Shore erosion/mitigation planning in Wisconsin compliance with Section 305(b)(9) federal requirements

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

r ~ tv 147

U S DEA~TENTOF COMMERCE NOA~
COASTALSEVCQ~R
2234 SOUliH hoOE.O~AFA
CHIARLESTON,~ SC290

swimE OSIZON/IX=Gallox PLAINNING
ni WISCONSIN:

Compi~ance with~ Section 305(b)(9)
Federal Requirements,

Do~ris- FIscher

Geological & Nati~a1 His tory Survy
unimersIty of Wizcatsin'
for

Wisconsin CoDastal ~iamasemen Programs

GB
451.2
.F57
1978

148

149

Chapter 305(b) (9)

SEOUE ZRQSION/M=7GA.TION PLA14NG PROCESS

Tale of. Contents

Page, No.

pref ace. . . ...... . ...... .. .. ...****. ~~ . ,.*. , 1

Itcoduc'tion...... ** ..* *.. ....... . . ... ... 1.5.

1'. The P~aming Process, In Brie...... 1 ..... 1.5..

II. The planning, Ptoess, n Detail.:
Its Components and Its Campliance ...... 155

A. Sorelne Dta Gthering' 344y

B. Investigation~ oaf Strtctural
and Noustructural AtematIves.. .... 160

C. Deve1opme of a- Framework,
fd~~~ Act.......... . *. . *. *.**...... 6

D. Assessment of Technical and
Financial Aasix-tance Sources. .............168

E. Coordination of - rc2, Reaipua1.,
an4 State Shore. Damage Mtigation
Policies and p rogs .17................. 12

III. Wisr-co.s-ts Compliance, In Swiry, ... ........ 174

7P. ooot..17.6

150

PRIZACE

In Section 305'(b)(9), Coastal Zone.Management Act Amendments of 1976,
Congress- issued the following directive:

"The management program for each coastal state shall include ... a
planning process for (A) assessing. the effects of shoreline erosion
(however caused), and (B) studying and evalua:ting. ways to control,
or lessen the impact of, such erosion, and to restore areas ad-
versely affected by such erosion.,"

Five specific guidelines accompany the Section 305(b) (9) mandate. They
identify those elements which must be included in the shoreline erosion/mitigation
planning process of each state seeking coastal funds. They are listed
below:

"I. A method for assessing the-effects of shoreline erosioan;
2. Articulation of State policies pertaining to erosion, in-
cluding policies regarding- preferences for non-structural,
structural and/or no contolts-;
3.. kA method for designation of' areas for erosion control, miti-
gation and/or restoration as areas of particular-concern or
areas for preservation and restoration, if appropriate;.
4. Procedures for managing the effects of erosion, including- non-
stuctural, procedures; and
5. An identification of legal authorities, funding-pro:grams and
other techniques that can be used to meet management needs."
(923.26a Federal Reister, Vol., 43, No. 41)

This paper documents Wisconsin's complan-ce with the federal require-
ments cited above., and its five accompanying guidelines:. The text
outlines the shore erosion/mitigation planning process Wisconsin has
developed over the past three years and highlights those particular
activities, whether completed, ongoing, or scheduled:, which address the
five specific guidelines. Points of compliance with these guidelines
are identified throughout the paper. They are summarized on page 176 in
tabular form, .. .

WISCONSIN'S SEO EROSION/ITGATION ANING PROCSS

Introduction

Shore erosion has long been: recognize a.anatural hazard endangering,
coastal resources, structures, and land. uses in Wisconsin. Shore
erosion agents attack the coastal bluffs and beaches of Lakes Michigan
and Superior on a year-round basis. Yet, it is during heavy storms and.
bigh-water periods that the effect of- erosive processes is most acute,
and public awareness highest.

No greater threat has been imposed upon:Wisconstn's shoreliun in recent
decades, than the particularly severe erosion which occurred during the.
1950-52 and 1972-74 high-water periods. Over the course of each period,
shore propertles suffered. damage- and loss esti=ated in the millions of
dollars;l wildlife habitats, sientific areas, and recreational op-
portunities were also; adversely affctied. In recognition of persisting
bazard. conditions, many laoca governments and, coastal propert: pwners
constructd shore protecttn structures of varios types. Sme devices
proved effective, but most did not. As a. result, laceshore residents
and public officials grew frustrated in their attempts to reduce shore
erosion damages. At the same time, they felt increasing pressures to
develop their coastal environment more extensively. A need to assess
the issues of shore erosion in, the contexct of overall coastal land use
was becoming apparent.

By 1974, shore erosion was the #1 concern of Wisconsin shore residents.
In view of its commitment t:o fostering compatible shoreland activities,
Wisconsin's Coastal Management Program became the appropriate coordinator
of shore erosion/mitigation planning efforts in the state. Since 1975,
the Program has; been building "in-house" state and local capabilities to
address erosion-related problems-. Such a focus has maint-naied V-iscoasin's
tradition of inter-governmental cooperation. It has also guided the
evolution of a shore erosion/mitigation planning process.

The Planning Process. In Brief

Formulation of the: Study Plan llustrated- in Figure 1 represented
Wisconsin's first major step in addressing the problems posed by its
eroding shoreline. Shore erosion planning in the state was initially
directed towards the development of a substantial coastal data base and
a subsequent set of options for reducing shore damages in. a manner
compatible with existing land uses and environmental conditions.
Information-gathering activities were coordinated by the Shore Erosion
Policy Group (now, Shore Erosiou Advisory Committee), a teanica
committee created to guide Wisconsin's overall planning efforts.3

The- question of how to translate data:..nto action quickly arose, amongst
coastal researchers, advisors, and citizens alike. With it came a
fuller recognition of the complexity of the shore erosion issue. From
it evolved a more comprehensive planning process.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~197

Shore~umege I RECESSION
MEASUREMENT
STUDY

Beech Erosion atodles
Carps ol nIner
INDEXO NEDCLY
N~~pION RELATED I . ~PROJECT
PROGRAMS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~FIL SURVEY'

COASTAL EROSIN hvInStde lnEPTCION O RSO
IJIDUOGIIAPIIY I I ~STNIJCTURES

ShrIImlr ANALYSIS I LERNATV sIShOE EROSION PtL
tubm A~~~LTERNATives Fudn

C OFSA MGR SURVEY OF- EROSION
~OASIVAI)LE IMAG~sCosE R Y j PRODLEM AREAS
Erbslo" Stiodles ANALYISN OF. ADDITIONAL DAT
PROTECTIVE STRUCTURE NESl~ gFOR
I DELINEATION OF ~~~~~ALTERNATIVES j ENGINEEIIING STUDIES

MAP. & CART Mkhlnn ShoreEROSION PROBLEM
INDEX DmnlaflAESSOEPOETO
MONITORINGm

IDELINEATION OF

R~~~~Elae ol ROSION REACHESII POGA

ISTUDY PLAN' IRELATso PrtOGRAMSI .ANALYTUL!D1ESI
INVENTORY I ~~INFORMATION STUDIESI PLANNING-EVALUATION-SELECT11

-om ~W.1aoosin Shoro Eriosion' Study Plan

goiuio 811dhre Er~ositfl A S~tudy Plan.

153

Wisconsin has broadened its shore erosion planning focus to include five
principal components. In Table 1, these components have been stated in
terms. of needs - that is., what has Wisconsin needed to know and do in
order to move towards the goal of shore damage reduction? Such needs
are being addressedin a- five-stage planing, process, also sum-arized in
Table 1.

By 1974, it was well-raecgnized that erosion of bluffs and beaches was
occurring more rapidly in some areas along Wisconsin's coast than
others. It had also become evident that where land use was most in-
tensive, shore damages were highest-. But the shore erosio-related
information available in the State was insufficient as- a basis for
identifying appropriate hazard mitigation measures. Wisconsin needed
to know more about the shore erosion process; itself, more about its
vulnerable shoreline, and more about the range of feasible solutions
which might be successfully applied to problem areas.

Initial planning emphasis: thus, was on (1) gathering shoreline data and
(2) investigating those structural and nonstructural measures which
could reduce the damaging effects of erosive forces upon shore properties
or facilities. Although such information regarding shore: erosion
problems and potential solutions is proving an invaluable resource,
Wisconsin state and local decision-makars have needed additional support
in order to select, establish, and maintain effective shore damage
reduction programs. Subsequently, attention has turned to (3) developing
a framework for action, whether it be collectively or individually
undertaken. This framework is based upon the translation of existing
state and local shore erosion-related policies into guidelines and the
application of these guidelines to a generalized planning process for
shore damage reduction programs. Shore erosion/mitigation planning
efforts are also currently focused on expanding the existing body of
coastal d-at and (4) examining: the array of available technical and
financial assistance sources.

