_

. ,

,

.,..,,¥,=,,::; (E, ,_

 

 

i UBRARY
! Michigan State
[ University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.

TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 alcfiC/Dateouejndd-p. 1 5

 

 

A Review of North American Water Quality
Assessment and Management Technologies for
' Application to Lake Nakuru, Kenya, Africa.

 

 

 

 

 

Holly Voorheis-Madill
Spfing,l997

In accordance with the requirements for Michigan State University’s Urban and Regional
Planning Program’s Masters of Arts degree.

" f‘ l I I'm IE I:

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank everyone that has been instrumental at some point or another
with the completion of this paper. I thank the Lord for the wonderful people that He has
surrounded me with and the insight, knowledge, and support that they have given me.

I would like to first thank my husband and family for all of the support and
understanding that they have provided for me, while I completed this paper and
throughout my graduate degree program.

I thank Jon Burley fothis outstanding insight, advice, and guidance with the
direction of this paper and also with my education. Without his tutelage, I would still be
floundering.

I will also thank Zenia Kotval for her guidance and direction with my education.
Dawn Brown and Barb Dewey need to be thanked for their many administrative duties,
general helpfulness, and their smiles.

Thanks to Amy Nevala, who supplied me with some vital articles, insights,
permission to use her photo for the cover, and also a review of the paper. I would also
like to thank Kelly Millenbah, who also reviewed this paper and offered some great

insight, suggestions, and direction, and Patricia Soranno for her insight.

Table of Contents

List of Figures
Introduction

Lake Nakuru’s Watershed
Methodology

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Bibliography

14
14
22
30
34

IO

List of Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.

Map of Africa

Map of Kenya

Map of Lake Nakuru Area

Map of Lake Nakuru National Park

Photograph of Lake Nakuru and its lesser flamingoes
Photograph of the surrounding land use of agriculture
Photograph of one of the Open storm and effluent drains

Photograph of the City of Nakuru

\OOOQO‘tCh

11
13

Introduction

In North America, researchers have been developing and refining prediction
models and methods that assess water quality within watersheds. These methods are
based on land use, land cover type, and related physical features including soil type,
rainfall and evapotranspiration data, and water body characteristics within a watershed.
These technological approaches may be applied to other regions of the world, such as
Lake Nakuru in Kenya, Africa.

The problems of Lake Nakuru’s ecosystem are not unique, but the circumstances
surrounding them are relatively uncommon. This paper will explore water quality
prediction technologies that have helped other regions of the world cope with and solve
problems concerning wetland protection and conservation, water quality, and the balance
between the urban and natural environments. By using Geographic Information Systems
(GIS), remote sensing, and watershed modeling technologies and techniques, the source
or sources contributing to Lake Nakuru’s existing water quality condition may be
examined. To illustrate the potential of these technologies and techniques to an African
case study, I will describe Lake Nakuru’s watershed characteristics and explain the
relevance of these North American technologies and techniques to the issues and problems

facing Lake Nakuru.

Lake Nakuru ’s Watershed

Africa’s Great Rift Valley, which stretches from Ethiopia to Mozambique for a
total of 6400 km in length, is lined with a number of inland lakes, including Lake Nakuru
(Baskaran 1995). Lake Nakuru’s latitude is 0° 22’ S and it’s longitude is 36° 05” E,
placing it marginally north of the equator (Burgis and Symoens 1987) and 157 km from
Kenya’s largest city and capital, Nairobi (Kilimanjaro Adventure Travel, Kenya Wildlife
Service 1996). Lake Nakuru’s altitude is roughly 1760 m above sea level. The lake itself
covers an area of 36-49 kmz, while ranging in depth from 0.56 - 45 m (Vareschi and
Jacobs 1984) making it an extremely shallow lake (Kilimanjaro Adventure Travel, Kenya
Wildlife Service 1996). Lake Nakuru lies in a warm and semi-arid climate (Njuguna

1988), where evaporation is usually greater than precipitation. Because of this and other

factors, such as uneven flow from contributing rivers and streams and human water use,
the lake level may fluctuate greatly from year to year. The largest and most rapid lake
level declines usually occur in January and February when temperatures are highest,
humidity and rainfall are low, and winds are high (Melack 1988). The high water mark for
the lake occurred in 1905 (Olindo 1996), but over the past twenty years the lake has
receded 2 km and experienced “dry-outs” in 1967, 1988, 1993, and 1994 (SciFinder News
Net 1996). There does appear to be a pattern regarding dry periods for that region: years
with less than 700 mm of rainfall occur every 5-6 years, while rain below gauge (down
slope or downstream from the actual gage) occurs every 6-8 years (Melack 1988).
Essentially, a drought of varying severity occurs almost every five years.

Because of the volcanic activity associated with the formation of the Great Rift
Valley, Lake Nakuru is subsequently alkaline in nature. Volcanic soda has dissolved in
rainwater making many of the lakes in this region alkaline and somewhat brackish
(Baskaran 1995). “Nakuru” actually means little bitter-water lake. These soda lakes are,
however, highly productive with high primary production rates and large crops of algae
(N juguna 1988). Lake Nakuru’s salinity and alkalinity allows extreme densities of blue
algae to survive (V areschi and Jacobs 1984), which in turn support between one and two
million lesser flamingoes (Phoeniconaias minor) (Nyeki 1993) as well as the fish species,
Tilapia grahami Boulenger (Boulenger 1912), which were imported in the early sixties to
help combat the fight against malaria-carrying mosquitoes (V areschi and Jacobs 1984).
The climate not only affects lake levels, but salinity levels as well. Salinity levels are
usually highest from ‘September to March (Melack 1988).

In 1960, a portion of the area that is now known as Lake N akuru National Park
was set aside as a bird sanctuary. In 1964, Lake Nakuru was integrated into this area
(Burgis and Symoens 1987). Three years later, Lake Nakuru National Park was
established and in 1968 opened to the public. Lake Nakuru National Park now covers an
area of 188 km2 including the lake (Kilimanjaro Adventure Travel, Kenya Wildlife Service
1996). Figures 1, 2 (page 6), and 3 (page 7) supply location maps with increasing
proximity to Lake N akuru, respectively. Figure 4 (page 8) is a map of the national park.

 

Finn 1. AM
Sauce: WJMWWWAWW

t I
v
I
u ‘ “"_.":'.

 

time: Kenya '
Sam: http:/Mww.footm.co.uklkuiinfo.hml

 

1". .
.‘v‘i"
‘ At} LI“
of "

iré

9‘ - ’
10.?“ "v ":1

 

Must-inn

Ol’ ~
LAKE NAKURU

“A?

 

 

 

-—*
_-

 

0...“...- a-o—g 1.1—-
.—_~ I—In-
- ——

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E.

 

k.- ———’—‘.b

m”..-—
“ -—-—-M

 

boo—.-

I
‘v'll-III"-"IDI.I'I"'I '. Dal _

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.-—_I “O”-

 

._ -..-.o-fi ...-van- —\-—-l
fim l.--.~-.— lo.— ~~-~.-—‘.

mug-.0-
L I O i I O
b-_—-~~\ -60

 

 

"1.--.--

0‘ h-.-_—-—*
In..- --.—11-
¢.“ .11.-—0‘
... 1-1.11-—

_-—-

_’
b“ ——g
-..--1— .
~-_—_’.

