Cecil M. Harden Lake Master Plan ROCKVILLE, INDIANA

Transcription

1 US Army Corps of Engineers LOUISVILLE DISTRICT Cecil M. Harden Lake Master Plan ROCKVILLE, INDIANA 100% DRAFT September 15, 2016

2 CECIL M. HARDEN LAKE MASTER PLAN UPDATE Cecil M. Harden Lake Rockville, Indiana US Army Corps of Engineers Louisville District 100% Draft Submittal September 15, 2016

3 Table of Contents Cecil M. Harden Lake Master Plan Update Page 1.0 Introduction and Background Authorization Authorized Project Purposes Flood Risk Management Water Supply Water Augmentation Recreation Fish and Wildlife Management Prior Master Plans Application of Public Laws Recreation Water Resource Protection and Flood Risk Management Fish and Wildlife Resources Leases, Easements, and Rights-of-Way Cultural Resources Executive Orders Forest Resources Purpose of the Master Plan Project Description Location History of the Project Land Acquisition History Federal Areas and Recreational Facilities Outgrants Project Data/Lake Operations Lake Regulation Visitation Data Public Involvement, Coordination and Partnerships Stakeholder Meetings and Public Open Houses Identified Key Areas of Concern Consistency with Other Agencies Coordination and Partnerships Resource Analysis Physical Environment Surface Water Existing Conditions Implications of Surface Water on Development Wetlands Existing Conditions Implications of Wetlands on Development Groundwater Table of Contents i

4 Existing Conditions Implications of Groundwater on Development Physiography and Topography Existing Conditions Implications of Physiography and Topography on Development Geology, Soils and Minerals Existing Conditions Implications of Geology, Soils and Minerals on Development Historic Resources Existing Conditions Implications of Prehistoric and Historic Resources on Development Scenic Quality Existing Conditions Implications of Scenic Qualities on Development Biological Environment Habitats Existing Conditions Implications of Habitat on Development Invasive Species Existing Conditions Implications of Invasive Species on Development Game Species Existing Conditions Implications of Game Species on Development Sensitive Species and Critical Habitat Existing Conditions Implications of Sensitive Species and Critical Habitat on Development Wildlife Management Units Existing Conditions Implications of Wildlife Management Units on Development Environmentally Sensitive Areas Existing Conditions Implications of Environmentally Sensitive Areas on Development Recreation Program Analysis Introduction Recreation Area Overview Dam Site and Operations Area Dam Picnic Area Hollandsburg Ramp Highway 36 Crossing Mansfield Ramp and Hunting & Trapping Area ii Table of Contents

5 4.2.6 Portland Mills Ramp Raccoon SRA Tailwater Area Walker Ramp Current Recreational Activities and Visitation Outdoor Recreational Activities Hunting and Trapping Interpretive Programs Surrounding Area Visitation Recent Visitation Trends Raccoon SRA Revenue Area of Influence Identifying the Area of Influence (Methodology) Demographic Characteristics of the Area of Influence Recreational Opportunities at Comparable Facilities Recreation Areas within Primary Area of Influence Lake Waveland Park Turkey Run State Park DePauw Nature Center Covered Bridge State Forest Retreat Shades State Park Lieber SRA at Cagles Mill Lake Recreation Areas within Secondary Area of Influence McCormick s Creek State Recreation Area Eagle Creek Park Kickapoo SRA (Illinois) National, Statewide and Regional Trends Outdoor Recreation Participation Report Indiana Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan Potential Recreational Opportunities Recreational Demand Analysis Impact of Comparable Facilities Impact of Demographic Changes Implications of Projected Future Demand on Recreational Activities Boating Camping Fishing Hunting Picnicking Hiking Swimming Sightseeing Resource Use Objectives Resource Objective 1: Flood Control Table of Contents iii

6 5.1.1 Measures to Achieve Objective Objective 1 Justification Resource Objective 2: Provide Low Water Augmentation to the Raccoon Creek Drainage Area Measures to Achieve Objective Objective 2 Justification Resource Objective 3: Provide Opportunities for Recreational Use of Land and Water Measures to Achieve Objective Objective 3 Justification Resource Objective 4: Protect and Preserve Natural Resources and Habitats Measures to Achieve Objective Objective 4 Justification Resource Objective 5: Shoreline Management Measures to Achieve Objective Objective 5 Justification Land Allocation and Land Classification Land Allocation Land Classification Project Operations High Density Recreation Mitigation Environmentally Sensitive Areas Multiple Resource Management USACE Easement Lands Special Considerations Utility Corridors Private Subdivisions Transportation Erosion, Siltation and Deforestation Regional Plans and Zoning Ordinances Regional Plans Parke County Putnam County Zoning Ordinances Parke County Putnam County Appendix A Acronyms and Abbreviations... A-1 Appendix B References... B-1 Appendix C Public Comments... C-1 iv Table of Contents

7 List of Tables Page 1-1 Project Structure Data Lake Surface Water Elevations Visitation Data Shared Recreation and Environmental Conservation Goals Indiana Cyanobacteria Caution and Advisory Levels Impact of Lake Elevation Wetlands within the Project Area Soil Associations in Order of Predominance High Priority Invasive Species Found in the Vicinity of Cecil M. Harden Lake Recreational Areas of Cecil M. Harden Lake Recreational Activities at Cecil M. Harden Lake Visitation Data Population in Area of Influence Age Distribution, Median Household Income Industry by Occupation Distribution, Top Employers, Recreation Activities Offered at Cecil M. Harden Lake and Comparable Entities Comparable Recreational Facilities Potential Recreation Activities at the Project Subdivisions and Private Campgrounds Table of Contents v

8 List of Figures Page 1-1 State Vicinity Location Land Compartments Land Allocation and Recreation Areas Drainage Area Inundation Areas at Seasonal and Flood Control Pools Wetlands Influence of Slope on Development Potential Mineral Resources Vegetative Habitats Land Allocation and Adjacent Recreation Areas Area of Influence Comparable Recreation Facilities within Area of Influence National Outdoor Recreation Participation Three-Year Change in National Participation Personal Spending on Outdoor Recreation Local, State and Federal Parkland Acreage vs. Recommended Acreage Future Land Classification Future Land Classification at Raccoon SRA Future Land Classification in the areas surrounding the Mansfield Dam Future Land Classification at the Highway 36 Crossing Area and Hollandsburg Ramp Subdivisions, Private Campgrounds, and Major Utility Corridors at Cecil M. Harden Lake vi Table of Contents

9 This page intentionally left blank. Table of Contents vii

10 This page intentionally left blank. viii Table of Contents

11 1.0 Introduction and Background The Cecil M. Harden Lake Master Plan, hereinafter referred to as the master plan, is the strategic landuse management document that guides the efficient and cost-effective management, development and use for recreation areas, natural resources and manmade resources throughout the life of the Cecil M. Harden Lake project. It is a vital tool for responsible stewardship and sustainability of the facility s resources for the benefit of present and future generations. The master plan guides and articulates the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) responsibilities pursuant to federal laws to preserve, conserve, restore, maintain, manage and develop the land, water and associated resources at the Cecil M. Harden Lake project. It is dynamic and flexible based on changing conditions. The master plan is intended to guide the USACE toward achieving its goal of managing, conserving and enhancing natural resources while providing quality opportunities for outdoor recreation to the public. The plan was developed in response to regional and local needs, resource capabilities and suitability, and expressed public interests, and is consistent with authorized project purposes and relevant legislation and regulations. As a broad guide to land management, this master plan does not address the specific details related to boat docks, physical improvements to government and private property, regional water quality, shoreline management, water use zoning or water-level management. The operation and maintenance of project operations facilities are also not included in this master plan. Details of project design, management, administration and implementation are addressed in the Cecil M. Harden Lake Operational Management Plan (OMP). The project s Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) identifies management responsibilities of the USACE and Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR); it also establishes the shoreline allocation areas along the shoreline and policies for physical improvements to government property and identifies management responsibilities of the USACE and the IDNR. The master plan provides a summary of the purposes and history of the project; the applicable federal laws and directives that govern its use; resource objectives; and a detailed analysis of existing natural resources, recreational resources and land uses. It includes a qualitative analysis of recreation demand and a resource-use plan so that the project will continue to meet USACE goals of promoting awareness of the natural environment, adhering to sound environmental stewardship principles and providing outdoor recreation opportunities for current and future generations in an efficient and effective manner. To aid in reading this document, Appendix A provides a list of acronyms and Appendix B contains a bibliography of references used during the planning process. 1.1 Authorization Cecil M. Harden Lake was authorized by the United States Congress as part of the Flood Control Act, approved 28 June 1938 (Public Law 761, 75th Congress, 1st session). Post-authorization changes include Section 4 of the Flood Control Act approved 22 December 1944, as amended by the Flood Control Act approved 24 December 1946 (Public Law 526, 79th Congress, 2nd Session) (H.R. 6597). The project name was changed from Mansfield Lake to Cecil M. Harden Lake on 18 December 1974 by Public Law (PL) (info-general Order No. 3, 18 February 1973). Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 1-1

12 1.2 Authorized Project Purposes Cecil M. Harden Lake provides flood protection to the lower Big Raccoon Creek Valley. As a unit in the comprehensive plan for the Ohio River Basin, it also reduces flooding at all points downstream along the Wabash River and Ohio River. Additionally, the lake operates for low flow augmentation and water quality control, while also providing opportunities for recreation and fish and wildlife management activities Flood Risk Management The Flood Control Act of 1936 recognized that flood risk management was, a proper activity for the Federal Government in cooperation with states, their political subdivisions, and localities thereof. Congress gave responsibility for federal flood projects to the USACE. One year later, one of the most damaging floods along the Ohio River occurred, causing widespread flooding and damage from Pittsburgh to Cairo, Illinois. In the years following passage of the law, the USACE built, pursuant to congressional authorization and appropriation, close to 400 reservoirs that serve primarily to benefit flood risk management. The series of flood risk management reservoirs subsequently constructed by the USACE is estimated to have prevented more than $19 billion in flood damages in the Ohio River Basin since the 1930s (USACE, 2009b) Water Supply National policy regarding water supply states that the primary responsibility for water supply rests with states and local entities. The USACE is authorized under the Water Supply Act of 1958 (PL ) to provide storage in multipurpose reservoirs for municipal and industrial water supply and for agricultural irrigation. Some facilities that release or withdraw the stored water can be included in the project structure. The cost of storage and associated facilities must be repaid by the non-federal sponsor. The Secretary of the Army is authorized to make agreements with states, municipalities and other non-federal entities for the right to storage in USACE reservoirs. Existing USACE Cecil M. Harden Lake Project Operations Area projects may be modified to add storage for municipal and industrial water supply. Storage may also be reallocated from other purposes to municipal and industrial uses. For example, the USACE allows water withdrawals to private entities for non-crop related irrigation. During drought conditions, private entities may also withdraw water for livestock watering and for human consumption, but not for crop irrigation. Cecil M. Harden Lake is not currently a source for local community drinking water supply, but it is important to note that since the state of Indiana claims rights to the waters of Indiana, the state would have an inherent effect on withdrawals if water supply became a function of Cecil M. Harden Lake. 1-2 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

13 1.2.3 Water Augmentation The USACE must release a minimum of 22 cubic feet per second (cfs) of lake flow when the reservoir is above an elevation of 640 feet above mean sea level (msl) in order to maintain low flow augmentation. This low flow augmentation should improve the water quality of Big Raccoon Creek Recreation Section 4 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 authorized the Chief of Engineers " to construct, maintain, and operate public parks and recreational facilities in reservoir areas under the control of [the Secretary of the Army], and to permit the construction, maintenance, and operation of such facilities." The Flood Control Act of 1962 broadened the 1944 authority to include recreation on all types of USACE water resources projects. The USACE has since recognized long-term recreational development as a full-scale project purpose on an equal basis with other established purposes of water resources development. The traditional policy of the USACE has been to encourage non-federal participation in the administration of recreation opportunities provided at USACE projects. Since 1944, the USACE has entered into leases, which permit state and local development and administration of recreation areas at civil works projects. The policies were reaffirmed by Congress through the passage of the Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965 (PL 89-72). This act directs "...that in investigating and planning any Federal navigation, flood control, reclamation, hydroelectric, or multipurpose water resource project, full consideration shall be given to the opportunities, if any, which the project affords for outdoor recreation." The act further defined the basis for sharing the financial responsibilities in joint federal/non-federal development, enhancement and management of recreation and fish and wildlife resources of federal water projects. However, there are a substantial number of recreation areas that were developed prior to implementing the cost-sharing principles of PL that continue to be operated directly by the USACE. Non-consumptive recreation opportunities offered at the Cecil M. Harden Lake project through leases with the state, county and other entities include camping, bird-watching, foraging, swimming, water skiing, wildlife observations, boating, hiking, and sightseeing. The project also provides opportunities for consumptive recreation including fishing, hunting and trapping. Recreation areas vary from undeveloped forested land to well-developed and extensively used campgrounds and a marina. Intensive public-use areas are located at Raccoon State Recreation Area (SRA), which includes a beach, a marina, shelters, a bike trail, campgrounds, fishing piers and the Raccoon Boat Ramp, as well as the Dam Picnic Area. Refer to Chapter 4 for more detail regarding recreational opportunities at Cecil M. Harden Lake. Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 1-3

14 1.2.5 Fish and Wildlife Management The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (PL ) provides authority to the USACE to modify projects to conserve fish and wildlife resources. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (PL ) provides additional authority for operating projects to protect threatened or endangered fish and wildlife. The Federal Water Project Recreation Act-Uniform Policies (PL 89-72) requires consideration of opportunities for fish and wildlife enhancement in planning water resources projects. Non-federal entities are encouraged to operate and Wildlife Management and Hunting Area Entrance at Cecil M. Harden Lake maintain the project fish and wildlife enhancement facilities. If non-federal entities agree in writing to administer the facilities at their expense, the fish and wildlife benefits are included in the project benefits and project costs are allocated to fish and wildlife. Fees may be charged by the non-federal interests to recoup their costs. If non-federal entities do not so agree, no facilities for fish and wildlife may be provided. Fish and wildlife management at Cecil M. Harden Lake is provided by a collaboration between the USACE and the IDNR. Wildlife management responsibility is divided into eight wildlife management units (IDNR Wildlife Management Plan, 2015). 1.3 Prior Master Plans The previous master plan for Cecil M. Harden Lake was completed in 1976 and approved in 1977 as Design Memorandum (DM) No. 13B. This document serves to update the 1976 master plan by updating land use and applicable statutes. It does not negate projects proposed in the 1976 master plan; however, detailed projects will be addressed in the OMP. 1.4 Application of Public Laws Development and management of federal reservoirs are regulated by several laws covering recreation; water resource protection and flood risk management; fish and wildlife resources; forest resources; leases, easements and rights-of-way; and cultural resources. Decisions about development on federal lands and waters must abide by the relevant regulations, be consistent with Executive Orders (EOs) and be guided by USACE documents. The following sections provide a summary of relevant laws. 1-4 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

15 1.4.1 Recreation Cecil M. Harden Lake Master Plan Update Each PL and policy discussed below addresses development and management of recreation facilities on public lands and is pertinent to USACE project lands in Indiana: PL-78-53, Flood Control Act of 1936 (22 June 1936), authorizes the construction of civil engineering projects such as dams, levees, dikes and other flood risk management measures through the USACE. PL , Flood Control Act of 1944 (22 December 1944), authorizes the Chief of Engineers to provide facilities in reservoir areas for public use, including recreation and conservation of fish and wildlife. PL , Flood Control Act of 1946 (24 July 1946), amends PL to include authority to grant leases to non-profit organizations at recreation facilities in reservoir areas at reduced or nominal charges. PL , Flood Control Act of 1954 (3 September 1954), further amends PL and authorizes the Secretary of the Army to grant leases to federal, state or other government agencies without monetary considerations for use and occupation of land and water areas under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army for park and recreation purposes when in the public interest. Joint Land Acquisition Policy for Reservoir Projects (Federal Register, [Volume 27, 22 February 1962]), allows the Department of the Army to acquire additional lands necessary for the realization of potential outdoor recreational resources of a reservoir. PL , Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (1 September 1964), prescribes conditions under which the USACE may charge for admission and use of its recreation areas. PL 89-72, Federal Water Project Recreation Act (9 July 1965), requires sharing of financial responsibilities in joint federal/non-federal recreation and fish and wildlife resources with no more than half of the first cost being borne by the federal government. PL , Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (12 August 1968), requires access for persons with disabilities to facilities designed, built, altered or leased with federal funds. PL , Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (26 July 1990) as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (PL ), prohibits discrimination based on disabilities in, among others, the area of public accommodations and requires reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities. PL , Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (31 October 1992), authorizes the USACE to accept contributions of funds, materials and services from non-federal public and private entities to be used in managing recreation facilities and natural resources. PL , Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act Day Use Fees (10 August 1993), contains provisions by which USACE may collect fees for the use of developed recreation sites and facilities, including campsites, swimming beaches and boat launching ramps. PL , Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (12 November 96), creates a nine-member advisory commission to review the current and anticipated demand for recreational opportunities at lakes and reservoirs managed by the federal government, and to develop alternatives to enhance the opportunities for such use by the public. Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 1-5

16 1.4.2 Water Resource Protection and Flood Risk Management A number of PLs address water resources protection and flood risk management and the integration of these goals with other project purposes, such as recreation. The following are pertinent to USACE project lands in Indiana: PL , Flood Control Act of 1936 (22 June 1936), declares flood risk management to be a proper federal activity. PL , Flood Control Act of 1944 (22 December 1944), specifies the rights and interests of the States in water resource development and requires cooperation and consultation with State agencies in planning for flood risk management. PL , Water Supply Act of 1958 (3 July 1958), authorizes the USACE to include municipal and industrial water supply storage in multiple-purpose reservoir projects. PL 87-88, Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1961 (20 July 1961), requires federal agencies to address the potential for pollution of interstate or navigable waters when planning a reservoir project. PL , Flood Control Act of 1962 (23 October 1962), authorizes the construction of civil engineering projects such as dams, levees, dikes and other flood risk management measures through the USACE. PL 89-80, Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 (22 July 1965), provides for the optimum development of the nation s natural resources through coordinated planning of water and related land resources. PL , Flood Control Act of 1965 (27 October 1965), authorizes the Secretary of the Army to design and construct navigation, flood risk management and shore-protection projects if the cost of any single project does not exceed $10 million. PL , Clean Water Act of 1977 (15 December 1977), amends PL and requires the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to enter into written agreements with the Secretaries of Agriculture, the Army, and the Interior to provide maximum utilization of the laws and programs to maintain water quality. PL , Water Resource Development Act of 1986 (17 November 1986), establishes cost-sharing formulas for the construction of harbors, inland waterway transportation and flood risk management projects. PL , Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (16 December 1974), amended in 1986 and 1996, regulates quality of municipal potable water, with jurisdiction given to municipal treatment. 312 IAC 6.3, Water Withdrawal Contracts from State Reservoirs, provides procedures for state requests of water withdrawal or release from a reservoir. IC , Minimum Stream Flow and Water Sale Contracts, describes procedures for provisions of minimum stream flows, sales of water, and rates of compensation. 1-6 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

17 1.4.3 Fish and Wildlife Resources A number of PLs address protection and maintenance of fish and wildlife resources. The following are pertinent to USACE project lands in Indiana: PL , Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (10 March 1934), provides authority for making project lands available for management by interested state agencies for wildlife purposes. United States Code (USC) d, 54 Statute 250, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (8 June 1940) as amended, prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from taking bald eagles, including their nests or eggs. PL , Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (12 August 1958), states that fish and wildlife conservation will receive equal consideration with other project purposes and be coordinated with other features of water resources development programs. PL , National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (1 January 1970), establishes a broad federal policy on environmental quality, stating that the federal government will...assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings...preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety... PL , Conservation, Protection, and Propagation of Endangered Species (28 December 1973), requires that federal agencies will, in consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), further conservation of endangered and threatened species and ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize such species or destroy or modify their critical habitat. PL , Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1978 (10 November 1978), specifies a consultation process between federal agencies and the Secretaries of the Interior, Commerce or Agriculture for carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. PL , North American Wetland Conservation Act (13 December 1989), directs the conservation of North America wetland ecosystems and requires agencies to manage their lands for wetland/waterfowl purposes to the extent consistent with missions. PL , Neo-tropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (20 July 2000), promotes the conservation of habitat for neo-tropical migratory birds. 16 U.S.C d, Golden and Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940, prohibits anyone (without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior) from taking bald eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs. 16 U.S.C , Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, makes it illegal for anyone to take, possess, import, export, transport, sell, purchase, barter; or offer for sale, purchase, or barter; any migratory bird (or the parts, nests, or eggs of such a bird), except under the terms of a valid permit issued pursuant to federal regulations. Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 1-7

18 1.4.4 Leases, Easements, and Rights-of-Way A number of PLs, U.S. Codes (USC) and regulations govern the granting of leases, easements and rights-of-way on federal lands. The following are pertinent to USACE project lands in Indiana: USC Title 10, 2667, authorizes the lease of land at water resource projects for any commercial or private purpose not inconsistent with other authorized project purposes. USC Title 10, 2668, authorizes easements for utilities. USC Titles 10, 16, 30, 32, and 43, address easements and licenses for project lands. USC Title 16, 460d, authorizes use of public lands for any public purpose, including fish and wildlife, if it is in the public interest. USC Title 16, 470h-3, National Historic Preservation Act, establishes a program for the preservation of historic property. USC Title 16, 663, Impoundment or Diversion of Waters (10 March 1934), establishes a program for wildlife resources management in accordance with the approved general plan. USC Title 16, , supports project partnership agreements or other cost-share agreements. USC Title 30, , Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (25 February 1920), promotes the mining of coal, oil and gas on the public domain and specifies conditions of leasing agreements. USC Title 30, , Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands (7 August 1947), provides that minerals subject to the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 that are located on acquired federal lands are subject to the federal mineral leasing system. PL , Mining and Minerals Policy Act (28 April 1971), specifies the federal policy for economically sound development of domestic mining. PL , Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (2 January 1971), establishes a uniform policy for fair and equitable treatment of persons displaced as a result of federal or federally assisted programs. PL , Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (21 October 1976) establishes a policy that the federal government receives fair market value for the use of the public lands and its resources unless otherwise provided for by statute. It provides for the inventory of public land and land use planning and establishes the extent to which the executive branch may withdraw lands without legislative action. PL 95-87, Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) (3 August 1977), regulates surface mining and requires permits and inspections Cultural Resources A number of PLs mandate the protection of cultural resources on public lands. The following are pertinent to USACE project lands in Indiana: PL , Antiquities Act of 1906 (8 June 1906), applies to the appropriation or destruction of antiquities on federally owned or controlled lands and has served as the precedent for subsequent legislation. PL , Historic Sites Act of 1935 (21 August 1935), declares that it is a national policy to preserve for-public-use historic sites, buildings and objects of national significance for the inspiration and benefit of the people of the United States. 1-8 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