Future planngn- emphasis is directed towards (5) coordinat ing public and
private sector shore damage reduction activities and refining them, such'
that they enhance the overall future of Wisconsi.' s coastal area. To
this end, the planning process- will be strengthened by the ongoing
assessment of shoreline conditions, the articulatio and. implementation
of further state and local policies - of a regulatory and incentive
nature - and- the clarification of agency and government: roles and
responsibilities. Wisconsin's: need to make. its shore damage mitigation
efforts as efficient and effective as- possibletwll therefore be ad-
dressed.

Table 1. Wisconsin Moves Toward Shore Damage Reduction: 1975 - 1978 and Beyond.

State and Local A Planning Process 19175 1976 977 1978 MaJor Planning Activities
Needs to Address Needs

1. Need to evaluate A. Shoreline data 1. Geotechnical studies.
extent and nature gathering and 2. Shoreline damage survey.
of shore erosion analysis. 3. Priority ranking of criti-
in Wisconsin's X X X X cal reaches.
coastal area. 4. Delineation of erosion
hiazard districts.

2. Need to know B. investigation of 1. Evaluation of structural
what can be Structural and solutions.
done to reduce Non structural 2. Evaluation of nonstruc-
shore damage. Alternatives. tural solutions.
X X X 3. Evaluation of compen-
sation avenues.
1. Analysis of state and local
3. Need to know C. Development of erosion-related policies.
how to select a Framework for 2. Translation of policies
damage reduction Action. into guidelines and imple-
option(s), then X mentation strategies.
how to proceed. 3. Development of decision
making process.
4. Need to tap D, Assessment of 1. Identification of exis-
available Technical ting aid programs.
sources of and Financial X X 2. Compensation study.
assistance. Assistance
Sources.

5. Need to make E. Coordination 1. Clarified agency and
shore damage of state and government roles and
reduction local shore X responsibilities.
programs as damage re- 2. Coastal Management
effective as duction poli- Council leadership.
possible. tces and 3. Great Lakes shore
programs. erosion information and
assistance program.

The PIanning- Process, In Derail: Its- omnens and Its Comvliance

Wiscousin's shore erosion/mintigatio planning process ca=n be further
characterized by the: researc aal anad anilstrtaveactvci.ies,-
of its five principal components (A-E). The following pages discuss
these activities, list the erosion-related documents produced thus far
(Appendices A-E), and highlight the compliance of such. efforts with the
federal requirements- (F1-5)..

A. Shorealine data- gathering and a:ysis.

During 1975 and 1976, shoreline surveys of various types were under-
taken. Inventories of natural areas, fish and wldli.fe habitats, and
historic sites provided information reagarding some valuable resources of
Wisconsin's coas-tal area. Patterns of shoreland use, ownership, and
zoning were also identified. Aerial photographs of Lake. Mlchigan and
Lake Superior shores were acquired from several regional, stae-,- and.
federaI agencies, and from actual flights- along the Wisconsin coast.
The photos enabled coastal researchers to observe the condition of
~exsting shore protection structures, and to locate them on shoreline
base maps. They served as -wel to identify those sites (1) where
slumps, slides, and seepages gave evidence of the erosive effects of
gravity, winds, and waves upon coastal bluffs, and (2) where Lirtoral
drift processes had either carved amay or supplemented beach areas,
often adjacent to shore protection structures.. The imager; files also
provided the data base needed to undertake a shore recession measurement
study. Short term rates for the Lake Michigan shore were calculate& and
then mapped along with older, long-term measurements.5

Estmationss of bluff heights and beach widths were made from U.S.
topographical maps, and the information was added to the shoreline base
maps. Perceptions of coastal residents regarding the shore erosion issue
were obtained during three regional workshops. Citizens identified the
areas of severe erosion with which they were: f liar and thereby con-
tributed to the ultimate determination of which shores waere eroding at a
critical rate. In addition, pilot study findings of a- larger Great Lakes
Shoreline Damage Survey revealed the extent and location of land and
property losses which occurred during 1972-74 in three of Wisconsin's coastal
counties.6

The acquisition and analysis of basic shoreline data began wit-h the
identification and designation of reaches along the Great Lakes shoreline
Figures 2a and 2b locate: these reaches along Lakes Michigan and Superior
respectively. in the case of Lake Michigan, erosion prone reaches were
ranked according to their overall hazards. Figure 2a lists these reaches
with priorities from the most to the lease- severe. This listing provided
the basis for an extensive geotechnical study on the Lake Michigan coastline
during the summer of 1976. Field investigations were most thorough where
shore erosion nosed a formidable threat to coastal residences, buildings
and public facilities. Detailed descriptions of 126 migias of coastline were made.

FITJ Ua: LA ICEGAN IMAMS:
TL CATI,. AMD TMR1 PRIORI1
AS ERSI PRBI~d APEs-

LIST OF LAKE MICHM~AN,
REACHIES BY PRIORITY
STATE
OF' Gri'd Miles
WISCONSIN M-s
*P~riority. Reach Cumulative
Total s

Shoreline. 3 615-7

* 6 10 27.7
7 13 32.9
S. 188 37.9
9, 3 43.9.
- 10 5 . 46.95
cou~r ~ n 11 85-2.7
12 16 55.7
* 13 17 59.2,
'1 ~~~ ~~~14 14. 6-0.2
M170nwoc. 24s:- 15 15, 63.7
Z~7-28-29-30 i s 27' 6.7.2
-17 ~24. 70.7
is 18 A M72.
18-19-20~~~~ ~ I 19 74.9.
SHEEOYCIAN 212-220 Zs 80.8
Zi2 29 83.1.
22 *22 85..5~
23- 23 -90.0
OZAMEE 111-324 18C 93.0
1,4-15-16w-17 2 19.

27 30 104.1
~~flLW~~fl~E 7-&-9-10 ~~28 2 107.1
29 4 110.4
30' 28 116.0a
4-3--6 ~~31 20 119.0
~~0S'HA 123 ~~~~~~~~32 9 12.

Source-: Short Erosion Stud7 Technical Remort

1.57

FIGUR 2b,:

TAKE SIDERORI RRAMSI

The effects of erosion upon unprotected, somewhat protected and; well-
armored shores were noted. Availability of such data led to- the. development
of a shore protection structure inventory-. It also suprported subsequent
plannng- efforts- by WiSconsin to identify feasible structural. and non-
structural solutions which might effectively be- ajpplied to its erodible
shores. It has suggested new avenues for coastal conditions at selected
sites, the need to make smilar geotechnIcal inves-tigations of Lake
Superior's shore and the need to" delineate erosion hazard areas and specify,
their appropriate use(s)..

In light of these- fndings, a "Geotechnical study for the Lake Superior'
shoreline" was given a high priority and ultimately funded u:der a Section
306 grant-. By January 1979', both Lakes Michigan and. Superior will have
comparable geotechnical information available. The WCP will follow-up
and coordinate activities on the other two needs in the next two years.

On the basis of its shoreline data gathering activities. -- those com-
pleted, ongoing:, and plan ed --Wiscons'in-ha--fully comptlired with
Federal Requirement #1, that "...a method for- assessing the effects of
shoreline erosion..." be developed. During its initial planning period,
Wisconsin acquired, organized:, and mapped much of the shoreline data
necessary. to evaluate the major effects of shore erosion upon its Great
Lakes coast. Clearly, land is being lost at a variable- rate; buildings,
public utilities, and recreational facilities are endangered; and
natural areas and habitats are threatened.:

The State has- also been assembling its shore property damage estimates,
its shore protection structure evaluations, its shoreline recession
measurements, and its- bluff stability calculations in order to clarify
.the .cause-and-effect relationships contained in the shore erosion
process. Although land losses during major storm attacks have proven
the most costly of shore erosion effects, Wisconsin's attention to the
shore erosion issue remains comprehensive in scope-; that. is, all. aspects
of the shore erosion process and all effects are being considered.
Extensive property and structure damage during severe coastal storms
rep-resent only one form of shore erosion. Bluff slides and slumps, and
gradual composition changes and recession of coastal bluffs and beaches
are associated with the more cyclic and year-round types of erosion. In
addition, the erosive effects of lake level regulation,. shore armorment
placement, and upland. management practices are becoming distinguished.

As Wisconsin pieces together the puzzle of its coastal erosion history
and current situation, the benefits of updating information and elabor-
ating upon methodology in the future have become apparent. Yet, as
indicated above, the recent- shoreline research has already proven useful
in several specific instances. More generally, it has heightened
Wisconsin's own understanding of the nature and extent of its shore
erosion problem. It has- also provided a benchmark from which the state
and local governments can establish procedures for obtaining shoreline
data on an ongoing basis. Finally, the question of how Wisconsin's
shore erosion-related policies and programs might be strengthened has
been raised - a direct result of the new, often disturbing, coastal
research findings.