   

    

              

 

. .L. -..... . .
new. a. ....av . Pg...“

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

.0 . . 01.00... I. tl.0l.\. - - uo‘ch l.
1}! 2t. . ill-'0 . .... .. - . n . .. . . s. d
- ...—... ..- o‘ n. 11...: .) JI.~J!.\’..W§...3V1. 33.31:. fife... . n . «Ave-"1. .
... ...}...1. .\ _ . . .. .. . Ill

  

It.

11H

. 11f. 4
. u . . ....— 5.. $23.... us#?___.114.-.5¢ 1.31.1. .1 .. . .h. .
l-.. . o . . .41.. 1.5....3.‘ ... 3.5.. .:....K . . 1.1.}. 1 .... .
..11.1.1.1.1.5.33.1”..s..u.......__._.fl_waw___.1.u1.._“c.. . .... 9.5%.; runs—1M1 1.... Eur .013.
. . DOA!” I. I

ll. .

 

  

 

 

 

       

 

. 1 .«w. ...x \ 0...... .... 1
. fix»? .. . . _ .
-&. (WMQWWvaW yfi .optlds. o h u
. .... «mama: tunes”; .
. f’w ‘. .. rev”. . JP-.¢‘V
......eut. ...}... ri
... .. ...m»%&<r%.m.mpmm. .uxeu . I 1 u

 

 

.. . . ../
ova/«l. . \JIJ'U:..\....WV.I.N4

 

 

  

.....n. .
. ... 01%;...

- .fi .
. .o u. . e f In . . u
.. .. kart... Marge/t . . ..lll .
a! \ a I. . 0. us .I ...‘v .v~ fl.l.f . ..c
«Mama . ..W. .11. ffifiufifixfi, T
c n .a. 0 Au... 0!- ‘MINDOMWQLO H.
-

“a
it"s-95
‘4‘
‘ 15""
3450-.-
$
-‘t
T“.
Q ' a
4:92.-
M.‘
’r’ r
I pf, ‘
:5":-
17“.»
:7
{‘

 

 

v. waxwhuww. . ..a.... (I
. 15.51% a

1
mus ~6u...» .
11.4.2... . 1.

 

  

fi.%?oo ”a.
. . .l 5.; .
«W... Aug-signs .H.~...fl..w.fiue/ \ I 1 u p

x. . .... .
. .... .. u...
«Po-”‘5' Mo.\ nu.

.. . ..r «...»... r11»... ...2.

ac . ...-o)”; \Illv‘
I O

1...... ......aa..w.... . ..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1| '6'. i-'||l|.Il| "IIIII..I'I||I l...

:_._.___.L_.._...___...”_..........

 

 

I. III

_.ai_.._@_Z_®__ ......Emw
Em _E_-ia_EEW
._ m..._m..u._e__m.__w+_&rm

 

  
  

 

 

 

 

w? LEPLEEQ

I In.
.IIJI‘IIIIII

 

-——.—‘

 

 

 

 

 

The park is characterized by several vegetation types including alkaline flats, marsh,
grasslands, rocky slopes, grass-shrub, and Acacia woodland (Burgis and Symoens 1987).
In fact, Lake Nakuru National Park is home to the largest euphorbia (Euphorbia
candelabrum Kotschy, Leach 1985) forest in Africa (Nyeki 1993).

Lake Nakuru National Park is known world wide for its diversity and numbers of

wildlife and birds. Over 400 species of birds exist in the park, (Kilimanjaro Adventure

Travel, Kenya Wildlife Service 1996) including an extreme density of lesser flamingoes

 

 

1111

 

1a

 

 

 

 

Figure 5. Lake Nakuru and its lesser flamingoes. Voorheis-Madill June 1996.

as shown in Figure 5 above. Other wildlife assets to the park include hippopotamus
(Hippopotamus amphibius), clawless otter (Anoyx capensis), waterbuck (Kobus
ellipsiprymnus), Bohor’s and Chandler’s reedbucks (Redunca spp.), zebra (Equus
burchelli), black rhino (Diceros bicornis), white rhino (Ceratotherium simum), buffalo
(Syncerus cafl'er), leopard (Panthera pardus), lion (Panthera leo), Rothschild’s giraffe
(Girajfa camelopardalis rothschildi), colobus monkey (C olobus badius), eland

(Taurotragus oryx), steinbok (Capra ibex), impala (Aepyceros melampus), dik dik

(Madoqua kirki), rock hyrax (Heterohyrax brucei), klipspringer (Oreotragus oreotragus),
and baboon (Papio Anubis) (Kilimanjaro Adventure Travel, Kenya Wildlife Service 1996).

Lake Nakuru is the sink of a catchment area of 1800 km2 (Burgis and Symoens
1987, Berger 1988). This drainage basin includes many types of landforms, one of the
most prominent being the Chyulu Hills. No rivers flow out of these hills, which supply the
catchment area with recharge water into the groundwater table and feed the springs at the
foothills (Berger 1988). Nderi River flows into Lake Nakuru from the southeast, Makalia
River flows in from the south, along with Enjoro River, a seasonal river, that flows in from
the northwest. In addition, approximately a dozen seasonal streams may flow into the lake
at some point or another during the year (Map of Lake Nakuru National Park 1994). For
all of these rivers and streams, Lake Nakuru is the last stop on the waters hydrologic
journey. Lake Nakuru has no outlet.

It is for this reason that it is even more important to also understand what is

happening around the lake. Since Lake Nakuru has no outlet, all water, sediment,

 

 

\-

’

 

 

 

Figure 6. Photo displays the surrounding dominant land use of agriculture. Voorhcis-Madill June 1996.

10

pollution, etc. from contributing sources has the potential of remaining in Lake Nakuru. It
is crucial to understand the processes that bring those materials into the lake in order to
interpret solutions for enhancing water quality. There are two sewers that empty into
Lake Nakuru: one at the north end and some along with the Enjoro River. The land use
percentages around the area are as follows: 5% towns, 35% bush, and 60% cultivation/
rangeland. (Burgis and Symoens 1987). Agriculture and cattle ranching are prevalent in
much of the area, including the majority of land from Nairobi to Nakuru (Figure 6, page

10). The town of Nakuru is located northwest of the lake, and almost abuts the fenced

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 7. One of the open storm and effluent drains. Voorheis-Madill June 1996.

11

National Park boundaries. Its population in 1987 was thought to be near 60,000 persons
(Burgis and Symoens 1987). Assuming that the growth rate is comparable to that of
Kenya’s 4% (Olindo 1996), the projected papulation in 1996 was 85,400. However, one
source claims that the 1970 population was near 50,000 and 150,000 by 1990 (Kenyan
Study Area 1996). Most of the city’s effluents and storm water runoff flow directly
through Open storm drains into the lake (Figure 7, page 11). When I visited Lake Nakuru
in June, 1996, however, it was noted that the effluents from the city of Nakuru appeared
to have gone through some type of minimal oxidation treatment before flowing into Lake
N akuru (Olindo 1996). Oxidation is the process of treating effluents with aeration
techniques to promote quicker decomposition of materials, thereby decreasing water
pollution.

Lake Nakuru has several demands on its water and landscape. First, because of
the fence around Lake Nakuru National Park, it is part of a somewhat “closed”
environment. Birds, fish, and other animals use its water for drinking, bathing, and as their
dwelling in some cases. These uses alone put a severe strain on the quality of the water,
especially when considering that between one and two million flamingoes may utilize it at
any one time. Second, human water consumption is rapidly affecting the lake in a variety
of ways. The city of Nakuru (Figure 9, page 13) not only uses it for effluent and storm
water drainage, but it also draws its drinking water supply from these same waters.
Nakuru’s p0pulation has increased dramatically in the 1980’s and continues to grow; only
increasing the strain on the lake. The areas surrounding Lake Nakuru heavily rely on
agriculture and ranching for its economic vitality. Pesticide and fertilizer pollution and soil
erosion are resultant negative impacts on the lake. Increased tourism into Lake Nakuru
National Park is also a human use that is taking a toll on the Lake Nakuru ecosystem
primarily because of the increased demand on the water supply and effluents created.
Finally, there are also natural, physical factors such as high evapotranspiration, low
precipitation, lack of outlets, and a shallow water basin that influence the lake’s water

quality.