19 PL , Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960 (27 June 1960), provides for the preservation of historical and archaeological data which might otherwise be lost as the result of the construction of a dam and attendant facilities and activities. PL , National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) (15 October 1966), establishes a national policy of preserving, restoring and maintaining cultural resources. It requires federal agencies to take into account the effect an action may have on sites that may be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. PL , Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (24 May 1974), amends PL and provides for the Secretary of Interior to coordinate all federal survey and recovery activities authorized under this expansion of the Reservoir Salvage Act of The federal construction agency may expend up to one percent of project funds on cultural resource surveys. PL 96-95, Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (31 October 1979), updates PL and protects archaeological resources and sites on public lands and fosters increased cooperation and exchange of information among governmental authorities, the professional archaeological community and private individuals. PL , Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (16 November 1990), requires federal agencies to return Native American human remains and cultural items, including funerary objects and sacred objects, to their respective peoples Executive Orders EOs are issued by the President of the United States and do not require congressional approval. The following are pertinent to USACE project lands in Indiana: EO 11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality (5 March 1970), outlines the responsibilities of federal agencies in consonance with NEPA. EO was amended by EO in EO 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment (13 May 1971), outlines the responsibilities of federal agencies in consonance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Historic Sites Act and the Antiquities Act. EO 11644, Use of Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands (8 February 1972), establishes a uniform federal policy regarding the use of vehicles such as trail bikes, snowmobiles, dune buggies and others on public lands. EO 11988, Flood Plain Management (24 May 1977), requires federal agencies to take actions to reduce the risk of flood loss and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial functions of floodplains. EO 11989, Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands (24 May 1977), amends EO and authorizes federal agencies to close areas or trails to off-road vehicles that cause adverse effects to soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, and cultural or historical resources. EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands (24 May 1977), restricts federal agencies from taking actions that would destroy or modify wetlands when there is a practicable alternative. EO 11991, Relating to Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality (24 May 1977), amends EO by directing the Council of Environmental Quality to issue guidance to federal agencies for implementing procedural provisions of NEPA. Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 1-9

20 EO 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards (12 Oct 1978), requires all federal agencies to be in compliance with environmental laws and fully cooperate with USEPA, state, interstate and local agencies to prevent, control and abate environmental pollution. EO was amended by EO in EO was amended by EO in 1991, EO in 1996, and EOs and in EO 12962, Recreational Fisheries (7 June 1995), directs federal agencies to improve the quantity, function, sustainable productivity and distribution of United States aquatic resources for increased recreational fishing opportunities. EO was amended by EO in 2008 and EO in EO 13112, Invasive Species (3 February 1999), directs each federal agency to prevent the introduction of invasive species, to detect, respond rapidly to and control populations of invasive species in a cost-effective and environmentally sound manner, to monitor invasive species populations accurately and reliably, and to provide for the restoration of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded. EO 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds (10 January 2001), directs federal agencies, pursuant to its Memorandum of Understanding with the USFWS, to support the conservation intent of migratory bird conventions by integrating bird conservation principles, measures and practices into agency activities and by avoiding or minimizing, to the greatest extent practicable, adverse impacts on migratory bird resources. EO 13327, Federal Real Property Asset Management (4 February 2004), promotes the efficient and economical use of federal real property resources in accordance with their value as national assets and in the best interest of the nation. EO was amended by EO in EO 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management (24 January 2007), instructs federal agencies to conduct their environmental, transportation and energy-related activities under the law in support of their respective missions in an environmentally, economically and fiscally sound, integrated, continuously improving, efficient and sustainable manner. EO 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance (5 October 2009), expands on the energy reduction and environmental performance requirements for federal agencies identified in EO and requires federal agencies to make reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) Forest Resources The following PL pertains to management of forested lands and is pertinent to USACE project lands in Indiana: PL , Protection and Improvement of Natural Resources (6 September 1960), provides for the protection of forest cover in reservoir areas and specifies that reservoir areas of projects developed for flood risk management or other purposes that are owned in fee and under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Engineers will be developed and maintained so as to encourage, promote and ensure fully adequate and dependable future resources of readily available timber. Timber production can be implemented through sustained yield programs, reforestation and accepted conservation practices, provided that such development and management shall be accomplished to the extent practicable and compatible with other uses of the project (PL Sec 1.) Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

21 1.5 Purpose of the Master Plan The purpose of this master plan is to provide guidance for the preservation, conservation, restoration, maintenance, management and development of project lands, waters and associated resources located at Cecil M. Harden Lake. To aid in responsible stewardship of project resources for the benefit of present and future generations, this master plan evaluates the present use and future potential of those resources and recommends strategies for future management and development. Because the master plan is conceptual in nature, it identifies general types, intensities and locations of activities rather than specific designs or programmatic descriptions. The master plan provides a USACE district-level plan that is consistent with national objectives and other state and regional goals and programs. Future actions by the USACE and by the agencies and individual granted leases or licenses for use of project lands must be consistent with the master plan. The master plan is distinct from the project-level implementation emphasis of the OMP. Policies in the master plan are guidelines that will be implemented through provisions of the OMP, the SMP and other planning mechanisms. The broad objectives of this master plan are to: Determine appropriate uses and intensities of development for project resources; Provide a framework within which the OMP, SMP and other planning mechanisms can be updated and implemented; and Establish a basis on which outgrants and recreational development proposals can be evaluated. Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 1-11

22 1.6 Project Description Location Cecil M. Harden Lake is located in the west-central portion of Indiana, approximately 50 miles west of the city of Indianapolis, Indiana. The project is within Parke County, Indiana and Putnam County, Indiana. The dam site is located at stream mile 32.4 of Big Raccoon Creek, which is a tributary of the Wabash River. Primary access to the project is U.S. Highway 36, which extends directly west from the western suburbs of Indianapolis. U.S. Highway 36 has direct access to Interstate 465 on the west side of Indianapolis. Indiana State Highway 59 is a north-south highway that intersects Figure 1-1 State Vicinity. Sources: USACE, ESRI with Interstate 70 to the south and passes by the project s western edge. Figure 1-1 displays Cecil M. Harden Lake s location within the Ohio River Basin area and Figure 1-2 shows the project s location within the west central Indiana region. The project is accessed from several roads extending from state and U.S. highways. The dam area, The Dam Picnic Area, and Mansfield Ramp are all accessed via Dam Road, which travels south from the dam area to connect with Ferndale Road, which travels east-west and eventually connects with State Route (SR) 59. Raccoon SRA, located across the lake from the dam, is accessed directly via US 36. There are numerous other public locations that provide access to the lake, such as the Hollandsburg Ramp, the Portland Mills Ramp and the Walker Ramp. Refer to Chapter 4 for a more complete description of each of these recreation areas and their locations History of the Project The Cecil M. Harden Lake project was selected for construction under the general authorization for flood control in an Act of Congress approved 28 June 1938, (Public Law 761, 75th Congress, 1st session). The project was completed in July 1960 and went into operation in December The project reached seasonal recreational pool elevation of 661 msl for the first time on 27 April In 1993, the seasonal recreational pool was raised to 662 msl (USACE, 2000) Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

23 1.6.3 Land Acquisition History Land for Cecil M. Harden Lake was acquired according to land acquisition policies of , commonly known as the Eisenhower policy. Land was purchased through fee using metes and bounds to the five-year flood frequency line using an elevation of 678 msl as a guide. Flowage easements were obtained through metes and bounds from the five-year line to five feet above the flood control pool using an elevation of 695 msl as a guide. Additional fee land was acquired where needed for recreation areas. Easements were acquired mostly for necessary road Control Tower relocations. 4,093 acres were originally acquired in fee and 1,177 acres are under flowage easement. There are 2,033 acres of land above the seasonal pool elevation and 593 acres of the fee land was originally devoted to recreation (USACE, 1974). The policy of acquisition by metes and bounds required the severance of many tracts along the boundary. In nearly every case where access was lost, the landowner was required to waive his or her rights to access and was compensated with severance pay. Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 1-13

24 Figure 1-2 Location. Sources: USACE, ESRI, U.S. Census Bureau 1-14 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

25 1.6.4 Federal Areas and Recreational Facilities The USACE retains title to all lands and facilities specifically acquired for project purposes or constructed with government assistance for recreation and wildlife enhancement, with the exception of 202 acres of Raccoon SRA s northern portion. The USACE periodically inspects these lands and facilities to insure proper and continued maintenance by the state of Indiana and/or its concessionaires and tenants. The USACE reviews the annual management plans submitted by the state of Indiana to insure that the use of project resources is in the best interest of the federal government. The USACE retains total operational jurisdiction over approximately 227 acres of land and water at the dam site, which are essential for the operation and maintenance of Cecil M. Harden Lake as a flood control project. The dam area includes the USACE office, the control tower, the USACE maintenance shop, the dam, the Dam Picnic Area, and all of the Tailwater recreation area. Recreation and wildlife improvement programs are developed by the USACE at these locations. USACE personnel perform all flood control functions. The USACE manager has citation authority under Title 36 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations, and works closely with state personnel to prevent trespasses and encroachments on federal property. Cecil M. Harden Lake was constructed before the adoption of ER , which disallows private shoreline uses on water resource projects where construction was initiated after December 13, Therefore, there are multiple licenses, easements and permits between other entities and the USACE which allow shoreline uses to other entities. There are also 28 privately owned subdivisions consisting of approximately 1,800 homes surrounding the project (USACE, 1998). The land is also divided into nine compartments, as per the OMP, to facilitate efficient resource management. The designation process for each compartment included consideration of such factors as natural and man-made boundaries, recreational use and responsible agency. Figure 1-3 displays the map s nine compartments and their locations. The recreation areas managed by the IDNR are all owned by the USACE, with the exception of the 202- acre portion of the Raccoon SRA. The portion of Raccoon SRA owned and operated by the IDNR is located on the northern half of the peninsula until it reaches US 36. Figure 1-4 displays the location of each recreation area as well as land allocation established in the Cecil M. Harden Lake SMP Outgrants An outgrant is the written interest granted to an entity or individual that allows that entity or individual to make use of government property through lease, license, easement or permit. Outgrants typically establish a timeframe, conditions and restrictions on the use of the property. Some outgrants are issued through lease agreements, which are contracts between the USACE and another party. There are multiple licenses and easements throughout the installation that are managed by both the USACE and the IDNR. Simply put, the USACE manages all outgrants that are located on USACE land (i.e., seawalls, stairs, etc.), while the IDNR manages all outgrants located on the water (i.e., bank ties, floating docks, etc.). USACE: Permits and licenses issued by the USACE project manager are only issued to owners of property adjacent to project lands, their tenants or owners of property in a developed subdivision with legal right of access to the shoreline. All facilities that are approved by the project manager must follow the design guidance laid out in the 2013 SMP. All structures constructed prior to 1 January 1978 are considered grandfathered. Authorized uses of land that may be approved for licenses in limited development areas by the USACE include stairways and steps, electric lines, ADA accessibility, and footpaths and footbridges. Potentially approved uses for shoreline use permits include vegetation alteration, erosion control devices, and other special uses or events (USACE, 2013). Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 1-15

26 IDNR: Permits and licenses issued by the IDNR property manager are only issued to owners of property adjacent to project lands, their tenants, or owners of property in a developed subdivision with legal right of access to the shoreline. All facilities that are approved by the project manager must follow the design guidance laid out in the 2013 SMP. All structures constructed prior to 1 January 1978 are considered grandfathered. Shoreline uses that are managed by the IDNR property manager include group boat docks, bank ties and duck blinds (USACE, 2013) Project Data/Lake Operations The Mansfield Dam at Cecil M. Harden Lake is comprised of a rolled earth fill Table 1-1: Project Structure Data Dam with a mowed turf downstream face and Type Rolled Earth Fill a riprap upstream face. Table 1-1 Top Length 1,860 feet describes the project s structure data. Maximum 119 feet Height The maximum height of the dam is 119 Top Elevation 712 feet above msl feet and crest length is 1,860 feet. The Spillway top elevation of the dam is 712 feet Type Open Cut Through Left Abutment above msl. The Mansfield Dam Crest Elevation 690, 695, 700 feet above msl structures include a conduit-type outlet Length of Cut 2,000 feet works and a spillway (with a dry tower), a public use road across the top of the dam, a USACE project manager office, Type/Size Control Gates Outlet Works Reinforced Concrete Conduit 3 slide gates and an operations building with a Discharge 3,960 cfs maximum parking area and a gauging station. Capacity Source: Master Plan 1976, Resources Management Plan 1974 The outlet works consist of a dry tower and a reinforced concrete conduit. Flow is controlled by three service gates each with 4 feet horizontal by 8.5-foot vertical dimensions. The conduit inlet invert elevation is feet above msl. The emergency spillway is through a tri-level cut of the left abutment. The crest elevations of each level are 690, 695 and 700 msl. The width of the cut is 200 feet and the length of the cut is 2,000 feet. The spillway is designed to accommodate a maximum discharge of 134,100 cfs of flow Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

27 Figure 1-3 Land Compartments. Sources: USACE, ESRI Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 1-17

28 Figure 1-4 Land Allocation and Recreation Areas. Sources: ESRI, USACE, IDNR 1-18 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

29 1.6.7 Lake Regulation Cecil M. Harden Lake Master Plan Update The lake has a recreational summer pool elevation of msl and a winter elevation of msl. At recreational summer pool elevation, the lake is designed for 2,110 acres of surface area with a storage capacity of 51,347 acre feet. At winter pool elevation, the lake is designed for 1,100 acres of surface area with a storage capacity of 16,145 acre feet. The lake is designed to provide flood storage from elevation msl to msl with a total storage capacity of 132,800 acre feet. The top of the dam and dike is msl. Table 1-2 shows the various lake surface water elevations. Table 1-2: Lake Surface Water Elevations Lake Level Description Elevation (Feet Above msl) Surface Area (Acres) Volume in Acre Feet Minimum Pool ,100 16,145 Recreational (Seasonal) Pool ,110 51,347 Flood Pool , ,665 Available for Flood Control Varies 132,800 Source: 1976 Master Plan, Resources Management Plan Visitation Data Table 1-3: Visitation Data IDNR Project Visitation IDNR Fiscal Year (Raccoon SRA) USACE Fiscal Year USACE Project Visitation (Reservoir-Wide) FY ,137,775 FY ,199,705 FY ,114,136 FY ,139,635 FY ,122,699 FY ,115,695 FY ,028,267 FY ,156,255 FY ,197,472 FY ,036,454 FY ,057 FY ,047,411 FY ,080,692 FY 2013 TBD FY ,535 FY 2014 TBD Sources: and USACE data from The Operations and Maintenance Business Information Link, 2016 The IDNR counts visitation only at its managed sites (e.g., Raccoon SRA). Table 1-3 presents visitation data estimates to the project area from 2007 to A visit represents the entry of one person into a recreation area. As shown in Table 1-3, the highest visitation year to IDNR sites was FY , with 1,197,472 visits. The 1976 master plan estimated that the project would experience an average of 700,000 visitors/year. Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 1-19

30 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

31 2.0 Public Involvement, Coordination and Partnerships Public involvement is important to the overall success of the master planning effort. Stakeholder meetings were conducted with the IDNR and two public open houses were conducted, providing ample opportunities for stakeholders to participate in the master planning effort. 2.1 Stakeholder Meetings and Public Open Houses Stakeholder meetings were conducted with the IDNR during the initial scoping phase of the master plan in May and June of The scoping process was used to identify issues and concerns relevant to the master planning effort. Two public open houses were conducted on 29 August 2016 and 05 October Both public open houses were held at the Bellmore Fire Department to gather public comments and answer questions. Comments received at the open houses are included in Appendix C, along with responses. Presentation at Open House #1 The first public open house lasted from 3pm to 7pm on 29 August 2016 and consisted of a presentation from the planning team regarding the objectives of the master plan followed by a Question and Answer session. Following the Question and Answer session, the open house portion of the meeting commenced and the public were encouraged to ask questions and provide feedback in an informal setting. Description of the second open house to be provided in the next submittal. Chapter 2: Public Involvement, 2-1 Coordination and Partnerships

32 2.1.1 Identified Key Areas of Concern The key areas of concern identified for consideration during the master planning process based on the initial meetings with the USACE and the IDNR include: Management of land and resources for the enjoyment of future generations. Shoreline erosion and siltation. Insufficient vehicle and boat trailer parking availability on weekends. Limited boat ramp capacity. Substantial number of residential subdivisions along the shoreline of Cecil M. Harden Lake. Discussion at Open House #1 Underperforming septic systems for privately owned homes. Funds for maintenance, repair and upkeep of existing facilities. Boater safety and lake capacity. 2.2 Consistency with Other Agencies Based on a review of existing documents, the USACE s goals and objectives for recreation align with those of other agencies that provide or plan for recreation in the area. Some examples include: IDNR, Division of Outdoor Recreation, Indiana Statewide Outdoor Recreation Plan (IDNR, 2016) IDNR, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Indiana State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP), (IDNR, 2015) IDNR, Annual Wildlife Management Plan, (IDNR, 2015) Shared goals among the above plans and agencies include: Good stewardship of project resources. Provision of recreational opportunities. Management of land to maintain resources for future generations. Maintenance and/or restoration of natural habitats for wildlife conservation. Mutual approaches for achieving the desired goals include: Coordination among government agencies. Encouragement of public involvement. Monitoring and assessing outcomes. 2-2 Chapter 2: Public Involvement, Coordination and Partnerships

33 Given the commonalities, the USACE will continue to work with state and federal agencies, as well as other interested parties and stakeholders, to support recreational, wildlife management and preservation goals. Table 2-1 charts the goals listed in the plans developed by other agencies (see above) that are consistent with the project s purpose. Table 2-1: Shared Recreation and Environmental Conservation Goals Goal Plan Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Stewardship of the Land Restoration of Ecological Corridors Restoration of Habitats Preservation of Natural, Historical and Cultural Resources Indiana Statewide Outdoor Recreation Plan Indiana State Wildlife Action Plan IDNR Annual Wildlife Management Plan 2.3 Coordination and Partnerships The following organizations work in partnership with the USACE at Cecil M. Harden Lake: IDNR major lessee and manager of Raccoon SRA and five other recreation areas Parke County providing planning and zoning Putnam County providing planning and zoning Indiana Department of Environmental Management responsible for monitoring and assessing the water quality of Indiana's surface waters Chapter 2: Public Involvement, 2-3 Coordination and Partnerships

34 This page intentionally left blank. Chapter 2: Public Involvement, 2-4 Coordination and Partnerships

35 3.0 Resource Analysis The resource analysis section of the master plan is an assessment of existing natural conditions at Cecil M. Harden Lake. It is intended to facilitate the understanding of development suitability and constraints that affect future management decisions at the project site. 3.1 Physical Environment The physical environment surrounding Cecil M. Harden Lake contains the following resources: Surface water Wetlands Groundwater Physiography and topography Geology, soils and minerals Historic resources Scenic elements Existing conditions for each of the natural resources are described in the subsections below along with a brief discussion of how each resource may impact development Surface Water Surface water refers to water sources present at the ground surface. This includes Cecil M. Harden Lake, Big Raccoon Creek, Troutman Branch and the tailwater area Existing Conditions Streams and Watersheds Cecil M. Harden Lake is a 4,093-acre project fed by Big Raccoon Creek and, to a lesser degree, Troutman Branch. The tailwater drains into Big Raccoon Creek which flows southwest then northwest for 33 miles to merge with the Wabash River south of Montezuma, Indiana. The Wabash River flows south to empty into the Ohio River (USACE, 2000). The Mansfield Dam provides flood control, low flow augmentation and water quality control in Big Raccoon Creek. Cecil M. Harden Lake gathers stormwater runoff from a 215-square mile watershed, called Cecil M. Harden-Big Raccoon Creek, which covers parts of Parke, Putnam, Hendricks, Boone and Montgomery Counties. The major tributary of the drainage area is Raccoon Creek. Cornstalk Creek, Haw Creek, Lick Creek, Bryd Branch and Ramp Creek flow into Raccoon Creek upstream of the lake. The Middle Wabash- Little Vermilion subbasin drains 2,275 square miles (see Figure 3-1). Land use in the watershed is primarily agricultural in nature. Chapter 3: Resource Analysis 3-1

36 Figure 3-1 Cecil M. Harden Lake Local and Regional Watersheds. Sources: USACE, ESRI, USDA-NCRS, USGS, IndianaMAP 3-2 Chapter 3: Resource Analysis

