Nature of change: A deep dive into Whitewater’s lakes, part 2

Home
Nature of change: A deep dive into Whitewater’s lakes, part 2

Nature of change: A deep dive into Whitewater’s lakes, part 2

Editor’s note: Following is the second of two parts of an expansive view of Whitewater’s two downtown lakes, Trippe and Cravath. The city of Whitewater will be hosting a lakes-related meeting on Saturday, Aug. 26, at 11 a.m., in the council chambers of the Whitewater Municipal Building, 312 W. Whitewater, St., Whitewater. According to city officials, Department of Natural Resources biologist Heidi Bunk will be in attendance during the meeting. While much of the discussion in recent years about the lakes has focused on activities beginning in 2017, when the city’s Parks and Recreation Department began exploring lake-related restoration plans, a desire by some Whitewater residents to see improvements made to the lakes has a longer history, dating back to at least 2005. In addition, the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) completed a study of the lakes in 2011, after which it published its “Memorandum Report No. 191: A Lake Protection Plan for Cravath and Trippe Lakes.” Part 2 of this story will focus on findings within the SEWRPC report. Part 1 of this story is here: https://whitewaterwise.com/nature-of-change-a-deep-dive-into-whitewaters-lakes-part-1/.

By Kim McDarison

Since 2017, the year in which the city of Whitewater’s Parks and Recreation Board and the community’s common council began setting money aside and taking official action regarding restoration of the city’s two lakes, Trippe and Cravath, changes in leadership have occurred.

Trippe Lake property owner Carol McCormick was elected to the city council and placed as the council’s representative on the city’s park board in 2017, and elected as the park board’s chair in 2018. After three terms in office, McCormick did not seek reelection in April and no longer serves as an elected official.

Former City Manager Cameron Clapper found work in Dodge County as its administrator, leaving his position, after installation in 2012, in 2022.

John Weidl was hired as the city’s permanent, fulltime city manager in October of last year.

Most recently, the city’s Parks and Recreation Director Eric Boettcher — who was hired by the city in 2017, and served, regarding the lakes restoration project, as the staff communication liaison between the council, board, DNR and public — accepted a position with the community of Oconomowoc as its parks and recreation director, leaving Whitewater to assume his new duties earlier this month.

As of this week, the city continues to advertise on its Facebook page for Boettcher’s replacement.

Among new arrivals to the discussion is councilman David Stone, who was elected to his council seat in April. Stone replaces McCormick as the representative in Aldermanic District 1, which is the district in which the two lakes reside.

During a recent council meeting, Stone noted that he had found a Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) study, titled: “Memorandum Report No. 191: A Lake Protection Plan for Cravath and Trippe Lakes.” The study, which was completed in 2011, remains available for viewing on the SEWRPC website.

The 155-page document concludes with a section titled: “Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Chapter 30 Dredging Permit Guidance and Application.”

Also presented within the study are chapters and tables about hydrology and morphometry on the lakes, growth in populations and households around the lakes, existing planned land uses within the total tributary area, water clarity, pollutant loadings, aquatic plant species, chemical controls, and information gathered through a survey of Whitewater residents in 2009.

The report was made available to seated council members in 2011, including council president Patrick Singer, along with members Lynn Binnie, Javonni Butler, Jim Olsen, James Winship, Marilyn Kienbaum and Jim Stewart. The city’s Parks and Recreation Board members also are named on the report, with Javonni serving as chair. Members of the city’s ad hoc Lakes Committee, also appear, with former Councilwoman Carol McCormick as chair, and David Stone listed as among committee members.

In 2011, according to the report, Kevin Brunner served as city manager and Matt Amundson was serving as the city’s Parks and Recreation Director.

Stats, some history, goals

Offering some stats and history, the report describes Cravath Lake as a 68-acre “impounded drainage lake on Spring Brook,” and Trippe Lake as a “113-acre drainage lake located on Whitewater Creek immediately upstream from Cravath Lake.”

