Coastal monitoring program and shoreline evolution model year two report to the State of Michigan, Department of Natural Resources

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

The University of Michigan
Ocean Engineering Laboratory

Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering
College of Engineering
@J"

I I

COASTAL MONITORING PROGRAM
AND
SHORELINE EVOLUTION MODEL
YEAR TWO: REPORT
TO THE
STATE OF MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Coastal Monitoring Program

L. Meadows, G. Meadows, T. Reno,B.Haus, G. Root,
M. Wise, and T. Bromwell

28 February 1990

to:

The State of Michigan
Department of Natural Resources

Report No. OEL-9001-LWMD-11C-6

The Univ. of Mich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 OEL-9001-LWMD-110M

This document was prepared in part through financial
assistance provided by the Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration authorized by
the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972.

This publication is a result of work sponsored
by the State of Michigan, Department of Natu'ral
Resources, Land and Water Management Division

under contract number LWMD-10C-5.

The UMv.@of Mich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 OEL-9001-LWMD-100-5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables and Figures iii

Introduction 1

Purpose and Goals 3

Summary of Year One Findings 9

Re- Establishment of Permanent Beach and Nearshore Precision
Hydrographic Survey Lines 10

Precision Hydrographic Survey Data Collection 1 1

Data Reduction 20

Background 21
Modelling of Shoreline Evolution 21
Equilibrium Profiles in the Great Lakes 22
Shoreline Response to Changes in Water Level 23

Discussion 27
Climatology 27
Volumetric Change and Bathymetric Response 33
Equilibrium Profile Evaluation 37

Conclusions 45

Acknowledgements; 47

References 48

Appendix A: Bathymetry 53

The Univ. of Mich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 OEL-9001-LWMD-dNlIIIIIIIl11l@

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

TABLES

Table 1. MDNR coastal monitoring program permanent survey sites. 6

FIGURES

Figure 1. Map of UM survey sites (from OEL 1989). 4

Figure 2. Illustration of Bruun's conceptual model of shoreline change (from 25
Bruun, 1962).

Figure 3. Illustration of Weishar and Wood's conceptual model of tideless 25
coastal response (from Wieshar and Wood, 1983).

Figure 4. Water level history for Lakes Michigan and Huron, 1988 and 1989 28
(from USAE, 1988).

Figure 5. Timeseries of 1989 field season wind speed and direction data from 29
National Data Buoy Center.

Figure 6. 1988 and 1989 Field season storm climatology by wind direction. 32

Figure 7. Volume change computation diagram (after Birkemeier, 1984). 34

Figure 8. Volume change calculations for UM survey sites. 35

Figure 9. Inner and outer bar movement values for UM survey sites. 38

Figure 10. Root mean square error and linear correlation coefficients for 40
two thirds power law equilibrium profile model.

Figure 11. Equilibrium profile shape coefficients for UM survey sites. 41

Figure 12. Examples of two thirds power law equilibrium profile fit to data. 43
UM29 is a poor fit. UM1 is a good fit.

Figure 13. Mean sediment diameter vs. best fit shape coefficients. 44

The Univ. of Mich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 OEL-9001 -LWMD-AW

lintroduction

The coastlines of the United States are projected to suffer increased population
pressure in the near future, resulting in the need for an accurate and reliable predictive
capability to assess the impact of physical processes and coastal engineering structures
on shoreline properties. The Great Lakes encompass over 9000 miles of coastline,
providing a home to approximately 15 percent of the U.S. population and 50 percent of
Canada's. Of the Great Lakes coastline (U.S. and Canada) about 83 percent is privately
owned land valued between $105,000 per linear foot, yielding a conservative resource
value estimate of $20 billion.
The dominant processes controlling coastal erosion and sediment transport are
waves and wave-generated currents, particularly during the passage of storms. Wave
generated processes are the primary control on erosion of the bluff and sandy
shorelines, while water level changes provide a secondary effect by modifying the
vertical distance over which the wave processes may operate (Davidson-Arnott and Law,
1989). Coupling of high water levels and severe storm conditions may result in
concentrated periods of economic loss, such as those of 1951-52, 1972-76 and the
early 1980's. However, nearshore losses can continue throughout fluctuating and low
water periods with lower vertical impact.
Therefore, assessment of the impact of both long and short term physical
processes on the coastline is required to gain a true understanding of the evolution of the
Great Lakes shorelines. In his review of nearshore research, Hails (1974) states that
the largest problem facing a study of this nature is the collection of data for a
sufficiently long time period to gain a representative picture of the changes taking place
in the coastal zone.
It was, therefore, proposed that, through a multi-agency cooperative effort,
numerical predictive models of shoreline evolution be developed accompanied by a
comprehensive and thorough investigation of long term beach profile response.
The specific purpose of the coastal monitoring program described herein is to
initiate and maintain field data collection activities for the establishment of a beach and
nearshore survey grid and to obtain the necessary hydrographic survey data for an
evaluation of shoreline response to changes in water levels and storm activity. The
Ocean Engineering Laboratory is actively involved in utilizing this data to improve
shoreline response forecasting capabilities. The latter portions of the total work effort
are being pursued through research grants and cooperative efforts with the Coastal

The UnjyopfMich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 OEL-9001-LWMD-10C-5

Engineering Research Center (CERC), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), and the Michigan Sea Grant College Program.
The purpose of this report is to summarize the results of the first two years of
the coastal monitoring program funded by MDNR, Division of Land and Water
Management through the Coastal Zone Management Program.

The Univ. of Mich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 OEL-9001-LWMD-4114M

IPurpose and Goals

As described in the Year One Report for this project, in February, 1988, The
University of Michigan's Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering's
Ocean Engineering Laboratory (OEL) proposed to the State of Michigan Department of
Natural Resources (MDNR) a program to conduct a series of precision hydrographic
surveys along the Lakes Michigan and Huron coastlines of the State of Michigan. The
purpose of this research effort is to initiate a long term monitorin g program aimed at
establishing the current state of the shoreline and to provide valuable information on the
rates of shoreline change in response to individual storms as well as seasonal and long
term climatic variations. The ultimate goal of this research activity is to provide the
data necessary to substantially advance our knowledge of Great Lakes coastal erosion
processes and to support the development of a predictive shoreline evolution model. This
effort will consider natural and man-impacted coasts in response to wind, waves, and
Great Lakes water level changes.
The proposed research plan consisted of precision hydrographic surveys
conducted at 45 permanent survey sites. These sites were chosen to provide long term
data on the rate of shoreline change over a wide range of both structurally impacted and
naturally occurring beaches along the Lakes Michigan and Huron shorelines of the Lower
Peninsula of Michigan (Figure 1). The 45 survey lines have been chosen to coincide,
whenever possible, with historical survey data previously obtained by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers as well as other research efforts reported in scientific literature
(see Table 1). Additional areas of particular scientific interest to both the MDNR and to
The University of Michigan's coastal erosion research program have also been included.
It was recommended that surveys be conducted twice yearly (each Spring and
Fall) commencing with Spring 1988. This monitoring scheme is similar to that in place
for the past twelve years along the Indiana coastline of Lake Michigan and is designed to
adequately identify both the seasonal and long term variations (on/off-shore changes) in
the beach profiles. To adequately assess the short term variability of the beach and
nearshore region of the Michigan shoreline, it was proposed that at least 15 of the
original 45 lines be resampled each year on a short time scale.
The combination of short and long term beach response data will be an extremely
valuable addition to this data set and will provide necessary direct insight for the
development of numerical predictive models of shoreline evolution both for natural as
well as man-influenced beach regions. Toward this goal, the two year precision
hydrographic survey dataset has been analyzed for gross morphological changes, annual

Figure 1. Map of UM survey sites (from OEL 1989).

U14 32-IMM PETOSKEY

UA431

UAIW

U,W29

UM 19-28 LUDINGTON

UAf /a

UAd 17

UA# 16

Ubt 15

UM 14-
.. GRAND HAVFJV
UM 13- -
LAKE ',,UM12
MICHIGAN

U14 I/

UAI /0

UM 09

UU08

UA407
KlLomErERS
20 0 40 w do
UA#01-06 -S U-TE mILES
EW BUFFALO io- - 9 - -1@40 -eb
SITE LOCATIONS
UM 0/ -3
DR.r-RENO 1 10-28-88

ALPENA

LAKE
HURON

TAWAS
UM 37-40

BAY CITY

PORT UAd 41- 45
SANILAC

KILOMETERS
20 -40- '- 60-- so AOO SITE LOCATIONS
STATUTE MILES

60
a(D 0 UM,37-45
DR.T.RENO I ll:@
5

Table 1. MDNR Coastal Monitoring Program Permanent Survey Sites

Reference Hl@torlcal SPRING POST-STORM FALL
No. Location Description County Section,T,R Reference Date Time Date Time Date Time
UM01 NEW BUFFALO IN/Ml State Line Berrien 24,TO8S,R22W H&J 26 5-04 13:00 8-09 08:00
UM02 NEW BUFFALO Grand Beach Berrien 17,T08S,R21W H&J 29 5-04 11:45 8-09 09:20
UM03 NEWBUFFAL0 Dunewood Condominiums Berrien 09,TO8S,R21W H&J 35 5-04 09:00 8-09 10:30
UM04 NEW BUFFALO City Waterfront Park Berrien 03,TO8S,R21 W H&J 42 5-03 16:10 8-08 11:45
UM05 NEW BUFFALO 11059 Riviera Dr. Berrien 35,TO7S,R21W H&J 44 5-08 15:45 8-09 14:00
UM06 CHIKAMING Township Park Berrien 19,TO7S,R20W D 17 5-09 09:30 8-09 15:15
UM07 STEPHENVILLE Chalet-on-the- Lake Berrien 20,TO5S,R19W D 16,13 Al 5-22 08:25 8-09 17:00
UM08 HAGARTOWNSHIP Township Park Berrien 15,T03S,R18W D 15 5-22 10:05 8-10 07:40
UM09 VAN BUREN ST PK Beach Access VanBuren 32,T01S,R17W D 14 5-22 12:15 8-10 10:35
UM10 GLENN Public Road Easement Allegan 31,TO2N,R16W D 13 5-22 15:00 8-10 12:30
UM1 1 DOUGLAS VILLAGE Public Beach Allegan 17,TO3N,R16W D 12 5-22 16:40 8-10 15:00
UM12 HOLLAND James St. Beach Access Ottawa 21,TO5N,R16W D 11 5-22 18:30 8-10 18:20
UM13 GRAND HAVEN Buchanan St. Bch Acc Ottawa 17,TO7N,R16W D 10 5-23 09:15 8-15 07:35
UM14 HOFFMASTER ST PK Beach Access Muskegon 36,TO9N,R17W D 09 5-23 11:15 8-15 09:40
UM15 WHITEHALL Duck Lake Outlet Muskegon 24,T1 I N,R1 8W D 08 5-23 13:00 8-15 11:30
UM16 CLAYBANKS Township Park Oceana 16,T13N,R18W D 07,H 24 5-23 15:30 8-15 13:00
UM17 LITTLE SABLE POINT USCG Lighthouse Oce" 35,T15N,R19W D 06,H 17 5-23 17:30 8-15 17:25
UM18 SUMMIT TOWNSHIP Township Park Mason 23,T17N,R18W D 05.1-1 32 5-24 09:45 8-17 16:00
UM19 LUDINGTON Buttersville Park Mason 22,T18N,R18W 5-24 11:20 8-17 13:20
UM20 LUDINGTON Buttersville Mason 22,T18N,R18W 5-24 12:00 8-17 14:30
UM21 LUDINGTON Stearns Park Mason 16,T1 8N,R1 8W 5-24 14:55 8-17 10:30
UM22 LUDINGTON Juanita Rd. Mason 09,T18N,R18W 6-06 08:08 8-17 09:30
UM23 LUDINGTON ST PK Checkin Station Mason 29,T19N,R18W 6-06 09:24 8-17 08:25
UM24 LUDINGTON ST PK Beach House Mason 19,T19N,R18W 6-06 10:51 8-16 17:20
UM25 LUDINGTON ST PK N of Outpost Camp Mason 18,T1 9N,R1 BW 6-06 11:48 8-16 16:20
UM26 BIG SABLE POINT USCG Lighthouse Mason 07,T19N,R18W D 04 6-05 13:00 8-16 14:07
UM27 LUDINGTON ST PK Wilderness Area Mason 06,T19N,R18W 6-05 16:00 8-16 15:00
UM28 LUDINGTON ST PK N. Boundary Mason 05,T19N,R18W 6-05 14:30 8-16 09:05
UM29 MANISTEE Bar Lake Outlet Manistee 24,T22N,R17W D 03 6-06 14:59 8-18 10:20
UM30 BEMMAN CNTY LINE Sunset Valley Resort Manistee 03,T24N,R16W D 02 6-06 16:39 8-21 18:30
UM31 POINT BESTIE USCG Lighthouse Benzie 04,T26N,R16W D 01 6-06 18:07 8-22 11:00
UM32 PETOSKEY Magnus Municipal Park Emmet 06,T34N,R05W 6-07 16:18 7-19 12:30 8-23 07:00
UM33 PETOSKEY Bayfront Park Emmet 32,T35N,R05W 6-07 15:30 7-19 13:40 8-23 08:20
UM34 PETOSKEY Bayview Association Emmet 33,T35N,R05W 6-07 12:46 7-19 14:40 8-23 09:15
UM35 PErOSKEY ST PK Beach Access Emmet 27,T35N,R05W 6-07 11:00 7-19 17:00 8-23 10:00
UM36 PETOSKEY Harbor Springs Emmet 13,T35N,R06W 6-07 10:43 7-19 18:25 8-23 11:07