37 Cecil M. Harden Lake Cecil M. Harden Lake was formed on Big Raccoon Creek by the building of the dam in The dam is located on Big Raccoon Creek, 33 miles upstream from its confluence with the Wabash River. At the permanent pool, the lake maintains 1,100 acres of water, while at seasonal pool the lake consists of 2,110 acres (USACE, 2000). Three zones control boating at Cecil M. Harden Lake. Zone 1 is located on Troutman Branch and is open with no wake. Zone 1-A, which is located upstream of US 36, is limited to idling with no wake. Zone 2 is the main body of the lake and is unrestricted (USACE, 1978). Sedimentation and erosion has occurred around the lake due to fluctuating water levels, soil types (See Section Geology, Soils, and Minerals) and lack of vegetation along the shoreline of private property owners. The majority of the sediment has accumulated from Big Raccoon Creek upstream to Portland Mills (USACE, 2000). Sedimentation may eventually limit the use of the Portland Mills boat ramp. Tailwater Area The tailwater area is located downstream of the dam. The dam releases water from a single elevation within the lake, limiting the environmental controls available for maintenance of natural conditions in the tailwater. Minimum flow from the dam is 22 cfs (USACE, 2000). Water Quality Water quality at Cecil M. Harden Lake varies greatly depending on seasons, runoff volume, pollution sources and lake capacity. Septic systems are used almost exclusively in the areas surrounding the lake to handle wastewater treatment, which has been known to affect lake water quality due to failure. Among the common causes of failure are undersized systems due to house expansions without septic system expansion. Sewage from failing septic systems can cause nutrient loading of nitrogen and phosphorus in surface waters Tailwater Area which results in increased microbial populations. High microbial populations in surface waters contaminated by sewage often exceed the maximum allowance under the USEPA s standards and may result in harmful algal blooms (HABs) and high levels of Escherichia Coli (E. coli). In Indiana, an estimated 15.3 billion gallons of untreated sewage enter the environment each year (Purdue University, 2005). The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) determines water quality criteria based on the designated use of the water body; Cecil M. Harden Lake is designated for recreation. In 2013, IDEM completed a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) report for the Cecil M. Harden-Big Raccoon Creek watershed, which identified E. coli and biotic community impairments. The reservoir was also identified as an impaired lake in 2010 due to mercury and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) levels. The report identifies possible point and nonpoint pollution sources as well as best management practices (BMP) for reducing pollution causing the TMDL exceedance. Point sources are discernible, confined, and discrete conveyances such as pipes, ditches, channels, tunnels or conduits by which pollution is transported to a water body. Potential point sources contributing to Cecil M. Harden Lake water quality are wastewater treatment plants; illicitly connected straight pipe systems; cropland and livestock runoff which may contain sediments; E. coli, and nutrients, sanitary sewer overflows; and regulated stormwater sources. Chapter 3: Resource Analysis 3-3

38 Nonpoint source pollution is generally from land or stormwater runoff, drainage, seepage or hydrologic modification. Potential nonpoint pollution sources which effect overall project water quality include stream bank erosion, onsite wastewater treatment systems (septic systems) and urban stormwater runoff. Recommended BMPs are listed below: Inspection and maintenance of wastewater treatment plants, industrial facilities, and onsite wastewater treatment systems Replacement of illicitly connected straight pipe and onsite wastewater treatment systems Creation of riparian forested or herbaceous buffers to protect against agricultural and urban runoff as well as stream bank erosion Regional implementation of stormwater management and planning Implementation of stream bank and shoreline protection practices Water quality monitoring at the lake is performed by the USACE in coordination with the State of Indiana. Project personnel take bi-weekly measurements from spring to fall during lake stratification to monitor temperature and dissolved oxygen levels. Benthic macroinvertebrates are often used as water quality indicators to assess short- and long-term trends (USACE, Water Quality); however, an inventory of macroinvertebrates is not currently available for Cecil M. Harden Lake (USACE, 2000). USACE began monitoring Cecil M. Harden Lake for HABs in Since this time, the Corps Louisville District (LRL) Water Quality Program has coordinated with Indiana state agencies to develop a HAB Response Sampling Plan that protects the public while recognizing the state agencies as the water quality authority per the authority designated to them by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), via the Clean Water Act. USACE s primary function in the Indiana HAB Response Plan is to provide support for Indiana state agencies through data collection at the lakes managed by USACE. The current coordination with Indiana state agencies states that USACE will await the results of the IDEM HAB sampling efforts to determine which LRL reservoirs in Indiana will be sampled prior to Memorial Day weekend. Beyond Memorial Day, Indiana reservoirs will be sampled in response to a reported incident or observation and HAB response sampling will occur monthly when cyanobacteria cell counts remain higher than 100,000 cells/ml. Sampling will be suspended when results are below 100,000 cells/ml for two consecutive sampling events. HAB response sampling is limited to the May to September recreational season. Table 3-1 summarizes Indiana advisory and caution levels for cyanobacteria. Table 3-1: Indiana Cyanobacteria Caution and Advisory Levels Cell Alert Level Count/msl Toxin Level Color Precautions Low Risk < 100,000 < 6 ppb Blue Don't drink the water. Shower after you swim. Advisory > 100,000 < 6 ppb Yellow Swimming and boating permitted. Avoid contact with algae. Don t drink the water. Shower after you swim. Keep pets out of the water or, at minimum, bathe them after swimming and prevent them from licking algae/water from fur. Caution > 100,000 > 6 ppb but All ADVISORY precautions plus children and immunecompromised individuals should avoid the water. Orange < 20 ppb Closed > 100,000 > 20 ppb Red Unsafe to swim for humans or pets. Source: USACE Cecil M. Harden Lake HAB Results Chapter 3: Resource Analysis

39 There are nine established HAB sampling sites at Cecil M. Harden Lake. Samples at each site are collected by the lake staff and shipped overnight to an analytical laboratory that has been secured by the LRL Water Quality Program. Based on the sampling results, IDEM issues cautions or advisories. HAB advisories have been issued every year since 2013 during the recreation season. Although sampling has occurred in various years as late as from September to January, August is the last month for the state to issue recreational advisories Implications of Surface Water on Development The primary purpose of the Cecil M. Harden Lake project is flood control. The reservoir was designed to store floodwaters and slow the release downstream, reducing flood risk in the lower Big Raccoon Creek Valley and ultimately along the Ohio River. Figure 3-2 shows inundation areas between the permanent pool level of 640 msl, the seasonal pool level of 662 msl, and the flood control level and spillway of 690 msl. The top of the dam and dike is at 712 msl. Flooding up to msl has occurred as recently as 2015 and had major impacts on recreational opportunities at the lake. Based on the inundation areas displayed in Figure 3-2, the most significant flooding will occur along Troutman Branch and upstream of the main basin. When the lake is at the permanent pool level, large tracts of land are exposed Steep Shoreline and Erosion and many publicly operated ramps and privately owned docks are rendered unusable. Fluctuations between the pool levels contribute to the shoreline erosion visible throughout the project. Table 3-2 presents effects of various lake elevations on adjacent areas. USACE Engineering Manual (EM) Section recommends developing lakeside facilities outside the five-year flood frequency levels when possible (USACE, 2004). Because the five-year flood frequency at Cecil M. Harden Lake is 678 msl and much of the shoreline is steep, development options are limited to current recreation areas. Boating, swimming, and fishing are popular forms of recreation available at Cecil M. Harden Lake. A variety of boats can be found on Cecil M. Harden Lake, from kayaks to sailboats to larger power boats. Larger boats predominantly traverse the main basin while smaller boats are capable of traveling into the many fingers of the lake. These make use of the many private and group docks and boats ramps found throughout the project. There is one beach available for swimming at Raccoon Creek SRA. The lake and tailwater provide an array of fish species and aquatic life that make the project a destination for anglers Water quality is capable of effecting the availability of recreation, especially during the summer months. Despite having a state designated use of recreation as discussed in Section , the primary congressionally authorized purpose of the project is flood control. Flood control takes precedent over other designated uses such as recreation. The vast majority of pollution sources are located outside of the USACE project boundary and are, therefore, beyond USACE control. Both factors effectively limit the USACE s ability to improve project water quality. Chapter 3: Resource Analysis 3-5

40 Table 3-2: Impact of Lake Elevation Elevation (Feet Above msl) Project Impact(s) 640 Permanent (Winter) Pool Walker, Mansfield and Hollandsburg boat ramps are inoperable East Rental Docks are inoperable Portland Mills ramp, Gas Service Dock, rental boat ties and beach are inoperable Diving platform and Portland Mills rental boat ties are inoperable. West Rental docks are inoperable. 662 Seasonal (Summer) Pool 664 Back platform of tower (bypass bulkhead and emergency gate slots) is underwater. 669 Mansfield and Portland Mills ramps flood. Raccoon State Recreation Area beach, marina and beach picnic shelter flood. 675 Hollandsburg ramp flooded. Jib Crane boom is underwater. Portland Mills ramp closes. 677 Stored Emergency Gate is underwater. Hollandsburg and Mansfield ramps close. 678 Five-year flood frequency elevation. Walker Boat Ramp floods. 680 Raccoon State Recreation Area beach house floods. 681 Water at toe of dike. 683 Trailers in Hartman s Camp and Calvert Picnic Shelter at Portland Mills inundated. 684 Knollwood access road and trailers in Nevin s Camp are flooded. 685 USACE picnic area and Crooks-Byers access road are flooded. 690 Flood Pool and Spillway US 36 road surface under water; Old 36 Road under water; Access roads to Parkwood 693 Hills, Hartman s, and Knollwood subdivisions, several county roads and access routes to trailers and houses are flooded. 712 Top of Dam and Dike Sources: USACE Cecil M. Harden Lake Reservoir Impacts 3-6 Chapter 3: Resource Analysis

41 Figure 3-2 Inundation Areas at Seasonal and Flood Controls Pools. Sources: USACE, ESRI, USDA-NCRS, USGS, Indian Chapter 3: Resource Analysis 3-7

42 3.1.2 Wetlands The Clean Water Act defines wetlands as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soils. Wetlands include swamps, marshes and other similar areas. To be characterized as a wetland, sites must have hydric soils and predominantly hydrophytic vegetation species. Wetlands are critical landscape features. As they hold and slowly release water, wetlands filter and clean, remove impurities and allow sediment to settle out, facilitating the recycling of nutrients. Due to the nature of the habitat, wetlands tend to be rich in flora and fauna Existing Conditions According to the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), Cecil M. Harden Lake contains 41 potentially jurisdictional wetlands within the project area (see Figure 3-3). The NWI map shows that wetlands are predominantly located upstream of the main lake body where Raccoon Creek enters the project. On average, the wetland size is approximately 10 acres. The minimum wetland size is estimated at less than one acre, while the maximum size is estimated at approximately 235 acres. The wetlands surrounding Raccoon Creek upstream of Portland Mills comprise 299 acres out of 418 acres of wetlands found within the project boundary. Table 3-3 provides information on different wetland types found at the project. Table 3-3: Wetlands within the Project Area Number of Sites Total Acreage Wetland Type Abbreviation Palustrine emergent, temporary, seasonally or semipermanently flooded wetland PEM Palustrine forested, temporary, seasonally or semi permanently flooded or intermittently exposed wetland PFO Palustrine scrub shrub, temporary or seasonally flooded wetland PSS Source: National Wetlands Inventory, US Fish & Wildlife Service, Chapter 3: Resource Analysis

43 Figure 3-3 Wetlands. Sources: USACE, ESRI, USDA-NCRS, NWI Chapter 3: Resource Analysis 3-9

44 Implications of Wetlands on Development EO requires federal agencies, including USACE, to minimize destruction or degradation of wetlands and to enhance wetland resources. Wetlands are considered environmentally sensitive resources and, therefore, constrain high-intensity development and recreational opportunities. Development opportunities at Harden Lake will be limited upstream of the main basin due to wetlands. Potential recreational activities provided by wetland habitats include wildlife viewing, fishing, and educational and conservation activities. The wetlands at Cecil M. Harden Lake provide specialized habitat for a variety of flora and fauna. Prior to implementation of proposed project development, wetland delineations would need to be conducted and potential wetland impacts, along with mitigation of impacts, would need to be identified and evaluated Groundwater Groundwater refers to subsurface waters generally contained by aquifers. Aquifers are permeable geologic units that store water until released via natural springs or water wells. Groundwater provides water for domestic and industrial use when no accessible surface water supply exists Existing Groundwater Conditions Cecil M. Harden Lake lies within glacial till of the Wisconsin age. Two bedrock and three unconsolidated aquifer systems are found within the project boundary. The most viable aquifer is located at the southern end of the project boundary. It produces 5 to 40 gallons per minute (gpm) and is suitable for domestic and high capacity users. The least viable aquifer produces less than 5 gpm and is not suitable for water use. The remaining three aquifers can support wells with water flowing from 2 to 18 gpm (IDNR, 2009). Water wells are found in the subdivisions surrounding the project boundary and are in use at the recreation areas Implications of Groundwater on Development Groundwater is a viable supply of potable water at the project. Future development may use wells to supply water to the site Physiography and Topography Physiography and topography are used to describe landforms and the land surface, including geologic formations and elevation Existing Conditions Cecil M. Harden Lake is split between the Tipton Till Plain and the Southern Hills and Lowlands regions. The Wisconsin glacial boundary is located near the southern end of the project. This area is characterized by gently rolling to steep hills. Elevations at the project site range from 599 to 760 msl. Locations along ravines and shoreline have limited potential for development due to slopes greater than 15 percent. USACE EM , under Chapter 2, recommends avoiding development on slopes greater than 15 percent unless there is no other acceptable alternative. Approximately 29 percent of the project area consists of slopes greater than 15 percent Chapter 3: Resource Analysis

45 Implications of Physiography and Topography on Development Slopes of less than 15 percent have the highest development potential. Steep areas at Cecil M. Harden Lake are associated with the shoreline and ravines where development is limited. Slopes between 15 and 30 percent have more limited potential, but are enjoyable for activities such as hiking and wildlife viewing. Areas with slopes greater than 30 percent have very limited development potential, but contribute to the scenic quality of the lake. Shoreline Erosion Based on information displayed in Figure 3-4, locations with the highest potential for development are limited to peninsulas and areas along the streambed. The majority of areas with flat to gentle slopes are located upstream of Portland Mills in the large wetland area identified by Figure 3-3. The remaining areas shown as most suitable for development contain existing recreational areas. Flooding, wet soils and wetlands are additional potential constraints for areas with minimal slope. See Geology, Soils, and Minerals for details. Erosion potential is high along the shoreline due to steep terrain, fluctuating water levels, and in several cases, lack of vegetation. Construction activities near the shoreline have potential to enhance the rate of erosion. Erosion control practices are being implemented by the USACE through the SMP. Chapter 3: Resource Analysis 3-11

46 Figure 3-4 Influence of Slope on Development Potential. Sources: USACE, ESRI, USDA-NCRS, USGS 3-12 Chapter 3: Resource Analysis

47 3.1.5 Geology, Soils and Minerals This section describes the geology, soil characteristics and minerals found at the project Existing Conditions Geology and Soils Cecil M. Harden Lake is underlain with bedrock dating to the Pennsylvanian and Mississippian age Approximately 290 to 350 million years ago. The Pennsylvanian bedrock is mostly shale and sandstone and is part of the Raccoon Group. The Mississippian age bedrock belongs to the Blue River group and is predominately limestone. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), three broad soil associations occur at the project site. These soil associations are listed in Table 3-4 and have been divided into two development suitability categories: 1. Suitable for development 2. Unsuitable for development Table 3-4: Soil Associations in Order of Predominance Soil Association Typical Slope Suitability Based on Slope and Soil Type Strawn-Miami-Hennepin Gentle Very Steep Suitable. Loamy or calcareous till. Well-drained soil found on gentle to steep slopes. May have some limited suitability for development due to slope. Sawmill-Lawson-Genesee Flat Unsuitable. Silty clay to loamy alluvium. Poorly drained, often characterized by floodplains, prone to frequent flooding. Hickory-Cincinnati Flat Very Steep Suitable. Silty, glacial till plain. Well-drained soil found on flat to steep slopes. Source: USDA NRCS, Digital General Soil Map of U.S Based on the information presented in Table 3-4, the Hickory-Cincinnati and Strawn-Miami-Hennepin provide suitable areas for development. These soils are well drained and located on flat to steep slopes. Development may be limited in some areas due to steep slopes. NRCS classifies Sawmill-Lawson-Genesee as hydric soils characteristic of frequently inundated areas; therefore, they are least suitable for development. Minerals The project contains no significant mineral resources. There are no outstanding mineral rights within the boundary (USACE, 1976). Four pipelines traverse the project boundary carrying crude oil, natural gas and refined products Implications of Geology, Soils, and Minerals on Development Flat land located in seasonally inundated areas is not suitable for development. Large tracts of welldrained soil are located in the central and southwestern portions of the project, which are most suitable for development. Should project areas be developed, an in-depth soil series survey is located at the USACE project office for reference. Mineral resources are not a significant factor for development. Pipeline easements are maintained with the USACE LRL Real Estate division and should be referred to if development takes place near those areas. Chapter 3: Resource Analysis 3-13

48 Figure 3-5 Mineral Resources. Sources: USACE, ESRI, IGS, IndianaMAP 3-14 Chapter 3: Resource Analysis

49 3.1.6 Historic Resources A historic property is defined by the NHPA as any historic or prehistoric district, site, building, structure, or object included on, or eligible for inclusion on, the National Register, including artifacts, records, and material remains relating to the property (NHPA) Existing Conditions In 1969, a survey for archeological and historic sites was completed at Cecil M. Harden Lake. Five archeological sites were identified and surveyed; however, no sites were determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In 1988, a shoreline reconnaissance survey was completed for archeological and cultural resources near the lake shore. The report documented 170 sites, recommended monitoring for 64 sites, and suggested additional testing for one site to determine eligibility for listing on the NRHP (USACE LRL, 1988). No historic structures were found within the property boundary. The Indiana State Historic Architectural and Archeological Research Database shows several cemeteries and historic bridges located in the vicinity of Cecil M. Harden Lake. The Mansfield Roller Mill is a state historic structure located five miles downstream of the dam and a historic marker commemorates the town of Portland Mills and former bridge that crossed Raccoon Creek Implications of Prehistoric and Historic Resources on Development Proposed development actions are required to comply with the NHPA. Prior to implementation of any ground disturbing activity, field surveys and Section 106 NHPA coordination with the Indiana State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) will be conducted by the USACE. Federal and state laws require federal agencies to minimize or mitigate adverse impacts to historic properties (36 CFR Part ). Should unanticipated historic or prehistoric resources be discovered during ground disturbing activities, work must cease immediately and the USACE will contact the Indiana SHPO Scenic Quality Scenic quality refers to the environment as perceived through the senses Existing Conditions Portland Mills Historic Marker The terrain of Cecil M. Harden Lake ranges from relatively level campgrounds in Raccoon SRA to steep forested hills along Raccoon Creek and ravines leading down to the water surface. This variety of landforms and lake offer some opportunities for scenic view sheds. Public views range from panoramic views of the lake from the dam road, US 36 and the USACE picnic area to limited views of the water Chapter 3: Resource Analysis 3-15

50 from Raccoon SRA campgrounds. However, due to the large number of residential subdivisions, most of the views of the lake are from private property. Views from the lake vary from forested hills and ravines along Protected Shoreline zones to residential subdivisions. The potential quality of view from the lake can change depending on the season because of the large variation in pool elevation. Hiking trails, picnic areas and the beach at Raccoon SRA provide a variety of viewsheds of the lake and surrounding forests. Although this lake is surrounded by agricultural lands, the topography and forested areas within the project exhibit excellent fall colors that, in conjunction with the very popular tourist attraction of covered bridges, also attracts a large number of visitors to Parke County and the lake each year for sightseeing Implications of Scenic Qualities on Development The project area provides unique scenic qualities; however, residential subdivision development strongly influences the visitor experience at Cecil M. Harden Lake. Opportunities exist to increase positive scenic experiences at locations such as the Highway 36 Crossing; however, limited budgets for new facility development and the extensive amount of private property will affect long-term improvements to the visitor experience. 3.2 Biological Environment The biological environment surrounding Cecil M. Harden Lake includes: Habitats Invasive species Game species Sensitive Species and Critical Habitat Wildlife Management Units Environmentally sensitive areas Existing conditions for each of the biological resources are described in the subsections below, along with a brief discussion of how each resource may impact development Habitats Habitat is defined by USFWS as a location where a particular species lives along with its surroundings, both living and non-living. This includes the following environmental conditions: water, soil moisture and topography. Cecil M. Harden Lake contains eight habitats, which are described below (see Figure 3-6) Existing Conditions Of the eight habitats, three consist of regularly disturbed areas, including developed lands, managed tree areas and agricultural areas. These regularly disturbed areas are home to edge and urban adaptive species. Typical animal species found in these habitats include songbirds, coyotes, foxes, deer, raptors, mice, squirrels, raccoons, rabbits, etc Chapter 3: Resource Analysis

51 Open Water The majority of the project consists of open water. Fish living in the open water environment include gizzard shad, bluegill, striped bass, walleye, bass and crappie. The IDNR annually stocks fish according to the needs of the IDNR fisheries program. Fish habitat and cover is actively maintained and created by the IDNR (IDNR, 2016). Wetlands Cecil M. Harden Lake wetlands are located in floodplains surrounding the lake and tailwater. Typical wetland flora may include various sedges, cattail, spikerush, smartweed, knotweed, arrowhead, pickerelweed, pondweed, naid, watermilfoil, bladderwort, duckweed and waterlily. Trees may also be found in Cecil M. Harden Lake wetlands including willow, cottonwood, sycamore, maple, ash, and oak. Wetlands provide habitat for many animals including red-winged blackbird, muskrats, mink, beaver, reptiles and amphibians and a wide range of waterfowl. North-Central Interior Beech-Maple Forest Generally found on flat or rolling uplands to steep slopes, the beech-maple forest is the main land habitat type found at Cecil M. Harden Lake. The forest thrives in loam soils over glacial till. Sugar maple and American beech dominate the canopy. Common subcanopy and understory species include red oak, basswood and tulip tree. The herbaceous layer is diverse and includes spring ephemerals, such as white trillium, Jack-in-the-Pulpit, spring beauty and Solomon s seal (NatureServe, 2015). South-Central Interior Mesophytic Forest A mixed-mesophytic community, typically found south of the glacial boundary (the South-Central Interior Mesophytic Forest) is predominately found on lower slopes, in coves and in other protected landscape areas. Small streams often bisect this community. This habitat contains a rich herb layer often comprised of abundant spring ephemerals such as spring beauty and Dutchman s breeches. Other herbs include white trillium, black baneberry and great Indian plantain. Dominant canopy species are sugar maple and American beech with maples, black walnut and sassafras among others as subdominants (NatureServe, 2015). Common animals to both forest habitats include white-tailed deer, gray squirrels, fox squirrels, raccoons, songbirds, woodpeckers, owls and foxes. Old Fields Old fields are successional habitats characterized by grasses, shrubs and trees. These habitats are typically transitioning from grasslands to young forests. In the Midwest, early successional habitats are characterized by the following plant species: blackberry, raspberry, switchgrass, big bluestem and little bluestem among other grasses, forbs and shrubs. Wildlife species may include cottontail rabbit, whitetailed deer, turkey, wrens, sparrows, grouse, coyotes, foxes and other various songbirds and furbearers Implications of Habitat on Development Habitat variety enhances recreation and scenic opportunities. A rich diversity of wildlife is found within the project site. Each habitat provides its own unique benefits to the project. Vegetation in the wetlands and forests slow and filter storm water. The roots of trees, bushes and grasses hold soil and prevent erosion. This is an important natural erosion control device which prevents additional siltation of the lake from surrounding slopes, improving water quality. The forest provides habitat for migratory birds and game and non-game species. Managing the forest to maintain the Chapter 3: Resource Analysis 3-17