In 2011, the lakes were further described as “partially incorporated into the city’s park and open space system where they provide a variety of urban recreational services, including walking trails, fishing spots, and limited boating/canoeing, as well as serving as visual amenities.”

The report also describes the lakes as they fit into a larger water system, noting: “Outflow from Trippe Lake flows into the Cravath Lake and thence northerly, via the Whitewater Creek, to the Bark River, a tributary stream of the Rock River. Water quality in the creek was historically degraded by the discharge to the creek of treated effluent from the old city of Whitewater wastewater treatment plant, which was upgraded in 1982. Subsequent to this upgrade, the quality of the effluent has improved, as has the quality of the river, which is now (2011) categorized as fair by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR).”

According to the report, Cravath Lake was created in the mid-1850s “to provide motive power to a gristmill that was built on Whitewater Creek.”

Trippe Lake, the report stated, was “recreated” in the mid-1860s to power a paper mill.

The report notes that the original uses of the lakes have “faded into history,” and, in 2011, the function of the lakes had changed to “becoming a focal point for recreation and natural resources.

“In turn” the report continued, “this changing use has led to increasing concern for these waterbodies and efforts by the residents … to protect and improve their water quality.”

Under a heading of “Purpose of this Plan,” the report notes that it sets forth inventories of lake water quality and the aquatic plant communities present within both lakes.

In addition, it summarizes previous planning and monitoring programs conducted on the lakes by the DNR and SEWRPC.

Information within the report was “supplemented” by field surveys conducted by SEWRPC, “in cooperation with” the city of Whitewater and the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, “during August of 2008,” the report notes, adding: “This report further represents part of the ongoing commitment of the city of Whitewater to sound planning with respect to the lakes and is designed as part of a program of lake-related information gathering, evaluation, and a lake management action planning process being undertaken by the city of Whitewater in cooperation with other governmental and nongovernmental organizations and agencies, including the WDNR, Walworth County, and SEWRPC.”

The report notes that the planning program was funded, in part, through a DNR lake management planning grant awarded to the city.

The report enumerated four goals, which, it noted, were developed “in consultation” with the city and its ad hoc lakes committee.

Goals included protecting and maintaining public health, while promoting public “comfort, convenience, necessity, and welfare, in concert with natural resources through environmentally sound management of native vegetation, fishes, and wildlife populations,” in and around the lakes; controlling the quantity and density of aquatic plant growth in portions of the lakes’ basins to better facilitate water-related recreation, improve aesthetic value, and enhance the natural resource value of the waterbodies; maintain water quality, and promote a water-based experience for residents and visitors “consistent with the policies and objectives of the WDNR as set forth in the regional water quality management plan.”

Changes in population

According to the report, in 2011, SEWRPC looked at population statistics between 1960 and 2000, looking specifically at “populations and households within the area directly tributary” to both lakes.

Describing its findings, the report noted: “Both the population and numbers of households within the areas tributary to Cravath and Trippe lakes have generally increased since 1960. However, this increase has been sporadic and not altogether constant over this period.”

Two charts above show population and households within the tributary areas for both Trippe and Cravath lakes between 1960 and 2000.

The two charts above, as provided in the 2011 SEWRPC study, show existing planned land use within the area directly tributary to Cravath and Trippe lakes: 2000 and 2035.

A map above shows the planned use within the tributary area of both lakes: 2035.

Water clarity

According to the report, water quality data for Trippe Lake had been collected since 2004, facilitated by the University of Wisconsin-Extension Citizen Lake Monitoring Network, described as a DNR self-help program. At the time the report was written, water quality data for Cravath Lake “have not been collected or were of such a recent nature so as not to be available.”

The report next described a system used to measure water quality, based on “transparency,” which, it noted, could be affected by water color, suspended particles, and seasonal planktonic and algal populations. To measure water quality, according to the report, a black and white, eight inch in diameter disk is lowered into the water to a depth at which the disk is no longer visible. The measurement is called the Secchi disk reading, the report stated.