12

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 8. The City of Nakuru from Baboon Cliffs in Lake Nakuru National Park Voorheis-Madill June 1996.

All of these factors combine to put a tremendous strain on water quality, water
levels, and Lake Nakuru’s biological environment. These are all issues that are facing the
city of Nakuru and the Kenya Wildlife Service, which is trying to manage Lake Nakuru
National Park and the wildlife inside of it. In addition, Berger (1988) cites issues facing
Lake Nakuru as pressure from the city of Nakuru to annex the park, soil erosion from
overgrazing, clearing of natural vegetation for cultivation up to the park boundaries,
domestic waste from Nakuru, and food that is being grown within park boundaries that
may be accumulating toxins from the water that is being used to grow it. SciFinder News
Net (1996) states that flamingo population declines are due to deforestation, climate
change, urbanization, and lake “dryouts.” Finally, World Wildlife Foundation (1996)
indicates that farming and urban development are major threats to Lake Nakuru’s
environment. Problems related to these activities are extensive deforestation, increased

sediment content, soil erosion, and pollution.

13

'Methodology

The method of inquiry for this paper is based upon site observations and
discussions that I experienced while visiting Kenya’s Lake Nakuru in June of 1996. After
discovering the challenges that faced Lake Nakuru’s managers, I soon realized that the
same dilemmas occur in the Great Lakes region of the United States, where I reside, and
in many places in North America and probably worldwide as well. In an attempt to
present possible solutions for the complex scenarios involving Lake Nakuru, I reviewed
techniques used in the US. to assess water quality and how to manage water bodies with
degrading water quality issues. By combining my personal experience of Lake Nakuru
with a literature review of applicable techniques, I could then assess the appropriateness of

the technology to an African application.

Results

It has been established that “changes in water quality for mid-continental North
American lakes are directly related to changes in watershed land uses” (Burley 1990).
Likewise, Garn and Parrott (1977) attest that all management programs within a lake
watershed may impact the lake. It is for this reason that the water quality assessment and
management technologies at a watershed level are vitally important. Common coverages
used in case studies are roads (including width and length), prOperty boundaries, soils,
surface and groundwater hydrology, vegetation cover types, faunal distributions, land
use/cover, drainage patterns, topography, surface temperature, radiation balance, sensible
heat flux, soil moisture, snow, surface water quality, groundwater transport, building
density, source area fractions, rooftop pitch, hydrologic soil group, elevation, flooding
extent, stream temperature, stonnwater control device specifications, precipitation, lake
evaporation estimates, surface area, and mean lake depth (Engman 1995, Haney and
Power 1996, Haubner and Joeres 1996, Hession et al 1996, Taylor 1996).

Prediction models are just what they appear to be. They may be computer
modeling or simulation programs and/or equations that are used to predict such things as
phosphorus levels and sources in a watershed. Most of them are designed to create a

variety of scenarios or outcomes that may occur in the future under certain circumstances

14

or goals that are, predetermined. This tOOl helps managers and planners decide on the
appropriate course Of actions that need to be taken once the problem is properly defined
and Options are identified. Bettinger, Johnson, and Sessions (1996) point out three
distinct advantages to this type of approach: reduction in the time spent in searching for
problem-solving activities, solutions to problems can be identified within a limited
computing time, and provision Of good solutions to difficult problems easily and quickly.
Examining problems within a watershed perspective is critical in order to fully
understand hydrologic and related processes and to manage for them. It is not only
hydrologically sound to proceed in this manner, but politically as well. Oftentimes, several
communities may exist within a watershed and share its resources. By approaching issues
from a landscape perspective, the communities may be able to work together for the good
Of the region and make complementary and congruent decisions within that watershed.
Spatial analysis techniques are valuable to researchers for several reasons. The
large land areas covered for analyses and the large databases that programs can manipulate
allow for the measurement Of entire system conditions (Engman 1995). The shear number
Of potential scenarios or outcomes that can be created from these processes are also
increasingly important for making sound management decisions. Montgomery, Grant, and
Sullivan (1995) point out several distinct advantages that analysis at a watershed level can
create. Watershed analyses incorporate scientific input from the beginning Of the project
or study, which may decrease crisis or reactive management and also decrease the
likelihood of unanticipated conflicts. The inter-agency and inter-disciplinary approach Of
these types Of analysis reinforces the previously mentioned component of cooperation
across political boundaries. They may also carry a certain level of public accountability.
The main spatial analysis tools for computing water quality at watershed levels
include Geographic Information Systems (018), remote sensing, and mathematical
prediction models. They are used to identify sources of pollution and to offer insights into
potential management solutions. Within this body Of knowledge, I would like tO introduce
three approaches that drive these types Of processes and projects. In addition, I present
information concerning GIS, related management techniques used, and the variables

required tO assess the landscape. I also describe why these procedures are important to

15

water quality assessment projects, advantages and disadvantages, and common protocol
procedures.

The three management approaches or styles that apparently have influenced water
quality assessment projects and research, GIS, remote sensing, and prediction methods at
a watershed level are ecosystem management, adaptive management, and landscape
ecology. All three philosophies will be treated simultaneously as many times they are in
the literature, since they share common principles.

As evidenced by landscape ecology, which has been a school Of thought and
research since 1939, these types Of management approaches have been in academic circles
for literally decades (Jensen et a1. 1996). These management styles may be considered
exploratory problem-solving techniques that couple science with social values to pror‘itOte
the sustainable management of natural systems (Haney and Power 1996). They are based
on the idea Of learning by doing. They incorporate scientific thought, experiments, and
research into planning. Actually, it is believed that science must precede planning and
decision-making in order for sound management tO take place (Montgomery, Grant, and
Sullivan 1995). It is in this manner that science is used as a tool to learn from and also as
knowledge that may be applied tO management decisions or plans. The goal Of ecosystem
management-type approaches is to “preserve ecosystem integrity, while maintaining '
sustainable benefits for human populations” (Montgomery, Grant, and Sullivan 1995).
This defining goal introduces three overarching principles Of thought for these
management approaches: to combine social and ecological values, large scale thinking,
and inter-generationalism.

The above management approaches try to balance the impacts Of the urban
civilization and the needs Of an ecosystem. They are based on the fundamental assumption
that the two entities can successfully be balanced and in fact, that by combining the two, a
more realistic and holistic approach is taken. By approaching management problems from
a landscape perspective, a more comprehensive planning and decision making process may
be achieved. While smaller scale managing may be coupled with the larger perspective,
landscape planning allows managers Of ecosystems to tailor management to landscape

features, potential, and processes (Montgomery, Grant, and Sullivan 1995). Lastly, the

16

idea Of inter-generational ecology is part of these approaches. Not only do they consider
current conditions, they also take into consideration the future’s resources and needs. In
this manner, these styles may truly be said tO have comprehensive qualities.