Appendix L., (Asterisk,(* denotes- project received funding support from
the Wis cosin Coastal .1anagement Pro gram.)

* Coastal Water Quality7. Ins5-
*Inventor`7 at coastal. Image~ry.. 1975
*An Analysis of the, Taternattonal Great Lakes 'Levels Board, ReD.ort. on-
Reeulation of Great Lake~s Water Levels., 19,76

-Sumarry Report.

-Shore, Property and Recreation.
- Wetlands, Fisheries and Water Quality-.
- 7ustitutious.

*Fish. and Wildlife Habitat~. Great Lake-s. .19,76.
,Great Lakes Shreliue Dama~zel SUve vBrwn. Douz~as and Racine
Counties, W'isconsin. Appendix T.Z 1976
Natural Area lInventorv'. Coastal, Zone., Wisconsin., 1976.
*Ordinary Eigh Watermark D~eterminamtions on Wisconsin' s Great Lakes. 1976.
* Prall.idnary Ristoric structures Surve-T. Wisconsin' s Great Lakes
Counties.1976-.
* Shore Erosion A A ib iazranhy. 1976.
* Shore. Erosion -Al Studly Fizz. 1976.
*D~elineating Great Lakes~ Shorelines. 1977.,
* "Shoreline Erosion and Bluff Stability Along take Michigan and
Lake Superior Shorelines of Wisconsin,#" Sbore- Erosion Study7
Technical Renort. 1977.
* Tecnica Ranrt Aoendces.1977.
Shorelamd~ Uisew in Wisconsinm. 19,77.
* Wisconsin COAsta Atlas. 1977.

B. Investigation of structural and nonstructural alternatives.

Independent shore protection efforts by coastal citizens and: local
governments often result in the haphazard application of controls to
what research and field study have now revealed as a s.stem of shore
erosion causes and. effect. The ;beefits.~of.s;-stematiclly , and
cooperatively, undertaking shore damage reduction activities have become:
apparent. In order to foster such coordination, however, Wisconsin
first needed to evaluate the set of alternative solutions. It began to
identify those options which might alleviate the erosion hazard con-
ditions along the shoreline. Specifically,: it investigated the costs
and effectiveness of structural protection and the legal and administra-
tive provisions for nonstructural measures.

The range of structural solutions was examned by a Wisconsin engineering
firm, together, with coastal planners of the state. Initially, investi-
gations focused upon the coastal processes and their interactions with
current.methods of beach: accretion, shore armorment, and bluff stabili-
zation. Analyses of exfsting shore protection works were performed at
nine priority locations- along? the Wisconsin=.coast. The, structural
devices which had been applied to these nine erosion hazard situations
were assessed for their condition and performance. Such site - specific
studies provided valuable information regarding what shore protection
structures were and weren' t "working" under varied geomorphologic con-
ditions.

The logical ne=t step was to develop guidelines for the selection of
structural designs. Again, nine sites -- considered representative of'
Wisconsin's major shoreline types - were chosen for analysis:. Temporary,
intermediate, and long-term life solutions were developed for each
site; 7 costs of the various structural devices were. calculated. Such
efforts confirmed Wisconsin's experience, historically, that structural
protection is a costly means of addressing the problems posed by' shore
erosion; they also demonstrated the variation in life effectiveness of.
the design alternatives.-

Parallel to the study of shore protection structures was an examination
of nonstructural options available to citizens and governments along
Wisconsin's coastline. Vegetation and upland management practices
gained consideration as viable alternatives to an exclusively structural
armoring of the Great Lakes shore. Existing county land use controls
were identified and assessed for their degree of influence over Great
Lakes shore. development pressures. Shoreland zoning regulations were
found particularly applicable to the issue of reducing safety hazards
and property damages along the coast. The value of an erosion hazard
warning system was also, identified. In addition, a study of erosion-,
related compensation sources examined the extent to which relocation of
buildings away from eroding shores; and public or private acquisition of
coastal areas might represent feasible options.

A maj or highlight of the 1"alternatives" research discussed above is the
distinction between remedial. and preventive approaches to soedmg
reduction. Structural procedureslwould typify-the first Strategy, while
nonstxuctural. solutions. would.. characterize. the second., These two per-
spectives are reflected, in Wisconsin., by, different polities: and prac---
tices. Their combined and coordinated, thrust, however, holds promise of
more effective shore erosion~ mitigation measures: beingl undertaken by
state and lcale units of government: andibly private, citizens.

Wisconsin's attention to identifying and, developing, further "',procedures
for managing the effects; of, erosion including nonstructural procedures",
is ongoing. The arrayr of existing: sbor& damage reduction alternati~vesr
has been studied ,at great length. Establishment of clear-gaidelines
u~pon which: to bass selection of one or more, solutions- will be receiving
extensive consideration over the next several months. Compliance with
Federal Requirement #4 is certainly underqay.

*Caoabilitias~ of Coirnt-7 Land Re-_ulation Programs~ in the Wisconsin
Coastal. Area. 1976.
* Addressinlx Coastal Erosion Through Flood Plain Zoniag - Zs It
Feasible in Wisconsin? - 1977. Unpublished.
* Bluff Eros ion Control Under Wisconsin Shoreland Zoning Provisions.
1977. TUpublished:.
* Great Lakes Share Erosion Protection - A Goeneral Review with Case
Studies. 1-9-77.
*Some Non-structural Alternatives for the- Reduction of Shore Dama-ge.
1977..
* Feasibility of Commensation for Man-induced Shore~ Erosion. 1978.
- Sumary ReportL.
- Legal and A-4ministrative Opt-ions for Compensation.
- Relation of H~uman, Activities, to Shore~ Erosion.
* Great Lakes Shorle Erosion~ Protection -Structural Deslzn E-amles.
1978.

C. Development of a framework for action.

While Wisconsin's shoraline conditions and options for site-specific,
shore, damage reduction- eorts- undergo cont ianued .a=ssessment-, the. quest-
Xtion of how overall shore damage reduction can actually be: achieved
has become more pressing. With coastal data now more available and
alternative. solutions clarified, guidelines regarding- program- selection
and implementation hav become necessary.

The third component of Wisconsin's shore erosion/mitigation plannin-
process is the development of a framework for action at both the state
and local levels. Principles upon which the framework is based derive
fr=m nt:erpretations not only of recent shoreline studles, but also
existing shore erosion-related state and local policies and programs.
Research findings have been discussed in the previous sections.

The state policies and authorities stated below reveal the state's ability
to control activities; which may cause, exacerbate or be damaged by shoreline
erosion. Xany of these techniques- provide a- method for-state control along
incorporated as well as unincorporated shoreline to reduce property loss,
shoreline debris, degradation: of water quality through increased sediment
loading and degradation off the shore's aesthetic and active recreational
value resulting from coastal erosion and flooding. Furthermore these state
policies and standards- provide the mimi--nm criteria. for county and local
municipality action. With the increasing amount of technical data, each
governmental actor is better able to apply these standards.

It is the state's policy to mitigate risks to public health and- safety
and risks of property damage in areas subject to natural hazards by:

a. Providing that all development in areas subject to serious
flooding will not materially alter the natural capacity of the.
lake or river so that the magnitude, of floods will be intensi-
fied, or expose citizens to hazards or cause future public expend-
itures for flood. disaster relief.

b. Regulating earth moving, devegetation, and construction activi-
ties now reviewed by state agencies so as not to accelerate the
rate of shoreline erosion or bluff recession. (Coastal Policy #3.0)

Counties, cities and villages shall adopt reasonable and effective flood
plain ordinances for those parts of their jurisdiction subject to serious
flood damage. These ordinances shall provide that no buildings be con-
structed in floodways and that inconsistent development be prohibited in
flood plains. (Coastal Policy- #3.1; Wis. Stats. Section 87.30 and Wis.
Admn:. Code IMR 116)

State statutes require localities to adopt flood plain
zoning ordinances, meeting state standards, for those
parts of their jurisdictions where serious flood damage
may occur. if localities do nor adopt reasonable and
effective ordinances, the DNR is required to adopt an
ordinance for the jurisdict/on:. Also, the availability
of federal flood insurance is tied to the existence of
adequate- local flood plain regulation.

163

The. placement or maintenance of any structure, fill, or
development in violation of a flood plain zoning ordi-
-nance is declared to be a public nuisance and. ma be
enjoined or abated at sui of any- municipatry, the state,
or any- ciizen of the state.

Solid waste disposal sites: and.facilties are prohibited
within areas tunder the jurisdiction oft flood plain zoning
regulation,- unless they are: licensed by- the DNR.

