparisons, and as a likely range of landscape impacts of residential development at other lake shorelines using predictive models. Spearman rank tests were used to test hypotheses that particular landscape characteristics occurred in significant correspondence. The composite data show a dominant pattern of residential "American romantic" (mowed, open lawns) manicured to the water's edge.
Exceptions were displayed at individual lakes, such as Campbell and Sugarloaf in Kalamazoo County; these homeowner communities favor conservation of natural habitats, and maintain wetland buffers. Emergent and floating-leaved macrophytes are removed as weeds at many lots, and tend to correspond with sustained shoreline habitats. Landscape structures, such as docks, decks, boathouses, terraces, etc., are present at nearly every lot, and the number per lot often corresponds with slope. Seawalls are variably used among the lakes, with the exceptions of Campbell and Sugarloaf. More affluent residential areas tended to display more privacy fencelines, with the exception of Campbell. Homogeneity of the lakeshore landscapes was coarsely assessed with measures of similarity to adjacent and entire lake summaries. More recently developed ex-urban residential lakes were more homogeneous than those that had historically started with seasonal lodge usage, giving way to year-round residences.
There was a 39.6 percent return rate for 1,229 surveys sent to the residents of Austin Lake, Long Lake, West Lake, Woods Lake, and Gull Lake in Kalamazoo County. Analysis of landowner objectives and perceptions show a strong emphasis on viewsheds, nature, recreation, security, and property values. Homeowners were more convinced that specific regulation was needed, even though they were more likely to believe that the current level of regulations on development was adequate. This may be because of a regional tradition of local control of land use. There was some lake related patterns to the responses. The Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric tests showed significant difference in the responses to the perception of each of the lake problems. Water clarity, weediness, water quality, groundwater quality, and exotic flora were perceived as important problems in the shallow, weedy, urban, and suburban lakes, but not in rural Gull Lake, which is deep, is a local package sewage plant, and has zebra mussels. The more urban the lake, the more important the water quality problems. Gull Lake (with its zebra mussel infestation) was the only lake where the respondents thought exotic fauna was an important problem. On regulation, the urban residents of Woods Lake strongly believed that regulation of lakeshore development was inadequate and that stricter landscaping ordinances are necessary. Residents of urban Woods Lake and semi-rural Long Lake with an agricultural runoff strongly supported a stricter runoff ordinance because of an agricultural runoff problem.
An alternative analysis using K-means clustering was used to create four groups of respondents (Recreation Oriented, Security Oriented, Amenity Oriented, Nature Oriented). There was less difference here, but significant differences in some of the perceptions of regulation and mitigation alternatives. The Recreation and Security oriented groups strongly agreed that regulation of lake development was adequate, but the Amenity and Nature oriented groups were in less agreement. The "Nature Lovers" more strongly supported stronger setback ordinances, but both the "Nature Lovers" and the "Security-Minded" strongly supported stricter landscaping ordinances, stricter runoff prevention ordinances, and stricter septic system ordinances.
The analysis shows a large range of differences from township to township on landscaping, setbacks, septic systems, pumping and irrigation, and lot sizes. There is little or no regulation protecting shoreline habitats, and relatively little protecting water quality in the lakes. Although, there are strong regulations, mainly on the state and federal level, against filling in wetlands and for protection against point-source toxic runoff, there are few regulations on the books controlling old septic systems; nonpoint source runoff of fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides from residential or agricultural lands adjacent to the lakes, or the aesthetics of lakeshore landscapes. There are no regulations or incentives for preserving lakeshore habitat corridors. These findings supported the results of the homeowner surveys, where respondents agreed or strongly agreed that stronger septic field ordinances, runoff prevention ordinances, landscaping ordinances, and setback ordinances were required, giving indication that stronger ordinances are necessary. The majority disagreed that voluntary lake protection measures would be adequate.
Results showed no barrier effects of the 1 and 3 meter gaps (many crossings) and additional use of the paths for shoreline access of some of the macro-fauna (Odocoileus Virginianus-white-tail deer and Procyon Lotor-raccoons). The microclimates of the paths showed some daytime heating effects from lack of shade because of clearing in the non-woodland canopied through the wetland slope vegetation.