52 ecological services and encourage a rich diversity of wildlife is recommended. Encouraging wildlife diversity through forest management also supports recreational activities such as wildlife watching. Details of forest management are handled through agreements between the USACE and the IDNR. The large open water and stream habitats supports ample opportunity for recreational fishing. The IDNR works to continually improve fishing quality by stocking fish in accordance to the IDNR fisheries program. Due to high mercury levels, as discussed under Water Quality in Section , fish need to be monitored by the IDNR or IDEM for contamination Invasive Species USFWS defines invasive species as one that is not native to an ecosystem and which causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. Invasive species out-compete native plants and wildlife, degrading, changing or replacing native habitat (USFWS, 2012). The IDNR maintains a list of invasive species found in Indiana on their website Existing Conditions Table 3-5 lists invasive species that are either high-priority species or have a high potential impact to the project. This list does not include all invasive species present at Cecil M. Harden Lake. The IDNR and the USACE actively manage for invasive species including several invasive plants found in the management units throughout the project. See Appendix C: Environmental Assessment for more detailed information Implications of Invasive Species for Development Invasive species are commonly introduced or spread through periodic disturbance of an area. Awareness of current and local emerging invasive species and their potential impacts can help address and limit their spread. Future development and maintenance projects should be aware of and attempt to limit the spread of invasive species found at the project. Additionally, visitors can be made aware of invasive species and the threat they pose through interpretive signs. An emerging high-priority species of concern is the Asian longhorned beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis), which has been found in Ohio, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and Illinois. Preferred targets for the Asian longhorned beetle include maple species, birches, elms, horsechesnut, Ohio buckeye and willows (USFS, Forest Health and Economics, 2015). The beetle grows and reproduces in hardwoods, eventually killing the tree. USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is conducting an eradication program for the Asian longhorned beetle in an attempt to limit its spread. This beetle has the potential to devastate forests throughout Indiana, including those at Cecil M. Harden Lake, and could influence future management decisions (USDA APHIS, Asian longhorned beetle, 2015) Chapter 3: Resource Analysis

53 Figure 3-6 Vegetative Habitats. USACE, ESRI, NWI, USGS, NatureServe Chapter 3: Resource Analysis 3-19

54 Table 3-5: High Priority Invasive Species Found in the Vicinity of Cecil M. Harden Lake Taxonomy Common Name Scientific Name Effect Presence Insects Gypsy Moth Lymantria dispar Invertebrates Plants Emerald Ash Borer Common Pine Shoot Beetle Bush Honeysuckle Autumn Olive Kudzu Multiflora Rose Eurasian Watermilfoil Garlic Mustard Agrilus planipennis Tomicus piniperda Lonicera maackii Elaeagnus umbellata Pueraria montana Rosa multiflora Myriophyllum spicatum Alliaria petiolata Tree defoliation which may result in eventual mortality Causes 100% mortality of all species of ash Damages and kills pine trees Strangulation of trees and invasion of habitat Increases nitrogen levels in soils Covers and strangles entire forests, quick growing Invades pastures and crowds out native species Crowds out native species Crowds out native plant species Found at Cecil M. Harden Lake Throughout Indiana Found in Parke and Putnam counties Managed for by IDNR at Cecil M. Harden Lake Managed for by IDNR at Cecil M. Harden Lake Throughout Southern Indiana; IDNR management program in place Managed for by IDNR at Cecil M. Harden Lake Throughout Indiana wetlands Managed for by IDNR at Cecil M. Harden Lake Sources: IDNR 5-Year Wildlife Management Plan, 2010; IDNR Annual Management Plan, 2016; IDNR Invasive Species; USDA National Invasive Species Information Center Species Profiles; IDNR Entomology and Plant Pathology: Kudzu Game Species Game species provide a form of recreation during the fall and winter months. Hunting, trapping and fishing have taken on an additional aspect of nuisance control. Nuisance wildlife are animals which destroy property Existing Conditions Hunting, fishing, and trapping at Cecil M. Harden Lake is managed by the IDNR. Hunting and trapping are allowed within designated areas during the hunting season. Cecil M. Harden Lake maintains approximately 330 acres of forest and open fields west of Mansfield Dam for hunting. At the winter pool, approximately 1,100 acres of water are made available for waterfowl hunting. Trapping is available through a sealed bid process (IDNR, Cecil M. Harden Lake Hunting and Trapping). Aside from the recreational opportunity it provides, the IDNR uses hunting to manage the populations of animals. Hunting minimizes ecological damage done by animals like white-tailed deer when over populated (IDNR, Hunting and Trapping Guide, 2015). Currently, the IDNR allows the taking of bonus antlerless deer, (i.e., additional does to control the white-tailed deer populations) (IDNR, Cecil M. Harden Lake Hunting and Trapping). Trapping through the bid process is allowed in two IDNR wildlife management units and is being considered in a third for control of furbearer populations (IDNR, 2010) Chapter 3: Resource Analysis

55 Common game species at Cecil M. Harden Lake include white-tailed deer, squirrels, turkeys, raccoons, various waterfowl, mourning dove, bluegill, crappie, walleye, largemouth bass, striped bass, catfish and panfish, among others (USACE, 2000). The IDNR stocked rainbow trout in the tailwater in 2015 (IDNR, 2016). In the past, stocking efforts have included walleye, white bass, largemouth bass, sunfish, crappie and catfish (USACE, 2000) Implications of Game Species on Development Wildlife management operations collect valuable information from hunting and fishing concerning the health and numbers of animal populations. The information collected from consumptive recreation activities is invaluable to developing wildlife management plans and prescriptions. Continued maintenance of hunting and fishing policies provides recreation needs while meeting a USACEauthorized project purpose Sensitive Species and Critical Habitat Lists of threatened, endangered and species of special concern are maintained by the USFWS and the State of Indiana. Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 U.S.C ), endangered species are defined as any species in danger of extinction throughout all or portions of its range. A threatened species is any species likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. The ESA defines critical habitat of the above species as a geographic area that contains the physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of a particular species and that may need special management or protection. This section also covers birds listed under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 U.S.C ) as birds of conservation concern Existing Conditions The USFWS maintains lists of rare plants and wildlife that occur in each county of the US. The state of Indiana maintains a separate inventory of state-ranked endangered and threatened species and species of special concern. This list can be obtained through the Indiana Natural Heritage Data Center by county or vicinity to the project. According to the USACE OMP, Cecil M. Harden Lake does not support rare or endangered species or contain critical habitat. However, since the OMP was written in 2000, the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) was listed as a threatened species under ESA. The bat has potential to occur throughout the Midwest, including Indiana (USFWS, 2016). Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) has been found in the vicinity of the project since the OMP was written. In the spring, bats emerge from hibernation and migrate to summer roost sites. During the summer months, female Indiana bats establish maternity colonies of up to 100 bats under the loose bark of trees and in tree cavities. Loss and fragmentation of forest habitat are among the major threats to Indiana bat populations. Other threats include white-nose syndrome, winter disturbance, and environmental contaminants (USFWS, 2006). Bald eagles are known to nest within the project and are regularly sighted in the vicinity of the lake. These birds are protected under the MBTA and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. A complete list of threatened and endangered species present at the project can be found under the Environmental Assessment located in Appendix C. Chapter 3: Resource Analysis 3-21

56 Implications of Sensitive Species and Critical Habitat for Development Section 7 of the ESA requires all federal agencies to conserve threatened and endangered species and to further the purpose of the act. The Environmental Assessment in Appendix C provides more information on sensitive species found in the vicinity of the lake, as well as implications for development. Timber management at Cecil M. Harden Lake is seasonally restricted due to the presence of Indiana bat. Tree harvests over three inches in diameter at breast height are restricted from April 1 to September 30 within five miles of known Indiana bat locations. Around known hibernacula, restrictions may be more extensive. Other management guidelines include retention of snags, shagbark hickory, large trees, and riparian areas (IDNR, 2016). The restrictions are imposed by the State in accordance with the USFWS Midwest Region Bloomington Field Office. Development near bald eagle active and inactive nests is limited by the Bald and Golden Eagle Act. Under the act, steps must be followed to prevent the non-purposeful take of an eagle. The Midwest Region of the USFWS maintains a guidance document that helps project developers to determine if their project will result in the take of a bald eagle. In general, the USFWS recommends that no trees are cleared within 660 feet of active or inactive nests, and that work within line of sight of the nests be restricted during the egg-laying period (January 15 through July 31). The USFWS should be consulted for guidance on impacts to threatened and/or endangered species, migratory birds and high-quality habitats if any new development is planned Wildlife Management Units The IDNR manages natural and wildlife resource conservation and recreation on 3,863 acres of land leased from the USACE. The leased land is divided into nine management units Existing Conditions Approximately 45 acres of farmland within the leased area are subleased to farmers for crop cultivation each year. Crops are rotated annually between corn, soybeans and winter wheat. Farmers are required to leave 10 percent of their crop standing in the field at the end of the season to provide food and cover for wildlife (IDNR, 2010). In addition to the farm fields, wildlife food plots are maintained by the IDNR in Compartments 1 and 4, as well as in the USACE operational area. According to the OMP, these plots totaled approximately 88 acres in The plots benefit both game and non-game species. The IDNR also maintains a prescribed burn plan to reduce undesired understory and promote growth of plant species for game habitat. These areas provide wildlife benefits for deer, fox, coyote, rabbits and various birds (IDNR, 2010). In addition to the land management described above, The IDNR manages multiple facilities for wildlife management and visitor use. These facilities include bluebird nest boxes, wood duck boxes, boat launches, hunter check stations, an accessible hunting blind and informational signs (IDNR, 2016) Chapter 3: Resource Analysis

57 Implications of Wildlife Management Units on Development In 2015, the IDNR accomplished the following projects associated with wildlife management objectives: Maintained nest boxes and hunting blind Conducted prescribed burns Enhanced fish habitat Created wildlife cover through brush piles and by leaving corn standing in the field after harvest Reduced groundhog population Stocked rainbow trout New development at the IDNR lease area should be coordinated with the IDNR staff to ensure that the development footprint, new facility lighting or long-term noise from the new development will not conflict with the objectives of the wildlife management areas. Conversely, new development may offer additional or enhanced access points or program opportunities for wildlife visitation. Signage at the development should describe the rules and closures for visitors in coordination with IDNR staff in IDNRmanaged areas Environmentally Sensitive Areas Environmentally sensitive areas are locations designated as having a special status by federal or state legislation. Rare and unique features may be listed as environmentally sensitive as well Existing Conditions Examples of environmentally sensitive areas at Cecil M. Harden Lake include wetlands, species of concern, flood pool and steep slopes prone to erosion. Upstream of the main basin is the largest tract of environmentally sensitive areas (see Figure 3-2 and 3-3). Environmentally sensitive areas in this location are comprised of wetlands and floodplains. Forested habitat is the predominant habitat at Cecil M. Harden Lake excluding the water. Although it is not listed as a sensitive area, it should be noted that the mature forest provides potential habitat for several species of concern. Loss of mature forest could indirectly harm these species while benefiting others. The precise location and habitat needs of the Appendix C species of concern should be identified and considered environmentally sensitive Implications of Environmentally Sensitive Areas on Development Development restrictions exist to protect environmentally sensitive resources; however, these resources provide other opportunities. Environmentally sensitive locations can provide interpretive, educational, eco-tourism and other low-intensity recreational opportunities. Chapter 3: Resource Analysis 3-23

58 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 3: Resource Analysis

59 4.0 Recreation Program Analysis Public recreation lands at Cecil M. Harden Lake, Indiana are managed by the USACE and the IDNR. The USACE manages the dam, the Dam Picnic Area, and the Tailwater Area and deals directly with adjacent landowners and boundary issues. The IDNR manages recreational operations on Raccoon SRA including the camp ground, the boat launch, the beach and numerous other amenities. IDNR also manages the boat ramps and the hunting and trapping areas. The following chapter is an analysis of the recreational amenities and other opportunities offered at Cecil M. Harden Lake as well as a demographic analysis of potential visitors, a comparable facilities analysis, and a look at recreational trends throughout the U.S. and Indiana. Finally, this section will conclude with a synopsis of potential changes in recreational demand for each outdoor recreation activity offered at the project. 4.1 Introduction This chapter contains the results of an analysis of the recreational opportunities offered at Cecil M. Harden Lake. The intent of the analysis is to identify current and future recreational demands that may affect the use and supply of recreational resources at the project. Specifically, Chapter 4 provides an overview of each existing recreation area, describes the recreational assets contained in each area, identifies and describes the potential visitors of Cecil M. Harden Lake, summarizes existing trends and documents from the state, and explains the potential consequences to Cecil M. Harden Lake from each of these analyses findings. To begin the existing conditions portion of this chapter, Section 4.2 describes the physical layout and administrative structure of each recreation area. Section 4.3 provides a list of activities provided at Cecil M. Harden Lake and presents historic visitation data for the project. Section 4.4 includes a socioeconomic profile of the primary and secondary areas of influence (to be described later) surrounding Cecil M. Harden Lake. Section 4.5 summarizes comparable facilities that are located within each area of influence and provides a brief explanation of the effect each comparable facility has on Cecil M. Harden Lake visitation. Finally, Section 4.6 examines the Indiana Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) and other documents to find trends in recreation throughout the state and the nation. The remainder of Chapter 4 contains the results of the analysis and a brief synopsis of potential future changes at the project. Section 4.7 provides and describes a list of potential recreation activities that could be altered or added to Cecil M. Harden Lake, Section 4.8 defines the potential demand for recreation at Cecil M. Harden Lake and Section 4.9 identifies the possible implications of the projected demand for recreation at the project. Chapter 4: Recreational Analysis 4-1

60 Figure 4-1 Land Allocation and Adjacent Recreation Areas. Sources: ESRI, USACE, IDNR 4-2 Chapter 4: Recreational Analysis

61 4.2 Recreation Area Overview Cecil M. Harden Lake provides several recreation areas that provide multiple recreational opportunities for project visitors. The locations of the recreation areas are presented in Figure 4-1 on the previous page. These areas are managed by public entities, some of which are licensed to a third-party private concessionaire. The recreation areas are scattered along the perimeter of the lake and serve many diverse populations. This section describes the overall purpose, layout and administrative structure of each recreation area. The areas described are listed in Table 4-1 along with their managing entity. Table 4-1: Recreational Areas of Cecil M. Harden Lake Recreation Area Approximate Size (Acres) Managing Entity Dam Site and Operations Area 227 USACE Dam Picnic Area 10 USACE Highway 36 Crossing 19 IDNR Hollandsburg Ramp 55 IDNR Mansfield Ramp and Hunting 67 (Mansfield Ramp) Area 330 (Hunting Area) IDNR Portland Mills Ramp 12 IDNR Raccoon SRA 409 (USACE) 202 (IDNR) IDNR Tailwater Area 10 USACE Walker Ramp 40 IDNR It is important to note that there are also eight resource management units scattered throughout the project area, one of which provides hunting and trapping land for the public Dam Site and Operations Area The Dam Site and Operations Area is located at the southern edge of the reservoir. The Mansfield Dam area is accessible by Dam Road off of Ferndale Road, which intersects with SR 59. Facilities located at the Dam Site and Operations Area include the USACE office and maintenance shop. The area is managed by the USACE and there are no recreational opportunities available. Fishing pier and picnic area at Dam Picnic Area Dam Picnic Area The Dam Picnic Area is located east of the Dam Site and Operations Area on Dam Road and is accessed via the same route as the Dam Site and Operations Area. Facilities located at the Dam Picnic Area include two picnic shelters with six tables each and 14 stand-alone tables for a total of 26 picnic tables; three benches; three vault toilets; two playgrounds; various grills; a hitching post for horses; a fishing pier; and a sea wall that can accommodate two to three boats. Parking accommodations consist of 32 spots and two additional handicap accessible spots. All of these amenities are owned and managed by the USACE. Chapter 4: Recreational Analysis 4-3

62 4.2.3 Hollandsburg Ramp Hollandsburg Ramp is located on the northern edge of the lake, just south of the US 36 Bridge. It is located at the end of Hollandsburg Boat Ramp Road off of US 36. Hollandsburg Ramp offers visitors a two-lane boat ramp, a fishing dock, picnic tables scattered throughout the woods, and a vault toilet. Parking is provided for 30 trailer accessible spaces as well as several standard spaces Highway 36 Crossing The US 36 Crossing recreation area is a gravel parking area located at the east end of the US 36 Bridge. The area is accessed via US 36 and is located on the south side of the highway. There are no permanent facilities located on the site, but the parking area leads to a bank south of the bridge that is a popular fishing destination. The location is lightly maintained by IDNR Mansfield Ramp and Hunting & Trapping Area The Mansfield Ramp is located just west of the Dam Site and Operations Area and the Hunting and Trapping Area is located just west of the Mansfield Ramp. The Hunting and Trapping Area covers 330 acres from the Mansfield Ramp parking lot down to the water. Hunting and trapping are permitted in this area with a valid state of Indiana hunting license. The Mansfield Ramp and the Hunting Area are located at the north end of Dam Road and are accessed via the same route Hunting check-in area at Mansfield Ramp and Hunting Area used to access the Dam Site and Operations Area. Facilities offered at the Mansfield Ramp include a two-lane boat ramp, a small fishing dock, and a pit toilet. Just south of the ramp is a parking lot with capacity for 20 vehicles with trailers and 13 passenger vehicles without trailers. The Hunting Area is accessed by foot just west of the parking lot. 4-4 Chapter 4: Recreational Analysis

63 4.2.6 Portland Mills Ramp Portland Mills Ramp is located on the north end of the project, north of the County Road 211 Bridge. This location is home to an unofficial historic site to commemorate a historic covered bridge, which was moved in 1961 to make way for the reservoir. Portland Mills Ramp is accessed via County Road 211, which intersects with US 36 south of the ramp site. Facilities provided at Portland Mills Ramp include a shelter with four picnic tables, a vault toilet, and a two-lane boat ramp. Parking for 18 vehicles with trailers and 10 passenger vehicles without trailers is provided near the ramp; however, occasional flooding deposits a thin layer of sand and silt on the parking area, covering the parking spaces Raccoon SRA Raccoon SRA occupies the entirety of the peninsula that is located across the lake from the Mansfield Dam. The entrance to the SRA is directly south of US 36. The area includes a campground for both primitive and electric camping, a beach with associated beach house and concessions, a marina with 40 rentable slips, multiple vault toilets, 8.4 miles of hiking and biking trails, the IDNR management office, a fishing pier, 10 picnic shelters, and parking availability throughout. The campground at Raccoon SRA provides 240 electric sites, 37 non-electric sites, 35 primitive sites, a youth tent area, a camp store and a dumping station. Also located in the camping area is a water treatment facility and the assistant property manager s residence. Raccoon SRA is managed by the IDNR, and land ownership is split between the USACE, which owns the southern half of the SRA, and the IDNR, which owns the northern half. Plaque commemorating the former covered bridge at Portland Mills Ramp Marina at Raccoon SRA Chapter 4: Recreational Analysis 4-5

64 4.2.8 Tailwater Area The tailwater area offers visitors access to Raccoon Creek south of the lake, where the stream outlets from the dam. The tailwater area is accessible via Ferndale Road, which connects to SR 59. Amenities at the tailwater area include multiple fishing piers, a picnic shelter with three tables, two mini-shelters, a playground, parking for approximately six vehicles including one handicap space and a vault toilet. The fishing piers are located throughout the shoreline of Big Raccoon Creek, most popularly at the stream outlet location of the dam. This area is owned and managed by the USACE Walker Ramp Walker Ramp is located on the eastern shore of the southern part of the lake, just north of the Dam Site and Operations Area and across the lake from Raccoon SRA. The ramp is accessed via Walker Ramp Road, which connects with US 36 to the north. Amenities offered at Walker Ramp include a two-lane boat ramp, a floating dock, approximately 22 trailer parking spaces and 15 regular spaces, and a vault toilet. The Walker Ramp is owned by the USACE and managed by the IDNR. Walkway leading to the fishing pier at the Tailwater Area Floating dock at Walker Ramp 4.3 Current Recreational Activities and Visitation This section provides a detailed list of recreational activities that are available at Cecil M. Harden Lake and some key statistics related to recreational participation at the project Outdoor Recreation Activities. Cecil M. Harden Lake affords its visitors many choices for outdoor recreation. To present these choices, Table 4-2 lists all activities available to Cecil M. Harden Lake visitors, the location where the activities are available and a short description of the capacity provided at each location. 4-6 Chapter 4: Recreational Analysis