This activity is su' ea.-.to the management program because
of its potential for reduction of effective flood flow
capacity that could cause increased :damage to coastal
resources: durin a flood.

Within unincorporated areas a setback of 75 ft. from the ordinary high water
mark :shall be required, unless an exstng development pattern exists.
(Coastal Policy #3.2; Wis. Stats. Sections 59.971 and 144!.26, and Wis. Admi.
Code IR 115)

Each: coun is required by state law to regulate- the use
of shorelands in unincorporated areas. DM mnim;-n-
standards require the ordinances to protect: human ealth,
aquatic. life; and natural beauty aid contro-l land uses.
If county- ordinances are found to be inadequate, the DNX
can adopt, an ordinance for the county. (Note: All rele-
vant coastal, counties have DNR approved shoreland zoning
ordinances.) Shoreland use is sub:ect to management con-
trol because of potential impacts of various actvities
in these largely undeveloped areas on coastal water quality,
fish spawaing areas, fish and aquatic life and the natural
beauty of the land and water resources. Further description of
this. law is found the FEIS pages 184-186.

Solid waste disposal sites and facilaties are prohibited in floodplains and
within the Jurisdiction of shoreland regulations, i.e. within 300 feet of
navigable streams and 1000. feet of lakes, ponds, and flowages in unncor-
porated areas. (Coastal Policy #3.3; Wis. Stats. Sectio:: 144.045 and Wis.
Admin. Code AM 115)

All new subdivison. plats, buildings, structures, roads, sanitary or other
facilities which are reviewed by state agencies and which are in existing
and potential flood hazard areas shall be prevented from expaosing citizens
to unnecessary hazards or cause future public expenditures for flood disas-
ter relief. (Coastal Policy #3.4; Governor's Executive Order: No. 67)

These subdivisions must: be approved by several state
agencies, as well as by localities w-th subdivision
ordinances. The DLAD reviews, and must approve, plats
for compliance with surveying, layout (including mandatory
public access requirements for plats abutting navigable
waters), and engineering requirements. The: DOT reiews,
and must approve, plats abutting statea highways for com-
pliance with safety requirements. The DHSS reviews, and
mst: approve, unsewvred. plats for comoliane: with lot
size, elevation, and soil percolation: requirments. The
DIM reviews plats within 500 feet of navigable waters for
oravention of pollution to waters. It should be noted,

that subdivisions creating fewer or smaller lots are
frequently, subject to local review and approval. This
activity is included within the coastal. management program
because of the potential. environmental impact of subdivi-
sion. construction, increased generation of sewage on
coastal waters, th:e potntial increased demad for- public
access to.coastal recreationrl resources, and a concern
for orderly developmen:

It is unlawful to deposit any material or to: place any structure in naviga-
ble waters without a permit. Bip rap or other similar material for protecting
strea banks or lake shore from erosion shall not materiall7 impair naviga-
tion or damage fish and game habitat. (Coastal Policy #33.5; Wis. Stats.
Section 30.12(1) and 30.12(2)(b))

This activ.ty requires a. D permit: unless the material is
deposited behind a lawfully established bulkhead line.
Permits are issued after DIR inspections and a finding that
the activity will not "materialy impair navigation or be
detrimental to the public interest."' - There is. a limited
exceptionl to the state permitting program for solely fed-
eral projects. Bulkhd lines. are established by munici-
pal ordinance and mst: be "in the public nterst and be.
approved by the DNR. Depositing materials in navigable
coastal waters is inctuded in the program because of the
potential obstruction of: navigation, reduction of effec-
tive flood flow capacity in streams, harmful effect: n
fish and game habitat, and pollution of a resource; held
in trust by the state.

Enlarging the course of a Great Lake or other navigable coastal water
shall not injure public rights or interests, cause environmental pollu-
tion, or materially injure riparian rights. (Coastal managed use ~!.c.;
Wis. Stats. Secoton 30.19-(1))

Constructing an artificial waterway within 500 feet of i- Great Lake. or-
other navigable coastal water shall not injure public rights or interests,
cause envirtomental pollution, or materially- injure riparian rights.
(Coastal managed use #l.d.; Wis. Stats. Section 30.19() (a))

Connecting an artificial waterway to a Great Lake or other- navigable-coastal
water shall not injure public rights or interests, cause environmental
pollution, or mat:erially injure riparian rights. (Coastal managed use
#l.d.; Wis. SEats. Section 30.19(1)(b)).

Engaging in these three activities- requires a permit
from the DNR. The permits are issued if the DITR finds
the project will pot- injure public rights or interests,
cause environmental pollution, or materially injure rip-
arian rights. Enlarging a navigable waterway and con-
structing or connecting artificial waterways are included
in the program because of the potential to destroy fish
and game habitat, affect navigation, and alter the quality
of a resource for which the state is a trustee.

No person may throw or deposit any refuse- or solid wastes, including stone,.
sand, slabs, decayed wood,. in the waters of, the state. Also any substance
deleterious to fish and aquatic life- can only be deposited in accordance
with plans approved by the: DENM. (Coastal managed use ,l.i. .Wis. Stats.
Section 29.29 (3)) .

State law makes it unlaful to plac any refuse or solid
wastes in the waters of the. states. Also:. any substance
deleterious to fish or aquatic liffe can: o.ly be deposited-
in accordance with pans approved, by the DIR. TLs. acti-
vity is subject to the state management program because- of:
detrimental effects on. fish and game habitat, effect on the
suitability of a public resource for recreational purposes,
and alteration of the quality of a resource held in trust
by the state.

Grading or removing top soil which disturbs 10,000 square, feet or more of
the banks of the Great. Lakes or other navigable coastal water s.ll anot in-
jure public rights or interests, cause environmental pollution, or material-
ly injure public rights. (Coastal managed use #2.a; Wis. Stats. Sections
30.19 (l) (c) and 144.3, (9)).

This activiy: requires a permit from the- DNR. Permits are
issued if the project does not injure public rights or
interests, cause environmental pollution, or materially
injure public rights. Removing top soil or grading is
included in the management program because of the poential
detrimental impact af this activity on: fish and game habitat:,.
access to a public resource, and quality of coastal waters.

Largely through the efforts of the Coastal Management Program, there has
been a growing realiztion- that: too- many instCtutional gaps and erosion
strateg inconsistencies still eis1 t in Wisconsin, e.g:. incorporated areas
are not covered by shoreland zoing although many m cipalities have ordin-
ances which are the functional equivalent, several plaig and resource
management laws area not fully sensitive to erosion issues, traditional
reliance on structural devices has limited the options considered and limi-
ted financial resources and technical assistance have.' lead to an uneven
pattern of enforcement:.

While few changes: have been directly sought to date, a major thrust is the
fall 1978-winter 1979 consideration of the Wisconsin Erosion Plan. This
document will serve as the driving force for Wisconsin's new action frame-
work. Over the next two years the Wisconsin Coastal Management Council -
will !mplement the strategies adopted by endorsing, advocating and coordin-
ating the needed series- of refinements and adjustments to state policies
and authorities. Policy issues include beacha nourishmen.t, lake bed grants
and nonstructural alternatives. Technical inclusions in the shoreland zoning
provisions and other law will facilitate adoption of local damage reduction
programs along the Great Lakes shoreline.

Heavy emphasis will be given to preventive, not structural, approaches to
damage reduction. New sources of financial and technical assistance will
be sought. To help, ensure that all revisions- and adjustments made by both
local and state units of government are compatible and consistent, a series
of guidelines and principles for damage reduction is included in the state
Erosion Plan. Figure 3 conutains the lis.t of. principles;. and guidelines. being
considered.

In Wisconsin, local governments have traditionally been responsible for
most land use decision-waking along the Great Lakes shoreitne. The state's
role has been generally l4imted to providing minimum standards and special
requirements for issues dealing with environmental quality, resource manage-
ment and uses of land which are of statewide significance including flood
plains, shoreland areas, energy facility sites, major recreational values,
and navigational obstructions. Any efforts aimed at refining or adjusting
Wisconsin's institutional framework on shore erosion must be sensitive to
this state/local partnership.

In addition, over the coming years a parallel series of actions will be
pursued at the local level. Foremost among these is adoption of damage
reduction programs at the community, county and/or regional levels. The
high priority given= damage reduction and use of the erosion guidelines and
principles will lead to more consistent' and- effective actions along reaches.
The TICMP has identified a process by which local, governments and groups of
property owners by reach can prepare, implement and refine a damage reduction
program. A flow diagram oi' the suggested process is contained in Figure 4.