Historical References: H&J: Hawley and Judge (1969), D: Davis (1976) and Birkerneier (1981),
13: Birkerneier (1980), H: Hands (1979).

Table 1. MDNR Coastal Monitoring Program Permanent Survey Sites

Reierence Historical SPRING POST-STORM FALL
No. Location Description County Section,T,R Reference Date Time Date Time Date Time
UM37 TAWAS Aster St. losco 05,T22N,R09E 6-26 12:00 7-18 12:40 8-23 16:49
UM38 TAWAS E. Birch Dr. losco 26,T22N,R08E 6-26 10:10 7-18 11:25 8-23 18:27
UM39 TAWAS POINT ST PK Beach Access losco 34,T22N,R08E 6-26 09:15 7-18 10:10 8-23 19:21
UM40 TAWAS Harbor Pier losco 20,T21N,R08E 6-26 07:15 7-18 08:15 8-23 15:30
UM41 PORT SANILAC Murphy Dr. Sanilac 35,T13N,R16E 6-29 10:00 7-17 11:35 8-25 07:00
UM42 PORTSANILAC 349 S. Lake Rd. Sanilac 02,T1 I N,R1 6E 7-06 08:00 7-17 12:35 8-25 08:30
UM43 PORTSANILAC Goldman Ave. Sanilac 02,T1 I N,R1 6E 7-06 10:00 7-17 13:35 8-25 09:45
UM44 PORTSANILAC Roadside Park Sanilac 1 1,T1 1 N,R1 6E 7-06 12:00 7-17 15:05 8-25 10:40
UM45 PORT SANILAC Walker Rd. Sanilac 14,T1 I N,R1 6E 7-06 14:00 7-17 16:00 8-25 11:30

Historical References: H&J: Hawley and Judge (1969), D: Davis (1976) and Birkerneier (1981),
8: Birkerneier (1980), H: Hands (1979).

The Univ. of Mich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 OEL-9001-LWMD-10C-5

volume change, and conformation of the coastal bathymetry to an equilibrium profile.
Results of these analyses will be presented in this report.

The Univ. of Mich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 OEL-9001-LWMD-10C-5

ISurnmary of Year One Findings

The success of the first year of this study was predicated upon the accuracy of the
data collection and analysis techniques, the use of appropriate time and length scales
over which data was collected, the incorporation of past data and insight, when
available, into the planning and analysis scheme, and the ability of future researchers
to use and build upon the database. The OEL employed the most reliable and accurate
surveying technique available for hydrographic survey and sedimentological data
collection. Data reduction and analysis was performed with nationally accepted
programming and database management which was only slightly modified for
streamlining in Year Two. Historical data was consulted for insight to process time and
length scales, field and laboratory techniques, as well as comparison with present data
collection.

Examination of historical literature revealed that there exists a need for further
study of coastal evolution, particularly during falling lake levels. The first field season
of data indicated that processes in action during the 1988 summer served to inflate the
beach profile in most cases, as expected. Based upon previous studies of Great Lakes
shoreline response to water level variation and storm waves, a decrease in mean lake
level should cause a lowering of the effective wave base, thus increasing the amount of
wave energy impinging the bottom at any depth. In response to this increase in energy,
increasing sediment transport may result in offshore migration of the outer bars. The
1988 dataset displays about a 50 percent agreement with this hypothesis, reflecting
the need for longer term monitoring during failing water levels.
The year one dataset also provided a first look at the response of the nearshore
region to the passage of storm fronts in a southern and northern Lake Michigan regime.
In order to characterize the long term response of the shoreline to falling annual lake
levels, it was found necessary to compare the 1989 and 1988 datasets.

The Univ. of Mich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 OEL-9001-LWMD-10C-5

1
Re-Establishment of Permanent Beach and Nearshore Precision
11ydrographic Survey Lines

During the 1988 field season, the OEL established a total of 45 survey lines along
the Lower Peninsula's Lakes Michigan and Huron coastlines (see Figure 1). Previously
existing nearshore survey lines along the Lake Michigan shoreline, and in particular,
those reported by Hawley and Judge (1969), Davis (1976), Hands (1979), and
Birkemeier (1980, 1981), were re-established and precisely relocated wherever
possible. Due to recent, rapid changes in shoreline topography as a result of record high
lake levels, it was only possible, in some cases, to establish survey lines in the same
general vicinity as the previously existing lines. The Year One Report summarizes the
site selection and initial bench mark establishment procedure
During April of 1989, a small shore-based survey crew visited all forty-five
sites for a temporary bench mark (TBM) reconnaissance study. The main purpose of
this endeavor was to take inventory of the TBM survival over the past winter. At this
time, all of the 1988 TBM's were recovered, however, at ten sites the TBM's were
buried and particularly difficult to salvage. At these burial sites it was found useful to
place a higher TBM adjacent to the concealed pipe. The elevation difference between the
two TBM's was precisely measured. Nine fall surveys were conducted from this adjacent
benchmark. As a precautionary measure, we placed back-up bench marks on the dune or
bluff at eight of the most dynamic sites. Each of these back-up bench marks was
precisely surveyed and measured in order to maintain continuity between successive
surveys which may rely upon them. One survey in the spring and four surveys in the
fall were conducted from these back-up benchmarks due to large seasonal changes in the
beach. It should be noted that north of UM23 (Ludington) and on Lake Huron, the TBM's
were quite easy to relocate and no adjacent or back-up bench marks were necessary.

The Univ. of Mich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 OEL-9001-LWMD-IOC-5

lPrecision Hydrographic Survey Data Collection

The survey activity consisted of conventional hydrographic survey techniques as
described in the Year One Report. Consistency between successive surveys was of utmost
importance. Since 1989 brought the use of a new survey fathometer, care was taken to
run the new and old unit side by side to evaluate the interchangability of the tool and
assure reproducibility of results. Otherwise, no modifications were made to the
successful surveying technique as employed in 1988.
Table I provides a listing of survey site locations as well as survey dates and
times. As in Year One, the entire study area was sampled during the spring and fall
surveys. However, the post storm survey for 1989 was conducted at UM site 32
through 45. The Year One Report provides justification for the survey interval
selection. Following is a summary of the site descriptions logged in the field notebooks
1988 and 1989.

NEW BUFFALO:

UIV101 is located adjacent to a public road easement at the Michigan/Indiana state line.
The TBM is positioned adjacent to the rubble mound structures at the base of a steep
bluff protect the road from washout. Approximately 150 ft north of the survey line, a
dilapidated seawall structure remains and 100 ft to the north is a sand bag groin.
1988-Some boulder movement was evident due to a slight tilting of the TBM pipe prior
to the post-storm survey.
1989-A large amount of sand has accumulated at the base of the revetment. During the
spring survey, a 10 ft gravel band appeared at the water line which narrowed to a 4 It
width in the fall. Tire tracks exist at this site.

UM02 is below a private dwelling construction site in Grand Beach. It is characterized
by a steep dune face above a natural beach. The site is just north of a blowout in the dune.
1988-The blowout had been plowed throughout prior to the post-storm survey.
1989-As in UM01, a gravel band exists at the waterline. New large boulders to the
south of the TBM have been dumped over the bluff from the southern side of the blow out
o the southern end of the development. A clay horizon appears on the edge of the blow
out to the south, approximately 4 ft above the TBM.- To the north, a gravel bar appears
to be welding to the shore during the spring survey. The shoreline is mildly undulating,
exhibiting a 500 ft wavelength, with the TBM stationed at the crest of the cusp. The
sandbar appears welded during the fall survey. In the fall, a ridge of water exists just
inside the berm and dune grass has grown along bluff.

UM03 is a construction site just north of the Dunewood condominium development and
just south of the harbor jetties at New Buffalo.
1988-A small vegetated bluff and cuspate beach forms were present at the fall survey.
This site experienced beach nourishment during the late Fall 1988.
1989-The beach has grown larger. Large rocks lie along the base of the bluff at the edge
of the tall beach grass. Pebbles lie along the swash line.

The Univ. of Mich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 OEL-9001-LWMD-10C-5

UM04 is located within the New Buffalo City Park north of harbor jetties. It is a
heavily vegetated bluff with walkways and stairways for erosion control.
1988-The site is characterized by a broad beach. There was a large amount of boat
traffic and beach use during post-storm and fall surveys.
1989-Cobbles exist on the backbeach while course gravel covers the midbeach. A
snow/sand fence winds three-fourths of the way up the bluff.

UM05 is a private residence in New Buffalo. The bluff is high with riprap at the
bottom (placed when the area was declared a national disaster in 1973). Otherwise the
site is a natural beach.
1988-A large shallow bar was evident during the spring survey and cuspate shoreline
features were present at the fall survey.
1989-The till bluff near the TBM has been built up and a berm has been formed. The
undulating shoreline has a 300 ft cusp. Tire tracks appear on the beach. The rocky
nearshore bottom turns to sand at around a 75 ft distance.