The results show that the traditional development pattern on the lakes of open lawns and limited shoreline buffers are detrimental to the lakeshores and the lakeshore property owners. The current pattern has encouraged elevated nutrient loads in the lakes with subsequent declines in water quality. Lakeshore erosion has resulted from the loss of the shoreline vegetation buffers. There has been general destruction of many of the amenities of the surveyed lakeshore homeowners prize, such as viewshed, natural surroundings, and wildlife. The alternative is more natural landscaping regimes with larger setbacks, deep natural shoreline buffers, and limited lawns and lake access paths. It is clear that both education and stronger regulation will be needed to encourage this landscaping style. We have developed a mathematical model to assist in planning limited lakeshore footpath and boatpath access points based on the findings that limited access points through a shoreline buffer corridor have minimal barrier impacts on intra-corridor travel.
Conclusions:
There are risks associated with impacts of shoreline development to habitat sustainability in Southwestern Michigan. This research has developed the following conclusions.
(1) There is a difference in landscaping practices between the newer highest income shoreline residents who prefer natural landscapes, to the more long-term residents who prefer a more traditional "American romantic" lawn-based landscape. Education is needed to explain the advantages to the collective shoreline property owners of less lawn and more natural habitat, or at least a shoreline buffer corridor.
(2) Oblique photo interpretation can provide a superior alternative to aerial photo interpretation of shoreline landscape characteristics. Tree canopies block many of the features needed for classification of shoreline landscaping attributes.
(3) A 1-meter or 3-meter wide shoreline access path does not create barrier effects for macro-fauna using the shoreline corridor for habitat or shoreline travel. Such access paths cleared through shoreline buffers would have minimal impacts on shoreline corridor dynamics and would be preferable to the ubiquitous open lawn to the shoreline, which is the traditional norm for Southwestern Michigan Lakes.
(4) Inexpensive data-loggers designed for indoor use can, with properly retrofitted external cases and radiation shields, be suitable for microclimate sensing for temperature, relative humidity, and ambient light; something that could have wider usage in habitat, landscape, and urban heat island investigations.
(5) There are differences in levels of regulation on lakeshore development on the local level. Although there is a strong level of regulation on wetland development at the federal and state level, there is little regulation at the state and county level specifically protecting shorelines from runoff, septic system leakage, agricultural pollution, or habitat destruction. Local ordinances in townships, villages, and cities also neglect the special needs for shoreline landscaping guidelines, setbacks, nutrient control, and habitat protection.
(6) Perceptions of lakeshore property owners vary both by lake (spatially) and by their residential priorities (culturally). The physical problems of the lakes, such as water quality and presence of exotics, influence perceptions of problems and their solutions, because residential priorities such as love of nature or security concerns create a different perception of problems and mitigation strategies. Given different lakes in urban, suburban, and rural settings, with different sets of residents occupying the same lakes for multiple sets of objectives, decisionmakers at various levels of government need to be aware of both the perceptions and the needs of the lakeshore residents in developing ordinances and education materials for protection of the shorelines.
(7) Assuming future lakeshore development pressures and the need for lakeshore access by property owners, minimal clearance lakeshore access landscape designs for developers should be encouraged. Because such development tends to be higher priced with lower landscaping costs to the developer, the adoption of such practices in the development community should be possible with education. An optimization model to determine good alternatives for path location on a lakeshore, minimizing the impact of shared access ways, could help developers design more environmentally sustainable lakeshore communities.
Journal Articles:
No journal articles submitted with this report: View all 9 publications for this projectSupplemental Keywords:
corridor, Great Lakes, habitat fragmentation, risk assessment, urban planning, vertebrates, watershed., RFA, Economic, Social, & Behavioral Science Research Program, Scientific Discipline, Ecosystem Protection/Environmental Exposure & Risk, Habitat, Environmental Monitoring, decision-making, Ecological Risk Assessment, Urban and Regional Planning, Exp. Research/future, Economics & Decision Making, Futures, emerging environmental problems, shoreline, ecosystem valuation, risk assessment, socio-economic changes, urban planning, natural resources, environmental policy, exploratory research, habitat fragmentation, sustainability, environmental regulations, fragmented habitats, public policy, futures researchProgress and Final Reports:
Original AbstractThe perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.