The WCP will assist lonal and state agencies to identify hazard areas and
develop or implement management programs for them through the. designation
of geographic areas of management concern (GAiCs). Wisconsin will continue
to redefine its positions with regard to the numerous aspects of the shore
erosion issue. The WCIP has lead this effort with public education and re-
search on the dangers associated with these hazards. The W'MP has provided
technical and lay-orientedanalyses and recommendations for structural and
nonstructural alternatives' to alleviate erosion impacts. Additional efforts
to develop and adopt damage reduction programs by reach- will provide pro-
tection to erosion hazard areas.

167

Figure 3. rinciples and Guidelines for the Development of Shore Erosions
Damage Reduction Program- in Wisconsin

1. Shore erosion is a comple=, natural process whIch is difficult, if not
impossible, to totally arrest.

2. The planning: and implementation of long term damage reduction solutions
must begin prior to . the presence of high water and -emergency per/ods.
Erosion hazards and damages cannot be efficie-tly and effect vely
elfminateed du-ng, these periods.

3. Shore erosion damages and hazaxds can be more effectively and efficiently
reduced with cooperative and comprehensive planning by geologic reach
Between local governments, state agencies, and coastal property owners.

4. Before initiating protective actions along the Great Lakes shoreline, the
causes of erosion must be carefully identified, and -controlled, in the
beach, toe, bluff, and upland zones.

5. Structural solutions must be cautiously used and- placed since many are not
only costly and short-lUved but, they can also create adverse impacts upon
neigoring properies.

6. Land management or noustructural approaches to shore erosion-related problems
offer a viable and effective means for reducin.tdamages and hazards over a
long perod of time. Greater priority must be given to these approaches in
Visconsin.

7. The value and use of a site and its buildings, both existing and projected,
should be key determinants -in dentiying appropriate types of solutions,
and levels of public and prvate investment.

8. Hazard zones or dstricts should be precisely ifdentfied and incorporated
into land use plans and ordinances along Wisconsin's Great Lakes shoreline.
Along undeveloped portions of: the shoreline, every attempt should be made
to avoid the placement of buildings and facilities- in these zones or dist-ricts.

9. All individuals, agencies, and governments acquiring an interest in land
along the shoreline should. be cognizant of erosion hazards and any special
siting requirements in advance of final transactions.

10. Where public ftmds are utilized to reduce damages or save coastal resources
on private property, the public benefits should be camensurate with the costs.

1I. The multiple-use potentials of structural and nonstructural solutions should
be. utilized in the design and implementation. of damage reduction programs
wherever possible. Shore damage reduction is compatible with public access,
recreational opportunities, conservation, preservation, and aesthetics.

12. Shore erosion damage reduction programs should be prepared, implemented, and
enforced by those governments and agencies legally responsible for shoreline
planning and management. Supportive programs and efforts should seek to
provide direct information, assistance, and resources to these a-ancies and
governments.

Source: A Shore Erosion Plan for Wisconsin: Aporasalo of Ontions and S:trategies.

F~~gure 4 ~~~GENERALIZED PLANIN PROCESS FOR DMAGERDCINPORM

Storm Events Existing Initiation of
High Water Damages -Policies and Detaifled Studios
LawsandPrograms guidelines

NEED FOR APPRAISAL OF COMPREHENSIVE
SETTING DAMAGE OPTIONS AND EVUAINO
REDUCTION STRATEGIES ' ALTERNATIVES

(PROLEM RECOGNITION) (PROGRAM FORMULATION) (POROGRAM DESIGN)

pub]lic
-....Input and
Support

SHORELINE ~~~INSTITUTING OF FINAL SELECTION
MONITORING~ STRUCTURAL AND~ FOPIN
SOLUTIONS

(PROGRAM EAUTO) : (PROGRAM IMP'LEMENTATION) (PROGRAM ADOPTION)
Stoi'h Events kesource
High Water Damages Mblzto
Changing Laws and Programs

Source: A Shore Erosion Pktfa scnain'" Appraisal of OptiosadSrei5

D.. Assessment of technical and financial assistance sources.

If state and local. capabilities to address the issue of shore erosion in
Wisconsin are to be fully developed:, the channels for technical and
financial aid must be identified and. their accessibity7insured.
Wisconsin's shore erosion/mitigation planning efforts include attention
to this aspect of s'horeland management. Tables 2 and 3 s..marize the
federal and state programs which currently provide, or potentially could
provide, assistance to Wisconsin goverm=ents and private citizens in
their shore damage reduction activities. Most shore erosion-related
support emphasize- s he need for planning. Existing funds are clearly
directed towards evaluating shore erosion problem areas and initiating
nonstructural measures of hazard mitigation and resource preservation.
Financing available for structural solutions or as an avenue for compen-
sation is extremely limited.

The Coastal Mngement Progra represents a likely source of assistance
to those Wisconsin communities- interested in shore erosion damsge re-
duction. Besides channeiUng- ts monies towards an expansion of the
state's own shoreline information ba-e, the Program, is also funding
shore erosion-related projects of coastal communities, counties, and
regional bodies. That local policy development, plan design, and program
implementation have-become a major CM? focus' is evidenced by the following
list of future activities, classified under Coastal Issue #3, Coastal
Erosion and Flood Hazard Areas:

Title of-306 Project Prooosal Soonsor Sublect County(ies)

1. Erosion Control Study Design Racine County/
Town Caledonia Racine

2. Recreation Activity Management Racine County/
Study : Town Caledonia Bacine

3. Ecological Study Racine County-
Town Caledonia Racine

4. Lake Access Road Feasibility Racine County/
Study Town Caledonia Racine

5. Duck Creek Flood Plain Management Oneida Tribal
Reservation Brown

6. Coastal Topographic Mapping Town of Suamico Brown

7. Lake Superior Shoreland Wisconsin Geological Lake Superior
Geotechnical Study and Natural History Counties
Survey

8. Great Lakes Shore Erosion Wisconsin Geological Statewide
Information and Assistance- and Natural History
Program Survey

9. Shore Erosion Policy Study- for. Wisconsin Geological S:tatewide
Local and County Governments and Natural. History
Survey?

-4
Table 2. Shore Damage Reduction: Primary Sources of Assistance.

Federal or Sponsoring Program Target Program Scope
State-Sponsored Agency State County Local Private Technical Financial Program
Program. Govt. Govt. Govt. Per'son Assistance Assistance Contact

Beach Erosion U.S. Army x X x X x Corps District Office:
Control Corps of Chcg-Lake'Michigan
Engineers St. PMau-ake Superior

Hurricane, Tidal Same as
and Flood above. x X X X x Same Os above.
protection.

Correction of Same as
Federal. Navi4- above.
gation ProJect- X X X V X X Same Os above.
Induced Shore
Damage

Resources Soil conservation Soil and Wat.er
Conservation. Service, U.S. X X XX Cnevto
Dept. of Agri- District Office.
culture.

Agricultural Agricultural ASC Conni ttee; or
Conservation. Stblzato SoII and Water Con-
and Conser- X XX serVAtiori District Office.
vation Servyce
USDA.

Coastal Wisconsin T.A.: WI Geological and
Management Coastal x X X x Natu~ral 1istory
Program Maagmet .Survey,
Council F.A..: Regional Planning
Commission; Citizens'
Advisory Committee;
or Office Of'state
Planning aria Enry

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g .9. ery

Table 3. Shore Damage Reduction: Secondary Sources of Assistance.

Federal or Sponsoring Program Target Program Scope
State-Sponsored Agency State County Local Private Technical Financial Program
Programs Govt. Govt. Govt. Person Assistance Assistance Contact

Resource Conser- Soil Conservation Soil and Water Conservation
vation and De- Service, USDA X x x X X District Office
velopnent Pro-
ject Activity

HighwaY Wisconsin Dept. X X X X Highway District Office.
Improvement. of Transportation

Disaster Loan Small Business Small Business Adminis-
Assis tance. Adninistration. X X tration Regional Office.

Scientific Wisconsin Dept. Scientific Areas Coordinator,
Areas Preser- of Natural X X X X X Wisconsin Oepartment of
vation. Resources. Natural Resources.

Outdoor Re- Same as Above. Wisconsin Department of
sources Actiop X X X Natural Resources District
Plan (ORAP). Office-Recreational Aid
Special ist.

Land and Water U.S. Dept. of
Conservation Interior. X X X X Same as above.
(LAWCON).

Coununuity U.S. Dept. of Regional Planning Commission;
Developnent HIousing & Urban X X or, Wisconsin Department of
(701). Development Local Affairs and Development.

Water Quality U.S. Environ-
Control (208). mental Protec- X X X X X Wisconsin DNR.
tion Agency.

Technical Upper Great Regional Planning Commission;
Assistance Lakes Regional X X X X or UGLRC headquarters. .
Grants. Conni ssion.