DAVIS SITES:

UM06 is located in Chikaming Township Park at the end of a road bed. It is
characterized by a very steep till bluff. A water outlet is to the south of the TBM.
1988-During the spring survey, there was no beach present, however, approximately
45 ft of beach was exposed and a new staircase was built prior to fall survey.
1989-The beach has grown to be quite large with tree foliage growing in front of the
TBM. No evidence of bluff slumping. A small amount of soil drainage,occurs from the
till bluff through a drainage pipe. A bar has welded to shore and ridge of water runs 7 ft
from the water's edge, parallel to the shoreline. A 1 ft berm appears above the swash
level and the migrating sandbar is almost fully welded to the shore in the fall.

UM07 is a private residence north of Chalet on the Lake near Stevensville. It is a
pocket beach with a rubble mound structure to the south and undercut concrete slabs to
north.
1988-It was necessary to move this site at the request of owner to the north boundary of
Chalet on the Lake at the fall survey. This site covers a steel sheet pile with rubble
mound toe protection.
1989-Nearly 20-30 ft of beach has accumulated since the last survey. Waves lap at the
base of the rubble to the south. A small berm appears above the swash line. A snow/sand
fence winds down northern side of the line to the end of the beach, however, no evidence
of sand accretion appears.

UM08 is located within Hagar Township Park. There is a steep till bluff with rubble at
the base shoreward of an otherwise natural beach. The site is immediately seaward of
rubble at the base of the bluff.
1988-Some slumping of bluff behind the TBM was evident at the fall survey.
1989-The broad beach's high berm has a gentle slope on the seaward side. Some ground
water runoff occurs to the north of the site and a large slump region to the south may
have occurred. No cusps appear at the spring survey. In the fall, the beach has become
slightly cusped.

UM09 is located at the beach access in Van Buren State Park. This is a region of large
active sand dunes.
1988-There is a broad natural beach and the park has posted an erosion control area
sign on the vegetated dune.

The Univ. of Mich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 OEL-9001-LWMD-10C-5

1989-The broad beach has a gentle seaward sloping berm and 500-750 ft wavelength
cusps. The TBM is located between a trough to the south and a peak to the north. Well-
rounded gravel material exists at the water line and the rocks at the knee sample are 1-
2 in diameter. A deep trough occurs before the first bar. Black sand lies at the dune,
base of dune, and midbeach.

UM10 is adjacent to a public road easement in Glenn. The site is a severely eroding till
bluff. Gravel material appears at the water line and a small stream outflow runs to the
north. Large concrete blocks form a revetment on the shore.
1988-There is evidence of recent slumping at the spring survey.
1989-The small stream has almost disappeared. A slumping of the bluff has occurred to
the south of the TBM. The beach has a cusp wavelength of about 250 ft.

UM11 is located at the Douglas Village Public Beach, a residentially developed area. The
bluff is thickly vegetated over a natural beach.
1988-There was evidence of slumping activity at the base of bluff at the spring survey.
1989-The stairway of the park has been buried to the first landing. A bluff has slumped
just north of the site behind the staircase. Three feet north of the TBM, a maple tree's
roots have been exposed. Sand has also been lost at the base of the tree which lies behind
the TBM. A large rock lies in the southern nearshore water. In the fall survey, the
stairs to the parking lot are still buried and no evidence exists of new slumping.

UM12 is the James St. public beach access north of Holland. This area is heavily
populated. A vegetated trail over a 40 ft dune leads to a natural beach.
1988-There was a high berm present at the fall survey.
1989-The 35 ft wide beach has no cusps. A large accumulation of wind blown sand
appears at the bluff base. No evidence of slumping exists.

UM13 is a beach access at the end of Buchanan St. south of Grand Haven. This area is
almost completely residentially developed. The bluff is well vegetated, but slumping.
There are old wooden seawalls to the north and south.
1988-At the spring survey there was a steep beach with loose sand and three offshore
bars. At the fall survey snow fences had been placed from the bluff half way to water's
edge and cuspate beach forms were present.
1989-A gently sloping berm exists at the water line in the spring. Very pointy cusps
exist about 300 ft north of the site, between the site and a low profile wooden groin
field, however, no cusps appear directly at the site.
UM14 is a beach access at P.J. Hoffmaster State Park. There is a wooden -walkway over
the well vegetated dune with a broad natural beach.
1988-The wooden walkway had been replaced and a garbage bin and anchoring pole set on
top of the TBM at the fall survey.
1989-The broad beach has a low berm and no cusps. The first of three sand bars is very
broad. This bar narrows and moves offshore south of the site and eventually splits into
two bars north of the site. In the fall, a large amount of tree growth has occurred. The
wide, inshore sand bar falls steeply on the landward edge.

UM15 is a public road easement on the south side of the Duck Lake outlet near
Whitehall. There are rubble mound structures to the north protecting the road bed and a
steep sand bluff lies above the site.
1988-There was a steep scarp near the waterline and three bars present at the spring
survey. The TBM had been buried under 2 ft of sand at the fall survey.
1989-A high berm exists above the swash while another small berm appears at the
swash zone. The larger berm runs to the northern rubble mound and pinches out to the

The Univ. of Mich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 OEL-9001-LWMD-10C-5

south. The broad flat beach has inflated. In the fall, the TBM is mostly covered by the
path and sand has accumulated to create a larger beach.

UM16 is located at the south end of Claybanks Township Campground. Bluffs of glacial
till dominate this area. There is evidence of recent bluff erosion over a narrow natural
beach.
1988-At the fall survey, the TBM was not relocated and a new TBM was placed. It is
possible that the bluff slumped and buried the TBM.
1989-Continued evidence of slumping exists at the base of the bluff. The broad flat
beach includes a minor berm. Sand runs half way up the bluff, then clay evolves. In the
fall, the beach appears in a summer inflated condition with no cusps. The dune is highly
vegetated except for the path.

UM17 is located at the Little Sable Point Lighthouse. The concrete at the base of the
light is broken and the beach is natural.
1988-There were cuspate beach forms at the fall survey.
1989-In the spring, the old TBM has been buried by rubble at the base of the light. The
nearshore bar, which has already welded to the north and south, is welding to the shore
at the line. In the fall, the broad beach has low profile cusps with the site lying at the
peak of a cusp.

UM18 is located within Summit Township Park. This region is characterized by 40 ft
bluffs to the north and south. However, the site is located at a sand terrace. Previous
severe erosion of the bluff is evident above a natural beach. A sheet pile structure lies
to the north.
1988-The bluff slumped on the north side of the TBM to slightly bury the pipe prior to
the fall survey.
1989-Cobbles appear on the beach which has a gently sloping berm. A stream outflows
to the south. In the fall, a large sandy beach with high berms exists. There are many
pebbles on the berm and larger stones in the water.

LUDINGTON:

UM19 is located in Buttersville Park south of the Ludington harbor jetties. The site is
characterized by a very steep bluff. There are three offshore breakwaters just north of
this otherwise natural beach site.
1988-At the spring survey there was a tombolo forming behind the southernmost
breakwater. Prior to the post-storm survey, the tombolo was completely formed out to
the southernmost structure and there had been no movement of the bluff.
1989-Tombolos to the north are well developed. A small berm exists above the swash
which heightens to the north, towards the tombolo, and then recedes again. No evidence
of bluff slumping exists and three bars occur. In the fall, the TBM was buried under 6
in of clay. Runoff from the bluff has created a beach with a hard clay shell. Sand is only
present on the berm and at the shoreline.

UM20 is a broad natural beach adjacent to undeveloped shorefront property south of
the Ludington harbor jetties.
1988-At the fall survey the TBM was slightly covered with sand.
1989-The broad beach contains cobbles and a lot of driftwood. The beach cusps to the
north with a wavelength of about 100 ft eventually die out north of the site. At the fall
survey the TBM lies flush with the sand. The large sandy beach contains high berms and
the cusps have decreased to about a 50 ft wavelength.

The Univ. of Mich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 OEL-9001-LWMD-10C-5

UM21 is located at the north end of Stearns Park. Thereisarubblem ound to the north
and the Ludington harbor jetties to the south. The broad beach is snow fenced every
winter and bulldozed in the spring prior to the opening of the park concessions.
1988-During the fall survey the beach showed small cuspate forms.
1989-In the spring the pipe was possibly hit by a bulldozer and found 2 ft above the
sand, at a 60 degree angle leaning towards the water. A depression occurs in the sand
behind the TBIVI due to the presence of sand/snow fence. In the fall, the TBM was found
pulled out so a backup TBIVI was utilized. The cuspate beach has accumulated sand since
last year and is building in front of the rubble mound.

UM22 is located at the end of Juanita St. in Ludington. There is a wood groin and rubble
revetment to the north near the water line and a wood seawall to the south shoreward of a
broad beach.
1988-The site has not incurred any noticeable variations this year.
1989-A major slumping of the bluff has occurred in the spring. A new snow/sand fence
runs about 10 ft south of the TBIVI. At the fall survey a new wood structure exists west
of the TBM. The large, flat beach has accumulated sand compared to last year. A berm
has developed near the water's edge.

UM23 is located adjacent to the check-in station at Ludington State Park.
1988-There is a broad natural beach and vegetated dune.
1989-In the spring, the beach appears to be twice as large as last year. A very small
steep berm of 1-2 in has developed near the shore. The beach landward of the berm is
damp indicating a recent overtopping. In the fall the large beach encompasses two
berms. The first sandbar lies- 150 ft offshore and two mild troughs exist. The shoreline
appears fairly straight.

UM24 is located at the beach house at Ludington State Park. There is a concrete seawall
at the swash zone with coarse sand fill behind.
1988-At the post-storm survey there was approximately 10-15 ft of beach exposed in
front of the seawall, and at the fall survey there was approximately 4-6 ft.
1989-In the spring 10-15 ft of beach exist. The coarse fill which lies landward of the
seawall appears the same. Rubble has been placed on the northern side of the river
entrance to the south about 200 ft away. A small cutback emerges on the northern side
of the site yet does not affect the beach at the site. The cusps on the beach to the north
have a 200 ft wavelength.

UM25 is located north of the outpost camp in Ludington State Park.
1988-At both the post-storm and fall surveys the beach was highly cuspate with the
forms approximately 60 to 70 ft in length.
1989-The wavelength of the cuspate shore has grown to about 100 ft in the spring. Two
of the bars are very visible. Some sand has built up around the amafala grass. During
the fall survey, the cuspate beach has a 300 ft wavelength and a height of 20 ft with the
site situated at a shoreward peak. Between lines UM25 and UM26, there are some shore
normal bars welding to the beach.
UM26 is just south of the Big Sable Point Lighthouse. There is a failing sheet pile
structure to the north protecting the lighthouse which may influence the survey site.
The dunes of approximately 30 ft height are vegetated.
1988-Prior to the post-storm survey a rubble mound had been placed tying the sheet
pile to shore on the south side of the structure. The TBIVI was buried and the beach
cusped at both the post-storm and the fall surveys.
1989-In the spring, a cusped shoreline lies to the south and sand has built out in front
of the rubble. During the fall survey, the cuspate shoreline maintains a 300 ft

The Univ. of Mich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 OEL-9001-LWMD-10C-5

wavelength with the site lying at the midpoint between the crest and trough. A high berm
appears about 1 ft in height.

UM27 is located in the wilderness area of Ludington State Park north of the lighthouse.
The area is characterized by low dunes near the beach and numerous blowouts.
1988-At the post-storm survey, the beach was cuspate, however, at the fall survey
these forms were absent and two prominent bars were present.
1989-At the spring survey, no cusps appear on the shoreline. The first trough cuts
very deep and a small berm has appeared. Pebbles exist throughout the beach. In the
fall, the shoreline has become mildly cuspate again. The large sandy beach has a high
berm with a terrace on the shoreward side.