65 4.3.2 Hunting and Trapping Hunting is available at one parcel for the entire project. This area is located west of the Mansfield Ramp area and stretches beyond the dike and to the lakeshore. Parking for this area is provided at the Mansfield Ramp parking lot, as well as at a location immediately west of Dam Road south of the Mansfield Ramp parking lot. All hunters must be validated with the appropriate hunting license through the state of Indiana Interpretive Programs Interpretive services offered by the IDNR at Raccoon SRA consist of one permanent part-time Interpretive Naturalist and one seasonal Naturalist Aide. The Raccoon SRA interpreters oversee programming at both Raccoon SRA and the Mansfield Mill located south of the project. Integral to the program is offering a balance of interpretive, cultural, natural and recreational programs. (IDNR, 2016) The Raccoon SRA Interpretive Plan of 2016 identifies the five major areas of focus for the interpretive programs. Below each area of focus are objectives and actions for implementation. The five major areas of focus: (1) Recreation Activities, (2) Interpretive Programming, (3) Field Trips/School Visits, (4) Volunteers/Partnerships/ Donations and (5) Interpretive Facilities/Supplies. (IDNR, 2016) Interpretive Naturalist services also include special events offered at Cecil M. Harden Lake throughout the year. These special events include: the Mansfield Village Mushroom Festival and Beans and Cornbread Day both held in Mansfield; the Youth Fishing Derby, the Centennial ADA Bike Trail Pedal Parade, Fall into Archery class, a Halloween celebration, and a trapper education course, all held at Raccoon SRA; and events held during the Parke County Covered Bridge Festival that occur at both Raccoon SRA and Mansfield Surrounding Area Visitation Before looking specifically at Cecil M. Harden Lake visitation data, it is important to present some appropriate information with regard to regional tourism and outdoor recreation in the surrounding tricounty area of Parke, Putnam and Montgomery counties (this tri-county area should not be confused with the larger areas of influence that will be introduced later in this chapter). This data can provide us with a contextual basis within which to view Cecil M. Harden Lake as a recreational hub within a larger region. The tri-county region is home to several historic, recreational or cultural assets that attract tourists and recreation enthusiasts alike. Most notably, Parke County is known as the Covered Bridge Capital of the world, with 31 historic covered bridges. While these bridges are a year-round attraction, the Covered Bridge Festival, which is held annually in October, attracts a significantly larger number of visitors than average. The festival attracts hundreds of thousands of visitors from around the country throughout the 9-10 day event, which occurs outside of peak visitation time for Cecil M. Harden Lake. Other events occurring throughout the region include the Mansfield Village Mushroom Festival, Beans and Cornbread Day in Mansfield, Parke County Maple Syrup Festival, and more. The region is also home to two private universities: Wabash College (868 undergraduate students in 2015) in Crawfordsville of Montgomery County and DePauw University (2,225 undergraduate students in the spring of 2016) in Greencastle of Putnam County. These institutions enroll students from around the world and introduce staff, faculty and distinguished visitors to west central Indiana. Chapter 4: Recreational Analysis 4-7

66 Table 4-2: Recreational Activities at Cecil M. Harden Lake Activity Location Description Boating Camping Hollandsburg Ramp Mansfield Ramp and Hunting Area Portland Mills Ramp Walker Ramp Raccoon SRA Raccoon SRA Dam Picnic Area Highway 36 Crossing 2-lane boat launch 2-lane boat launch 2-lane boat launch 2-lane boat launch 6-lane boat launch 240 electric sites, 37 non-electric sites, 35 primitive sites, a youth tent area, a camp store, and a dumping station Access at boat docks/lake bank Access at lake bank Hollandsburg Ramp Access at boat launch/dock Fishing Mansfield Ramp and Hunting Area Access at boat launch/dock Portland Mills Ramp Access at boat launch/dock Raccoon SRA Access at boat docks, boat launch, lake bank, and various other locations Tailwater Area Access available at multiple piers at the stream bank Walker Ramp Access available at boat launch/dock Hunting and Mansfield Ramp and Trapping Hunting Area 330 Acres of huntable land available with registration Dam Picnic Area 2 shelters with 6 tables each; 14 stand-alone tables for a total of 26 tables Hollandsburg Ramp 4 tables Picnicking Portland Mills Ramp 1 shelter with 4 tables Raccoon SRA 10 shelters with 8 tables each; 14 stand-alone tables for a total of 94 tables. Tailwater Area 1 shelter with 3 tables Swimming Raccoon SRA Beach with bathhouse and concessions Hiking Raccoon SRA 2.1 miles of easy trails, 3.9 miles of moderate trails, 2.1 miles of rugged trails, and 1.0 mile of archery trails. 4-8 Chapter 4: Recreational Analysis

67 4.3.5 Recent Visitation Trends National and regional variables affect the way people decide to spend their leisure time. For that reason, Cecil M. Harden Lake visitation often fluctuates, however slightly, from year to year. Table 4-3 presents historic visitation data dating back to Fiscal Year (FY) Table 4-3: Visitation Data IDNR Fiscal Year IDNR Project Visitation (IDNR Sites Only) USACE Fiscal Year USACE Project Visitation (Reservoir-Wide) FY ,137,775 FY ,199,705 FY ,114,136 FY ,139,635 FY ,122,699 FY ,115,695 FY ,028,267 FY ,156,255 FY ,197,472 FY ,036,454 FY ,057 FY ,047,411 FY ,080,692 N/A N/A FY ,535 N/A N/A Sources: and USACE data from The Operations and Maintenance Business Information Link, Raccoon SRA Revenue As evident in Table 4-3, much of the project s visitation occurs at Raccoon SRA, which is the largest single recreation area at Cecil M. Harden Lake. There was a total of 918,535 visitors in FY , which was a slight decrease from the previous years. Another way to measure visitation is through the IDNR s tracking of localized revenue. This portion of the analysis used camping related revenue because camping passes purchased at Raccoon SRA can usually only be used at Raccoon SRA. Other forms of revenue, such as state dock and mooring permits, can be used at appropriate locations throughout Indiana. The revenue received by the IDNR from camping at Raccoon SRA is typically between $500,000 and $550,000 per year. Camping related revenue in calendar year 2015 was $509, Area of Influence The following section provides a demographic and locational overview of the area of influence of Cecil M. Harden Lake. The simple definition of the area of influence is the area in which the majority of project visitors live. Determining the area of influence and analyzing its demographic characteristics are important components of the planning process and necessary to forecast future trends in Cecil M. Harden Lake visitation Identifying the Area of Influence (Methodology) With Cecil M. Harden Lake s secluded location, it is rational to assume that many of the lake s visitors come to the lake from distances that require at least an hour s drive. This assumption is especially appropriate considering the fact that the western edge of the Indianapolis metropolitan area is within approximately one hour drive time from the project. Also within an hour s drive from the project are the cities of Terra Haute, Crawfordsville and Greencastle, as well as Brazil and Rockville, the latter two of which are within a 30-minute drive. This analysis breaks the area of influence into two sub-areas. The first is communities within one hour s drive of the project, known as the Primary Area of Influence, and the second, within a 90-minute drive from the project, known as the Secondary Area of Influence. The areas of influence extend into the state of Illinois, as shown on Figure 4-2. Chapter 4: Recreational Analysis 4-9

68 Figure 4-2 Area of Influence. Sources: USACE, ESRI, U.S. Census Bureau, USDA-NCRS 4-10 Chapter 4: Recreational Analysis

69 4.4.2 Demographic Characteristics of the Area of Influence Demographic data was compiled using the internet database Social Explorer to extract U.S. Census and American Community Survey Data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Population projections were compiled using STATS Indiana the statistical data utility for the state of Indiana, which is managed by the Indiana University Kelley School of Business. These data identify population statistics for multiple years from multiple jurisdictions to create a framework understanding of the demographic makeup of each area of influence. The analysis can be used by Cecil M. Harden Lake officials and decision makers to understand possible future demand for recreational activities at the project. The Cecil M. Harden Lake area of influence is comprised of 17 counties in western central Indiana, eight in the Primary Area of Influence and nine in the Secondary Area of Influence. Table 4-4 shows historic populations as well as population projections for each area of influence and displays the overall projected growth rate from 2010 to Table 4-4: Population in Area of Influence Projected Growth. Area of Influence Population Population Population Population* Primary 362, , , , % Secondary 1,273,041 1,330,715 1,563,618 1,483, % Total 1,635,169 1,731,998 1,851,327 1,961, % Source: US Census Bureau, ACS, STATS Indiana, Illinois Department of Public Health *IDPH projects populations to the year 2025, not 2030, so the three Illinois counties, Clark, Edgar and Vermilion, are added to the 2030 secondary area of influence projections with 2025 projections. The overall area of influence is expected to experience a significant population growth from 2010 to The expected growth rate of 19.0 percent for the Primary Area of Influence is very high relative to that of the Secondary Area of Influence, which is 11.5 percent. The overwhelming majority of this high growth rate in the Primary Area of Influence is expected to occur in Hendricks County. Hendricks County is home to much of Indianapolis western suburban population and the county has experienced high growth rates in recent history. From 2000 to 2014, Hendricks County grew by 45 percent, or 46,884 people. The overall area of influence growth rate of 13.2 percent translates into an annual rate of 0.66 percent from 2010 to 2030, which is a higher annual growth rate than that of the entire state of Indiana, which is 0.51 percent. These data suggest that the high growth rate in the areas of influence, both primary and secondary, may necessitate increased capacity at the project. Table 4-5 shows the age distribution of each area of influence in 2010, as well as the projected change in age distribution between 2010 and Chapter 4: Recreational Analysis 4-11

70 Table 4-5: Age Distribution, Primary Area of Influence Secondary Area of Influence Change in Age Group Share Change Less than 5 6.3% 6.0% -0.3% 7.2% 7.0% -0.2% 5 to % 19.6% -1.7% 20.7% 20.3% -0.4% 20 to % 6.2% -0.8% 8.5% 7.8% -0.7% 25 to % 24.8% -1.6% 28.0% 26.8% -1.2% 45 to % 23.3% -2.8% 24.4% 21.2% -3.2% 65 and up 12.9% 20.1% 7.2% 11.2% 16.9% 5.7% Source: US Census Bureau, ACS, STATS Indiana, Illinois Department of Public Health These data indicate that western and central Indiana s population is projected to age over the next 14 years. Historical data provides further evidence of this trend, which is consistent with national trends that have persisted for some time. With the senior citizen share of the population increasing relative to other age cohorts, recreational preferences are likely to shift. Further research regarding recreational activities participated in by each age group should be conducted and considered. Table 4-6 shows the median household incomes in each area of influence, the state of Indiana, and the U.S. in 2014 dollars. Both areas of influence, as well as the state of Indiana, have lower median incomes than the national average. The Primary Area of Influence, however, has a significantly higher median income than the Secondary Area of Influence. As with population growth, Hendricks County has a strong effect on the Primary Area of Influence s median income, as it has a high county median income of $68,342. Table 4-6: Median Household Income Area of Influence 2014 Income Primary $52,035 Secondary $44,273 State of Indiana $48,737 United States $53,482 Source: US Census Bureau, ACS Another important demographic variable to consider is employment. Tables 4-7 and 4-8 show the share of employment in each industry, as well as top employers in the immediately surrounding counties of Parke, Putnam and Montgomery, respectively Chapter 4: Recreational Analysis

71 Table 4-7: Industry by Occupation Distribution, 2014 Industry Class Primary Area of Influence Secondary Area of Influence Total Area of Influence Indiana Manufacturing 17.1% 12.9% 13.8% 18.6% Retail Trade 12.2% 12.0% 12.1% 11.5% Professional/Management 7.7% 10.0% 9.5% 7.9% Educational Services 23.7% 23.8% 23.8% 23.2% Arts, Entertainment, 8.1% 9.6% 9.3% 8.9% Recreation Transportation and 6.0% 5.9% 5.9% 5.1% Warehousing All Other Industries 26.0% 25.7% 25.6% 24.8% Source: US Census Bureau, ACS Table 4-8: Top Employers, 2016 Parke County Putnam County Montgomery County Futurex Industries International Automotive RR Donnelley Formflex Walmart Distribution Center Nucore Steel Rockville Correctional Facility DePauw University Acuity Brands Lighting Inc. Scott Pet Inc. Putnamville Correctional Facility Franciscan St. Elizabeth Health Superior Hardwoods Heartland Automotive Indiana Home Care Plus Source: Indiana Department of Workforce Development Industry breakdown is similar between the Primary Area of Influence and the state of Indiana, although Indiana manufacturing employment does have a slightly higher share of total employment than does manufacturing in the Primary Area of Influence. The Secondary Area of Influence has significantly lower manufacturing employment than both the state and the Primary Area of Influence. The professional and management industry maintains a higher share of employment in the Secondary Area of Influence than in the Primary Area of Influence, likely due to the rural nature of the Primary Area of Influence and the presence of Marion County (Indianapolis) in the Secondary Area of Influence. Employers in Table 4-8 are ranked by number of employees, from most to fifth in total employees. All five top employers in Putnam County are located in Greencastle. Similarly, all five top employers in Montgomery County are located in Crawfordsville, indicating a mono-centric anchor effect that these cities have on their respective counties. Parke County top employers, on the other hand, represent three different municipalities: Bloomingdale, Rockville and Montezuma. Chapter 4: Recreational Analysis 4-13

72 4.5 Recreation Opportunities at Comparable Facilities Comparable outdoor recreational facilities within a 90-minute drive of Cecil M. Harden Lake were identified and analyzed to understand the region s other options for outdoor recreation. The status of comparable facilities in the primary and secondary areas of influence suggests the potential effects these nearby facilities may have on Cecil M. Harden Lake visitation. Table 4-10 provides a list of nearby recreation areas, along with their location in relation to Cecil M. Harden Lake, overall visitation data (if available), size and managing agency. Table 4-9 provides a basic overview of the recreational activities afforded at these facilities. Sources: Various 4-14 Chapter 4: Recreational Analysis

73 Table 4-10: Comparable Recreational Facilities Name Area of Influence Operating Agency Approximate Size (Acres) 2015 Visitation Cecil M. Harden Lake N/A Various (IDNR/USACE) 4, ,535 Lake Waveland Park Primary Various 600 N/A Turkey Run State Park Primary IDNR 2, ,749 DePauw Nature Park Primary DePauw University 520 N/A Covered Bridge State Forest Retreat Primary IDNR 300 N/A Shades State Park Primary IDNR 3, ,811 Lieber SRA at Cagles Mill Lake Primary IDNR ,713 McCormick's Creek State Park Secondary IDNR 1, ,945 Eagle Creek Park Secondary City of Indianapolis 3,900 N/A Kickapoo SRA (Illinois) Secondary Illinois DNR 2,842 N/A Sources: Various Of the nine other notable recreation areas in Cecil M. Harden Lake s area of influence, six are within the Primary Area of Influence and three are within the Secondary Area of Influence. The following section provides a summary of each of these locations and touches on possible effects these areas may have on Cecil M. Harden Lake visitation. Figure 4-3 on the following page shows each recreation area s location in relation to Cecil M. Harden Lake Recreation Areas within Primary Area of Influence Lake Waveland Park Lake Waveland Park was established in 1970 and constructed by the Little Raccoon Conservancy District in collaboration with the IDNR and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. The park encompasses approximately 600 acres in southwestern Montgomery County located due north of Cecil M. Harden Lake. Lake Waveland Park offers fishing, picnicking, boating, camping and lodging. The park has 54 modern campsites, with additional primitive options. it also offers lakefront cabins. The recreational capacity is significantly smaller than that of Cecil M. Harden Lake, but due to its proximity and its cabin availability, it may produce marginal negative effects on Cecil M. Harden Lake visitation Turkey Run State Park Turkey Run State Park is managed by the IDNR and located northwest of Cecil M. Harden Lake in northern Parke County on approximately 2,400 acres of forestland, ravines and rivers. Turkey Run offers many recreational opportunities including hiking, canoeing, picnicking, fishing, interpretive services, indoor swimming, camping and lodging. Other accommodations include a restaurant, a nature center and cultural arts programs. Turkey Run State Park provides 213 electric campsites, youth tent areas and a camp store. The Turkey Run Inn, offers 79 fully furnished rooms with an indoor swimming pool and a restaurant. The lodging amenities, approximately 14 miles of challenging hiking trails, and picturesque forestland, are amenities that Cecil M. Harden Lake does not offer. For that reason, and last year s comparably high visitation rate, it is reasonable to conclude that Turkey Run State Park attracts visitors that may have otherwise visited Cecil M. Harden Lake. Chapter 4: Recreational Analysis 4-15

74 DePauw Nature Center DePauw Nature Center, located southeast of Cecil M. Harden Lake, just outside of Greencastle, was established as a research and recreation center for members of DePauw University and the surrounding communities. Owned and managed by DePauw University, the Nature Center offers hiking trails, primitive camp sites, and the ability for qualified individuals to conduct ecologically and biologically related research. With DePauw Nature Center s unique connection with the university and limited recreational resources, it is unlikely that the center either negatively or positively affects visitation at Cecil M. Harden Lake Covered Bridge State Forest Retreat The Covered Bridge State Forest Retreat offers its visitors a unique set of activities including horseback riding with associated equestrian facilities, cycling and mountain biking, hiking, lodging, pond fishing, camping and wildlife viewing. The roughly 300-acre retreat is northwest of Cecil M. Harden Lake in the northwestern portion of Parke County. The retreat is atypical in that access to the main lodge or group campground is by reservation only. It is unlikely that this unique and exclusive recreation area has a significant effect on Cecil M. Harden Lake visitation Shades State Park Shades State Park is located in the southeastern corner of Montgomery County, just north of Lake Waveland Park. It includes the Pine Hills Nature Preserve, encompasses approximately 3,500 acres and is owned by the state of Indiana and managed by the IDNR. Activities available at the park are picnicking with shelter reservations available, camping, fishing and interpretive naturalist services. The park has a camping capacity of 105 primitive sites, seven backpack sites, 10 sites at Canoe Camp, and youth tent areas. Within 15 miles of Shades State Park is Turkey Run State Park and Lake Waveland Park; these three recreation areas are within 30 miles of Cecil M. Harden Lake. All of these recreation areas may theoretically compete for visitation, but it is also possible that the agglomeration of these recreation areas in close proximity to one another attracts outside visitation, which increases demand for all recreation areas within the region Chapter 4: Recreational Analysis

75 Figure 4-3 Comparable Recreation Facilities within Area of Influence, Source: USACE, ESRI, US Census Bureau, USDA-NRCS, Google Earth Chapter 4: Recreational Analysis 4-17

76 Lieber SRA at Cagles Mill Lake Lieber SRA is located approximately 30 miles southeast of the Cecil M. Harden Lake Dam Site and Operations Area and approximately 35 miles east of Terra Haute. Lieber SRA, a 948-acre park, north of Cagles Mill Lake, is a 1,500-acre reservoir owned by USACE. This SRA, which is managed by IDNR, is one of the more scenic state parks in Indiana. The natural amenities are complemented by an aquatic center, nature center, basketball court, two boat ramps, a fishing pier and picnic shelters. Visitors can participate in fishing, hiking, hunting, swimming, naturalist services, boating, with rentals available, and a water safari boat tour. For campers, there are 120 electric sites and 96 non-electric sites at Lieber SRA, which hosted 417,713 visitors in With the range of activities and scenic amenities along with the overnight option, Lieber SRA may adversely impact Cecil M. Harden Lake visitation Recreation Areas within Secondary Area of Influence McCormick s Creek SRA McCormick s Creek SRA is located approximately 50 miles southeast of the Cecil M. Harden Lake Dam Site and Operations Area. Although it Creek does not encompass a lake or reservoir, numerous natural features attract hikers, campers, bird watchers and park visitors of all sorts. Limestone canyons, waterfalls, trails, a historic rock quarry, an inn with lodging and a restaurant, a nature center with an amphitheater, and a cave offer opportunities not available at Cecil M. Harden Lake. On the other hand, there are opportunities at Cecil M. Harden Lake not available at McCormick s Creek, most notably boating and lake swimming. McCormick s Creek State Park hosted 611,945 visitors in With the difference in amenities offered at the two parks and the two fairly distant locations, it is unlikely that McCormick s Creek SRA and Cecil M. Harden Lake compete for visitor demand Eagle Creek Park Eagle Creek Park is located in, and maintained by, the city of Indianapolis. One of the largest municipal parks in the country, the park spans 3,900 acres around the northern half of the Eagle Creek Reservoir. The park is located in the northwestern quadrant of Indianapolis, approximately 60 miles east of the Cecil M. Harden Lake Dam. Eagle Creek Park offers a swimming area, a marina, picnic shelters, multiple outbuildings available for event hosting, a pistol range, a dog park, multiple nature centers, a zip-line course, a golf course, 3.8 miles of trails and a restaurant. Eagle Creek Park has a natural, forested landscape, which attracts many Indianapolis residents. There is no option for camping, however, and the park closes in the evenings. With its natural features, recreational opportunities and location within a 90-minute drive of Cecil M. Harden Lake, it is possible that residents in the Indianapolis metropolitan area would choose Eagle Creek Park over Cecil M. Harden Lake. However, those seeking extended stays do not have that option at Eagle Creek Park Kickapoo SRA (Illinois) Kickapoo SRA is located approximately 60 miles northwest of Cecil M. Harden Lake in Vermilion County, Illinois. It is owned by the State of Illinois and managed by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. This 2,800 acre park offers boating, camping, canoeing, horseback riding, fishing, hiking, hunting, scuba diving and more. There are several lakes in the park that allow for ample swimming and boating activities, and two major campgrounds have a total of 184 trailer and tent sites. During the fall, Kickapoo SRA offers over 1,000 acres to hunters. This SRA offers many of the same amenities of Cecil M. Harden 4-18 Chapter 4: Recreational Analysis

77 Lake, but at a smaller scale. With a relatively long distance and a state line between them, it is unlikely that Kickapoo SRA and Cecil M. Harden Lake affect one another s visitation. One potential effect would be recreation enthusiasts from eastern Illinois opting for Kickapoo SRA over Cecil M. Harden Lake. 4.6 National, Statewide and Regional Trends People around the country do not participate in recreational activities at the same rates as previously observed. Recreational demand is always evolving. It is important that decision makers at Cecil M. Harden Lake are sensitive to recreation shifts and continue to provide relevant infrastructure to meet this ever-changing demand. The following section provides an insight to changing trends in recreational demand, both nationally and in the State of Indiana. Project decision makers can use this information to anticipate future trends, which will help provide the necessary infrastructure at Cecil M. Harden Lake to meet demand Outdoor Recreation Participation Report The Outdoor Foundation, a non-profit organization focused on increasing outdoor recreation participation, produces its annual ORPR in which a nationwide survey helps to further understand national recreation trends. The 2015 report is available for review. The 2015 ORPR has identified that 48.4 percent of all Americans participated in outdoor recreation in 2014, which is a 0.8 percent decrease from In fact, the percentage of Americans that participate in outdoor activities has remained relatively constant since 2006, but significant changes have occurred in the specific activities that are popular among Americans. Figure 4-4 presents the change in overall participation rates for outdoor recreation in the United States from 2006 to Figure National Outdoor Recreation Participation Rate: Participation Rate (%) Year Source: 2015 ORPR The types of recreational activities that Americans participate in are constantly changing. This is also the case in Indiana, as presented by the Indiana SCORP (see below). The 2015 ORPR has shown that many activities have seen significant increases in participation from just a few years ago. Since 2012, adventure racing, kayak fishing and stand-up paddling have all seen participation rates increase by over 20 percent. Adventure racing and kayak fishing have both increased by over 30 percent. Other significant increases were seen in overnight backpacking, windsailing, BMX biking, climbing, kayaking, trail running and triathlon participation. Chapter 4: Recreational Analysis 4-19