Wisconsin Coastal Management funds are distributed according to the
priorities which have emerged from the process of designating geographic
areas of management concern. Itself a management technique, the GAMC
procedure has singled out for special consideration, '"azard areas,
which are those areas prone to severe erosion and/or flooding that may
impose danger to public- usa. or-eate or future: substantial. public
costs."ll Erosion control, hazard mitigation, and resource conservation
policies for such areas are guided. by a dlstinction between high and low
priority shoreland. uses:

"The highest use priority in these areas would be assigned to those
activities that do not impose immediate or future substantial costs
due to- geologic, soil, or flood conditions;. Any development
should be so constructed as to avoid creating new hazards or
increasing existing hazards. Uses of the lowest priority include
those activities that are non-water dependent or non-water enhanced,
create new or increase existing hazards and result in irretrievable
losses of coastal. resources."1-

Application of the, GAMC process to Wisconsss shore> erosiosn management.
has served to provide coastal com==i=ies with additional standards for
evaluating their shore-. damage reduction alternatives. I: also fulfills
Federal Requirement #3; "a method for designation of areas for erosion
control, mitigation, and/or restoration as areas of particular concern
or areas for preservation/restoratiod." And, together with current
attention towards assessing existing and potential technical and finan-
cial assistance sources, it demonstrates Wisconsin's partial compliance
with Federal Requirement #5, "an identificatimo of legal authorities,
funding pro gras: and other techniques that can be used to meet manage-
ment' needs."

Appendices C and D:

* Lake Bed Grants. Great Lakes. 1976
* Feasibility of Comoensation for Man-Induced Shore Erosion. 1978.
* A Shore Erosion Plan For Wisconsin: Aooraisal of Ootions and
Strategies. 1978.

E. Coordination of locat, regional, and state shore damage mitigation
policies and p rograms.

The benefits to be gained by coordinating shore damage reduction ac-
tivities have become clear as-research continues to point up the system-
like interactions of coastal processes and landforms. Although the
concerns of each shore property owner, whether private or public, are
usually site-specific in nature, if efforts to mitigate damage and/or
reduce erosion are to, be efficient and effective,. their compatibility
with. one another must be insured;. A. primary objective of Wisconsin's
shore erosion/mitigation planning process is to accomplish such compatibility.

Future planning emphasis., therefore, will be given to clarifying and
coordinating agency and government responsibilities vis-a-vis existing
and proposed shore damage reduction efforts in Wisconsin. Thus far,
state agencies, together with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, have
performed the bulk of coastal research and regulatory activities. Other
agencies (i.e., Soil and Water Conservation Districts and the '.S. Soil
Conservation Service) have developed additional shore erosion informa-
tion and made it available to interested parties, while local govern-
=ents have enforced their shoreland-related zoning ordinances to varying
degrees.

Assessment of shoreline- conditions, evaluatio of eis-ting remedial and
preventive procedures, and refinement of- pertinent regulatory policies
have already been highlighted as ongoing elements in Wisconsin's shore
erosion/mitigation planning process. The first: element will involve
primarily those state agencies currently active in coastal data-gathering
and analysis: the Wisconsin Geological and Natural Eistory Survey, -the
Wistonsin Department of Natural Resources, and the Sea Grant College
Program, Geology Department, and Engineering Department of the University
of Wisconsin. The latter elements will require leadership from the
Coastal Management Council and implementation support from all its
represented and cooperating agencies and governments: the Wisconsin
Departments of Natural Resources, Transportation and Business Development,
the Public Service Commission, the regional planning commissions, and
the local public officials, to name a few.

Besides these three areas of future plaAning focus, Wiscoustn will
consider a fourth: the development of additional preventive-or incentive-
policies and techniques which can serve to manage further the state's
progress towards its shore damage reduction goal. Again, agencies and
governments at all levels will be involved, whether the particular
incentive program pertains to the establishment of erosion hazard warning
systems or performance standards for erosion hazard districts. These
programs will be targeted towards encouraging coastal localities to
strengthen their own policies and implementation t:ools with regard to
shore erosion.

174

In light of such anticipated activity, the need to integrate the various.
shore damage: reduction efforts into a comprehensive strategy becomes
even more apparent. Attention to this need will now dominate shore
erosion/mitigation planning in Wisconsin. To enhance the opportunities
for coordination, evaluation, and refinement of its shore dam=ge reduction
purposes and actions, Wiseoin.- ll. be.: relying. especially upon the GAMC
process as a screening and funding mechanism. and the Coastal Manamgement
Council as an advisory body alert to, program weaknesses and needs for
modification. In addition, the Geological Survey's technical assistance:
activities will certainly" strengthen the lines of communication between
federal, state, regional, and local agencies and. governments and develop
further the program implementation capabilities of1 all parties and
interests involved.

Such an agenda documents well the extent to which Wisconsin has ad-
dressed Federal Requirement #5, "an identification of legal authorities,
funding programs and other techniques that can be used to meet manage-
ment needs." This shore~ damage reduction planning prospectus also
demonstrates consistenc7 with overall objectives of- the Wisconsin
Coastal Management Program. I-m part:icular, Program goals< of: making
state regulatory and management- policies more effective, coordinating
them with local plannig: strategies, and strengthening local government
coastal management. capabilities are- provang directly applicable. to the
shore erosion/ mitigation. planing process.

Appendix ES.

* A Shore Erosion Plan for Wisconsin: Aroraisal of Options and
Strategies. 1978.

WISCONSIN'S C rF LIAesCs, eI SpMMARY.

Over the past three years, shore erosion/mitigation planning activities
in Wisconsin have been coordinated thr.ough its Coastal Management
Program.: The ProgrTa hast developed a process for addressing coastal,,
erosion-related problems, identifying feasible solutions, and implementing
appropriate shore damage reduction plans. The process can be sum-arized
according to its five principal components. Research, analysis, and
ad-miistrative activities of each are. preparing the coastal community to
deal effectively with its. eroding Great Lakes shoreline. They therefore
serve aq general evidence of Wisconsin's response to Section 305(b)(9)
guidelinesi, issued in the Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments of-
1976..

Those intervals in Wisconsin's. shore erosiou/mitigation planning process
which..demonstratelrcompniance with the five federal requirements are
specified in Table 4. During an initial period of shoreline data
gathering and analysis,. the state has learned much abeout the extent and
nature of coastal erosion along :ts Lake- Michigan and Lake Superior
shores. Such projects- as: geotechncal field study, shore damage esti-
mation, recession rate measurement, and critical reach determination
represent a methodology which has been developed in order to assess the
effects of shore erosion in an ongoing fashion (Federal Requirement #1).
Investigations into the types and costs of ivarious structural and
nonstructural options, including compensation avenues, have provided
some answers to the question of what can and cannot be done to reduce
shore erosion damages. Although procedures for maaging erosion effects
have been identified (FR #4), their application to the Wisconsin shore-
line rests upon the decision making process used and subsequent actions
taken by those agencies, governments, and citizens- involved in the shore
damage reduction effort. A framework for such actions has been proposed,
based primarily upon the application of existing state and local shore-
land policies (FR #2) and the need for continuous refinement of programs
as new shoreline information becomes available and current policies and.
guidelines are revised.

Wisconsin's set of shore erosion managemet tools is being expanded to
serve better the program implementation and evaluation needs at all
Jurisdictional levels. Currently, the GAMC process is providing a
mechanism for channeling Coastal Management funds to shoreline stretches
which have been designated as erosion hazard areas and earmarked for an
appropriate hazard mitigation strategy (FR #3). At the same time, other
sources of technical assistance, financial support and relief, and shore
damage reduction incentives are being investigated for their applicability
to the coastal area (FM #5).

Coordination and monitoring of the wide range of shore erosion/mitigation
planning: efforts in Wisconsin represent a future focus for the Coas:tal
Management Council and the staff (Great Lakes shore erosion information
and assistance program) of the Geological and Natural Ristory Survey in
particular (YR #5). In fact, however, all those decision making bodies,
research teams-, technical commirtees, and private individuals involved in
addressing the shore erosion issue- are enhancing the state's overall
ability to develop and maintain a high level of efficiency and effective-
ness in accomplishing its shore damage reduction objectives.

176

Table- 4

WISCONSIW S COXMMACE WITEE FEDERAL GUIELflIS: A SUMMARY

The folloving table relates, theL-fi-e 'specidfic--6 fede al qi-4r-ets to -thao
wisconsin, shore erosion/mitigation Planning process. The Plan"nin Component (a)
which. addresses each requirament is identified.

FEEAL=UIPEN1I CTNE1S OF PLANNT.G-. PRCESS

#1 - A method for asse sisigthe A. Shoreline data gathering
effects o~f shore erosion. and analysisa.