UM28 is located at the north boundary of the Ludington State Park. This site is similar
to UM27 with low dunes and blowouts.
1988-At the post-storm and fall surveys there was coarse material on the beach.
1989-The site appears stable and the shoreline contains no cusps. Three bars are
evidenced from the shore. The first trough cuts deep and consists of cobbles. The cobbles
also appear at the swash zone and the nearshore water is very murky. Roots of a tree lie
across the survey line about 10-15 ft in front of the TBM. In the fall, a large berm
appears and a wide sandbar occurs 30 ft offshore. Cobble stones appear at the base of the
bluff.

DAVIS SITES:

UM29 is located north of Manistee at a public road easement near the Bar Lake outlet.
There is rubble revetment at the side of road with seawalls to the north and south of the
site. This forms a small pocket beach.
1988-At the fall survey gravel covered the swash zone.
1989-The pocket beach material has concentrated on the north margin. North of the Bar
Lake outflow a cut back occurs. The beach contains rubble at the midbeach and a small
berm. In the fall the sandy, pebbly beach includes a larger berm. The first sandbar has
migrated to within 1 ft of shore and starts to connect at the northern end of the beach
with a little water occurring between the berm and connected sandbar. Sand is exposed
in front of both the northern and southern seawalls.

UM30 is located at the Sunset Valley Resort near the Benzie/Manistee county line.
There is a 250 ft bluff to the north exceeding the angle of repose. The site is
characterized by an eroding bank with a wood seawall to north and old dock pilings to the
south. The beach material is gravelly.
1988-At the fall survey, it appeared that beach material had accumulated at the base of
the bluff.
1989-The beach has widened in the spring. Rocks appear on the shoreline and
throughout the wading survey. The shoreline cusps to the north. A large tree is failing
down on the bluff immediately behind the TBM. In the fall, one band of 3 in rocks lies 10
ft from the TBM parallel to the shoreline with another lying at the shoreline. Sand
inhabits the area between the bands. The TBM was buried under 1 in of sand.

UM31 is located just south of the Point Betsie Lighthouse. There are steel groins to
the north and south. Low-lying vegetated dunes containing numerous blowouts are
adjacent to the beach.
1988-At the spring survey the beach face was very steep and nearshore accretion
between the structures showed littoral drift to the south. At the fall survey, the beach
was wider.

The Univ. of Mich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 OEL-9001-LWMD-10C-5

1989-The beach remains large in the spring. The southern groin is totally exposed
containing about 10 ft of gravel and sand seaward. The swash appears at the end of the
northern groin.

PETOSKEY:

UM32 is located at Magnus Municipal Park in Petoskey west of the harbor jetties.
There is a stone groin to the west and the nearshore bottom is rock slabs. The site has a
vegetation line instead of a bluff.
1988-The beach material is sand with coarse cobble material.
1989-Two berms of large cobble material appear. A build up has occurred on the
western side of the groin. At the post-storm survey, more dune grass appears in the
TBM area.

UM33 is located at the Petoskey Bayfront Park east of the harbor jetties. The
nearshore bottom is very rocky.
1988-At the fall survey, evidence of water level drop was prominent.
1989-The park has planted grass on the bluff for stabilization. Small rocks (1-3 in)
appear from the base of stairs to the rubble (1-16 in) on the shore. In the post-storm
survey a moveable webbed plastic piece has been placed over the TBM.

UM34 is located in the Bayview Association in Petoskey. The site hosts a rubble
revetment to the East.
1988-The beach consists of sand and rock.
1989-To the east, there is a rubble mound groin in place at the end of the rubble
revetment. At the post-storm survey, new large rocks (8-18 in) appear on line at the
waterline, surrounded by little rocks. In the fall, sand appears about 10 ft behind the
waterline.

UM35 is located at the beach access of Petoskey State Park.
1988-There is a broad natural sandy beach at this location.
1989-The broad beach remains. In the fall, large pebbles appear on the beach and a
sloping berm occurs at the water's edge.

UM36 is at the end of a city street in Harbor Springs. There is a rubble mound at the
site with a sheet pile structure to the West.
1988-Prior to the fall survey, a new rubble mound had been placed to the East.
1989-The profile of the n-earshore area is as follows: rubble revetment, 10 ft of sand,
30 ft of smaller rubble (.5-2 ft diameter), sand. At the post-storm survey the eastern
house has put up a wooden embankment near the westward corner of lot. In the fall more
rubble has been placed at the eastern house next to the site and more large boulders
appear on line.

TAWAS:

UM37 is located at the end of Aster St. in Tawas. There is a storm sewer drainage pipe
on a natural beach.
1988-During the fall survey there was a large drainage canal from the storm sewer,
most likely due to the rain storm earlier that day.
1989-The drain pipe has created more water. Sand has accumulated in front of the
drain, trapping the water. The DNR has placed a permanent monument 15 ft shoreward
of the TBM around which sand is beginning to erode. At the post-storm survey-the large

1 7

The Univ. of Mich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 OEL-9001-LWMD-10C-5

beach has become very swampy with a small pond lying south of the TBM. Grass has
grown at the swampy part near the drain in the fall.

UM38 is located at the end of E. Birch Dr. in Tawas. This site is characterized as a
pocket beach with rubble mounds to the north and south.
1988-There is a very low berm at the vegetation line.
1989-The first bar has welded to the shore creating a small pond extending south to
north, parallel to the shore. At the post-storm survey the beach is large with a straight
shoreline. Water still lies south of the TBM, however, no flow occurs into the lake.
Southward the water stream has dried and hollowed out. A large berm occurs 10 ft from
the swash.

UM39 is located east of the Tawas Point Light near the beach house at Tawas Point State
Park.
1988-This area is very shallow showing welding of bar forms to the shoreline. During
the spring survey, there was a cuspate shore. The fall survey caught a sand wave
migrating to the south in the survey record.
1989-The beach has accumulated and the sandbar has welded to the shore and begins to
weld north of the line. The southerly migrating bar from last year has been exposed. In
the post-storm survey, the shoreline has large cusps with sandbars perpendicular to the
beach. A large beach appears north of the TBM, mostly covered with water. Small
pebbles lie throughout the beach. At the fall survey, a swim area has been created to the
north. Compared to the previous survey, the water covers more of the beach. The cusps
of the shoreline have a wavelength of nearly 40 ft.

UM40 is located south of the Tawas harbor pier in the city park. There is a narrow
beach seaward of a small concrete seawall.
1988-At the fall survey there was a small berm on the beach resulting from the storm
activity earlier in the day.
1989-In the spring a slight berm appears. A large mound of sand occurs in front of the
TBM. Black dirt covers the swash area. In the post-storm survey, drainage occurs to
the south from the pipe and black dirt remains in the swash area.

PORT SANILAC:

UM41 is at the base of Murphy Drive in Port Sanilac north of the harbor jetties. This
site has a broad sandy beach.
1988-There was gravelly material at the swash zone during the fall survey.
1989-The beach contains gravel at the swash zone. The fence behind the TBM is nearly
covered with sand. Vegetation has grown on the hill behind the TBM. At the post-storm
survey, the TBM lies flush with the sand level.

UM42 is located at a private residence south of the harbor jetties. This entire stretch
of coast is structured with an undercut concrete slab at the site and seawalls and groins
to the north and south.
1988-At the fall survey, dredge spoils were being deposited south of the harbor and this
loose clay/mud material was 2-3 in deep in the nearshore region.
1989-The seawall remains unchanged. Slippery boulders (3-4 ft wide) augment the
sand at the seawall's bottom. In the fall sand bags and rebars have been added at the base
of the seawall. Since the post storm survey, the cement at the base of the wall has
cracked into 3 pieces.

UM43 is located at the end of Goldman Avenue in Port Sanilac.

The Univ. of Mich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 OEL-9001-LWMD-10C-5

1988-This site was a rocky shoreline with no beach at the spring survey. However, at
the fall survey, the dredge spoils were actively being deposited approximately 150 ft
south of the survey range. Approximately 150 ft of material was exposed to air seaward
of the TBM. The dredge disposal pipe passed across the survey range, and crews were
busy bulldozing the mud and sand.
1989-No evidence of dredge spoils exist from previous survey in the spring. Large
pebbles lie on the beach between the revetment and water line. The nearshore bottom is
very rocky. The owner next to the line reports hazards exposed during the summer and
that the dredge muck was in suspension all last summer. At the post-storm survey, a
small beach has been created in front of the northwest and southwest sides of the TBM
with a larger beach lying farther south. Many pebbles lie on the beach with larger rocks
further out. Beyond the rocks, the bottom is very mucky with few rocks. In the fall, the
beach has narrowed considerably. Only large rocks (2-4 in) remain at the swash.
Smaller pebbles exist from the shore to the sewer pipe. The beaches mentioned in the
post storm survey have almost disappeared.

UM44 is located at the south end of a roadside park near Port Sanilac. This site showed
gravel in the sand above the swash and a steep bluff to the north with a stream bed to the
south.
1988-At the fall survey the stream bed was dry and there was a rocky berm present.
1989-In the spring a rocky berm with 3-4 in rocks exists and large rocks lie in the
water. Mucky sand lies at the shoreline and the sand, when present, is very fine. At the
post-storm survey large rocks and boulders lie offshore. In the fall the rocky berm is
not noticeable

UM45 is located at the base of Walker Road south of Port Sanilac. This site is a natural
beach with a small vegetated bluff.
1988-At the fall survey, there was a wide swash zone and no evidence of dredge spoils in
the nearshore survey.
1989-The sandy beach contains cobble (1-1.5 in) at the water line. One sand bar
exists past the rocks at a 2 ft depth.

The Univ. of Mich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 OEL-9001-LWMD-10C-5

Data Reduction

During year one of this research effort, the Interactive Survey Reduction
Program (ISRP) was utilized (Birkemeier, 1984). This software was selected in
order to remain consistent with the archive data format of other government agencies
engaged in survey activity. The program is an IBM based application.
In 1989, the OEL, in a move toward consistency of computing facilities within
the Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering Department of the College of
Engineering, purchased a Macintosh IN personal computer and peripheral digitizing
board. This provided not only departmental consistency, but streamlined the majority
of the laboratory's work efforts to the use of one type of computer. The Corps of
Engineers, as yet, had not adapted ISRP for use on such a mainframe, therefore the OEL
designed a similar interactive data reduction system with a translator for interchange
of data files between the UM format and the ISRP format. In this way, consistency of
database storage was preserved.
The reduction and analysis of the raw field data then proceeded in a similar
manner to that described in the Year One Report. Bathymetric records for each survey
period and individual site for the two year study were then overplotted for a detailed
comparison of long and short term topographic changes. These plots are supplied as
Appendix A.
All bathymetric data collected for each survey site was analyzed for unit volume
change. In addition, detailed analysis of the natural or "equilibrium" profiles for the
regions of the survey was performed, as well as an investigation of the offshore bar
characteristics and movement in response to storm induced waves as well as water level
changes. Methods and results of this analysis are presented in the Discussion section of
this report.

The Univ. of Mich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 OEL-9001-LWMD-100-5

113ackground

A brief summary of past investigations of coastal erosion on the Michigan
coastline is provided in the Year One Report. It is the purpose of this report to evaluate
the response of the nearshore profile to storm activity, evaluate short and long term
changes in water level, and provide a database for the design of a numerical model of
shoreline evolution. Therefore, a discussion of previous work on modelling of this type,
equilibrium profile theory and shoreline response to changing water levels follows.