78 Since overall participation has remained constant and many activities have increased their share of participation, some recreational activities have, seen a decline in participation since According to the 2015 ORPR survey, activities that have had a 3 percent or higher decline in participation from 2012 to 2014 include RV camping, tent camping, downhill skiing, snowboarding and snowshoeing. Figure 4-5 presents the level at which participation rates for certain recreational activities have changed from 2012 to % Change in Participation Figure year Change in Participation Activity Source: 2015 ORPR This report also documents activity participation by age group. The survey was split among youth and young adults (aged 6-24) and adults (aged 25 and over). The top five outdoor activities for youth and young adults are: 1. Running, jogging and trail running 2. BMX, road and mountain biking 3. Car, RV and tent camping 4. Fishing 5. Hiking Adults had the same activities in their top five, but in different order: 1. Running, jogging and trail running 2. Fishing 3. BMX, road and mountain biking 4. Hiking 5. Car, RV and tent camping The ORPR also looks at the demographics of outdoor activity participants. In the 2014 survey, males and females participate in outdoor activities an equal amount among youth and young adults, and 30 percent of youth and young-adult outdoor recreation participants are minorities, which is a 7 percent increase from Chapter 4: Recreational Analysis

79 4.6.2 Indiana Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan The Indiana SCORP is a five-year plan completed in December 2015 and finalized in 2016 to provide local jurisdictions with information that quantifies the benefits of outdoor recreation, identifies potential users of recreational facilities, and qualifies the state for National Park Service Land and Water Conservation Fund grants. The following section provides a brief overview of the Indiana SCORP and examines the trends presented in the document. Many of these trends are statewide, but the data can be reasonably applied to the Cecil M. Harden Lake region to understand the effects future recreational demand changes may have on Cecil M. Harden Lake s recreational future. A vital facet of the Indiana SCORP is the third party surveys conducted. The three major surveys in the SCORP are the Outdoor Recreation Participation Survey, which asks potential and current park users about recreation preferences; the Local Park and Recreation Provider Study, which asks professional 2016 Indiana SCORP and non-profit local outdoor recreation providers about their challenges, issues and solutions; and the Trail User Survey, which asks members of the public about how they use Indiana s trails. The Outdoor Recreation Participation Survey produced compelling results about how the public is arriving to recreation destinations, what activities they are participating in, and what the public is willing to spend to recreate in their favorite activities. Seventy-four percent of Hoosiers prefer to use personal vehicles (car or truck) to arrive at the location of their preferred recreation activity. Once at the recreation destination, the recreating public of Indiana participate in one or multiple of the top five outdoor recreation activities, which are listed below in order of most popular to least popular. 1. Walking, hiking, jogging, running (pedestrian activities) 2. Camping 3. Fishing 4. Swimming 5. Canoeing, kayaking, tubing All five of these activities are offered for public participation at Cecil M. Harden Lake. The final portion of the Outdoor Recreation Participation Survey was designed to understand what Hoosiers are spending on outdoor recreation. The survey found that Hoosiers are doing more with less. Twenty-eight percent of respondents said that they would spend $100 or less per year to participate in their favorite outdoor recreation activity. This was the most popular answer. Figure 4-6 illustrates the distribution of personal recreational spending preferences by Hoosiers in Chapter 4: Recreational Analysis 4-21

80 Figure Personal Spending on Outdoor Recreation by Hoosiers 17% 6% 9% 28% Less than $100 $101 - $250 $251 - $500 $501 - $750 $751 - $1,000 Over $1,000 19% 22% Source: 2016 Indiana SCORP Demographic information can also lead us to important assumptions about future recreational demands. Demographic data collected in the SCORP and in Section of this document suggests that Indiana as a whole is aging, more people are retiring and people are retired for a longer period of time. This trend is expected to continue in both areas of influence as seniors (65 and older) are projected to increase their population share from 2010 to 2030 while all other age groups are projected to have a declining population share in the same time period. These data may suggest that more people are engaging in recreational activities that are popular with seniors. For example, older people prefer RV camping to tent camping and walking to jogging or cycling. While more specific research should be conducted to assess the exact capacity in relation to future demand, Cecil M. Harden Lake has a fairly high capacity for electric trailer camping. The other two surveys, the Local Park and Recreation Provider Survey and the Trails User Survey also produced useful findings. The provider survey found that a vast majority of local providers of outdoor recreation require and thus seek funding outside of tax revenues. The trails survey found that 70 percent of respondents would like to walk or jog at least 12 times per year in the future, while 23 percent said they currently participate in walking or jogging more than once per week. 33 percent of trail survey respondents said they would be willing to pay no more than $5 per year for a trail upkeep fund. The SCORP also presents a general acreage guideline that can be applied locally to assess how well each county is meeting recreational demand. In the SCORP s supply analysis of parks and outdoor recreation acreage, it is recommended that 55 acres of local, state and federal parkland be provided per 1,000 people. For example, Jackson County, with a population of 43,705, should have 2, acres of outdoor recreation land. According to the analysis, 52 of 92 counties in Indiana meet this threshold. The three counties immediately surrounding Cecil M. Harden Lake, Parke, Putnam and Montgomery, partially due to the presence of Cecil M. Harden Lake, all have outdoor recreation acreages that far 4-22 Chapter 4: Recreational Analysis

81 surpass this quota. Figure 4-7 presents the current tri-county park acreage as it relates to each county s recommended acreage based on population. This threshold of 55 acres per 1,000 people is not an absolute number, but rather a flexible guideline and the recreational needs of one jurisdiction may differ from another. Specifically, Cecil M. Harden Lake is an inter-county recreation asset, and visitors using the lake s various recreation areas are often traveling from outside Parke, Putnam and Montgomery Counties. 10,000 Figure Local, State and Federal Parkland Acreage vs Recommended Acreage 8,000 Acres 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Parke Putnam Montgomery Recommended Acreage Actual Acreage Source: 2016 Indiana SCORP The Indiana SCORP is updated every 5 years, which gives us an opportunity to compare different time periods. For example, the five most popular outdoor recreation activities in the 2016 SCORP and the 2011 SCORP differ slightly; the 2011 SCORP lists picnicking as a top five activity in lieu of the 2016 addition of canoeing/kayaking/tubing. Another important change between the two survey findings is that in 2011, 79 percent of respondents stated that they were willing to spend over $100 per year to participate in their favorite recreation activity and in 2016 that number dropped to 72 percent. Change in recreation demand drives change in recreation supply. This is why it is important to fully understand the results of the SCORP and ORPR surveys, as well as past documents, and apply the findings to managing and developing Cecil M. Harden Lake. Understanding the trends and outcomes of studies like this can help Cecil M. Harden Lake anticipate future demand and adequately supply future visitors to the area. 4.7 Potential Recreational Opportunities Using the findings and trends uncovered by the demographic and document analyses, it is now possible to look critically at what activities are offered at Cecil M. Harden Lake, what activities will be demanded in the future, and where viable projects and programs could be implemented to provide for this future demand. Table 4-11 lists the activities that are currently available on the grounds of Cecil M. Harden Lake; the activities that are not currently offered at Cecil M. Harden Lake but have the potential to be offered; and the activities that are not offered at Cecil M. Harden Lake and are inconsistent with project goals and objectives. When identifying activities that can be implemented at Cecil M. Harden Lake, it is important to look at both the participation rate and the intrinsic value that people place on an activity. For example, camping has a low participation rate, but this is not because camping is not highly valued. The low participation Chapter 4: Recreational Analysis 4-23

82 rate is likely attributed to the fact that camping takes a lot of time and energy for the camper, and thus, the camper can only participate in camping a few times per year. Hiking has a very high participation rate, but that does not necessarily mean that hiking has a high value for the hiker. Instead, it may simply mean that it is easier to participate in hiking, and therefore the hiker participates in hiking more often than camping. This is one item for the decision-makers at Cecil M. Harden Lake to consider when planning for increased capacity and new activities for the project. Another item to consider is the incompatibility of activities. Activities that are deemed incompatible (see "Not Currently Allowed in Table 4-11) are not currently available at Cecil M. Harden Lake and are also in conflict with Cecil M. Harden Lake and USACE policy, planning and resource conservation goals. Table 4-11 lists several activities that were both identified by the Indiana SCORP and present at Cecil M. Harden Lake s surrounding comparable facilities, as presented in the comparable facilities analysis. The first five activities have been identified as the top five favorite outdoor activities for Indiana residents. The table denotes that the activity is either currently available at Cecil M. Harden Lake, not currently available but compatible with policies and objectives (labeled potential ), or not currently available and incompatible (labeled Not Currently Allowed ). Table 4-11: Potential Recreation Activities at the Project Activity/Opportunity Provided Potential Currently Not Allowed Hiking/Walking/Jogging Camping (primitive and electric) Fishing Swimming Canoeing/Kayaking/Tubing Picnicking Boating/Waterskiing/etc. Golfing Mountain Biking Hunting Horseback Riding * Interpretive/Naturalist Services Disc Golfing Historic Site Seeing Nature Preserve Playground Athletic Fields/Courts Pool Swimming Lodging/Cabins Boat Tours Zip Line Marina Arboretum Amphitheater *Horseback riding is prohibited, but there is a significant Amish population located in the area that use the project for recreation and may use horseback to travel to the project. As stated in the SCORP analysis, Cecil M. Harden Lake provides all of the top five favorite activities for Hoosiers as identified in the Outdoor Recreation Participation Survey. The remaining activities or opportunities in Table 4-11 have been identified as provided at one or more of the comparable facilities within the Cecil M. Harden Lake primary and/or secondary area of influence Chapter 4: Recreational Analysis

83 4.8 Recreational Demand Analysis There are three major factors that have the potential to significantly impact visitation rates at Cecil M. Harden Lake. They are as follows: Change in Demographics: There are two major demographic changes to the primary and secondary areas of influence that can affect visitation to recreation areas; shifts in age and increases/decreases in total population. The latter impacts demand in that it affects the number of potential project visitors. The former affects the popularity levels of certain recreational activities for certain age groups. Refer to the demographic analysis earlier in this chapter to note the age and total population projections that are expected to occur in the Cecil M. Harden Lake primary and secondary areas of influence. Change in Preference: Population and demographic shifts can lead to a change in preference for recreational activities. As an example from the SCORP analysis earlier in this chapter, an aging population will tend to lead to a rise in RV camping relative to tent camping, and passive recreation will increase in popularity at a higher rate than active recreation. The Cecil M. Harden Lake primary and secondary areas of influence are both expected to experience aging populations. Change in Opportunity/Availability: Put simply, the public participates in the activities that are afforded to it. In other words, the availability and opportunity of outdoor recreation activities can affect the demand that accompanies said activities. While Cecil M. Harden Lake is a fairly unique asset for west central Indiana, there are numerous other options for the public to recreate, which affects demand for the project. In order to provide for the public welfare as efficiently and as holistically as possible, officials at Cecil M. Harden Lake and the surrounding entities must coordinate to provide a comprehensive network of recreation sites Impact of Comparable Facilities In terms of activities offered and capacity, Cecil M. Harden Lake is a unique outdoor recreation asset within the primary area of influence. This does not mean, however, that other outdoor recreation entities presence within the primary area of influence has no effect on visitation rates at the project. Further research should be conducted regarding the relationship between comparable facilities and visitation rates, and possible collaboration endeavors between Cecil M. Harden Lake and one or multiple of the surrounding recreation entities should be considered. For more information on surrounding recreational entities in both areas of influence, refer to Section Impact of Demographic Changes Both the primary and secondary areas of influence are expected to see fairly significant increases in population from 2010 to 2030, according to STATS Indiana projections. These projections show that the entire area of influence will experience an increase of approximately 230,000 people in the 20 year time period. As shown in Table 4-5, the only age group that is expected to increase its share of the population during that time period is the cohort aged 65 and older. These demographic shifts indicate an aging population, which may have the following impacts on Cecil M. Harden Lake recreation demand: Chapter 4: Recreational Analysis 4-25

84 The aging population will likely lead to a shift in demand from tent camping to RV camping with non-primitive sites. This population shift may also lead to an increase in lodging services demand. There will likely be an increased demand for hiking and biking trails that are deemed to have low difficulty. 4.9 Implications of Projected Future Demand on Recreational Activities The following section provides a synopsis of potential impacts that changing demographic and other variables may have on specific recreational activities such as boating, camping, hiking and more Boating Cecil M. Harden Lake is one of the only recreational assets in its primary area of influence that offers visitors the chance to use motorized boats for boating and fishing with a large amount of surface water acreage. With the scarcity of such a resource, Cecil M. Harden Lake is a precious commodity for boaters in the west central Indiana region and the Indianapolis metropolitan region. Boating during the summer months exemplifies this supply/demand relationship that Cecil M. Harden Lake has with its area of influence, as many of the boat ramps and bank ties are at or over capacity around the lake. With 2,110 surface water acres, five boat launches with a total of 16 lanes, 40 public marina slips, and many more private docks, boating is provided for at Cecil M. Harden Lake. The fact that each of these commodities are over capacity often during the summer months shows that there is demand to necessitate increasing boat ramp capacity, including additional trailer parking, at Cecil M. Harden Lake. Both the Indiana SCORP and the ORPR survey identify boating as one of the most popular activities in Indiana and the entire United States, respectively. Motor boating has, however, seen stagnant growth in participation rates around the country according to the ORPR. Alternative forms of surface water use, on the other hand, have increased significantly since According to the ORPR Survey of 2014, kayaking, paddle boarding and kayak fishing have all increased in popularity by at least 20 percent since It is important to consider alternative water uses when planning for surface water recreation now and in the future. While alternative water uses are increasing significantly in popularity, canoeing, kayaking and paddle boarding do not require the same infrastructure as motor boating. Motor boating infrastructure should be maintained throughout the project and enhanced where necessary. Considering adding additional capacity by increasing the number of boat ramps is the first step to responding to the high demand recently experienced at the project. Boating is not only a summer activity. According to interviews with project staff, winter fishing was once a popular endeavor at Cecil M. Harden Lake. The Walker, Mansfield, and Raccoon SRA ramps were all originally constructed to provide launching ability for boaters during the winter (i.e., low water times). Due to silting that has occurred at these ramps over the years, the ramps no longer meet the water sufficiently during the winter. Improving these ramps to once again reach the 640 msl water level would be a significant improvement. Further research should be conducted to review the popularity of winter fishing at Cecil M. Harden Lake before this project is conducted Chapter 4: Recreational Analysis

85 4.9.2 Camping According to the Indiana SCORP, camping is the second most popular outdoor recreation activity participated in by Hoosiers. Despite this popularity, the ORPR has found that both tent and RV camping participation has declined by over 4 percent since 2012 in the United States, which may indicate an increased demand for lodging. There are both private and public camping locations around the project that are very popular among Cecil M. Harden Lake visitors. The majority of public camping is available at Raccoon SRA. There are 240 electric sites, 37 non-electric sites, 35 primitive sites, a youth tent area, and a camp store provided at Raccoon SRA, and these sites are normally full during the summer months, particularly during the weekends. Like boating, there is a high capacity for camping at Cecil M. Harden Lake and, again like boating, that capacity is reached and often surpassed during busy months. As mentioned in throughout this chapter, the aging population in the area of influence may indicate that RV camping becomes more preferred than tent camping. Indeed, this trend has been noticed by Raccoon SRA and Cecil M. Harden Lake personnel for several years. If increased capacity for camping were to be deemed necessary following a more in-depth study of camping demand at Cecil M. Harden Lake, it is likely that an increased number of large non-primitive, RV sites with increased electrical and potable water capacity would be the most beneficial improvement Fishing Fishing at Cecil M. Harden Lake occurs both from shore and by boat. Public shoreline fishing is available along the entire lakeshore except for near the restricted area at the dam so long as anglers can reach the unrestricted shoreline via public access. At a national level, fly fishing, saltwater fishing and freshwater fishing have remained relatively constant since But much like camping and motor boating, Cecil M. Harden Lake offers unique amenities for fishing that makes it a popular destination for anglers. Fishing is still among the top five most popular outdoor recreation activities according to the Indiana SCORP and in the top five most popular outdoor recreation activities in the country according to the ORPR. Furthermore, kayak fishing participation has increased in the ORPR survey by 20.1 percent since With numerous inlets and bays, Cecil M. Harden Lake is naturally ideal for fishing. These intrinsic fishing amenities have garnered a significant amount of fishing demand, and ensuring that this demand is met now and into the future is an important goal for Cecil M. Harden Lake. To do this, strong shoreline management practices and smart land use techniques should be employed on and around the lake Hunting Hunting is permitted in two locations at the project. One area is located west of the dam and shares a parking lot with the Mansfield Ramp. This hunting area surrounds the dike and runs from the tree line north of Ferndale Road to the water. The other hunting area is located southeast of the first hunting area in the Agriculture Fields. There are three hunter sign-in stations throughout the dam area. Hunters are required to provide their valid hunting registration to hunt on USACE lands, and this regulation is enforced by the IDNR. Targeted species include deer, squirrel, rabbit, waterfowl and other upland game. Nationally, hunting participation has remained a relatively stagnant activity with a slight drop in participation in recent years according to the ORPR. Specifically, bow hunting and rifle hunting have both seen three-year participation decreases of 1 percent or more. Hand gun hunting, on the other hand, has seen a 6.6 percent increase in participation over the same time period. It is important to note that hand gun hunting is much less popular as it stands now and available at fewer locations. Chapter 4: Recreational Analysis 4-27

86 The state of Indiana has experienced a considerable increase in hunting participation among women. In fact, the number of hunting licenses sold to female hunters increased by 93 percent from 2006 to This outweighs a national trend that shows hunting participation among women increasing by 85 percent between 2001 and This substantial increase in women hunters, especially in the state of Indiana, is significant and underscores the fact that hunting will continue to attract Hoosiers to Indiana s forests to participate. Hunting is popular despite the participation stagnation seen nationwide in recent years. The nature of hunting requires that lands be conserved. Furthermore, hunting requires that these conserved lands be physically separate from developed or partially developed lands for citizen safety. With most of the shoreline privately developed or available for other forms of recreation, it is important that the hunting area be conserved and the IDNR and the USACE must continue to restrict development on and near this location Picnicking Picnicking is available at the Dam Picnic Area, Portland Mills, the Hollandsburg Ramp, and at many places throughout Raccoon SRA. There are both stand-alone tables and picnic shelters at most of these sites. With a total of approximately 130 tables and 14 shelters, there is ample space for picnicking around Cecil M. Harden Lake, specifically at the Dam Picnic Area and Raccoon SRA. Picnicking has experienced a decline in popularity in the past couple decades. According to the Indiana SCORPs of 1989, 2011, surveys found that picnicking dropped from the most popular outdoor recreation activity in Indiana in 1989 to third most popular activity in In the 2016 Indiana SCORP, picnicking was not included in the top five most popular outdoor recreation activities. Despite this popularity decline, the fact remains that picnicking infrastructure, the shelters and tables, is still very useful as it can serve multiple types of outdoor recreation participants and therefore provides for more than picnicking. Maintaining shelters and tables where appropriate and enhancing shelters and tables where necessary is recommended to maintain this high availability. With increased population expected and increased popularity of the lake overall, shelters and tables will be used by all recreational visitors, not just picnickers. Improving and/or maintaining ADA accessibility for picnickers is also recommended Hiking Due to the high concentration of privately owned land adjacent to the narrow band of federally-owned shoreline, hiking capacity is concentrated on Raccoon SRA. Raccoon SRA offers 8.4 miles of trails that range from easy to rugged. While hiking is almost universally popular among outdoor recreation participants, the types of hiking can differ from one demographic to another. For example, young adults might prefer a more strenuous hike while the empty-nester or senior-aged population may prefer an easier hike. Hiking was the fifth most popular outdoor recreation activity among youth and young adult outdoor recreation participants in the 2014 ORPR survey and fourth most popular among adults. In Indiana, hiking has consistently been rated as the most popular outdoor recreation activity. With the popularity of hiking among all age groups, it is important that Cecil M. Harden Lake provides a range of hiking options to satisfy all abilities. Of the 8.4 miles offered at Raccoon SRA, only one trail is considered easy, and it is measured at a length of 1.4 miles. The remainder of the trails are moderate (3.9 miles), rugged (2.1 miles) and archery (1.0 mile). With the aging population of the area of influence, there may be a need to increase the number of easy trails Chapter 4: Recreational Analysis

87 4.9.7 Swimming Swimming is available via boating or at the Raccoon SRA beach. As a rare commodity in west central Indiana, Cecil M. Harden Lake is a destination for swimmers as it is for boaters. Swimming is a unique activity at the project in that it is integrally tied to two other activities at the lake; boating and camping. In other words, most swimmers at the Raccoon SRA beach are campers at the campground and any swimmer not on the beach is either using a boat as a medium to reach the lake or is swimming off of a private dock. Swimming participation is difficult to measure, but the Indiana SCORP has identified swimming as the fourth most popular activity for outdoor recreation participants. That fact, combined with Cecil M. Harden Lake s unique availability of swimmable water in the area, make maintaining and potentially enhancing swimming availability an appropriate step moving forward at the project Sightseeing Like swimming, sightseeing is usually integrated with another outdoor recreation activity. Hiking and camping are the two most logical activities that provide sightseeing individuals with the necessary medium to travel to sightseeing locales. Sightseeing is not a particularly popular activity at Cecil M. Harden Lake, nor is it mentioned in the Indiana SCORP, but sightseeing can supplement other outdoor recreation activities in an unmeasurable way, which provides justification for protecting viewsheds around the project. While not necessarily a popular activity at the project, sightseeing in the surrounding Parke County is a very important draw for tourism. A survey of the Cecil M. Harden Lake grounds should be conducted to find especially aesthetic viewsheds that should be conserved. Chapter 4: Recreational Analysis 4-29