#2 - Articulationl at State C. Development' of a: frameworks
policies, for action.,

#3 - A method for designation, D.. Assessment of technical. and
of' areas- for erosion- financial- assistance sources;.
control, mitigation and/a: ~ also-
restoration. Z. Coordination of local,
regional,, and- state. shore.

anli programs.

#4 -Procedures for man-g-ing- B . Investigation of strzctural-
erosion effects.. and uonst-nct%=aI- a'lternatives.

#5 -An. identification of lega-I D:. (See above)
authorities,, fumding ialso
- p-rograms, and other manage- S . (See above)
men: teehniques.

177

FOQOTNT

1. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has extensively surveyed Wisconsin's
coastal counties in order to estimate the dollar value of damages
and losses suffered during each high water period. Results of- thek
first survey were reported in ProPert7 Damage on the Great Lakes
Resulting from Chanees in Lake Levels (1952). The more recent
figures, obtained in cooperation with the Wisconsin Department of
Natural esources, will appear in the forthcoming Great Lakes
Shoreline Damage Survey.

2. At public meetings and in public perceptions poils, the Wisconsin
Coastal Managemet. Program staff have consistently heard or seen
shore erosion ranked as the #1 or #2 issue amongst shoreland
residents and public officials. As- recently as 1976, results of a
widely administered coastal citizens' questionnaire demonstrated
shore erosion's continuing high priority as a coastal concern.

3. The Committee's membership has included:

1) S. Born, U2iversity of Wiseonsis - Madison; also, Office of-
State Planning and Energy.

2) T. Edil, University of Wiscons-in - adison.-

3) G. SHdden, Sea Grant Advisory Services.

4) T. Lauf, Department of Natural Resources.

5) D3:. ickelson, University of Wisconsin - Madison.

6) A. Miller, Office of State Planning and Energy.

.7) M. Ostrom, Uisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey.

8) G. Pirie, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee.

9) D. Thomas, Office of State Pla-n/ng and Energy.

10) P. Tychsen, University o-f; isconsin - Superior.

Staff coordinator for the Shore Erosion Study is Roger Springman,
Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey.

4. Up until 1975, Wisconsin was relying almost exclusively, for its
shoreline information, unon the earlier research of such federal
and regional agencies as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the
Great Lakes Basin Commission, the International Joint Commission,
and the International Great Lakes Levels Board.

178~

5. Short-term recession rates along Lake, Superior are- currently~ being
calculated. Tn general., Wisconsin's share erosion planning. efforts
have, to date~, focused u-pon the highly developed stretches-of Lake,
Miichisan's coast, where: share erosion poses: a more severe threat to
existing land uses~.

6. See Great Lakes Shoreline Damage Surve?- Brown. Douglas and'Racine
Cou~nties, Wisconsin. Appendix 11. 1976.

7. ,The "life" at a structural Solution may- be considered temporar -it
its effeact lasts less than. 5'years;, intermediate, if- it& effect is
observable for at least 5 years, butT not longer than 25 years;~ and
long-term, if its, ef feet continues beyond 235 years.

8 . Lawst #1 and #3, are, excerpted from State, of Wisconsin Coastal
Management Program and Final Environmental Imvact-Statement
(Madisom,. 1978), p.14.

9. This specific policy should be added to those~ currently- listed under
"Coastal. Issue 113, Coastal Erosion. and Flood Hazard Areas" of- the
Statewof Wisconsin-Coastal Management Program and- Final Environmental
Im~act. Statement, document.

10. This general share ero-sion policy% statement is consistent with that
re-parted in the Program Document, p. 1 13.

ll- Ibid,p.62

12. Thid, p-. 162.

179

COASTAL WANA~!T nom~aM

AM~ FINAL MqRNM A UACT STA~TM~

Wiscorsiu Coastal Managemxit Coir-ij.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IS

In addition to the three new plannmng elementsa required by the 1976 Amend-
ments, the following pages list specific additions or amendments to the State
of Wisconsin Coastal Management Program and Final Environmental imaact State-
ment. Such amenments must comply wih he procedues of Section 306(g) of the
:Coastal Zone Management Act as amended before they are formally approved
by the Assistant Admi-strator for Coastal Zone Management, U.S.. Department
of Commerce.

Amendment items are listed in the order in which they will be inserted into
the Program Docnment. Additions- are underlined and deletions are typed and
marked out with. slashes.. Tables in the Program Docment which provided cross-
referencing of statutes,. ad-miistrative code and other legal citations are not
included herae but will be accomplished after the amendments are formally ap-
proved. Other refinements may be submitted to the Assistant Administrator by
the- Wisconsi Coastal Management Council.

Amendment items #2,3,4,5,6,13,15,16,17 and 18 are the result of action taken
by the 1977-78 Benial Session of the Wisconsin State Leg islature. These
items represent further clarification of state policy within the seven coastal
issues of the adopted Wisconsin Coastal Management Program. Amendment item.
#12 is an additional listing of an exsting- policy.

Amendment itEms i,7,78,9,1C0,ll and 14 are the result of action taken by
the Natural Resources Board and published in: the Wisconsin Administrative
Code. These items represent further clarification of state policy and re--
gulations on public access and wetlands.

Amendment item #19 is the result of action taken by the Wisconsin Coastal.
anagement Ctouncil on May 10, 1978. The modification refers to Council
voting procedures o funding: decisions.

Amendment items #20:,21, and 2 "are the result oaf Wisconsin compliance with
305(b) (8), Energy Facility Planning. This amendment to the Funding Allocation
Procedures of the Wisconsin Coastal Management P:rogam is further explained
onQ pages 137-145 of this report.

A refinement, #23,24, and& 25, are also listed at the request of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest: Service.

Amendment Page Amendment to the State of 'Wisconsin Coastal Management;
Item No. No. P-raera and Tinal Environmental Immact Statement

Chapter I.- Coastal Issues. and.'Policies
I. COASTAL WAlER AND AIR~ QUALITY

#1 Los 1. 0 The state's policy on coastal- water, quality is ...
to protect~ public health, srafeguardql-aquatic~ li:ft--,and' -scenic
and ecological-values including wetlands;.

#2 106 ~~1.5.1 The state shall, provide fanilndtechnical
assistance to abate -Doint and non-uoint source
water Pollution. (Wis. Stats. ~Section 144.'2_4 and

#3 ~~106 1.7 Phosphorus removal, :Eom sewage ...tributaries andl
the safe. of clIeantnz, agents and water conditioners-
which contain more than 8.7% 'Dhos-vhorus br weizht is -
Prohibited. (See managed. use #1 h, Wis.. Stats.. Section
100'.28, and Wis. Admin.~ Code NP. 102.04)

#4 106': 1.. 8 Wste treatment-fclt- ln~salb'rvee and
may be disapproved if' they axe not. in conformance with
any existing a~nro-vedl areawi~de waste treatment management
01-ans srapared 'Pursuant to P.L. 92~-500 as amended. Sever
extensions sh-all be, allowed . exists,. (See managed
use #2 d, Wis. Stats.. Sectio n 144.04, and. Wis.-Admin.
CoeNP 110. 05) .

#5 ~106 1..9.1 Treatmen~t, storaze and disposal of 'hazardous sub-
stances and solid waste- shall be regulated and re-
stricted. Waste generators shall contribute to a
waste management fund to %:uarantee long-term. care
of and enrvironmental reaiars~ to solid and' hazardous
waste disposal sites and to make'such sites suitable
for other uses. (See Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976. P.L. 94-580 and Wis. Stats.
Section 144.41 ff).

#6 106 1.13 Lots -act served by, pub'lit sever shall have area; and
width restrictions. No building ioermit shall be
approved without septic tank DermiLt avxroval it
such a permit is necessar7". (See . . . Wis. Stats.
Chapter 236 and Section,66.036,..

- 1I. COASTAL. NTURAL AREAS, W=LDU:E EAMTTAZ AND FISHER=R

#7 109 2.0. a. Designating and managing special areas . . .streams,
wetlands, ..

#8 109 2.1 State scientific areas shall be designated for...
preservation of . . . conmmuities, including wetlands,
. ..(See . .Wis. Admin.. Code NP. 45.23 and XR 1.95).

#9 110 2.6 State wildlife areas shall be managed . . . the pri-
mary objectives of wildlife habitat 4-AL, public htnting-

183

and, wetlands protectioun. (See .. and Wis. AA-in.
Coda- NR 1. 95).
#10 110 2.9 State fish uanA' aemnt areas shall be designated and
managed: to .. foster and promote the- preservation
of required habitat for all species including 'wetlands,
* . (Se~ .. .Wis. A"-".n. Code, N~R 1.01 and NR 1.95).