Modelling of Shoreline Evolution
Three primary approaches exist to the prediction of shoreline evolution and
beach response for both natural and structurally impacted beaches. These approaches
are: i) physical models; ii) analytical solutions; and, ill) numerical solutions to the
mathematical equations which describe the physics of nearshore sediment transport.
Physical models are generally very costly to accurately construct and tend to be site
specific. Complete analytical solutions to the governing equations only exist for the most
simple cases and are generally not applicable to most real shorelines. A numerical
approximation to the solutions of the governing equations is, therefore, the most
reasonable approach to the accurate prediction of beach response.
Numerous studies of sediment transport and shoreline evolution models have been
conducted: Bowen (1980) provides an initial formulation of bed and suspended load
sediment transport; Bailard (1981, 1982, 1983, and 1985) has developed an
energetics sediment transport model for a plane sloping beach; Dally and Dean (1984)
have also developed a suspended sediment transport and beach profile evolution model;
Hanson (1987) discussed the use of a one-line model of general shoreline change
(GENESIS); Yang (1981) has investigated on-offshore sediment transport; and, Moore
(1982) has discussed beach profile evolution in response to changes in water level and
wave height. Vellinga (1983, 1986) and Kreibel (1982, 1984a, 1984b, 1986, and
Dean 1985b) have both recently developed relatively reliable beach erosion models.
Dragos (1981) and Perlin and Dean (1983) developed an N-Line model to predict
shoreline evolution in response to groin field emplacement. This model was further
enhanced for application to other coastal structures by Sheffner and Rosati (1987).
Meadows (1982) adapted this model for use along the Pennsylvania shoreline of Lake
Erie, a region of relatively simple bathymetry.
The one-line model approach, as discussed by Hanson (1987), is limited by the
fundamental assumption that the natural beach profile does not change with time. One

The Univ. of Mich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 OEL-9001-LWMD-100-5

important implication of this assumption is that cross-shore sediment transport must
be considered negligible and that the response time for the return of the bottom profile
to equilibrium after storms is on the order of days or weeks. However, due to the
hydrodynamic forces in operation within the Great Lakes, such as drastic changes in sea
level and fetch limited wave growth and as evidenced from this data set, the response
time is believed to be orders of magnitude longer. In addition, a true two-dimensional
representation of coastal evolution is what is clearly needed, especially in the vicinity of
coastal structures, both natural and man-made.
Birkemeier, et al (1987) recently evaluated Ballard's, Vellinga's, and Kriebel's
qualitative shoreline evolution models. Bailard's theoretical models have not had their
applicability demonstrated, and when they were compared to actual shoreline evolution
data, the results were "disappointing". The Vellinga model provides good results, but is
not valid for situations in which there is a mildly sloping beach. The Kriebel model was
found to work well, but in a limited region; it is only applicable from the swash zone to
the breaker zone, which is not sufficient coverage for proper prediction of shoreline
evolution. Therefore, a need exists to develop a well-formulated model which can be
generally applied to the broad spectrum of real shoreline environments.
A numerical model which has been successfully demonstrated for use in the Great
Lakes region (Meadows, 1982), based upon the previous work and models of LeMehaute
and Soldate (1977, 1980), and Dragos (1981), and a precursor to the work of Perlin
and Dean (1983), utilizes a sediment budget technique to numerically balance flows of
beach material in the alongshore and on-offshore directions. The sediment motions are
driven by the changes experienced by the incident wave field as it approaches the beach.
If more sediment enters than leaves the volume of beach under consideration, the beach
profile swells with sediment. Conversely, if a net deficit of material exists during a
particular time interval, the beach profile will exhibit erosion.
To adapt this capability to the Great Lakes, the models' ability to account for a
large variation in sediment characteristics and coastal environments must be evaluated.

Equilibrium Profiles In. the Great Lakes
The theory that a beach profile will tend toward an equilibrium shape when
exposed to constant wave and water level conditions provides a valuable tool for
numerical modelling of beach profile evolution. The two-thirds power law equilibrium
beach profile was empirically derived by Bruun (1954). Dean (1977) provided a
theoretical derivation of this model based on uniform wave energy dissipation per unit
water volume. This relationship is expressed as:

The Univ. of Mich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 0 EL-9001-LWMD-10C-5

d = Asx 2/3
where d is the water depth, x is the distance offshore, and As is a constant which is
dependent upon sediment and fluid properties. Moore (1982) presented a relationship
between As and sediment diameter. This relationship was based on extensive
experimental data for a wide range of sediment sizes. Balsillie (1987) proposed a model
for As based on a parameter which includes sediment fall velocity (w) and wave period
(T) and wave height at the break point (Hb):
Hb
WT.
The usefulness of the two thirds power law equilibrium beach profile has been
demonstrated by many investigators. Hughes and Chiu (1978) studied the applicability
of the two-thirds power law model to the Florida coast. It was found that the equation
modelled the profile well to 1200 ft offshore. The two thirds power law equilibrium
profile is used in most current numerical models for coastal evolution, including the
Genesis model (Larson and Kraus, 1989) and Perlin and Dean (1984). Larson and
Kraus (1989 ) showed that Deans equilibrium profile could be useful in zones of wave
reformation. In the development of the SBEACH model of beach profile evolution they
applied the relationship to the formation and movement of nearshore bars.

Shoreline Response to Changes in Water Level
As outlined by the Impact of Great Lakes Water Levels on Shore Processes
workshop (Davidson-Arnott and Law, 1989), the key processes affecting the nearshore
environment are waves and wave generated currents which control sediment erosion,
transport and deposition. At any individual site, the wave climate is determined by the
shoreline orientation, fetch lengths, wind climate, and presence of shorefast ice. Storms
results in an increase of wave energy reaching the shoreline, thus the storm climate is
an important parameter. In addition, there is a wide range of coastal environments in
the Great Lakes, ranging from bedrock shorelines through cohesive bluffs to protected
bays. Each shoreline type may be characterized by a different subset of controlling
coastal processes. Variations in water levels change the location of still water elevation
and thus, the area over which these coastal processes operate.
In the sand beach and dune environment, increased water levels produce beach
erosion and act to cut the dune face, while low water levels result in build up of the
foredune by wind action. Along the Lake Michigan shoreline, there is evidence that the
foredune construction during lower water levels is inactive, thus indicating that water

The Univ. of Mich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 OEL-9001-LWMD-IOC-5

level cycles may shift the range over which the dominant wave-induced sediment
processes occur, but may not alter the long term sediment budget.
Much of the southern Lake Michigan shoreline is characterized by steep bluff
faces. In this environment, high water levels may accelerate the bluff recession in the
short term, thus steepening the bluff slope and decreasing the offshore slope. The
nearshore would then adjust quickly. Lower water levels would result in a simple
adjustment (lowering) of the nearshore profile. In some cases, the bluff material
exposed near the water surface contains boulders or more erosionally resistant
material. Its presence may serve to reduce erosion by decreasing the exposure of
erodible bluff to wave forces.
Structurally impacted shorelines suffer greatly from our inability to accurately
predict water level fluctuations. High water levels will overtop structures rendering
them ineffective, while low water levels may expose the bases of structures causing
structural degradation.
The impact of changing water levels on shoreline morphology and bathymetry
has long been a topic of interest in both oceanic and Great Lakes coastal research. Bruun
(1962) suggested that an increase in the mean water level tends to shift the nearshore
profile landward. Therefore, as water levels rise, erosion prevails on the upper be ach
causing the shoreline to recede. This eroded material supplies the offshore region
causing an upward building of the outer profile (see Figure 2).
Investigations of beach changes on tideless coasts have been limited. Evans
(1940) and King and Williams (1949) investigated the variability of longshore bars
and troughs in the Great Lakes and Mediterranean Sea respectively. The studies of
Bajorunas and Duane (1967), Davis and Fox (1971, 1974), and Fox and Davis (1971,
1973) were of limited duration, and therefore were inadequate to evaluate long term
variability in nearshore bathymetry. Hawley and Judge (1969) evaluated two sets of
profiles obtained in 1966 and 1967 along the southern Lake Michigan shoreline,
defining a possible closure depth for the region. Hands (1976, 1979, 1980, and 1983)
analyzed beach and offshore profile data taken during a period of rising water levels. He
found Bruun's sediment balance approach to work well for sandy Great Lakes coastlines
under rising water levels and recommends further investigation under falling water
levels.
Weishar and Wood (1983) propose a conceptual model for barred bathymetry
response to changes in mean water level based upon a four year set of nearshore profiles
taken at one month intervals along the Indiana shoreline of Lake Michigan. The model is
shown in Figure 3. Under the condition of rising lake levels, the inner bar and outer bar

87ach Sea level after rise Initial sea level

Hypothetical bottom profile
after rise of sea level
Actual bottom profile after rise Initial bottom profile
Bottom otter sea level rise
of sea level VW after quantitative I ' lot bottom a
bola= bet owe erosion
vW bottom deposits
Urniting depth between predomina
neorshore and offshore material
and littoral drift characteftics

Figure 2. Illustration of Bruun's conceptual model of shoreline change (from Bruun, 1962).

.j
W
zW T
41
W 2
T W
I %
A
T,
T2 TIME IN YEARS

W
zw
4-1
W
MW
x T1 -T2
49
J
8 T, T2 TIME IN YEARS

-j
W
zw T,
49-1
W
2W
x
T2 9
C -j T2
T, TIME IN YEARS
W
Z>
W-j T,

Figure 3. Illustration of Weishar and Wood's conceptual model of tideless coastal response
(from Wieshar and Wood, 1983).

The Univ. of Mich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 OEL-9001-LWMD-IOC-5

migrate shoreward. The beach and nearbeach region show a corresponding erosion as
lake level and wind wave activity advance up the shore face. If no change in water level
is experienced, there will be movement only of the inner bar in response to storm
activity. Should water levels decrease, as seen through the duration of the MDNR Coastal
Monitoring Program, the inner bar and outer bar may migrate offshore and/or show
erosion. The beach and berm area will increase in subaerial extent and experience
deposition. As the wave base is lowered, the amount of wave energy impinging the bottom
at any point will increase, thus increasing sediment transport in deeper regions of the
profile.

Th e Univ. of Mich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 OEL-9001-LWMD-10C-5

IDIscussion

To gain basic insight into the dominant coastal processes through the duration of
this study, a detailed analysis was performed. In order to examine the forces acting to
shape the coastal environment, an evaluation of the wind climate and water level history
was completed. Bathymetric response of the nearshore region was estimated through a
volume change analysis and longshore bar migration assay. In an effort to establish a
characteristic profile shape for various nearshore environments, an examination of the
application of the equilibrium profile concept to the data set was undertaken. This
section presents a summary of the data analysis and a discussion of the results.