Harwell (1996) presents nine defining principles of ecosystem management that
help tO clarify their positions further:

° uses an ecological approach that would recover and maintain the biological
diversity, ecological function and defining characteristics Of natural ecosystems

' recognizes that humans are part Of ecosystems

° adopts a management approach that recognizes ecosystems and institutions as
characteristically heterogeneous in time and space

° integrates sustainable economic and community activity into the management Of
ecosystems

° develops a shared vision Of desired ecosystem conditions

0 provides for ecosystem governance at appropriate ecological and institutional scales

0 uses adaptive management as the mechanism for reaching desired outcomes and
critical new understandings regarding ecosystem conditions

0 integrates the best science available to form the basis Of the decision-making process,
while continuing to improve the basic scientific understanding Of ecosystems

' implements ecosystem management principles through coordinated government and
non-govemment activities.

If one is using one Of the management approaches presented above; GIS, remote
sensing, and prediction models make excellent tools whereby data can be collected and
analyzed for management plans and decisions. Landscape management approaches and
these techniques make logical companions. Since GIS and remote sensing are hailed for
their abilities to represent large land areas with several variables, it would seem automatic
to use these capabilities-in a management project that is exploring large-scale and
comprehensive perspectives.

Essentially, GIS and remote sensing are used to create large databases Of
information. Most times, they are the “science” that precedes management decisions. GIS
can then layer as many coverages as desired to produce the necessary maps for analysis.
GIS’s main strength is not its capability Of combining a limitless amount of databases and
maps, but in its ability to present these combinations for analysis purposes. One Of the
most important aspects about this is that those maps can become baselines Of information

from which trend analyses may be performed. As in most studies, the comparison Of

17

baselines with many points in time is crucial in understanding certain processes, linking
impacts to human activity, and managing for them (Montgomery, Grant, Sullivan 1995).
However, Montgomery, Grant, and Sullivan (1995) also point out a few Of the
disadvantages too. Management and political commitment to a watershed level project
must be reliable and lasting because GIS related undertakings are both time-consuming
and costly. They also require highly trained resource specialists. A watershed analysis
done poorly is a waste Of time, money, and does not maximize the potential aid in sound

decision-making or planning.

GIS and prediction models are powerful tools used to analyze many characteristics
about or in a watershed. Burley’s (1990) study of Lake Itasca, Minnesota was conducted
in order to “predict the amount Of development that can occur within a watershed without
compromising water quality.” GIS/EPPL7 and SAUKBIT‘3.BAS were the programs used
to predict the carrying capacity Of a lake, which was based on climate, land use, soil
features, and lake morphology (Burley 1990). Garn and Parrott’s (1977) goals Of a
project in the Ottawa National Forest were to avoid water quality deterioration, to
determine lake water quality problem areas, and tO recommend courses Of actions. A case
study involving forest planning in Oregon used spatial analysis techniques tO meet five
goals: “to manage for high quality fish habitat, maintain elk habitat, restore forest
condition within natural range Of viability, maintain forest condition within natural range
Of viability, and contribute to community economic stability” (Bettinger, Johnson, and
Sessions 1996). SNAP'II++, “a series Of criteria with network analysis to develop
solutions for Spatially constrained forest planning problems” was used in this study
(Bettinger, Johnson, and Sessions 1996). Two related case studies involving GIS
techniques both deal with phosphorus loading. One determined wetland characteristics
that affect phosphorus loading from a lake basin spanning Vermont, New York, and the
Canadian Province Of Quebec (Weller, Watzin, and Wang 1996). The other examined
lake impairment level and major phosphorus sources in an Oklahoma lake (I-Iession et al
1996). The latter project utilized a computer program, EUTROMOD, which is a nutrient
loading and lake response model accompanied by GIS/GRASS (Hession et al. 1996). One
study near West Lafayette, Indiana utilized the WEPP (Water Erosion Prediction Project)

18

program along with the GIS/GRASS program. WEPP is a powerful tOOl that can predict
“water-induced soil erosion, storm runoff, root zone soil water, evapotranspiration, plant-
growth and snowmelt on cropland, rangeland, and forestland watersheds” (Savabi 1995).
The last case study occurred in a watershed near Plymouth, Minnesota and used spatial
analysis techniques “to assist in the assessment Of storrnwater runoff pollution at the
municipal level” (Haubner and Joeres 1996). This included strategies tO increase water
clarity, decrease weed growth and also decrease algal growth (Haubner and Joeres 1996).
This study utilized another powerful prediction tool, Source Loading and Management
Model (SLAMM). This model estimates source areas Of pollutant loadings for urban
areas (Haubner and Joeres 1996).

Like scientific research, spatial analysis techniques and water quality assessment
projects follow definite pre-determined courses Of action. There are several
methodologies available when exploring watershed modeling studies, however, there
appear tO be common steps along the way in several Of the case studies reviewed. Three
phases are generally recognized for these approaches. The first phase, which I will refer
to as model design, deals with preliminary and start-up procedures such as deigning a
model tO use or gathering data. The second phase, data collection and manipulation,
involves the manipulation of the gathered data sets. This may be through layering
coverages in a GIS or using prediction models to prepare future, potential scenarios. The
last phase, results, relies upon results from previous steps. For example, this phase weighs
outcome implications and may allow for a course of actions to be chosen. It is important
to explain that some iasks are continued for the life Of the project. The exchange of
information and inventories should be continued throughout the entire process of the
project, especially when multiple owners, agencies, and disciplines are involved (Haney
and Power 1996). Also necessary at various steps throughout a project is public
education and input. By encouraging public participation from the onset of the study,
conflicts and issues of cooperation, which may plague or terminate a project, may be
avoided at later stages Of the study. Lastly, re-evaluation, remodeling, and further
reassessing is important to ensure that the methodology produces the desired information

for the desired goals. A monitoring program needs to be created with the first steps Of the

19

project through tO completion and beyond in order tO link effectiveness of goals with
methodology, determine if further study is needed, and to monitor impacts Of management

decisions and plans.
Phase One: Model Design

OStep one, logically, is to define the watershed in need Of analysis (Burley 1990).
This should be accomplished by using environmental criteria, such as hydrology,

topography, and geology.

OStep two is to classify the lake that is being focused on in the watershed in terms
Of trOphic condition so that a baseline may be determined (Haubner and Joeres 1996).
From the baseline, trend analyses and/or monitoring may proceed. This may be done by
using Carlson’s Lake Index, which is based upon three variables: chlorophyll a
concentration, Secchi disk transparency, and total phosphorus levels (Cam and Parrott
1977). See Carlson (1977) for further explanation Of trOphic state indices. Other valuable

baselines include lake sensitivity and carrying capacity (Garn and Parrott 1977).

OStep three may involve several things all related tO a type Of data collection.
Before goals can be set (Step four), a compilation Of information concerning ecological,
socioeconomic, institutional, and cultural issues needs to be gathered (Haney and Power
1996). At this time it is also appropriate to identify stakeholders’ desires and needs
(Jensen and Everett 1994). Furthermore, definition and clarification Of critical issues is
also necessary (Montgomery, Grant, and Sullivan 1995). Along with the social issues and
data that needs compilation, physical data and sources can be gathered as well. For
example, inventories such as biotic surveys, literature reviews, public surveys, market
analyses, databases, and maps are all examples Of appropriate information (Montgomery,
Grant, and Sullivan 1995). In other words, all available baseline material needs to be

collected.

OStep four then defines the goals and proceeds with the technical model creation.

It is important at this phase to plan out resolution and scale Of the project including the

20

variables that will be used and to classify the similar land units by groups if necessary
(Haubner and Joeres 1996). It is during this step that the real mechanics of the model are
decided upon.