Readings taken in Trippe Lake in 2004, and between 2006 and 2009, brought a result of “generally fair water quality,” according to the report.

The chart above shows water clarity readings developed between 2004 and 2010 for Trippe Lake. According to the report, in 2011, at the time that it was compiled, water quality measurements for Cravath Lake were not available.

Aquatic plants

According to the report, SEWRPC staff conducted aquatic plant surveys on both lakes in August of 2008.

The report stated that “overall, Trippe Lake contained a greater diversity of aquatic plant species than did Cravath. Of note is the identification of eight different species of pondweed in Trippe Lake. A critical key to the ability of an ecosystem, such as a lake, to maintain its ecological integrity is through biological diversity. Conserving the biological diversity, or biodiversity, of an ecosystem helps not only to sustain the system, but preserves a spectrum of options for future decisions regarding the management of that system. The presence of a diverse community of pondweed is generally considered to be indicative of a healthy lake and good habitat for fishes and aquatic life.”

The report noted 10 different aquatic plant species observed in 2008.

The table above, as provided within the report, shows the different species of plants observed in Cravath Lake in 2008.

In Trippe Lake, the report stated, 14 different plant species were documented in 2008, with the dominate species noted as “coontail.” The report indicated a presence of Eurasian water milfoil, waterweed and white water lily in “significant numbers.”

As a matter of comparison, the report pointed to nearby Lauderdale Lakes, noting that the waterbody had 19 different aquatic plant species.

The table, shown above, as provided within the report, shows the different species of plants observed in Trippe Lake in 2008.

Two maps above, as presented within the SEWRPC study, show the placement of aquatic plant communities within each of the two lakes, Cravath, at top, and Trippe, above, as documented in 2008.

The chart above, as shown in the SEWRPC study, offers information about the ecological significance of plants found within Cravath and Trippe lakes.

Past, present aquatic plant management practices

According to the report, an aquatic plant management program was “carried out” in a “documented manner” on Trippe Lake beginning in 1950.

Cravath Lake, the report noted in 2011, “has only recently been the subject of documented management efforts.”

The report added: “Since 1950, the aquatic plant management activities in Cravath and Trippe lakes could be characterized as primarily a chemical control program designed to minimize nuisance growths of aquatic macrophytes.”

Two charts above show a cumulative summary of chemical applications between 1950 and 2009 for Cravath Lake, at top, and Trippe Lake, above. Between 1950 and 1969, as shown in the tables, approximately 4,874 pounds of sodium arsenite were applied to Trippe Lake; none was applied to Cravath Lake.

As stated in the report: “When it became apparent that arsenic was accumulating in the sediments of treated lakes, the use of sodium arsenite was discontinued in the state in 1969. The applications and accumulations of arsenic were found to present potential health hazards to both humans and aquatic life. In drinking water supplies, arsenic was suspected of being carcinogenic and, under certain conditions, arsenic has leached into and contaminated groundwater, especially in sandy soils that serve as a source of drinking water in some communities.”

Designated sensitive areas

Within the report, DNR-designated sensitive areas and SEWRPC-designated critical species habitat areas are discussed.

According to the report, the DNR defines such areas as “sites that have special importance biologically, historically, geologically, ecologically, or even archaeologically.”

SEWRPC defines its sensitive areas as those within the southeastern region of Wisconsin that have natural areas containing “intact native plant and animal communities of local and statewide significance.”

Critical aquatic habitat areas located within the Cravath-Trippe Lakes tributary area include:

• Bluff Creek: 1.9 miles of high-quality fast, hard, cold-water Class I trout stream with a classification of AQ-1, identifying it as a site of statewide or greater significance;

• Trippe Lake: Classified as AQ-2, identifying it as a site of countywide or regional significance, and

• Cravath Lake, Whitewater Creek, Whitewater Lake, Rice Lake, and Lake No. 10: All rated as AQ-3, identifying them as sites of local significance.