Climatology
In any study of environmental response, it is of utmost importance to
characterize the forcing functions responsible for the observed changes. In this study,
and as indicated by previous studies, the two most important factors responsible for
coastal evolution, in order of importance, are storm wave activity and water level
variations. Engineering structures play a secondary role in modifying the flow
structure of the nearshore zone and will be treated in the bathymetric response
discussion.
Figure 4 illustrates the water level changes experienced through the two year
data collection period. The duration of the study saw an overall change in mean water
level from 0.6 ft above to 0.2 ft below the long-term mean; 0.8 ft overall.A seasonal
cycle is superimposed upon this overall change in mean level. Water level rises during
spring and declines during late summer and fall. Between successive spring surveys,
the water level fell 0.8 ft, while successive fall surveys experienced a drop of only 0.1
ft. In summary, there was a drastic decline in water levels from May to November of
1988, followed by a slight rise through the winter of 1988/89. The field season of
1989 experienced a sustained lower mean water level, with a slight fall from July to
August.
The wind climate of the northern and southern portions of Lakes Michigan and
Huron through the 1989 field season is provided in Figure S. Similar data for 1988 is
included in the Year One Report. Large waves resulting from sustained winds of 10
miles per hour or greater are the primary force responsible for the movement of
sediment in the coastal zone. Storm frequency was tabulated for the northern and
southern reaches of the study for both 1988 and 1989. This data in Figure 6 shows that
1988 was characterized by a large number of storms from the south and southwest

... ............. . ...... ........... ... .. ................ . . .................... . .. . .... .............. --- .................
lose
1999 1990
. ....... APR -MAV JUN Ff.'
OCT NOV DEC JAN FES MAP APR MAV
.. . . ....... .... . . ....... . .......... . ............. -- .. .. ... 7W. A V! DEC JAN FES
..............
............ .......... . . .......... ........... .......... .. .. ... . ............ ..........
:Ft. i 'FEB:MAR;!A R J :AUG SEP UG SEP OCT NO
.JAN P-tl!@AV JUN U

..... . .. ......... . ... ........ ... .........
........... .......... .
.... .......... .. .... . ............ ............ . . ......... ............ ........
t -4+5:
i*5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. ...... ............ .......
............ ... . .. .. ............ ...

....... ...
..... .......... .. . ........ .......
............ .. ..... . ..........
4. 1 Rai 1988
+C
........... . .. ..........
. . . ....... ........ 9-60"
. ......... .... .... ......

@+3

.......... . ......... ........... ...........
.... .. .... .. . ........... ....... .... ...

.. .... . ...... b
I -- +2!
J
+2 7 ......
......... .. ...... .. ............ ........ ..
. . ........... ..... .
. .. .........

.. ....... ...
...... ... .
-400
..........
. ... ..... ... .......

... ............ ....
6-
p@@ +@@
........... 4 Ar 7 0
GN4RT OAT@'
0
. .. . .......... .. .... .......
. . ............
.. . .... ..... .. .... ... .. . ......

.. ............ . ........ ..........
...... ..........
too
LAKE&
00
@H GAN .0

241
904 Ma

... ... ... . ........ .... . .......

LEGEND

LAKE LEVELS

RECORDED

.... ......
PROBABLE
Figure 4. Water level history for Lakes Michigan and Huron, 1988 and 1989 (from LISAE,
. . ..........
1988).

1900-1988
AVERAGE
MAXIMUMtt 1985 =5 1973 1973
77"

MINIMUMtt 1934 1926 193'4

Climatology of Lake Michigan
360 May 1989
340

320
300 n
280
4)260
0240
4)
0%220
41
200

0 180

160

140

120

100

40
20 1 U
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 131415 16171819202122232425262728293031

May

-Southern Lake Michigan -----Northern Lake Michigan

14-

12-

10-
E
8- 0

W 6-

1LJ
4

0
'Vill

1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 @9'3'0';l
May
Figure 5. Timeseries of 1989 field season wind speed and direction data from National Data
Buoy Center. 29

Climatology of Lake Michigan
360 June 1989
mill 0
340 it. 1
320
....%300
0280
4)260 1
0240
9-0220
200 'A
.2180
u160

140

120

100
80

60
40

0
1 2 7 11 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

June

-Southern Lake Michigan ----Northern Lake Michigan

14-

12-

_Cn 10
E

CL
U) 6

4
I @jl
I I I I ? R
2-

0
141
oil

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
June

Climatology of Lake Michigan
July 1989

360

340

320

300

280
4)260
0240
0220
-200

0180

160

140
lot
120
Ito
'0100

80
Ito
60
40 Al I
20

0 rT@
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1920 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
July

Southern Lake Michigan -'---Northern Lake Michigan

14-

12-

10-

8 -

CL
U) 6

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
July

Climatology of Lake Michigan
August 1989

360

340

320

300
It
U) 280 1
0260
4)240
.O..o220 01
I jNt ild
200 1 1@
011 Ij
.2 180 0
160

140

120

100

40
IIA A 1
20 ki A I
01 51
0
1 *3 4 5 6 78 9 1011 12 13 141516 17 18192021 2 2 2 3 2 4'215"216'217 2 8 219 310 311

August

-Southern Lake Michigan ----Northern Lake Michigan

14-

12-

10-
E

U) 6

2-
ji,

0 r-rrT-"
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 '110 11 12 113 114'115'116 17 1 #8 19 2 0 2 1 212'213'2'4'2'5"2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1
August

1988 Summer Storm Climatology
15. Southern
Northern

0
N NE E 9E s SW W NWN
Direction

1989 Summer Storm Climatology

15-

Southern
Northern

Oc 10-

C
'D
0 5-

0
N NE E S SW W NN
Direction

Figure 6. 1988 and 1989 Field season Storm climatology by wind direction.

The Univ. of Mich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 OEL-9001-LWMD-10C-5

impacting northern beaches, and an equal distribution of storms from north and south
dominating the southern reach of the study. As is evident from Figure 6, the 1989 field
season storm climate was significantly different from 1988. The southern survey sites
experienced a large number of storms from the north, while the northern sites enjoyed a
fairly mild storm season.

Volumetric Change and Bathymetric Response
All bathymetric data collected for each survey site was analyzed for unit volume
change. The volume analysis program computes changes in elevation and cross-
sectional area for successive surveys of each profile line. To accomplish this, the
program linearly interpolates the actual survey data into a series of uniformly spaced
elevations. Calculations are then made of the elevation change at each digitized distance
between each survey. The incremental change in cross-sectional area is computed by
averaging adjacent elevation changes and then multiplying the average by the digitizing
interval. Incremental volumes are summed to obtain a net profile change. The gross
profile change is computed as the sum of the absolute val ues of the incremental volume
changes. The net can be interpreted as the total material added to or removed from the
surveyed area, while the gross is the amount of material in motion. "Cut" and "fill"
quantities are also determined. These are areas where a series of adjacent incremental
volumes are either all negative (cut) indicating erosion, or all positive (fill)
indicating deposition (see Figure 7).
Calculations of annual volume change were derived from both the successive
spring surveys, as well as the successive fall surveys. A bar chart of the gross and net
volume change is presented in Figure 8. The difference between gross volume change and
the absolute value of the net volume change is an indication of the amount of profile
adjustment such as bar migration. In general, many sites experienced a large amount of
profile readjustment due to storm activity and the drop in water levels, and very little
net gain or loss of sediment. However, many high risk erosion areas as identified by the
MDNR (1974), continued to show overall loss during this period of falling water levels.
The New Buffalo sites (UM 1 through 5) show evidence of structural impact with
growth of the profile at UM 4 and 5, north of the harbor structure, and loss of sediment
at UM 2 and 3 in the spring comparison. The fall survey comparison for this region
shows the impact of the beach nourishment at UM 3 which helped to alleviate a large
portion of the potential erosion, even though some nearshore loss occurred. UM 5 and
nearby UM 6, two sites with very steep bluffs and nearshore zones, are enjoying a much
needed period of accretion following the initial adjustment to lower water levels.

Volume Computation Region

--------- vertical datum (ex. IGLD) -------------

.................

cut cell fill cel

Figure 7. Volume change computation diagram (after Birkemeier, 1984).

Volume Accretion (cu ft/ft-yr) Volume Accretion

61 6) rb -I
za Cn 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 2
3 0 3
4 4
5 5
6 3 6
7 (D 8
-n 8 OD 9
9 CD 0 10'
10'
(D 11 :r 11
-------- to 12'
FO 12
13' -n 13
< 14 14
0 15 (D 15
a 16 ................... 17'
3
CD 17 18 Olen
0 18
19
19
20
20
21 OWN
CD u) 21
22 22.
23 23
0 Z 24 Z 24
25 25
El 26 26'
0 Cr 27 M 27
28 28
29
3o 29 NOW M
C 31 30
r. 32 31
33 32 OEM
34 33
2 35 34
CD 36
1< 35
a 37 36
38 37
39 38
40
41 39.
42 40 Igo
43 41
44 42
43
44
4511

The Univ. of Mich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 OEL-9001-LWMD-10C-5

Throughout the reoccupied Davis (1976) sites (UM 6 through 18, and 29
through 31), high risk erosion areas continued to exhibit either dominant shoreline
adjustment or continued nearshore loss. Bluffs and dune faces remained fairly stable,
reducing the supply of littoral material to the coastal zone and causing nearshore loss to
maintain the sediment budget balance.
Volume change analysis at the Ludington sites (UM 19 through 28), as in New
Buffalo, exhibits the effect of the harbor structure at the City of Ludington. Recall from
the climatology that the major portion of the storms during the field season of 1988
were from the south. This is physically expressed by the gain of sediment on the south
side of the harbor jetties (UM 19 and 20) and a loss on the north side (UM 21 and 22).
During 1989, this region experienced very few storms with slightly higher occurrence
of a southerly component. The volume change data for the fall surveys reflects this as a
decrease in net movement for the sites near the structure and a reversal in the gain/loss
pattern. The sites comprising the Ludington State Park and Big Sable Point experienced
some combination of coastal readjustment and nearshore gain.
The five survey lines in Little Traverse Bay (UM 32 through 36) show the
smallest volumetric change of the study. LIM 32, 33, 34 and 36 are shaped by large
boulders, and in some cases bedrock, thus very little nearshore change should be
expected. It is impossible to distinguish survey error from real volume change if the
value lies below approximately 500 cu ft/ft-yr, therefore, it is necessary to conclude
that any changes in the nearshore bathymetry for this region were too small during the
past two field seasons to be detected by this hydrographic survey technique, with the
exception of a small gain at the Bayview site for the spring comparison and a small gain
at the Petoskey State Park for the fall.
The Tawas region (UM 37 through 40) appears, on average, to have benefited
from the failing water levels. The profiles have inflated in all but two annual
comparisons. The spring volume change shows a loss of material at the Tawas Point site.
This site is an extremely active region of the point characterized by multiple nearshore
bars and cross-shore sand waves. This loss may be attributed to the longshore migration
of a sand wave through the survey range.
Five sites were monitored in the Port Sanilac area (UM 41 through 45). The
volume analysis for this site is complicated by dredge activity at the harbor during the
late summer 1988. In August, the harbor mouth was dredged and the very fine spoil
material was deposited at site UM 43. In addition, the activity of the dredge caused a
large amount of material to accumulate at UM 42. The north side of the harbor structure
(UM 41) exhibited normal structurally impacted behavior, similar to that of another

The Univ. of Mich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 OEL-9001-LWMD-10C-5

southern site, UM 4. The southernmost survey site (UM 45) shows simple coastal
readjustment with very little net change.
To examine the process of coastal readjustment in more detail, measurements of
inner and outer nearshore bar position were made for all of the survey sites. These
values were then compared over a one year time lapse (spring to spring, fall to fall) to
provide estimates of bar migration. These data are presented in Figure 9. As proposed
by Weishar and Wood (1983), on a tideless coast, the inner bar will move in response
to the wind wave climate, while the outer bar depth will exhibit a strong correlation to
variations in water level. The model suggests that as water level falls, one should
expect the outer bar to migrate offshore. These two trends are exhibited in Figure 9.
Here it can be seen that the inner bar migration is approximately equally distributed
between onshore and offshore movement, while the outer bar exhibits a strong tendency
for offshore migration. In the New Buffalo region, however, the migration of the outer
bar is adverse to the Weishar and Wood model. The site exhibiting this adverse bar
movement in the New Buffalo region are exposed to large structural impact which may
affect 'onshore transport to the depth of the outer bar and produce onshore migration of
that bar, which will far outweigh the effects of falling water levels.