Phase Two: Data Collection and Manipulation

OStep five involves actually creating GIS databases with previously gathered data.
These data sets can then be layered to produce maps and analyses. These maps and
analyses may be ready for examination for insights into problems, issues, resource
potentials and limitations, and other essential information. For example, phosphorus levels
and land use data sets may have been layered in order to produce a map that can then be
examined in order tO identify where potential phosphorus loading is occurring within a
watershed. Depending on the goals set forth at the beginning Of the project, this may be
the extent Of examination necessary. Often times, however, much thorough investigative

research is required.

OStep six may be manipulating the GIS databases further and/or applying

prediction models and equations tO produce more significant parts Of the puzzle.
Phase Three: Results

OStep seven, if future conditions and outcomes are created, is scenario
consequence analysis or the weighing Of implications Of each Of the future conditions
generated (Harwell 1996). It is from here that decision-making and planning for specified
goals proceeds. Upon completion Of decision-making and subsequent plans,

implementation strategies are applied.

21

Discussion

There may be one Of several potential explanations for Lake Nakuru’s existing
water condition. There may be natural or man-made influences or a combination Of both
affecting its quality. Natural influences affecting water quality, including the rate Of
evaporation, amount of rainfall, soil type, and wildlife tend to be difficult to manage the
effects Of. Man-made influences are more than likely linked to land uses. The probability
Of any one Of these factors or any combination Of them contributing to the decreasing
water quality is high. Assuming a GIS study similar to one presented above yielded
several potential scenarios of contributing sources for contamination, this section examines
potential solutions.

For example, if the rate Of evaporation exceeds the amount Of rainfall or input
from the contributing tributaries (which occurs in most years) lake levels will fall. The
recession Of water then increases the concentration of elements within it. This would
include the elements that affect water quality; bacteria, nutrients, and sediment. There is
no natural solution if the contributing factor tO decreasing water quality is in fact tied to
the amount Of rainfall occurring.

One solution to this dilemma, however, is to increase the amount Of water entering
the lake by one Of its two contributing processes; rainfall or flow from rivers and streams.
Since we can not influence the amount Of rainfall, the only other Option would be to
increase the flow Of contributing waters. Water could be imported to the rivers and
streams before they enter Lake Nakuru. However, increasing the amount Of water that
these flowing water bodies carries may have other adverse impacts on Lake Nakuru’s
watershed. Increased bank erosion and stream-bed scouring may only make more
sediment available to travel into Lake Nakuru, resulting in sediment loading which could
exacerbate the water quality issue. Ultimately, solutions need to be considered in the
context Of the entire environment, not piecemeal.

If the desire is to increase the amount Of water in Lake Nakuru, the most direct
route may be the most beneficial i.e. import water from elsewhere and deposit it into the
Lake itself. This would avoid potential problems with increased flow from its contributing

rivers and streams. However, as in most places in Africa, the question of where to get

22

excess water becomes the limiting factor in this scenario. Furthermore, if water is being
imported into the lake, why wouldn’t the city Of Nakuru simply use that water for its own
use and consumption rather than drain water from the lake. This might then allow for a
natural lake level stabilization to occur.

Another solution is tO examine other potential sources contributing to the
degrading water quality. While in reality there is probably not one source, but many
contributing sources to the water quality problem, solutions must then come from a
variety Of areas. For example, lirnit the amount Of water that can be drained from the lake
or limit the amount Of effluents and quality Of them being dumped into it.

This also appears to be the answer to the question regarding the scenario if soils
appear to be contributors Of nutrients into the lake. Some soil types naturally are high in
phosphorus and nutrient levels and tend tO leach them into surrounding areas, including
nearby water bodies and groundwater. There is little that can be done in these situations
except to examine the nutrient budget Of the lake, i.e. account for all loading and
consumption Of nutrients, and target management strategies at other sources that are
contributing nutrients. For example, assuming that the amount Of nutrients being loaded
into the lake from soils is constant, the amount Of water that can be drained from the lake
was limited, and the amount Ofeffluents and quality Of them being dumped into the lake
were minimized, the desirable net amount Of nutrients in the lake may be attained without
managing for the natural nutrient inputs from the soils.

The other potential solution to the soil contributing scenario mentioned above
would be to apply a buffer strip along the lake. Soils underneath the lake that contribute
nutrients directly to lake waters would be unaffected by this effort, but if runoff into the
lake is carrying water high in nutrients from the soils uphill, then a buffer zone Of
vegetation that consumes nutrients may be beneficial.

If the major contributing factor to degraded water quality is discovered tO be
wildlife related, there may be several wildlife management Options available to explore.
Wildlife influences could be many including contributing nutrients into the lake, use and
consumption, and in the case Of the flamingoes, covering it enough to potentially affect the

solar processes involved with primary production in the lake.

23

Since flamingo populations have been participants in the Lake Nakuru ecology for
centuries, it may be wise to examine solutions that do not directly affect their behavior or
well-being. Flamingoes have inhabited this region for many more years than humans have.
Therefore, it would be difficult to state that flamingo use is the sole contributor to the
existing water quality condition. There probably has been a certain level Of contamination
from flamingo populations for long periods Of time. The combination of flamingo
populations with other factors, however, may be the determinant that is contributing to
degrading water quality. One Option that was previously discussed, would be to import
water into the lake. Essentially, this would dilute the concentration Of pollutants present
and increase the surface area available for wildlife use. The other potential solution would
be to mitigate the impact that flamingoes have on water quality by reducing nutrient inputs
from other sources, as was discussed in the soil scenario. Both Of these Options would
have minimal impacts on waterfowl, yet address the problems associated with water
quality in the lake.

Another Option would be to create another or numerous waterholes inside the Park
boundaries that animals would be able tO access. This may lessen the intensity of use upon
Lake Nakuru by Offering wildlife another Option for drinking, eating, and bathing. While,
this may' alleviate stress on the lake from wildlife other than flamingoes, the majority Of the
water quality problems that are contributed to flamingo populations would still be present.
Depending on the size and location Of the waterholes, changes in watershed hydrology
would need to be carefully planned for and monitored intensely. Again, the concept Of
ecosystem/watershed, management comes into effect. When making decisions, it is vitally
important tO consider impacts across the entire watershed so as to minimally disrupt the
balance within it.

The question of how to cope with the massive numbers Of flamingoes that flock to
Lake Nakuru every year seems to be an extremely difficult one. The impact that
flamingoes have on Lake Nakuru is massive, simply due tO their shear numbers. The
assumption that they contribute their share Of nutrients is probably realistic and one that

needs attention. However, it is highly sensitive. Like other solutions that could have

24

impacts on other aspects of the watershed, solutions to the flamingo problem should not
disrupt or influence the behavior of the birds or related biological systems.

If by using a spatial analysis technique similar to one described previously, it is
determined that one of the main culprits for decreasing water quality is in fact effluents
from the city of Nakuru, a potential application technique may be the use of either natural
or constructed wetland treatment systems (CWT S). These facilities could be used to
divert the city of N akuru’s effluents and storm drainage runoff to better purify the water
before it enters Lake Nakuru.

The practice of using either natural or constructed wetlands to treat wastewater is
relatively new and still considered highly experimental. In 1989, a total of 100
constructed wetlands existed in the United States, all Of them only two or three years in
age (Dawson 1989). This means that now, even the Oldest of facilities is only ten years
Old, the typical age to which they’re built to last (James 1995). The long-term effects and
impacts of these facilities are still missing pieces of this complex puzzle, and of course,
those factors are vital to implementation and management practices. Schutz (1990) points
out that there is still disagreement among interested parties on their construction and
management practices.