Two maps above, as provided within the report, designate areas of environmental significance within the Cravath and Trippe lakes tributary area.

Recreational uses

The report sought to document the type of recreational watercraft activity that was occurring, in 2008, on the lakes.

The following two charts, shown below, documents those findings.

Additional charts, shown below, document, in 2008, participation on the lakes with other water-based activities.

Community questionnaire survey results

According to the report: “An integral part of the process of lake protection plan formulation was the conduct of a questionnaire-based survey of city of Whitewater residents. The questionnaire was developed jointly by the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater (UWW), the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC), and the City of Whitewater Ad Hoc Lake Committee. Initial framing of the issues of concern to be addressed in the survey commenced during the autumn of 2008, with collaborative scoping meetings held under the auspices of the City of Whitewater Ad Hoc Lake Committee, and in which SEWRPC staff and UWW staff participated. These discussions helped to identify the broad thematic areas to be addressed, and the specific types of information to be collected, through a survey of city residents. Detailed survey design commenced during the spring of 2009, with the questionnaire being sent to all residential properties within the city during the summer of 2009.

“The overall purpose of the survey was to assess residents’ uses of Trippe and Cravath lakes, their uses of lakes other than Trippe and Cravath lakes, their levels of awareness and concern related to various issues affecting the lakes, and their willingness to pay for conducting programs that would improve Trippe and Cravath lakes.”

A summary of the survey was presented as follows:

According to the report, 2,803 questionnaires were distributed, and 432 were returned with responses.

“The numbers of responses (15 percent) were within the expected rate of response for a statistically valid survey,” the report stated.

However, it continued, not all 432 respondents answered every question.

About one-half of the respondents were determined to live within one-half mile of the lakes, the report read.

Determinations were made based upon the mapping analysis associated with the coding of the survey instruments.

“In contrast,” the report noted, “roughly the same percentage of respondents, when asked to estimate the distance to the nearest waterbody, thought that they lived between one-half mile and two miles away from the nearest lake. About 90 percent of respondents reported that they did not live on either lake.

“Somewhat more than twice as many respondents live closer to Cravath Lake (two-thirds of respondents) than the number living close to Trippe Lake (one-quarter of respondents).”

In addition, the report found that the majority (88 percent) of respondents owned the residences in which they lived, with the average length of residence in the home being just under 15 years.

“The respondents, however, indicated that on average they lived in the city for just over 25 years. Most (94 percent) were year-round residents. Of the seasonal residents, the average length of residence was about eight months annually, with summer and fall being the most likely months of residence,” according to the report.

The report stated: “About three-quarters of respondents reported visiting the lakes during the previous year, with about one-half of those respondents visiting the lakes between one and 10 times. The average number of visits to the lakes during a year was reported to be about 30. About one-half of respondents reported visiting the lakes for community events, relaxation, and/or exercise.

“Boating was the activity in which the fewest numbers of respondents participated. Bird watching, fishing, and picnicking each occupied about 10 percent of the respondents.”

The summary continued: “One-quarter of respondents owned a boat, with (outboard motorized) fishing boats and canoes being the most common types of boats owned.

“Two-thirds of respondents also visited other lakes in the area in the last year, with about two-thirds of these respondents doing so on between one and 10 occasions; the average number of visits to other lakes was about 15. Other lakes visited included a range of lakes across the state, but one-fifth of respondents indicated Whitewater Lake as their typical destination and about one-tenth indicated Geneva Lake as their destination.

“A majority of respondents (slightly more than one-half) noted that they felt that enhanced or improved local environmental resources, numbers of shops and restaurants, agricultural lands, and schools were important. More efficient government and job loss were identified as highly important; recreational trails and security from terrorism were noted as being of lesser importance.”