Equilibrium Profile Evaluation
The procedure used to analyze the data is from Balsillie (1987). As values were
calculated using the numerical curve fitting procedure described in the above paper. The
exponent is fixed at 2/3 and As is calculated by the following direct method:
As = Idmx 2/3
y 4/3
,x

where dm is the actual water depth and x is the distance offshore. The power curve fit is
assessed using the root-mean-square-error, Erms. The lower the value of Erms the
better the fit.
s (d -_ d _m@
2/3 Erm n 1
where d = Asx is the calculated depth.

Offshore Movement (ft/yr) Offshore Move

-I K) (a & rb -I
C3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C3 0

2 2-
3 0 3- 0
4 *0 C 4-
2i 5 00 5- 0
6- 0*
6

8 0
8 9 0
9
10 0 10- 0
11 0 11- 0
*0
13 G 13-
14 14- 0
lb 0 lb. 00
0
a 16 16- 0
(D 17 0 17- 0
cr 18 18- *0
SD 19 19-
20 2U. 00
U) 21-
0 21 0
< 22 0 22-
M Z 3 0
a z
CD c 24 0* c 24-
C3 25 0 3 25-
r cr
< 26 0 26-
0 27-
27
28 0 28. 0
(a 29 29-
30 0 30
C: 31 31 0*
9 32 32
U) 33 33
34 34
04
(D 35 35
36 * 0 36
37 0 37-
-n ca
(D 38 0 38-
39 0 39- 0
=3
40 19 40-
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 451

The Univ. of Mich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 OEL-9001-LWMD-10C-5

Balsillie used the following scale for determining the nature of the profile from
the Erms value:

Erms Description

0.0 - 1.0 Smooth

1.0 - 2.0 Slightly Barred
2.0 - 3.0 Moderately Barred

3.0 - 4.0 Strongly Barred
> 4.0 Suspect

The use of this scale required that the linear correlation coefficient exceeded 0.95 and
that the Erms value was less than 4.0. The linear correlation coefficient was calculated
by the following equation:
Xi dmi - N 3E am-

rid.

where N is the number of depth measurements, _x is the average distance and dm is the
average depth.

The analysis was performed for the full surveyed profile for two reasons. The
first was to facilitate comparison with Balsillie's results. The second reason was because
the surveys were designed to extend to the depth of closure for the Great Lakes, hence any
shoreward limit such as that suggested by Hughes and Chiu (1978) could yield
unreliable results. The correlation coefficients for the entire surveyed profile were
generally above the 0.95 limit set by Balsillie (see Figure 10). Most of the UM profiles
were slightly to moderately barred as exhibited in Figure 10. The temporal constancy
of the Erms values shows that the barred profile is a stable feature of the Great Lakes
coastline. The barred nature of most of the profiles renders the power law unsuitable
for modelling processes which are strongly dependent upon the smaller scale features of
the profile. The general shapes of the entire surveyed profiles are modelled accurately
by the two-thirds power law.
The model gives very consistent results for UM1-UM25, the best fit shape
coefficients in Figure 11 show that the profiles maintain the same general shape over

Erms
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT

(D a 0
:-4 bD
-& 1 1 M+
(D 0 2 04*
.0 1 OAM 3 wo
3) 2 NN & +
0 4
cr 0 3 5 +oft
4 x p 00 z 6 0 be
3 5 m 7 *+
(D -n -o cp Ti -a cp
P3 (40 "o fj) 'D mo xu > Dow*
7 = I I "
0 00 OD = , 00 OD m +
0 (D 00 OD 10
10 0 12 8 so 0
m 13
0 (D 12
CL -, m c 14
(D 13 *M m K 15 @10
14 0 4xm r- c/) 16 m 4
16 >
m ar 17 W*
OL c: Is -4 1a *+
17 mm z
K F) a 19 Of. So
A. is ON 3
(D U) z 20 M 00
19 am 47
(D 21 eon 4
CMD 20 0 22
z 21 0 23 oq@
0 c
-4 3 22 x a m 24 0
(D CT 23 In 25 910
(D
24 n
0 25 26 400
26 27
m 28
0 27
(D 28 a x z 29
29 00 m x 30 +
31
CD 30 32-
31 IDM
32 33,
34 "
33 35-
34 ow 36-
35 37
0 36 38
37
=r 39
38 40
39
W 4; Ell
'a 40 ly
0 4 0 m
41 me 43
42
(D 44
43 mxw 46 E*
44 mm
45

EQUILIBRIUM PROFILE SHAPE COEFFICIENTS 0 Spring 88
0.4- 0 PS 88

K Fall 88
a Spring 89
2 PS 89
0.3-
A Fall 89
A
Q

0
0 0.2-
0
CL

0.0 1 1 1 1Is oil 111 11111.11 111 111 gill Ia
abo- Cum* Me?, Cabo -Cy",* OWN 0.00 -(M" Ittew 1, 40 . . . I . . I
- - - - - - - - - -N N W " N N " W N M " ""0 " " M " " 0 V V V V V V I
UM Site Number

Figure 11. Equilibrium profile shape coefficients for UM survey sites.

The Univ. of Mich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 OEL-9001-LWMD-10C-5

time. The profiles exhibiting considerable variation are those for which the Erms values
indicate that the two thirds power law does not adequately describe the profile shape.
The fall, spring, and post-storm values of As (Figure 12) were compared using
paired sample T-tests. These tests show that despite the fluctuations in water level
between the surveys the mean As values do not change. This indicates that the general
profile shape is not changed by water level fluctuations; it is shifted landward or
seaward while maintaining the same general form. Therefore models that utilize this
assumption to predict recession due to water level changes should be useful on the Great
Lakes (Bruun, 1962)
The sediment size distributions were obtained as described in the Year One
Report. The mean Phi values acquired at 3 ft depth intervals were averaged for each
profile. Comparison of mean sediment diameter with best fit As values (Figure 13)
shows that there is no direct relationship. Moores' relationship between sediment
diameter and shape coefficient was based on a wide range of sediment sizes, however, all
of the profiles had mean sediment size of medium to fine sands. The variations in mean
sediment diameter occurred on too small a scale to allow the use of Moores' empirical
relationship. It is therefore recommended that As values be computed directly from
profile data if available.

LIM 29 Spring 88
10

-10

DCALC
CL -20
DMEAS
-30

-40

-50
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

DISTANCE OFFSHORE

UM 1 Spring 88

10-

-10-
CL DCALC
DMEAS
-20-

-30-

-40-
0 1000 2000 3000
Distance Offshore

Figure 12. Examples of two thirds power law equilibrium profile fit to data. UM29 is a poor
fit. UMI is a good fit.

Sediment Diameter vs. Best fit Shape Coefficient
0 Spring W
0.4- * PS 88
+ Fall 88
0 Spring 89
0 PS 89
0.3- 11 Fall 89

LU
0.2-

U-

0.1 -
N9

0.0
0 1 2 3

AVERAGE SEDIMENT DIAMETER (PHI UNITS)

Figure 13. Mean sediment diameter vs. best fit shape coefficients.

The Univ. of Mich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 OEL-9001-LWMD-10C-5

lConclusions

Through the support of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the
people of the State of Michigan, The University of Michigan Ocean Engineering
Laboratory has completed two years of a study of the long term response of the lower
peninsula coastline to changes in wave climate and mean water level. In addition to
providing insight into the physical processes shaping the coastal zone, this research
effort has provided a large portion of the data necessary for evaluation of shoreline
evolution models for use in the Great Lakes.
The study encompassed a period of falling mean water levels throughout the Great
Lakes. It was found that the conceptual model proposed by Weishar and Wood (1983) is
an accurate characterization of the changes of the nearshore region in response to
falling mean water level. In general, the model suggests that as water level falls, the
outer bar will migrate offshore and the inner bar will remain sensitive to storm
influence. However, it was found that in regions exposed to large structural impact,
onshore transport may be affected to the depth of the outer bar. This may produce
onshore migration of that bar, which greatly outweighs the effects of falling water
levels. In addition to coastal readjustment, the nearshore zone, in some cases, exhibited
net volume loss with falling lake levels, contrary to the belief that lower water levels
will halt erosion. This is due to the fact that the coastal zone always strives for a
balanced sediment budget. If bluff erosion Is discontinued due to falling lake levels, this
sediment source must be shifted to another area of the profile, specifically, the
nearshore zone. The erosion rate may decrease, but will probably not stop altogether.
In an effort to gain insight into shoreline evolution modelling, it was found useful
to examine the conformation of the coastal bathymetry to an equilibrium profile. The
popular two-thirds power law of Dean (1977) was tested for the profiles in this
database. In general, it was found that the two-thirds power law equilibrium profile
worked well for the open coast profiles, indicating that profile shape does not change in
response to water level changes, rather the profile is shifted landward or seaward. In
the past the shape parameter was determined by an empirical relation with the mean
sediment grain size. This study indicates that the range of sediment sizes in the study
region is too narrow for Moores' relationship to adequately characterize the shape
parameter. It is suggested that this value be determined from a best fit to the profile
data when available, as recommended by Balsillie (1987).

The Univ. of Mich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 OEL-9001-LWMD-10C-5

The water level history of the past two years has provided the OEL with a unique
opportunity to study the response of the shoreline to falling mean lake levels. Historic
studies in the Great Lakes region have typically characterized periods of rising lake
levels, or have concentrated on the short term effects of storm induced waves. As sited
by Hails (1974), the long term commitment of funds to monitor changes throughout a
lake level cycle are not readily available, and many historic studies reflect this lack of

commitment.