Today in the U.S.,.wetland systems Operate in all types of climates. U.S. facilities
range in treatment capacity from 10,000 gallons per day to 20 million gallons per day
(Schutz 1990). Not only are they used to treat municipal wastewater, but there are
several other valuable uses as well, including treating industrial discharges, landfill
leachate, acid mine drainage, and for agriculture and storrnwater runoff control (James
1995). ‘

While the mechanics of these facilities may still be considered to be in infant
stages, positive feedback is already returning from those in use. Two of the most
promising features of these wetlands are the cost to build and maintain them and the
quality of the water after passing through them.

Dawson (1989) claims that the construction cost of one of these facilities is
approximately $300,000. when comparing this figure to the average cost of a traditional

wastewater treatment facility ($3-4 million), the difference is staggering. James (1995)

25

reiterates the savings as typically being 25% less than traditional facilities. Not only are
construction costs drastically reduced, but maintenance and operational fees as well.
Dawson (1989) again states that CWTS’s are self-maintaining after 2-3 seasons, thereby
reducing staffing and maintenance costs. James (1995) restates this theme and claims that
operation and maintenance costs are cut by 10-30%.

The resultant water quality from improved CWT S techniques appears to be
increasing. Suspended solids, biological oxygen demand (BOD), and fecal coliform levels
are all below standards set for “purified” water that passes through a treatment facility
(Dawson 1989). Other positive impacts include reduced nutrient (nitrogen, phosphorus,
and ammonia-nitrogen), heavy metal, and pesticide and other organic chemical levels
(James 1995).

There are some drawbacks to CWTS facilities, however. Primarily, they require a
large land area (Dawson 1989). Secondly, plants within these facilities tend to accumulate
the heavy metals that pass through in the water (Dawson 1989). Disposal of these heavy
metal-laden plant materials would be another issue that the Nakuru area would have to
address. Potentially, the solution of disposing of these toxic materials may pose more
problems than the original issue of poor water quality. Lastly, the wetland facilities
require a minimum of upstream primary treatment for BOD and solids removal in order to
prevent clogging in the wetlands (Schutz 1990). So, a minimum of one facility would also
be required to enhance water quality later.

For example in Benton, Kentucky, there are 4700 people, who produce one million
gallons of wastewater per day. This particular facility, like others, uses three different
cells, one Of bulrush, cattails, and one mixture grown in four to six inches Of water, to pass
the wastewater through to increase the quality Of the (Dawson 1989). Assuming that the
people of the city of Nakuru consumed and produced the wastewater at the same rates
and amounts per person in Benton and assuming a population of 85,400 persons; Nakuru
would need a facility with a capacity for over 18 million gallons per day. Assuming that
the living conditions are the same, Nakuru’s 18 million gallon per day treatment facility
would require a maximum of 792 acres of land. This is likely larger than necessary

because the rates Of consumption are probably lower in Nakuru than they are in Benton.

26

These figures were derived from Schutz’s (1990) calculations of 176 acres treating 4
million gallons per day.

Wetland treatment systems Obtain their high water quality by using the attributes Of
several wetland plant types. Common plant species used in American systems are cattail
(Typha J. St. Hil) (Beal 1904), soft-stem bulrush (Scirpus validus Vahl) (Voss 1972),
Pontederia Dumort (Beal 1904), water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes Mart. Solms)
(Berg 1961), duckweeds (Lemna L. and Spirodela Schleid) (Beal 1904), reed grass
(Phragmites communis Trin) (Beal 1904), and pickerel weeds (Dawson 1989, Schutz
1990, Gover 1993, James 1995). Use of native plant species is highly recommended.

There are two types of wetlands that are used for wastewater treatment that are
characterized by the type of flow passing through them: a free - surface or free water
wetland and a subsurface flow wetland. The free or surface flow wetland Offers two
distinct advantages: less Odor and fewer mosquitoes (Dawson 1989). One hundred
seventy-six acres can treat 4 million gallons per day at a cost of $.99 per million gallon per
day. It can treat between 60,000 and 20 million gallons per day at a construction cost Of
$22,200 per acre (Schutz 1990). Assuming Schutz’s numbers, it would cost Nakuru
$17,582,400 in construction costs to build the facility and $17.82 per day for Operation.

While, the subsurface flow wetlands are more efficient at removing nitrogen during _
colder months, the rates of nitrogen removal also decrease over time (Gover 1993). Three
acres of the subsurface facility can treat 483,000 gallons per day at a cost of $.53 per
gallon per day and can treat between 10,000 and 3,500,000 gallons per day. The average
construction cost is $87,218 per acre (Schutz 1990). More communities prefer these
almost two tO one and larger communities tend tO use them more because of their cost
effectiveness and the fact that wastewater flow is seven times greater than the free surface
wetlands (Schutz 1990).

Another human activity that threatens Lake Nakuru with elements that could
degrade its water quality is agricultural practices. Berger (1988) already cited soil erosion
from overgrazing and clearing of naturalvegetation for cultivation as major issues facing
the Nakuru area. The World Wildlife Foundation indicates that farming and urban

development are major threats to Lake Nakuru’s environment (1996). Water quality

27

problems associated with farming activities include increased sediment content from soil
erosion and nutrient loading from fertilizer use.

Soil erosion is a common problem in farming areas where large amounts of soil
may be exposed and/or saturated. Increased sediment content in lakes or streams that are
located in foothills oftentimes occurs because of soil erosion. During storm events, or
even in non-dramatic rainfall events, large amounts of water can run Off sloping land. This
runoff water frequently carries any elements in its path downslope with it. All too often,
soil particles are swept with the water downSIOpe and deposited wherever the water
eventually stops moving. In the case Of Lake Nakuru, which is the sink for a catchment
area, this means that runoff water carrying sediment and nutrients from fertilizers becomes
deposited in its waters.

Runoff water from soil erosion may occur under a variety of conditions including
an area’s topography, soil type, and amount and types Of vegetation. If the topography in
the area is leped, the soil type is a variety of clay materials, and vegetation is sparse, there
is a good chance that soil erosion will be rampant. All of these characteristics are common
to Lake Nakuru’s catchment area. While there is little that can be done to change those
natural existing conditions, there are many actions that can-be taken to lessen the impact
that soil erosion has on the landscape.

Essentially there are two approaches that may counteract the impact of soil erosion
on land surrounding Lake Nakuru: biological and mechanical strategies. Herbaceous
Vegetation strategies Offer several counterattacks on the processes Of soil erosion. Grasses
provide root reinforcement through the restraint of soil particles, absorption of rainfall
energy, prevention of soil compaction, filtration of sediment from runoff water,
maintenance of soil porosity and permeability, and delay of soil saturation (a condition
highly conducive to runoff situations) through infiltration (Gray and Leiser 1982).

All of these processes may be accomplished through a buffer zone of native,
herbaceous vegetation surrounding the lake, a vegetated settling pond, or a CWTS as
described previously. A buffer zone simply would supply a vegetated strip where runoff
water from upslope could be filtered in a limited amount of time before it enters the lake.

Settling or retention ponds could offer more time for physical and chemical processes to

28

take place than a buffer zone because the water remains static for a certain amount of
time, which allows sediment and other elements to settle or separate from the water.
CWTS’s essentially would Offer the same processes and impacts, only at a larger, more
complex scale.