88 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 4: Recreational Analysis

89 5.0 Resource Use Objectives Resource considerations at Cecil M. Harden Lake exist primarily to fulfill the USACE mission of flood control and low-flow augmentation within the Ohio River Basin. The natural resources under the control of the USACE for this purpose require resource stewardship and allow for recreational use. Recreational uses reflect user demands and funding. Multiple user types have interests in project lands and recreational facilities. Such demands occasionally create conflicts, but it is the obligation of the USACE to manage these resources to benefit the overall interest of the public. USACE personnel at Cecil M. Harden Lake have the responsibility of providing these resources in an environmentally sound manner. Impacts on the environment will be assessed during the decision-making process prior to any management plans or strategies. The following objectives are the priorities for consideration when determining management goals and development activities. 5.1 Resource Objective 1: Flood Control Cecil M. Harden Lake provides flood protection to the lower Raccoon Creek Valley and reduces flooding at all points downstream along the Wabash and Ohio Rivers as a unit in the comprehensive plan for the Ohio River Basin. Flood control protects property and agricultural interests downstream Measures to Achieve Objective 1 Retain all fee land flood rights for the USACE for operation and maintenance of Mansfield Dam and appurtenant facilities. Retain flowage rights for the USACE Objective 1 Justification To provide flood control for downstream communities and agricultural interests. 5.2 Resource Objective 2: Provide Low Water Augmentation to the Raccoon Creek Drainage Area Low flow augmentation should improve the water quality of Raccoon Creek. The USACE must release a minimum of 22 cfs of lake flow when the reservoir is above an elevation of 640 feet msl in order to maintain low flow augmentation Measures to Achieve Objective 2 Release water from the dam as necessary at a minimum of 22 cfs to the Raccoon Creek drainage area Objective 2 Justification The Raccoon Creek drainage area provides habitat for plant and animal life and aids in flood control. Chapter 5: Resource Use Objectives 5-1

90 Low flow augmentation helps to regulate floods in below-dam receiving waters. 5.3 Resource Objective 3: Provide Opportunities for Recreational Use of Land and Water Section 4 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 authorized the Chief of Engineers " to construct, maintain, and operate public parks and recreational facilities in reservoir areas under the control of (the Secretary of the Army), and to permit the construction, maintenance, and operation of such facilities." Continuing to provide adequate recreational opportunities for the project s visitors is a necessary resource objective to maintain and enhance quality of life for the general public Measures to Achieve Objective 3 Provide adequate recreational facilities. Provide for future recreational demands. Continue to lease areas to the IDNR for the development, management and maintenance of recreational use areas. Provide periodic studies to determine recreational demands and trends. Identify safety hazards or unsafe conditions, correct infractions and implement safety standards in accordance with EM Objective 3 Justification The original agreements and master plan called for selection of land required specifically for recreation. Under federal law, the land and water for reservoirs are public property and allow the opportunity for recreation. 5.4 Resource Objective 4: Protect and Preserve Natural Resources and Habitats Cecil M. Harden Lake is home to natural resources and habitats that are important to maintain now and into the future, including two bald eagle s nests. Preserving natural amenities and ecosystems maintains the overall sustainability of the project Measures to Achieve Objective 4 Comply with all pertinent environmental laws, regulations and policies. Use best management practices to protect, preserve and enhance wildlife habitat. 5-2 Chapter 5: Resource Use Objectives

91 Protect and preserve the existing shoreline from erosion and overuse through natural resource management and cooperation with adjacent landowners. Integrate fish and wildlife management practices with other natural resource management practices, while working closely with the local, state and federal natural resource agencies. Encourage non-consumptive use of project lands, including regulation of timber cutting. Inform the public through programs and personal contacts about the project and resource management purposes and objectives. Provide programs for environmental education Objective 4 Justification This objective helps ensure quality natural resources are preserved for future generations. It increases the value of all project lands and waters for recreation, fisheries and wildlife. It is important to continually provide habitat for viewing, fishing, and hunting. This objective helps preserve bio-diversity and complete ecosystems. 5.5 Resource Objective 5: Shoreline Management Cecil M. Harden Lake is unique in the fact that much of its shoreline is directly abutted by private subdivisions with many single-family homes. This high concentration of private development partnered with the varying water level make shoreline management at the project especially important. The shoreline at Cecil M. Harden Lake must be managed throughout the year by ensuring the following measures are taken Measures to Achieve Objective 5 Preserve, protect, and enhance the environmental quality of Cecil M. Harden Lake. Promote the safe and healthful use of the project shoreline for recreational purposes for the general public. Manage the private use of public property in a manner that maintains a balance between authorized private use and protection of the resource for general public use. Promote restoration of the shoreline where degradation has occurred. Protect aesthetic quality and sustain natural conditions. Minimize the impact upon resources where private shoreline use is authorized. Protect and enhance the fish and wildlife within the area. Chapter 5: Resource Use Objectives 5-3

92 5.5.2 Objective 5 Justification It is the policy of the Chief of Engineers to manage and protect the shorelines of all lakes under the USACE jurisdiction. All management activities will be conducted in a manner that will promote the safe and healthful use of these shorelines for recreational purposes by the public. Safeguarding fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetic quality, and natural environmental conditions is an important task for the USACE. Ready access to and exit from these shorelines shall be provided for the general public in accordance with the Cecil M. Harden Lake Shoreline Management Plan. 5-4 Chapter 5: Resource Use Objectives

93 6.0 Land Allocation and Land Classification The information presented in this chapter pertains to the current land allocation and future land classification at Cecil M. Harden Lake. In addition to land allocation and land classification, this chapter will identify easement lands that are located within and around project lands. Describing the allocation and classification of project lands and identifying easement lands helps project officials and decisionmakers understand the current use, development and management of project lands. The land classification and allocation categories are established for all USACE projects based on Engineering Pamphlet (EP) , Recreation Operations and Maintenance Policies and help guide decisions for future development. 6.1 Land Allocation Land allocation at Cecil M. Harden Lake was identified in the land allocation plan in the project s original master plan of The allocation designations identified in the 1976 Master Plan has informed land use management at the project and were used by the planning team in the formulation of the land classification zones that are identified in the following section. The land allocation in the 1976 Cecil M. Harden Lake Master Plan was: Operations Land Low Density Recreation Lands Intensive Use Recreation Lands Specific Recreation Lands Reserve Forest Lands The 1976 land allocation also informed the formulation of the 2013 SMP zones. These SMP zones are in accordance with ER , which regulates shoreline management at civil works projects. While the SMP zones were referenced in the formulation of the land classifications identified in the next section, it is important to note that these SMP zones were put in place to regulate shoreline management, not master planning purposes. The land allocation in the 1976 Master Plan, on the other hand, was developed for master planning purposes. The zones in the 2013 SMP are as follows: Prohibited Area Limited Development Protected Shoreline Recreation Area 6.2 Land Classification For master planning purposes, land is categorized into classifications to identify use and management of all project lands into the future. Land classification at Cecil M. Harden Lake can be seen in Figures 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, and 6-4. Land classification categories as defined by EP are as follows: 1. Project Operations 2. High Density Recreation 3. Mitigation 4. Environmentally Sensitive Areas 5. Multiple Resource Management a. Recreation Low Density Chapter 6: Land Allocation and Land Classification 6-1

94 b. Wildlife Management c. Vegetative Management d. Future High Density Recreation e. Future Low Density Recreation The land classifications defined below represent the future of land use at Cecil M. Harden Lake. The planning team, in conjunction with project staff and stakeholders, identified the classifications for land surrounding the project based on future demand projections and trends and capacity needs. While these classifications are partially based on existing land use and SMP zoning, they should be seen as what each area will be in the next 20 to 30 years. Many of the lands were classified to retain current land use, but a few parcels were classified differently from what they currently are to represent ideal land uses throughout the project Project Operations Project operations (PO) are used to classify lands that are related to the dam, spillway, maintenance facilities, administrative facilities and any other land associated with project maintenance and operation. Recreation is not permitted on PO lands. PO lands at Cecil M. Harden Lake include both USACE-managed land and IDNR-managed land. PO land managed by the USACE is the Mansfield Dam area, the project office and maintenance shop, the dike in the Hunting and Trapping Area, the service driveway from the project office to the tailwater area, the emergency spillway east of the Dam Picnic Area and USACE lands surrounding the emergency spillway. PO lands managed by the IDNR include the Raccoon SRA property office, the water treatment plant and assistant property manager s residence High Density Recreation High-density recreation (HDR) land includes areas that are developed for intensive recreational use for visitors to the project. This land use classification allows the greatest amount of land disturbance of all land use categories for the project. Examples of high-density recreation lands include day use areas, amphitheaters, campgrounds, beaches, cabins, quasi-public development, and commercial concessions such as marinas, restaurants, lodges, etc. All recreational development would be planned and designed to accommodate large numbers of visitors. This would include boat ramps and large capacity vehicle parking lots for passenger vehicles, large vehicles, and vehicles with trailers. Boat ramps in high-density recreation areas would accommodate multiple boat launches/recoveries simultaneously. Restroom facilities would be provided in proximity to the boat ramps and parking areas. No uses that would negatively affect the ability of visitors to enjoy active recreational experiences at the project should be permitted. Agricultural activities would not be permitted in HDR areas unless part of an interpretive program or to maintain viewsheds. Low-density recreational activities such as picnicking and hiking would be allowed and require rest rooms. Permits, leases or easements for man-made intrusions or facilities would be consistent with the expectations of visitors and the needs of concessionaire operators would be allowed. Mountain biking trails and off-highway vehicle use is prohibited. HDR areas at Cecil M. Harden Lake include the camp ground, beach, and boat ramp at Raccoon SRA Mitigation Mitigation lands are those lands used to offset ecological losses associated with development at the project. No mitigation lands exist on the project. 6-2 Chapter 6: Land Allocation and Land Classification

95 6.2.4 Environmentally Sensitive Areas Environmentally sensitive areas (ESA) are lands in which aesthetic, ecological, cultural or scientific features have been identified and deemed sensitive to development and intense land use. Project management must ensure that the sensitive features in the ESAs are not adversely impacted. Typically, allowing no or limited use on ESAs is a standard procedure for protecting these lands. Preservation of these areas would be accomplished by strictly, or completely limiting public access and prohibiting agricultural activities. Buffering of ESAs may be necessary, the size of which depends on the ecology of the area. No licenses, leases, permits or easements for man-made intrusions in these areas would be permitted. Mountain biking trails and off-highway vehicle use is prohibited. ESAs at Cecil M. Harden Lake include wetland areas found at the north end of Troutman s Branch, south of the Highway 36 Crossing, southwest of the tailwater area, and at various other sensitive shoreline areas throughout the project. All of these areas should be protected from unnecessary development. There are two eagle s nests at Cecil M. Harden Lake. One eagle s nest is located near the shore of Troutman s Branch and one nest is located north of the US 36 bridge Multiple Resource Management Multiple resource management lands allow for the designation of predominant use as described with the understanding that other compatible uses may also occur on these lands without impacting the predominant use. The compatible uses that may occur on multiple resource management lands are described below. Low-Density Recreation (LDR). LDR are lands designated for passive public recreational use that require minimal development and infrastructure. Low density recreation is located at multiple locations throughout the project. Agricultural and vegetative management activities would be permitted if they could be incorporated into interpretive programs or maintain viewsheds. Low-density recreational activities such as lowcapacity boat ramps and docks, picnicking, primitive camping, fishing, wildlife viewing and hiking would be allowed. These low-density recreation areas would require rest rooms and parking lots with the capacity for vehicles with trailers, as well as hitching posts for horse parking to accommodate the area s Amish population. Mountain biking trails and off-highway vehicle use is prohibited. LDR lands at Cecil M. Harden Lake include the Hollandsburg Ramp, the Walker Ramp, the Mansfield Ramp, the Portland Mills Ramp, the Dam Picnic Area, the primitive campground at Raccoon SRA and the tailwater area. The Mansfield Ramp would be the most appropriate location for potential improvements to provide boater access during the winter. The Portland Mills Ramp has maintained its classification as LDR despite area s lack of recreational use and the high frequency of flooding at the ramp and parking area. Although the water passage is not easily navigable during low water times for many boats; small boats, kayaks and canoes can navigate waters at shallow depths and may utilize the Portland Mills Ramp. Infrastructure to provide for kayak and canoe access, such as a floating dock, may be an opportunity to increase the appeal of the area, spreading out visitation throughout the project. There is also an established picnic shelter at Portland Mills located inland from the ramp. Vegetative Management. Vegetative management lands are designated for stewardship of forest, wetland and other native vegetative cover. Vegetation management areas are widely distributed at Cecil M. Harden Lake. These areas are managed to promote the biodiversity of vegetative habitats and Chapter 6: Land Allocation and Land Classification 6-3

96 include a variety of habitat types. Active management of invasive plant species may also be conducted in these areas. These areas stabilize soils, minimizing erosion along the shoreline of the lake. Vegetative management occurs at many of the Protected Shoreline and Limited Development areas that are identified in the SMP s zoning. Some of these areas are covered with rip rap and willows, which reduce erosion along the shoreline. Most of the rip rap and willow areas are products of a massive program that partnered USACE with contractors and adjacent landowners to mitigate erosion issues on sensitive shoreline areas. The program occurred during the late 1980 s and early 1990 s and covered approximately 4,000 linear feet of shoreline. The rip rap and willow areas, if properly maintained and protected, also mitigate the deforestation that occurs when upland tree species that are not resilient to semi-submersion are partially inundated during high water. This issue causes many standing trees to die, which the USACE generally leave standing on government property in order to maintain species habitat. Vegetative management lands encompass most of the USACE-owned land affected by this deforestation. Other vegetative management lands are located southwest of the tailwater area, west of the emergency spillway, north of the Agriculture Fields and east of the Highway 36 Crossing. Finally, vegetative management has been identified as land throughout various portions of the project up to the 690 msl flood line. Areas that encompass vegetative management based on this assumption include the shoreline of the Raccoon SRA peninsula, the shoreline of the Dam Picnic Area, the shoreline of the Walker Ramp, the shoreline of the Mansfield Ramp and the shoreline of the Hollandsburg Ramp. Classifying these areas as vegetative management up to the 690 msl line will aid project officials in managing vegetation to limit and prevent erosion. Wildlife Management. Wildlife management lands are designated for stewardship of fish and wildlife. These lands are characterized by valuable wildlife habitats that are managed to benefit certain game and non-game species or the natural community as a whole. Agricultural activities are permitted under strict oversight of the IDNR to improve habitat. Other management recommendations for wildlife management lands include tree repression (to provide woodlands with a diversity of tree successions), food plot planting, parking area construction, maintaining levees and water levels, monitoring eagle nests, constructing osprey platforms, allowing crop leases, and managing woodlands. Boat ramps are an acceptable improvement in the wildlife management areas (IDNR, 2010). Wildlife management classification is given to the Hunting and Trapping Area to the west of the Mansfield Ramp and to the wetlands area upstream from the Portland Mills Ramp. The Agriculture Fields south of the dam area is also designated as wildlife management since hunting is permitted on those grounds. Note that the dike is located within the Hunting and Trapping Area and is classified as PO. Future Recreation Areas. These areas have site characteristics compatible with potential future recreational development. Future recreation areas are divided into Future Low-Density Recreation and Future High-Density Recreation areas based on resource analysis. These areas provide opportunities for future recreation pursuits when demand and funding can accommodate. Identifying these areas as Future LDR or Future HDR areas also allows for flexibility in determining the most appropriate activities as trends in recreation are always changing. Future LDR lands at Cecil M. Harden Lake include the Highway 36 Crossing, which is currently an area utilized by fishermen. The Highway 36 Crossing currently has an asphalt driveway and parking lot and no other recreation infrastructure. The 1976 Cecil M. Harden Lake Master Plan identified this area as a future recreation area and provided a site plan for improvements to the location, including a 10-car parking area, a warning sign for oncoming traffic on US 36, and shrub planting for beautification. 6-4 Chapter 6: Land Allocation and Land Classification

97 Future HDR lands were identified as the remainder of the Raccoon SRA peninsula not classified as current HDR, vegetative management, current LDR or PO. Many different activities offered at Raccoon SRA reach capacity on popular weekends and it has been identified through interviews with IDNR personnel that increasing capacity for full hook-up sites at the campground as well as increased parking capacity for the beach and the boat ramp would alleviate crowding issues. 6.3 USACE Easement Lands Easement lands include all lands for which USACE holds an easement, but not fee title. Easements are acquired for specific purposes and do not hold the same rights or ownership to USACE as other lands. Planned use and management of easement lands will be in strict accordance with the terms and conditions of the easement acquired for the project. Easement lands are divided into three subcategories; operations easement, flowage easement and conservation easement. The USACE holds approximately 1,500 acres of flowage easement surrounding the majority of the project. This easement acreage is based on the flowage easement guideline of a maximum of 695 msl throughout the project. Chapter 6: Land Allocation and Land Classification 6-5

98 Figure 6-1 Future Land Classification 6-6 Chapter 6: Land Allocation and Land Classification

99 Figure 6-2 Future Land Classification at Raccoon SRA Chapter 6: Land Allocation and Land Classification 6-7

100 Figure 6-3 Future Land Classification in the area surrounding the Mansfield Dam 6-8 Chapter 6: Land Allocation and Land Classification

101 Figure 6-4 Future Land Classification at the Highway 36 Crossing Area and Hollandsburg Ramp Chapter 6: Land Allocation and Land Classification 6-9

102 This page intentionally left blank Chapter 6: Land Allocation and Land Classification

103 7.0 Special Considerations There are several important items to consider in this master plan update that make Cecil M. Harden Lake a unique project. Land use and management decisions should consider these important items. One special consideration at Cecil M. Harden Lake is the utility corridors that traverse the project. Another unique component for consideration at Cecil M. Harden Lake is the high density of private development in proximity to the lakeshore. Land immediately surrounding the shoreline encompasses 25 private subdivisions and four private campgrounds. Much of USACE-owned land at the project is a narrow band on the shoreline of the lake. This narrow band is often bordered by the private subdivisions, limiting public access to these areas. Cecil M. Harden Lake also experiences issues with shoreline erosion, siltation and natural deforestation stemming from its high variability of water level, which this section will discuss. Another important consideration is the transportation network around the project, which affects traffic and project access throughout the area. Finally, this section will investigate the relevant aspects of planning and zoning documents from the project s two surrounding counties: Parke and Putnam. While zoning regulations do not apply to USACE-owned property, they do apply to privately owned property that has a significant impact on the project. 7.1 Utility Corridors Easements, licenses and consents are issued for roads and driveways, shoreline management, storage, pipelines, electric power lines, communication lines and right-of-way on project land. According to the USACE LRL Real Estate office, there are 396 total outgrants around Cecil M. Harden Lake not including the recreation lease for the IDNR. The outgrants are divided among licenses and consents for private shoreline additions such as steps, walkways and outbuildings, and easements for natural gas pipelines, oil pipelines, electric lines, communication lines, and roads and driveways. There are currently 65 easements, 221 licenses, and 110 consents that have been granted throughout the project. Major utility easements include the Panhandle Eastern Pipeline, which transports natural gas in an east-to-west configuration and crosses through two northern arms of the project north of the Portland Mills Ramp, including Byrd Branch. Parallel to and just south of the Panhandle Eastern Pipeline is a 50 easement for the Rockies Express Pipeline, which travels from Southeastern Ohio to Colorado, traversing through Byrd Branch along the way this pipeline is depicted in Figure 7-1 as a thicker, darker-colored dashed line. There is a second Panhandle East natural gas pipeline that crosses the lake just north of the US 36 bridge. There is a refined products pipeline easement for the Marathon Pipe Line Company that travels parallel to the Panhandle Eastern Pipeline as it crosses the lake just north of the US 36 bridge, but travels northeast to southwest through the area. Finally, there is a crude oil pipeline that travels northeast to southwest and passes the project just south of the Mansfield Dam area, which is also owned by the Marathon Pipe Line Company. In addition to the pipelines, there are easements for several tracts of land for electric lines of the Parke County Rural Electric Membership Corporation and telephone lines for the Indiana Bell Telephone Company. Figure 7-1 identifies the locations of these major pipeline corridors with an orange dashed line. Chapter7: Special Considerations 7-1

104 7.2 Private Subdivisions Cecil M. Harden Lake is surrounded by ample private development in proximity to the shoreline. Development surrounding the project is in the form of subdivision development and a majority of the structures are single-family residences or modular homes. There are 26 subdivisions surrounding the project, totaling approximately 1,800 homes (see Figure 7-1). These private subdivisions that surround the project sever much of the USACE-owned land from public land access. In addition, runoff occurs at a higher rate due to the presence of many impervious building footprints and paved driveways that deny storm water from adequately infiltrating into the soil. Finally, many homes surrounding the project are utilizing antiquated septic systems that were constructed for a smaller home. These on-site waste treatment systems are not comprehensively regulated and water quality issues stemming from sewage have occurred. A list of private subdivisions and campgrounds is presented in Table 7-1 below. Table 7-1: Subdivisions and Private Campgrounds Subdivisions 1. Whalen Acres 2. Raccoon Village 3. Sue San 4. Hidden Valley 5. Highland Acres 6. Turnbow 7. Parkwood Hills 8. Raccoon Lake Estates 9. Knollwood 10. Hidden Cove 11. Hidden Lake Estates 12. Indian Rocks 13. Shady Circle 14. Nugent/Portland Mills Camp 15. Jim Hahn 16. Pesavento 17. Spenfield 18. Spencer 19. Lakewood 20. Paradise Bay 21. Mansfield Realty 22. Lakeland Acres 23. Kirkpatrick s 24. Crook s 25. Crook s Byers 26. Byers/Happy Hills Private Campgrounds I. Nevin s II. Holiday Rest III. Running T IV. Hartman s Camp The subdivisions are identified in black with each corresponding number and the private campgrounds are identified in red with each corresponding numeral in Figure 7-1. Limited Public Access to USACE-Owned Land. Due to the steep incline of the shoreline, the USACE owns only a small portion of land along much of the Cecil M. Harden Lake shoreline. These lands are narrow strips of land owned by the USACE that separate private development from the lake itself. The density of private development abutting these strips of land makes management of this land difficult in some areas. Septic Issues. All of these private developments utilize on-site septic systems. In many cases, these septic systems are first-generation while the homes that they are supporting are replacements. The second or third generation replacement homes are often larger than the original structure that the onsite septic system was designed to support. This causes capacity exceedances with the septic systems, which causes concerns for water quality at the project. Site regulations for Parke and Putnam counties leave a loophole for developers to avoid updating the on-site septic systems when renovating the property s main structure. This regulation loophole should be addressed either through by the counties or through contacting IDEM. 7-2 Chapter7: Special Considerations