#11 Iii 2.Z. 13.]. The, Dewpazt=Fnt of 0atural Resources shall Dreserve
and Proterlt 'Wetlands under its management and con-
trol TheDe-vartment of 'Natur-al IResources shall
use isregulator authority7 to minimidze adverse
chanzes- in. the Scaitt or qruantity~ of the f~l ow
of waters'that nourtish wetlands, to trotect wet-
1=l.nd- from all, envlironmentallY7 incomnatible uses,
activities and substances. and restore wetlands
which wereM unlawfll altered. (Wis.-Ad-fin. Code

III. COASTAL EEOSTON~ AMi FLOOV EAZARD ABRtAS~

#12 114 3~~~.5 t~ is unlawful to, deposit: any materia or to, -alace
anT qtruztLre in navigable waters Without a, -ermit.
Rip rap . . . habitat. (See . . . Wis. Stats. Section.
30.12(1) and 30 -12 (2,)(b))

#13 ~117 4. 0. g.Providing assistance -nmramrs for recreational
boating, facilities and boating satet7 to remedy
the izroblems,.Of recreational used of: the waters.

#14 Lis 4.8 Public acce~ss ap-proval. Providing nubIic access
to ~waters by th4e Deaartment of Natural' Resources is
a variable'reaouirement basedi on the qualit,7 Of the,
resource, the soar-e available- and the levels of use
experienaed,. respecting Drivate rights and developments.
(See ...and; Wis. Admin. Code NR 1.90, 1.91. and 1.92).

#15 Lis 4. 10 Local co=umu"-ties shall be- encouraged . . . The state
shall poietcnaland financial assistance to
=L~iCipalities for the develorment of recreational
bcatinz facilities. (See. and Wis. Stats.
Section, 22.3.30 and. 30.~92).

#16 ~121 5.1 The state shall- prompta business and industrial de-
velopment .. and shall auth'o-rze thme establishment
of foreign trade zones b7 szovernment bodies and
'private corporations. (See . . . and Wis. Stats.
Section 560.0.3 iiii .2.3 and, 182.5-0).

184

Chapter. II. Tiplementing a Coastal Management Progra in Wisconsin

B. Managing Key Coastal Resources and Development Activities

#17 ISO B-2.CC . item Z.i. Disturbng Bridges.
The. second. parag~rah could be written as follows:

Bridies over navigable waters arm also subject to regulation
bv the DNR to protect human life and health, and minimize
;ropertv, damage and economic loss. Navigational clearance -
of mumiciaal hizhwa,7 brldzes is subject to standards pro-
mulateid by the DOT.

(The above change reflects the concept inherent-in Chapter 190,
Wis.- Laws: of 1977, effective 12/8/77.)

#18 180 B.2.C. item 2.j. Abandoning Any Rail Line or Service.

Delete the; first three sentences in this paragraph and replace
them with.:

This activity is umder the sole jurisdiction of the federal
Interstate Commerce Commi ssion. The State Denartment of
Transoortation. in coordination with the State Transoortatiou
- Comnission, Dlavs anL active role in these decisions. aooearing
and testifving before the. ICC.

(Retain the rest of the- paragraph as- is. This amendment is
suggested to incorporate the stare legitilative changes that have
taken place in the lastyear, including (1) the creation of a,
Transportation Co-ission and the transferring of transportation
related responsibilities from the Public Service Commission to the
new Transportation Commission., and (2) the increased responsibilit-
ies of the- Department of Transportation, e.g., first right of
refusal on abandoned rail lines.)

C. Organization for Implementation'of the Coastal Management
* Progra
3. A new Wisconsin Coastal Management Council

#19 204 Yirst paragraph, delete last sentence lines 4-7.

Vz~~~~~~ .. .1-t
Msb~~; --heT 6--aneii: menitees, nee -P

'. Program Funding
2. Funding Sources for a Coastal Management Program
Coastal Energy Impact Program (Section 308)

28 Delete second sentence: "The~ provision . . . rsuc.
Inser-t InU its place:.

Five t-T-es of financial assistance are -nrovided. under
Section: 308 (b) (6) (4):

(1) Planninz --rants for the conseauences of. enerav
faciliaties-,
(2 Lopans~' for' ney or imporoved-p~ublic~ facilities
and'serviCes required asa. result of coastal

(3), Grants, to reduce' any~ Unavoidable "Iaos 'of
7altabe environmental, or -recreational re-
Sour'ce,
(4) Otxter~ Continental Shelf (OCS) develcm-ment..

(5ke~pavmeut, assistance' to coas~tal states-and-
local iovrmet xperdtencing~ difficulties
Meetlng credits obligations because the- enerwy'
actl-7itv. did not provide, the. expected revenue.

Planning grants, the oUIT t'rpa of C~financial assistance
available to'Wiscons-in, may be applied to either coastal
ener aciviiesor facilaities.

3. El~igible Firded Activities and Re-cipients
a.. Ta improve the implementation: . . . of existing...

(3) Coastal, energy impacts-

#21 220 Delete iwhole Paragraph: "financial assistance is
enerX7 activit7-.",
Tnsertst

Section Maltc) Planning: granta are desizae4 forl the- study7
and Planning of conseauences relating~ to ne or expanded

(a lann for economic., social, o-r environmental
COUseguences of zew or exoandad e~ner`TV facilities;
- (b) aualvzing- zovernment or, private industr7 sitin.g

Cc)flvisinz strateeies for the: aublia ourchase of
land or for land-use controla umons, or near
which elmer-I' develonMent is to take nlace;

(d) devising methods of Dratect~Izz-recreational or environ-
mental resources:
(a) conducti-na studies for maintaining or tmaroving -public
safet-7 threatened by the construction or- operation of
enerx.7 f acilities.:
(f condudtiw- analyses, reqnirud, for, state or local reag
ulator7 decisions related to energy facilities;
()Performing cost/bene-f it analyses comvaring, the con-
()sequences of alternative enerzy facilitT typres or sites;
()devising, stratee~ies for, recovering compensation for
an'7 adverse effects caused byT an enerzv facilitri
Wi forecasting e~lavment. Do-oulation-,. 'public. facillity
and Dublic service- needs and costs,* and tax- and user

(i) plnigfor Dublic. facilities needed as a result of
the, energy7 activities:,
(k study- of and Diannine for the secondary conseouences of
-alternative types and siftes of -public faci1ities needed
as~ a result of the energy activities:
(1) stud'r of and Planninz forT the consecuences of the
-phasing out of energy- facilities; and
(m) carrying out -protect& nec-essary to administer assis-
tance, =ider Section, 308 (NOAA Regulations, Section
93-1.33,1 43 PR 7354, - 7555)

4.. Consideratiousi in Proaject Rudimg-:

#22 -226 Add an additional paragraph at- the and of' the section,-
mid-page.

Mfaior criteria for selection of- CEEF Drol ects are:

a) coastal energy, activity/facility- determination
(as defined in bTOAA Regulations Section 931. 13
and: 931.19, 43 FR 7551-75:53),
b) size and vulnierabilir~y of the, area*
a) appropriate timing of the proposal to address
the impacts of: the f acili ty (urgency. or ==e-
diacy of need)*
d) consistency with other state policies and With
the Coastal Management Program*

Other criteria for CEIPproject selection are:

e) compliance with federal regulations and guidelines
f) ability, of applicant to carry out proposed study
and -previous energy planning, involvement
g) presence of matching funds.*-
ha) geographic distribution of the pro-oosals*
i) transferability of. findinags of the Proj ect*
j) cost of project and availability of complementary
funds from other state or federal sources*x
*EZis~t�n2- zui-fA,14g~ f-r-m-m Coastal Management ?Trogram funding.

187

Cha~pter TII. Federal Government-Activitles in the Coastal Area

#23.. 31 ?ae 231of the State, of~ Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
and' Final nironmenta-1 Impac-t Statement makaso reference~ to:
"'A list of federally excluded lands~ was reprinted in Appendix
I of the Draft Itpact, Statement. " This Ilist Inadvertently
o=itted the Nicolet National Forest of which a portion is in.
Oconto County4

D. Federal, Consistency - Licenses amd~ Permits~

#24 I241 Paze 241 Paragranh D. The Department of Agriculture authorities:
1) 43 UJSC 1716 has replaced 16 USC 522 and, 523.

2) 16 USC 4,97 re-fersi to~ "lease and occupancy of limds- for
hotels, resorts, -SU=P-r homes, stores~ and facilities for
industrial, commercial., educational or public, u**e onl TUS-
Forest. Service Tands" rather than permits for construiction.

#25 242. 'Nuclear Regulatory Conmission

a)
'r.-- . Permits'and licenses for the
construiction and operation of nuclear~
facilities. (State permits required).