Mechanical strategies~ employ structures such as rip-rap, settling ponds, diversions,
check dams, and cut slopes to Offer protection from lepe movement and soil erosion.
This is accomplished primarily by slowing the velocity of the moving water down so as to
minimize erosion activity (Gray and Leiser 1982). Rip-rap are simply rocks placed
strategically on a slope to offer some stability from sheer forces, gravitational and weight
forces pulling soil downhill. Settling ponds were already highlighted, however, they may
be either vegetated or non-vegetated. It should be noted that vegetation in the vegetated
ponds may promote uptake of nutrients traveling in runoff water. Diversions are channels
on a sloping land surface (Gray and Leiser 1982). These structures would carry water to a
desired specific location rather than by haphazard runoff down a slope. Another strategy
that may be employed jointly with diversions are check dams. Check dams are barriers in
channels that serve to slow water velOcity down further. Cut or terraced slopes are
another potential solution to lessening the impact that soil erosion has on water quality.
Terraces would act as temporary water diversions which mayallow enough time for
absorption of the runoff into the soil.

All of these practices would greatly enhance the land’s capacity to control the
deleterious effects of soil erosion. They are also capable Of influencing the impacts that
fertilizers have on the water quality through many of the same principles. Excess fertilizer
that is not consumed by crops and vegetation or absorbed by the soil Often becomes one of
the elements swept away with the runoff water. The biological strategies of a buffer zone,
a settling pond, or a CWTS could propose positive impacts on the water quality of the
lake. The vegetation associated with each of these solutions would benefit greatly from
the presence Of increased nutrient levels, while those nutrient levels would be decreased
from the water content of the lake downslope from farming fields.

Another solution to managing the fertilizer issue may be crop rotation. By rotating

crOps, the soil is less likely to become saturated with any one element or component. For

29

example, if members of the legume family are cultivated cyclically, nitrogen in the soil
would be consumed and become unavailable to be swept away by runoff water. The
possible limiting factor in this scenario is the climate and growing conditions. I am certain
that because of the semi-arid climate, the variety of crops that are capable of flourishing
there are limited. Since agriculture/rangeland is the dominant land use (60%) from Nairobi
to Nakuru, this could influence the economic livelihood of many people who. depend on

agriculture and grazing for survival.

Conclusion

It is apparent that the situation in Lake Nakuru’s watershed is complex. The
variety of land uses and natural influences surrounding the degrading water quality are
many and the inter-relationships between them are vital to understand and difficult to
manage. It would seem that by using spatial analysis techniques and modeling and
prediction tools that sources contributing to the existing water quality condition could be
properly identified. With the knowledge of what and where the sources are that govern
water quality, ecosystem management principles could then be applied to manage and
remedy the problem.

Realistically, all of the potential scenarios of contributing sources I mentioned in
the discussion section probably factor into the water quality condition equation. Also as
was previously discussed, the problem of managing for all contributing sources becomes
even more difficult when balance in the watershed is maintained. It is for this reason that
the use of ecosystem management, adaptive management, and landscape ecology
principles would be highly beneficial. The large-scale thinking associated with these
management approaches is exactly the thinking needed to accomplish set water quality
goals. The inter-generational approach to those methods is needed as well in the Lake
Nakuru scenario to ensure that the lake survives through and for generations of use by
humans and wildlife. Lastly, the combination of social and scientific solutions is of vast
relevance to the Nakuru watershed situation.

Addressing the last principle of ecosystem management (a social interaction with

the problem at hand) is especially important in the issues facing Lake Nakuru for two

30

reasons. One reason the social element is so critical to the questions surrounding the
water quality of Lake Nakuru is because human consumption, use, and dumping is
probably a major influence on its water quality. Considering that only 5% Of the
surrounding land use is designated as “towns,” this problem can only intensify as more
land is set aside for urban purposes.

The other reason revolves around the concept Of public participation. In recent
years, the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) has launched a vigorous campaign to educate the
people living near Lake Nakuru National Park about its resources, wildlife, and the role
they play in each. These efforts would need to be continued and enhanced to ensure that
the public has a voice in the process, understands decisions that are being made, and how
those decisions might affect them and the watershed. '

Using spatial analysis and prediction techniques similar to those presented earlier
would be an excellent vehicle in the pursuit of answers to Lake Nakuru’s water quality
questions. Large-scale areas could be used in order to represent the entire watershed
appropriately. Potential sources of contamination may be identified in order to manage for
them. While this may appear to be the technical solution to the methodology Of such a
project, there are also several limitations that need to be pointed out.

In Kenya in the past, much of the research that was conducted was done so by
visiting scientists. 'Unfortunately, when the scientists left, they had a tendency to take their
research with them and would leave very little information or knowledge behind.
Justifiably, not only is there skepticism about outside researchers conducting research, but
there is little base information available. Assuming that l was to undertake a GIS project
to identify the sources that are contributing to the degrading water quality Of Lake
Nakuru, the lack of baseline information could become a large limiting factor when
considering that large and diverse databases would be required for the watershed analysis.
In many instances, the databases that in North America could be downloaded from an
appropriate agency in a matter of hours, would in Nakuru, have to be created. While this
could be done, it would be highly time consuming, cumbersome, and increase the project
time length. Time would appear to be of the essence, especially if authorities are simply

trying tO maintain water quality levels without it worsening.

31

Political systems are another factor that might play heavily into a project as
proposed. An intense study of the existing political system in the Nakuru area and the
country as well would be beneficial in understanding how to carry out the methodology,
gather information, and make decisions. This would also be a major factor if some
management plan were decided upon that would affect wildlife. Because Kenya’s
economy is highly dependent on the wildlife tourism industry, the management of wildlife
parks and systems often becomes highly political. Care would need to be taken in any
management decision so that the interests of the watershed would be of top priority.

Two other limiting factors,- which are common in North America, present
themselves. Lack of amount and continued funding appears to factor into almost every
proposed and in-progress project today. Also, since watershed management Often crosses
political boundaries, the question of inter-govemmental and inter-agency involvement
becomes key to the success of a study Of Lake Nakuru’s water quality from a landscape
perspective.

Keeping all of the limiting factors in mind, a GIS project with the goals of
understanding degrading water quality and identifying sources of pollution would be
difficult, but necessary. Currently, I believe that little is being done to correct the present
situation. If continued demand on water and little rainfall continues, the life of the lake
may be in jeopardy. This would only make future endeavors to enhance water quality and
use more water increasingly difficult.

With all of the variables that are participants in the watershed ecosystem, this
would be a challenging and exciting undertaking. By examining techniques and
technologies currently being called upon in North America tO help find solutions to
intricate problems such as this, potential applications to the African counterpart may be
discovered. It may also be discovered that solutions to complex problems with similar

issues are not worlds apart.

Bibliography

Baskaran, S. Theodore. “An Evening at Lake Nakuru.” The Hindu and Paralogic
Corporation, 1995. http://www.webpage.com/hindu/9511 1/13/0534a.html

Beal, W. J. Michigan Flora, A List of the Fern and Seed Plants Growing Without
Cultivation. Lansing: Robert Smith Printing CO., 1904.

Berg, A. Role ecologique des eaux de la Cuvette congolgse surfi croissance de la
jacinthe d’eau (Eichhornia crassipes (Mart) Solms). Brussels: Academic royale
des Sciences d’Outre-Mer, 1961.

Berger, Dhyani J. People, Parks, and Wildlife: Guidelines of Public Participation in
Wildlife Conservation: Case Studies in Kenya, Nairobi: United Nations

Environment Programme, 1988.

 

Bettinger, Pete, K. Norman Johnson, and John Sessions. “Forest Planning in an Oregon
Case Study: Defining the Problem and Attempting to Meet Goals with a Spatial-

Analysis Technique.” Environmental Management. 20 (July/August, 1996): 565-
577.