105 Figure 7-1. Subdivisions, Private Campgrounds, and Major Utility Corridors Chapter7: Special Considerations 7-3

106 7.3 Transportation Cecil M. Harden Lake Master Plan Update Several roads traverse the project area ranging from US highways to unpaved service roads. The most traveled thoroughfare in the project area is US 36, which crosses the reservoir north of the Hollandsburg Ramp. US 36 extends from Decatur, IL, which is its western terminus, to Indianapolis, crossing Cecil M. Harden Lake along the way. Indianapolis is only 50 miles from Cecil M. Harden Lake along US 36. The relatively short distance from Indianapolis to the project is one factor that contributes to the high volume of visitors at the project. Another important corridor within the project area is SR 59, which runs north to south near the western shore of Troutman s Branch. From Cecil M. Harden Lake, SR 59 travels approximately 15 miles north to Waveland and approximately 60 miles south to Sandborn. SR 59 connects with I-70 approximately 22 miles south of Bellmore, which is located approximately two miles east of the Raccoon SRA entrance. The area s Amish population uses the shoulders of the roads for buggy transportation and stretches of US 36 are identified as buggy passing lanes in Parke County s comprehensive plan. The remainder of the transportation network in the area surrounding Cecil M. Harden Lake is low-intensity subdivision roads that feed into county roads. Major highways, highways and minor roads are identified in Figure Erosion, Siltation and Natural Deforestation Cecil M. Harden Lake s water level varies greatly within a single season and from one season to the next due to external factors, particularly weather patterns that affects the amount of stormwater entering the Cecil M. Harden-Big Raccoon Creek watershed. This high variability causes erosion, siltation and deforestation. Erosion and siltation occur when the water level rises and slowly washes away the soil on the banks as it subsides. Deforestation occurs when the water level partially submerges upland tree species, which are not resilient to frequent inundation for long periods of time. Three issues have been raised regarding the effects of the high variability of the water level. First, the siltation that has occurred over the years has made boat passage of the Portland Mills channel increasingly difficult. If nothing is done to dredge or otherwise prevent siltation in this area, it is likely that the Portland Mills ramp will become useful only to smaller fishing boats, canoes and kayaks. The second issue concerns the overall water holding capacity of the lake. Siltation that is caused by erosion from high water levels will naturally make the lake shallower. However, a shallower lake does not necessarily mean a lower holding capacity. In fact, as soil and other contents are eroded from the shoreline, this increases the holding capacity of the shoreline itself, while decreasing the holding capacity of the center parts of the lake. The net effect on holding capacity is negligible as they balance each other out. Net holding capacity is only affected when siltation enters the project waters from upstream of the area from the Cecil M. Harden-Big Raccoon Creek watershed. The factors that cause siltation up stream, such as agriculture practices and increased development, are beyond the scope of this master plan and beyond the jurisdiction of the USACE personnel at Cecil M. Harden Lake. The final issue raised in public input forums regarding changing water level is the deforestation that occurs when upland tree species are partially submerged for a long period of time. When upstream inflow is at a high rate and the water level is elevated, many tree species, including oak and sugar maple, will die. When these trees die, they are not maintained by the USACE if they are on government 7-4 Chapter7: Special Considerations

107 property, and are often left standing to maintain Indiana bat habitat. Willows and other bottomland tree species will continue to replace the upland trees over time. 7.5 Regional Plans and Zoning Ordinances To further understand potential trends regarding land use and development around Cecil M. Harden Lake, it is useful to analyze existing land use and planning documents from surrounding jurisdictions. The following will summarize the comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances of Parke and Putnam counties. The comprehensive plans identify the goals and vision of the counties while the zoning ordinances form the regulations that will help each jurisdiction realize its vision. These land use policies affect the watershed but do not have regulatory authority over USACE-owned land at the project Regional Plans Parke County Parke County s comprehensive plan, Parke County Beyond Covered Bridges, was adopted in February of The plan is framed around four major pillars, which are live, work, play, and learn. Live is focused on housing and community development; Work identifies important factors in employment and economic development; Play covers recreation and tourism; and Learn lays out plans for education, both K-12 and higher education. The plan s final chapter deals with implementation of the plan and presents the future development plan, which includes the Future Land Use map. The land use map identifies land use, not in specific parcel-based areas, but in general zones to present broad development potential in the county. The vast majority of future development identified on the map is defined as Rural Community, which consists of agricultural activity and accompanying residential land uses, as well as other land uses such as schools, churches or home-based businesses. The land surrounding Cecil M. Harden Lake is identified as Low- Density Residential. Parke County s plan suggests that all new Low-Density Residential development build off of current neighborhoods, specifically in areas with public utilities. The plan does not specifically define the density of each zone, but the density of the existing land use surrounding the project suggests that the Low-Density Residential zone is denser than the Rural Community zone. There is also a small area of commercial land identified north of the Raccoon SRA entrance. The implementation chapter of the plan also delineates the county s Thoroughfare Plan, which separates streets into four standard road definitions: Local Road and Street, Collector, Secondary Arterial, and Primary Arterial. US 36, which crosses Cecil M. Harden Lake, is identified as a Primary Arterial. The Thoroughfare Plan also identifies two stretches of US 36 as buggy passing lanes for the area s Amish. The buggy passing lanes are located on either side of Cecil M. Harden Lake. One recurring implementation goal and action in the plan was for the county to engage in a complete overhaul of the current zoning ordinance, which was last adopted in The new zoning ordinance, according to the plan, should incorporate new aspects such as commercial signage regulation, communication tower regulation, home-based business regulation, landscape requirements and an overall review of the current ordinance s land uses. The public comment appendix presents various different mentions of the importance of avoiding burdensome zoning regulations so as to encourage economic development throughout the county. (Parke County, 2007) Chapter7: Special Considerations 7-5

108 Putnam County Putnam County does not currently have an adopted county comprehensive plan Zoning Ordinances Parke County The current Parke County Zoning Ordinance was adopted in A physical copy of the zoning ordinance is kept in the Parke County Planning and Zoning Office in Rockville, IN Putnam County The Putnam County Zoning Ordinance was adopted in June of 2015 within the Putnam County Code of Ordinances. The Zoning Ordinance regulates development and land use in unincorporated county lands, which is the entirety of the county other than the incorporated areas of Greencastle, Cloverdale, Fillmore, Bainbridge, Roachdale and Manhattan. A vast majority of the county is zoned as Agriculture Protection, which conserves suitable lands for active agricultural production. The ordinance overtly recognizes agriculture as the county s most vital economic activity, and conserving land for current and future agriculture has been deemed an important land use objective. The rest of the unincorporated county is zoned Residential, Agriculture, Floodplain, Industrial, Mineral Extraction, and Preservation. Residential zones are concentrated around areas of the county that have existing land use related to residential activities. Agriculture zones are located along major US, state, and county roads throughout the county. Floodplain zones are located along river corridors that are prevalent throughout the county. There is a small parcel of land zoned as Industrial in the east-central portion of the county. Mineral Extraction is located in just one location in the southern portion of the county. Preservation acreage is zoned in the southern portion of the county near Cagles Mill and in the northeastern corner of the county near Bainbridge. Putnam County land surrounding Cecil M. Harden Lake is the majority of Compartment 6 (see OMP), which encompasses the Portland Mills Recreation Area. The county land surrounding this portion of the project is mainly zoned as Agricultural Protection, with the Portland Mills area zoned as Residential surrounded by Agriculture. 7-6 Chapter7: Special Considerations

109 A.0 Acronyms and Abbreviations ACS ADA APHIS American Community Survey Americans with Disabilities Act Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service BMP Best Management Practice CFS Cubic Feet Per Second DM Design Memorandum EM EP EO ESA ESA Engineering Manual Engineering Pamphlet Executive Order Endangered Species Act Environmental Sensitive Area FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act FY Fiscal Year GHG GPM Greenhouse Gas Gallons per Minute HAB HDR Harmful Algal Blooms High Density Recreation IDEM IDNR Indiana Department of Environmental Management Indiana Department of Natural Resources LDR Low Density Recreation MBTA MOU MSL Migratory Bird Treaty Act Memorandum of Understanding Mean Sea Level Appendix A A-1

110 NEPA NHPA NRHP NRCS NRMS NWI National Environmental Policy Act National Historic Preservation Act National Register of Historic Places National Resource Conservation Service Natural Resource Management System National Wetland Inventory OMP ORP ORPR Operational Management Plan Outdoor Recreation Plan Outdoor Recreation Participation Report PCB PL PO Polychlorinated Biphenyl Public Law Project Operations SCORP State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SMCRA Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act SMP Shoreline Management Plan SRA State Recreation Area SWAP State Wildlife Action Plan USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USC United States Code USDA United States Department of Agriculture USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USGS United States Geological Survey USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service A-2 Appendix A

111 B.0 References Cecil M. Harden Lake Master Plan Update City of Indianapolis. Eagle Creek Park. Accessed May DePauw University. DePauw Nature Park. Accessed June DePauw University. Institutional Research Current Enrollment Summary. Accessed July Endangered Species Act of U.S.C IDNR Annual Management Plan IDNR Interpretive Plan IDNR Aquifer Systems Mapping (1:48,000): Parke County. Accessed May IDNR. Cecil M. Harden Lake: Hunting and Trapping. Accessed May IDNR Entomology and Plant Pathology: Kudzu. Accessed June IDNR Indiana Bats. Accessed July IDNR Indiana Hunting and Trapping Guide. Accessed November IDNR Raccoon State Recreation Area 5-Year Management Plan. IDNR. State Historic Architectural and Archeological Research Database. Accessed October IDNR. McCormick Creek State Park. Accessed October IDNR. Statistics. Accessed October IDNR Indiana Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. IDNR. Historic Turkey Run State Park. Accessed May IDNR. Covered Bridge Retreat. Accessed June IDNR. Shades State Park. Accessed May IDNR. Cagles Mill Lake (Lieber SRA). Accessed May Illinois DNR. Kickapoo State Recreation Area. Accessed June Indiana Department of Workforce Development. Major Employers by County/Region. Accessed May Lake Waveland Park. Accessed May 2016 Appendix B B-1

112 NatureServe Explorer Ecological System Comprehensive Report: North-Central Interior Beech Maple Forest. Accessed June Ecol.wmt&Type=Reset NatureServe Explorer Ecological System Comprehensive Report: South-Central Interior Mesophytic Forest. Accessed June Ecol.wmt&Type=Reset Outdoor Foundation Outdoor Recreation Participation Report Parke County Parke County, Beyond Covered Bridges. Purdue University Home & Environment: Septic System Failure. Accessed June Putnam County Putnam County, IN Code of Ordinances STATS Indiana, using data from the Indiana Business Research Center, IU Kelley School of Business. Indiana Population Projections County Totals: Accessed October USACE Cecil M. Harden Lake Updated Master Plan. USACE Cecil M. Harden Lake Project Resource Management Plan. USACE Engineering Manual (EM ), Engineering and Design Recreation Facility and Customer Services Standards. USACE Operational Management Plan. USACE Shoreline Management Plan USACE LRL Phase I Shoreline Reconnaissance Cecil M. Harden Lake. USACE LRL. Reservoir Impacts: Cecil M. Harden Lake. Accessed May USDA APHIS. Asian Longhorned Beetle. Accessed November USDA. National Invasive Species Information Center. Species Profiles. Accessed June US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census Social Explorer Tables: ACS 2014 (5-Year Estimates). Accessed May US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census Social Explorer Tables: ACS 2010 (5-Year Estimates). Accessed May US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census Social Explorer Tables: Census Accessed May USFWS Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis): Fact Sheet. Accessed July B-2 Appendix B

113 USFWS Northern Long-Eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) Status: Threatened with 4(d) Rule. Accessed June Wabash College. About Wabash Facts and Figures. Accessed July GIS Sources: ESRI Google Earth IDNR IndianaMAP IGS NatureServe NWI USACE USDA-NCRS USGS Appendix B B-3

114 This page intentionally left blank. B-4 Appendix B

115 C.0 Public Comment This appendix summarizes public comments and the results of stakeholder coordination that occurred during the preparation of the Master Plan. One-on-one meetings with the major stakeholders of the reservoir were held during the information gathering phase of the Master Plan preparation to solicit their input. On-going discussions with IDNR, the agency with the greatest amount of land and waterfront leased from USACE, occurred (and continue to occur) to partner together in achieving the goals of the Master Plan. Since the Cecil M. Harden Lake Master Plan is an internal USACE planning document rather than a regulatory document and an update to the original Master Plan, completed in 1976, public input is not required. However, in an effort to be more inclusive to the general public, USACE held an open house at the Bellmore Fire Department meeting room on August 29, 2016 for the purpose of giving the general public an opportunity to review and comment on the Preliminary Draft Master Plan (PDMP). The open house was conducted from 3pm to 7pm and began with a brief overview presentation and a Question and Answer period. Following the Question and Answer period, the open house visitors had the opportunity to review copies of the PDMP, maps of the project and talk with the planning project team. The public was also provided the Cecil M. Harden Lake web site address so they could access an electronic copy of the PDMP, as well as an address to post comments. The following individuals attended the open house on August 29, Marilyn Chesher Ed Maddux Sue Maddux Frank Mascari Diana Ruark Tom Harmon Jean Hatke Pamela S. Bacon Mike Nicholson Bill Hahn Diana Hahn David Finch Alice Finch Karen Morehouse Ron Morehouse Connie Steigmeyer John Pratt David Misiora Paul McMurray Dick Morehouse Ann Morehouse Ray Buchanon Danielle Buchanon Dick Hatke Marilyn Rode Mike Clingerman Ryan Lemley Dave Johnson Marlene Johnson Basil Weinman Greg Goluska Jon Overbey Mike Strack Martin Kirkpatrick Rick Morris Daniel Fivecoat Barbara Fivecoat Chris Wagner Cheryl Wagner Hal Bukea Ronald Medenwald Appendix C C-1

116 C.1 Public Open House Comments C.1.1 In-Person Comments Open House #1 Responses: 1) Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) does not have responsibility for storage capacity at Cecil M. Harden Lake. There is no official life span determined for the storage capacity for the lake. Sedimentation studies for the lake were conducted in the 1980 s; however no concerns were identified for lake sedimentation rates at that time. 2) Because USACE did not have concerns at that time of the sedimentation studies in the 1980 s and no new sedimentation studies have been scheduled, the specific lifespan of the lake is not known. 3) Currently, there are no plans for dredging the lake. C-2 Appendix C

117 Responses: 1) Forested areas around Cecil M. Harden Lake will reforest naturally, if natural processes are not impeded. The key is that water tolerant species need to be in proximity to high water levels; water intolerant species will not likely survive frequent and/or long periods of inundation. Currently there is no program in place to replace trees on a 1/1 basis, because funding is not available. 2) The rip-rap program ended in the 1990 s and currently there is no funding source available to reestablish the program. If the public generates support from local, state or federal levels, this program could be reestablished. 3) IDNR participates in wildlife management and dead, non-hazard trees are left in place to provide habitat for Indiana bats (special status species); species that roost in dead trees and cavity nesting species. However, some of this material will be utilized in the next 2 years for IDNR sponsored aquatic habitat enhancement project. Appendix C C-3

118 Responses: 1&2) The rip-rap program ended in the 1990 s and currently there is no funding source available to reestablish the program. If the public generates support from local, state or federal levels, this program could be reestablished. 3) Dead trees along the shoreline do not create an operational problem. If a tree becomes a hazard to recreational boater navigation, the hazard tree will be removed to a location that does not affect boating safety. If a dead tree along the shoreline does not create a navigation hazard, the tree will be left in-place for species habitat. C-4 Appendix C

119 C.1.2 In-Person Comments Open House #2 To be provided in the next submittal. C.2 Public Open House Minutes C.2.1 Open House #1 Minutes Comments and Responses ITEMS DISCUSSED: At 3:00pm, Woolpert presented an overview of the master plan and the Cecil M. Harden Lake resource use objectives. After the presentation, Question and Answer discussion commenced. The topics discussed during the Question and Answer discussion are listed below: COMMENT: The Portland Mills area has succumbed to major siltation and navigating the channel with larger boats has become increasingly difficult. Using the boat ramp in general is difficult and there are many pontoon boat owners in the Portland Mills area that would like to use the Portland Mills ramp in the future. The Portland Mills ramp is also popular for folks who like to idle downstream in order to enjoy the scenic qualities of the lake. RESPONSE: The Portland Mills ramp may be used exclusively for lower capacity fishing boats and kayaks/canoes in the future if the siltation issues persist. COMMENT: Deforestation is a major concern associated with high water levels that cause erosion and kill trees. Could we address possible tree replacement programs in the Master Plan? RESPONSE: The USACE does not usually address dead trees on government property. The trees are left standing to maintain bat habitat. COMMENT: There is a major question of the holding capacity on the lake. RESPONSE: The amount of volume that has been lost is unknown since the last study was conducted in the 1980s. Any erosion and siltation that occurs within the flood level will not decrease the overall capacity of the project. The siltation that comes from outside the USACE jurisdiction is what would cause loss of holding capacity. Further study must be done to find the overall effects that siltation has had on the holding capacity of the lake. COMMENT: Can we consider a flag system that would express to potential boaters that the whole lake is an idle zone during high water times? RESPONSE: That issue would not be addressed in the Master Plan. COMMENT: Can we find any data on the overall economic benefit of the lake to the surrounding community? RESPONSE: It might be useful to have economic development figures to use for leveraging grant dollars for major projects. The planning team will try to find economic data regarding the lake s benefits to the surrounding community. Chapter 4 of the Master Plan currently displays demographic and employment data within the area of influence. COMMENT: Water quality and blue-green algae must be addressed in the master plan. Appendix C C-5

120 RESPONSE: Woolpert has recently received information regarding water quality from LRL. It is difficult to find a trend for water quality when there haven t been any comprehensive studies regarding water quality in the past. C.2.2 Open House #2 Minutes Comments and Responses To be submitted in the next submittal. C.1.1 Comments From: Mascari Lawn & Landscape [mailto:mascarilawnandlandscape@frontier.com] Sent: Thursday, September 01, :08 PM To: Staigl, Gary J LRL <Gary.J.Staigl@usace.army.mil> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Master Plan Morning Joe, I didn't know where this was to go, so I am dumping this on you. 1) NEED TO PLANT TREES ON AROUND THE LAKE Response: Forested areas around Cecil M. Harden Lake will reforest naturally, if natural processes are not impeded. The key is that water tolerant species need to be in proximity to high water levels; water intolerant species will not likely survive frequent and/or long periods of inundation. Currently there is no program in place to replace trees on a 1/1 basis, because funding is not available. 2) REESTABLISH THE RIP/RAP PROGRAM Response: The rip-rap program ended in the 1990 s and currently there is no funding source available to reestablish the program. If the public generates support from local, state or federal levels, this program could be reestablished. 3) ESTABLISH AND PROGRAM TO ELIMINATE BLUE/GREEN ALGAE THE HIGH E-COLI Response: Blue Green algae is a regional watershed issue that requires coordination between local, state and federal agencies. This is not an issue that can be addressed by staff at Cecil M. Harden Lake. E-coli is a problem directly related to geese at the Raccoon SRA beach. IDNR is responsible for managing this issue. 4) REMOVE THE LAND TO OPEN THE 2 BOTTLENECKS THRU THE 2 S-CURVES Response: This is an issue that cannot feasibly be addressed. Land along the eastern shore is privately owned land and there is no funding available to purchase land from willing sellers. Land to the west is federal land and there is no funding available to accomplish a massive land removal project. 5) MAKE MORE DOCKS & TRAINING WALLS AVAILABLE Response: Currently, there is no moratorium on permits for docks; however IDNR does have limits for the number of docks on the lake and their location. IDNR is responsible for this issue. Seawalls are permitted by USACE and permits can be issued in accordance to the Shoreline Management Plan. 6) RE-EVALUATE THE IDLE ZONES Response: IDNR Law Enforcement is responsible for lake water surface zoning. C-6 Appendix C

121 7) ESTABLISH AT BETTER HABITATE FOR THE BALD EAGLES Response: IDNR is responsible for wildlife management. There are currently two known eagle nests at Cecil M. Harden Lake, which is a good indication of good wildlife management measures currently being implemented. Since you did such a great job keeping the lake pool level stable this year this list should be a piece of cake! THANKS FOR ALL YOU DO! FRANK MASCARI From: pbacon@parkecountysentinel.com To: Harden Lake MP Subject: Follow-Up Questions Regarding Monday"s Open House Date: Thursday, September 01, :41:31 AM Greetings! I am a reporter for the Parke County Sentinel and am covering the Monday, August 29 meeting. I had a few follow-up questions: 1. Is the open house scheduled for October 5 at the Bellmore Fire House again? What is the time? 2. Have many comments been received regarding the meeting? Thanks for your help. As a life-long "Raccoon Lake" resident, I truly enjoyed finding out more about the lake that is so near and dear to my heart. Have a great day! Response: 1. Yes. The second open house is scheduled for Wednesday, October 5 from 3pm to 7pm at the Bellmore Fire Department. 2. The only comment we have received via has been yours. We received several written and verbal comments during the first open house that we have presented in this appendix. Appendix C C-7

122 This page intentionally left blank. C-8 Appendix C

123 This page intentionally left blank. Appendix C C-9

124 Cecil M. Harden Lake Rockville, Indiana US Army Corps of Engineers Louisville District