In addition, according to the report: “There was a moderate level of awareness of lake issues on average; lake issues included shallow depths, weeds, residential and commercial development in their vicinity, poor water clarity, and the role of agricultural runoff and the role of road salts on lake water quality.”

Further, the report noted: “There was a somewhat greater level of concern expressed by respondents with aquatic plants, and sediment being of moderate concern. These issues also led to some reduction in the level of enjoyment experienced by lake users. About one half of the respondents also noted other problems of concern that affected their enjoyment of these resources.

“With regard to the willingness to pay, the respondents were almost equally divided between those who did not want to pay (one-quarter of respondents indicating $0) and those willing to pay $10 to $25, for either aquatic plant control or sediment removal. Insofar as willingness to pay for both aquatic plant control and sediment removal was concerned, about one-quarter also indicated that they did not want to pay, while an equal number indicated a willingness to pay between $100 and $300 for both of these activities (about $115 being the average).

“The median income level of respondents was about $50,000 per year. Two-fifths of respondents had a post graduate degree, and one-fifth each had either a four-year degree or technical qualification. Almost all (95 percent) respondents indicated that they were not university students; the median age of respondents being about 55 years.”

Issues of concerns, Alternative and recommended lake protection and management practices

Under a heading of “Issues of concern,” the study enumerated the following:

• Urban development and stormwater management: the study cited human activities as a source which generates and mobilizes contaminants into the lake through rainfall, wind and runoff. The existence in urban areas of impervious surfaces, such as roadways, walkways and rooftops, and stormwater conveyance systems, in the absence of mitigating measures, enhances the mobilization and transport of contaminants.

• Public recreational water use: citing survey results, the study noted: “the lakes currently (2009) do not appear to be subjected to the same types and intensities of recreational use as many other lakes in Southeastern Wisconsin.” Also stated within the study: “A majority of respondents (slightly more than one-half) to the survey noted that they felt that enhanced or improved local environmental resources, numbers of shops and restaurants, agricultural lands, and schools were important. More efficient government and job loss were identified as highly important; while recreational trails and security from terrorism were noted as being of lesser importance.”

• Hydrology: According to the study, survey respondents cited shallow depths as a reason for concern. The depths were similarly cited in meetings held “throughout the process of formulating and executing this planning program,” the study read.

• Sediment management and water quality: Along with lake depth, the study, citing concerns from survey respondents, noted poor water clarity and the role played by agricultural runoff and road salt in “degrading lake water quality.”

• Aquatic plant management: The study identified concerns, as offered by respondents, with “weeds,” or “aquatic plants,” further citing Eurasian water milfoil and curly-leaf pondweed in the lakes as an issue of concern.

• institutional development: As stated in the report: “As the Cravath and Trippe lakes community seeks a more active role in the management of the lakes, it is essential that an adequate institutional base to support such activities be developed. While the report notes activities carried out by the city and its ad hoc lake committee, it also notes that the “Wisconsin Legislature also has established other mechanisms for the purpose of lake and stream management. Public lake organizations may be established through the creation of special purpose units of government pursuant to Chapter 33 of the Wisconsin Statutes.”

Under a heading of alternative and recommended practices, the report enumerated the following:

• Urban development and stormwater management

• Water quality monitoring

• Other measures, including, the report stated: a recommendation “that the landowners immediately adjacent to the lakes be encouraged to adopt shoreland landscaping practices designed to maintain the ecological integrity of the shorelands. These practices also can be applied in areas around stormwater management basins elsewhere in the drainage areas tributary to the lakes. These additional actions could contribute to reducing nonpoint source pollution by a further 10 percent.”

The full SEWRPC 2011 document is here: http://whitewaterwise.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/httpswww.sewrpc.orgSEWRPCFilesPublicationsmrmr-191-lake-protection-plan-for-cravath-trippe-lakes.pdf.