Boulenger, G. A. “Description Of a new fish from British East Africa.” Annual
Magazine of Natural History. 9 (1912). 519- 521.

 

Burgis, MJ. and J .J . Symoens, eds. African Wetlands and Shallow Water Bodies. Paris:
editions de L’Orstrom, 1987.

 

Burley, Jon Bryan. et a]. “Land Use / Watershed Modeling for Lake Itasca, Minnesota:
A Land Use Planning, GIS Project at Colorado State University.” 17 (Fall 1990):
19-25.

Carlson, Robert E. “A Trophic State Index for Lakes.” Limnology apd Oceanography.
22 (March, 1977): 361-369.

Dawson, Bill. “High Hopes.” Civil Engineering. 59 (May, 1989): 48-50.

Engman, Edwin T. “The Use of Remote Sensing Data in Watershed Research.” Journal
of Soil and Water Conservation. 50 (September/October, 1995): 438-440.

Forse, Bill. “Rhinos find sanctuary in Kenya.” New Scientist. 117 (10 March, 1988):
28.

33

Gakstatter, J. H., M. O. Allum, and J. M. Omerick. “Lake Eutrophication: Results from
the National Eutrophication Survey.” In Water Quality Criteria Research Of the
US. Environmental Protection Agency, Proceedings of a US. EPA-sponsored
Symposium on Marine, Estuarine an Freshwater Quality. EPA-600/3-76-079,
US. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon, 1974: 185-205.

Garn, Herbert S., and Harry A. Parrott. “Recommended Methods for Classifying Lake
Condition, Determining Lake Sensitivity, and Predicting Lake Impacts.” US.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Eastern Region, Hydrology Paper 2,
1977.

Gover, Nancy. “Constructed Wetlands Operate Despite Winter’s Chill.” Small Flows. 7
(January, 1993): 1, 4-5.

Gray, Donald H. and Andrew T. Leiser. Biotechnical Slope Protection and Erosion
Control. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1982.

Haney, Alan and Rebecca L. Power. “Adaptive Management for Sound Ecosystem

Management.” Environmental Management. 20(November/December, 1996):
879-886.

Harwell, Mark A. “Ecosystem Management to Achieve Ecological Sustainability: The
Case of South Florida.” Environmental Management. 20 (July/August, 1996):
497-521.

Haubner, Steven M, and Erhard F. Joeres. “Using a GIS for Estimating Input Parameters
in Urban Storrnwater Quality Modeling.” Water Resources Bulletin. 32
(December, 1996): 1341-1351.

Hession, W. Cully, et al. “A Watershed-Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Methodology.” MCI Resources Bulletin. 32 (October, 1996): 1039-1054.

James, Russell I. “The Role of Constructed Wetland Treatment Systems (CWTS)
in Ecological Restoration.” Land and Water. 39 (May/June, 1995): 16-18.

Jensen, ME. and R. Everett. “An Overview of Ecosystem Management Principles,” In
Ecosystem Management: Principles jaid Applications Q/Olume III). eds. M.E.
Jensen and PS Bourgeron. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-318, U. S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland,
Oregon, (1994): 6-15.

Jensen, Mark E., Patrick Bourgeron, Richard Everett, and Iris Goodman. “Ecosystem
Management: A Landscape Ecology Perspective.” _W_ater kgources Bulletin. 32
(April, 1996): 203-216.

34

“Kenyan Study Area.” July 12, 1996. http://grid2.cr.usgs.gov/landsat/kenyan.html.

Kilimanjaro Adventure Travel, Kenya Wildlife Service. 1996. “Lake Nakuru National
Park.” http://www.kilimanjaro.com/Kenya/nakuru.html.

Leach, L. C. “Euphorbia Candelabrum Welw and other tree-like species.” _T_h_e_
Euphorbia Journal. 3 (1985): 91-93.

Map of Lake Nakuru National Park. Survey of Kenya 2000/3/94. Nairobi, Kenya.

Melack, John M. “Primary producer dynamics associated with evaporite concentration in
a shallow, equatorial soda lake (Lake Elementeita, Kenya)” Hydrobiologia. 158
(1988): 1-14.

Montgomery, David R., Gordon B. Grant, Kathleen Sullivan. “Watershed Analysis as a
Framework for Implementing Ecosystem Management.” Water Resources
Bulletin. 31 (June, 1995): 369-386.

Njuguna, Stephen G. “Nutrient - Phytoplankton Relationships in a Tropical Meromictic
Soda Lake. fiydrobiologia. 158 (1988): 15-28.

Nyeki, Daniel Musili. Wildlife Conservation and Tourism in Kenya. Nairobi, Kenya:
Jacaranda Designs, Ltd., 1993.

Olindo, Perez. Personal Communication for Wildlife and Ecology Management,
Michigan State University, July 1-16, 1996.

Pearce, Fred. “Africa at a Watershed.” New Scientist. 129 (23 March, 1991): 34-40.
Savabi, M. R., et al. “Application of WEPP and GIS-GRASS to a small Watershed in
Indiana.” Jourfl of Soil pod Water conservation. 50 (September/October,

1995): 477-483.

Schutz, Franklin R. “Constructed Wetlands Growing Throughout US.” Small Flows. 4
(October, 1990): 1-3.

SciFinder News Net. 1996. “Failing Flamingos?” SciFinder News Net
http://www.fifthcolumn.com/scifind. . .omcenter/newsnet/news/042296c.html.

Taylor, Peter J. “Testing of a GIS Model of Eucalyptus Iargiflorens Health on a
Semiarid, Saline Floodplain.” Environmental Management. 20 (July/August,
1996): 553-564.

“The Greatest Flamingo Show on Earth.” Life. 10 (June, 1987): 10.

35

Vareschi, E. and J. Jacobs. “The Ecology of Lake Nakuru (Kenya).” Qecologia (Eerlin).
61 (1984): 83-98.

Voss, Edward G. Michigan Flora. A gpide to the identification and occurrence of the

native and naturalized seed plants of the state. Part I Gymnosperms and Monocots.
Bloomfield Hills: Cranbrook Institute of Science, 1972.

Wagner, F. H., “What have we learned?” Wagner, F. H., ed. Proceedings of the
Symposium: Ecosystem management Of Natural Resources in the Intermountain
West, April 20-22. 1994, Logan, Utah. Natural Resources and Environmental
Issues, College of Natural Resources, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, 5
(1995): 121-125.

Wear, David N ., Monica G. Turner, and Richard O. Flamm. “Ecosystem Management
with Multiple Owners: Landscape Dynamics in a Southern Appalachian
Watershed.” Ecological Applications. 6 (November, 1996): 1173-1188.

Weller, Christine M., Mary C. Watzin, and Deane Wang. “Role of Wetlands in Reducing
Phosphorus Loading to a Surface Water in Eight Watersheds in the Lake
Champlain Basin.” Environmental Management. 20 (September/October,
1996):731-739.

World Wildlife Foundation. “Lake Nakuru.” The World Wide Fund for Nature, 1996.
http://www.panda.org/research/facts/factsheets/nakuru.html

Zonneveld, I. S. “Basic Principles Of Land Evaluation Using Vegetation and Other Land

'Attributes.” In Vegetation Mapping, eds. A. W. Kuchler, and I. S. Zonneveld.
Dorfrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988.

36

 

.....

-----

Illllllllllllllllllllllll(lllllllllllllllllllllllllll

31293 02656 9594

 

.......