The Univ. of Mich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 OEL-9001-LWMD-10C-5

Acknowledgernents

Our thanks to the State of Michigan, Department of Natural Resources for
responding to need through not only financially supporting the coastal monitoring
program but also by providing the MDNR survey crews, and State Parks access and
logistic support (Van Buren, P.J. Hoffmaster, Ludington, Petoskey, and Tawas Point).
In particular, thanks to Mr. Martin Jannereth, Mr. Chris Shafer, Mr. Gary Bilow, and
Mr.John Spencer.
In addition, the understanding and support of the people of the State of Michigan
who allowed us the opportunity to conduct this study on their property was essential and
invaluable.
UM02 - Mr. Eric Hamburger, Grand Beach
UM03 - Mr. Roland Oselka, Dunewood Development Co., New Buffalo
UM04 - Mr. Steve Hahn, Superintendent, New Buffalo
Mr. Tom Johnson, City Manager, New Buffalo
Mr. William Geislet, Park Director, New Buffalo
UM05 - Ms. Dorothy Kriz, New Buffalo
Mr. and Mrs. Bethel, New Buffalo
UM06 - Mr. Eric Berman
UM07 - Ms. Phyllis Rieves, Resident Manager, C halet-o n-the- Lake,
Stevensville
UM08 - Mr. Frank Vitale, Hagar Township Board
UM1 1 - Mr. Bill Campion, Village of Douglas
UM12 - Mr. Stuart Visser, Park Township
UM13 - Mr. Jerry Postema, Grand Haven Township
UM18 - Summit Township
UM19 - Ms. Connie Anderson, Treasurer, Pere Marquette Township
Mr. Frank Schubert
UM20 - Mr. and Mrs. Ptaszenski
UM21 - Mr. Gerald J. Richards, City Manager, Ludington
UM24 - Dr. Ronald Hutchinson, Foundation for Behavioral Research
Mr. and Mrs. Ed Hallin, Big Sable Point Conference Center
Mr. and Mrs. Dick Smith, Big Sable Point Lightkeepers Assn.
UM30 - Mr. and Mrs. Howard Saidla, Sunset Valley Resort
UM32-33 - Mr. Allen Hansen, Dir. of Parks and Recreation, City of Petoskey
UM34 - The Bayview Association
UM37 - Dr. Leslie A. Lambert, Tawas
UM38 - Davison and Son Builders, Inc., Tawas
UM42 - Mr. Paul Weeman, Pon Sanilac
Mr. and Mrs. Wallaert, Port Sanilac
UM43 - Mr. Don Dharte, Warren
Finally, this work could not have been accomplished without the dedication of the
members of the Ocean Engineering Laboratory of The University of Michigan.
Dr. Guy A. Meadows, director Mr. Gary Root
Mr. Tony Bromwell Ms. Jennifer Saltzman
Mr. Messon Gbah Mr. Steve Sharples
Mr. Erik Gottlieb Mr. Roger Shugart
Mr. Matthew Halpin Ms. Anne Smith
Mr. Brian Haus Ms. Debby Weir Adler
Ms. Lorelle Meadows Ms. Mary Wise
Mr. Jeff Pazdalski Mr. Phil Wrzesinski
Ms. Terra Reno Ms. Suzette Zick

The Univ. of Mich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 OEL-9001-LWMD-10C-5

lReferences

Armstrong, J.M., et al. (1975) "Great Lakes shoreline damage survey: Muskegon,
Manistee, Schoolcraft, Chippewa, Alcona and Huron Counties, Michigan," App. 111, US
Army Engineer Division, North Central, Chicago, Illinois.

Bailard, J.A. (1981) "An energetics total load sediment transport model for a plane
sloping beach," Journal of Geophysical Research, 86, C1 1, pp 10938-10954.

Ballard, J.A. (1982) "A model for on-offshore sediment transport in the surfzone,"
Technical Report N-1649, Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme,
California.

Bailard, J.A. (1983) "Modeling on-offshore sediment transport in the surfzone,"
Proceedings of the 19th Coastal Engineering Conference, American Society of Civil
Engineers, pp 1419-1438.

Bailard, J.A. (1985) "Simple models for surfzone sediment transport," Technical Note
N-1740, Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, port Hueneme, California.

Bajorunas, L. and Duane, D.B. (1967) "Shifting offshore bars and harbor shoaling,"
Journal of Geophysical Research, 72, p 6195-6205.

Balsillie, James H. (1987) "Nearshore Profiles: Geometric Prediction, Spatial and
Temporal Sampling Adequacy," Florida Department of Natural Resources, Beaches and
Shores Technical and Design Memorandum No. 87-2, 40 p.

Berg, R.C. and C. Collinson (1976) "Bluff erosion, recession rates and volumetric
losses on the Lake Michigan shore of Illinois," Environmental Geology Notes, no. 76.

Berquist, C.R. and W.F. Tanner (1974) "Analysis of Water-Level Rise Effects on
Littoral Transport," Transactions of the Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies,
XXIV: 255-256.

Birkemeier, W.A. (1980) "The effect of structures and lake level on bluff and shore
erosion in Berrien County, Michigan 1970-74," Miscellaneous Report No. 80-2, US
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

Birkemeier, W.A. (1981) "Coastal changes, Eastern Lake Michigan, 1970-74,"
Miscellaneous Report 81-2, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Fort
Belvoir, Virginia.

Birkemeier, W.A. (1984) "A User's Guide to ISRP: The Interactive Survey Reduction
Program Instruction Report CERC-84-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Birkemeler, W.A., N.C. Kraus, N.W. Scheffner and S.C. Knowles (1987) "Feasibility
Study of Quantitative Erosion Models for Use by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency in the Prediction of Coastal Flooding," Technical Report CERC-87-8, US Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

The Univ. of Mich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 OEL-9001-LWMD-10C-5

Bowen, A.J. (1980), "Simple Models of Nearshore Sedimentation; Beach Profiles and
Longshore Bars," in McCann, S.B. ed., The Coastline of Canada, Geological Survey of
Canada, Paper 80-10, pp 1-11.

Bruun, P. (1954) "Coast Erosion and the Development of Beach Profiles," Technical
Memorandum No. 44, Beach Erosion Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Bruun, P. (1962) "Sea-level Rise as a Cause of Shore Erosion," Journal of Waterways,
Harbors and Coast Eng Div, 88, p. 117-130.

Buckler, W. R. (1981) "Rates and implications of bluff recession along the Lake
Michigan shoreline of Michigan and Wisconsin," Michigan State University Ph.D.
Dissertation, pp. 206.

Buckler, W.R. and H.A. Winter (1975) "Rates of bluff recession at selected sites along
the southern shore of Lake Michigan," Michigan Academian, Vol. 8, No. 2.

Dally, W.R., and R.G. Dean (1984), "Suspended Sediment Transport and Beach Profile
Evolution," Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering, Vol 110, No.
1, pp 15-33.

Davidson-Arnott, R.G.D. and M.N. Law (1989) Impact of Great Lakes Water Levels on
Shore Processes, Workshol2 5ummaly, International Joint Commission Workshop,
October 1988.

Davis, R.A., Jr. (1976) "Coastal changes, Eastern Lake Michigan, 1970-73,"
Technical Paper 76-16, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Fort
Belvoir, Virginia.

Davis, R.A., Jr., W.G. Fingleton, and P.C. Pritchett (1975) "Beach profile changes, east
coast of Lake Michigan, 1970-72," Miscellaneous Paper 10-75, US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

Davis, R.A. and W.T. Fox (1971) "Beach and Nearshore Dynamics in Eastern Lake
Michigan," ONR Tech Rept 4,142 p.

Davis, R.A. and W.T. Fox (1974) "Simultaneous. Process-Response Study on the East
and West Coasts of Lake Michigan," ONR Tech Rept 13, 61 p.

Davis, R.A., Jr., and D.F.R. McGeary (1965) "Stability in nearshore bottom topography
and sediment distribution, southeastern Lake Michigan," Proceedings of the Eighth
Conference on Great Lakes Research, International Association for Great Lakes
Research, pp. 222-231.

Dean, R. G. (1977) "Equilibrium Beach Profiles and Response to Storms," Coastal
Engineering Abstracts American Society of Civil Engineers, pp 140-141.

Dragos, P.M. (1981), "A Three Dimensional Numerical Model of Sediment Transport in
the Vicinity of Littoral Barriers," M.S. Thesis, University of Delaware, Newark,
Delaware.

Evans, O.F. (1940) "The Low and Ball of the East Shore of Lake Michigan," Journal of
Geology, 48, p. 476-511.

The Univ. of Mich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 OEL-9001-LWMD-IOC-5

Fox, W.T. and R.A. Davis Jr. (1970) "Profile of a storm: wind, waves and erosion on
the southeastern shore of Lake Michigan," Proceedings of the 13th Conference on
Great Lakes Research, International Association for Great Lakes Research, Vol 1, pp.
233-241.

Fox W.T. and R.A. Davis (1971) "Computer Simulation Model of Coastal Processes in
Eastern Lake Michigan," ONR Tech Rept. 5, 111 p.

Fox W.T. and R.A. Davis (1973) "Simulation Model for Storm Cycles and Beach Erosion
on Lake Michigan," Geological Society of America Bulletin, 84, p 1769-1790.

Hails, J.R. (1974) "A Review of Some Current Trends in Nearshore Research," Earth-
Science Reviews, Vol. 10, pp. 171-202.

Hands, E.B. (1976) "Observations of barred coastal profiles under the influence of
rising water levels, eastern Lake Michigan, 1967-1971," Technical Report 76-1,
US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

Hands, E.B. (1979) "Changes in rates of shore retreat, Lake Michigan, 1967-76,"
Technical Paper 79-4, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Fort
Belvoir, Virginia.

Hands, E.B. (1980) "Prediction of Shore Retreat and Nearshore Profile Adjustments to
Rising Water Levels on the Great Lakes," Technical Paper No. 80-7, US Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

Hands, E.B. (1983) "The Great Lakes as a Test Model for Profile Responses to Sea Level
Changes," CRO Handbook of Coastal Processes and Erosion, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL,
p 167-190.

Hanson, H. (1987) "GENESIS, A Generalized Shoreline Change Numerical Model for
Engineering Use," Report No. 1007, Lund University, Institute of Science and
Technology, Lund, Sweden.

Hawley, E.F. and C.W. Judge (1969) "Characteristics of Lake Michigan bottom profiles
and sediments from Lakeside, Michigan to Gary, Indiana," Proceedings of the Twelfth
Conference on Great Lakes Research, International Association of Great Lakes
Research, pp 198-209.

Hughes, S. A. and Chiu, T. Y. (1978) "The Variations in Beach Profiles When
Approximated by a Theoretical Curve," Technical Report No. 039, Department of
Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering, University of Florida.

King, C.A.M. and W.W. Williams (1949) "The Formation and Movement of Sand Bars by
Wave Action," Geogr Jour, 113, p 70-80.

Kriebel, D.L. (1982) "Beach and Dune Response to Hurricanes," M.S. Thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware.
Kriebel, D.L. (1984a) "Beach Erosion Model (EBEACH) Users Manual, Volume 1:
Description of Computer Model," Beaches and Shores Technical Design Memorandum

The Univ. of Mich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 OEL-9001-LWMD-10C-5

No. 84-5-1, Division of Beaches and Shores, Florida Department of Natural
Resources, Tallahassee, Florida.

Kriebel, D.L. (1984b) "Beach Erosion Model (EBEACH) Users Manual, Volume 11:
Theory and Background," Beaches and Shores Technical Design Memorandum No. 84-
5-11, Division of Beaches and Shores, Florida Department of Natural Resources,
Tallahassee, Florida.

Kriebel, D.L. (1986) "Verification study of a dune erosion model," Shore and Beach,
Vol. 54, No. 3, pp. 13-20.

Kriebel, D.L. and R.G. Dean (1985a) "Beach and dune response to severe storms,"
Proceedings of the 9th Coastal Engineering Conference, American Society of Civil
Engineers, pp 1584-1599.

Kriebel, D.L. and R.G. Dean (1985b) "Numerical simulation of time-dependent beach
and dune erosion," Coastal Engineering, 9, pp 221-245.

Larson, M. and N.C. Kraus (1989) "SBEACH: Numerical model for simulating storm-
induced beach change," Technical Report No. CERC89-9, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

LeMehaute, B. and M. Soldate (1977) "Mathematical Modeling of Shoreline Evolution,"
Miscellaneous Report No. 77-10, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering
Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

LeMehaute, B. and M. Soldate (1980) "A Numerical Model for Predicting Shoreline
Changes", Miscellaneous Report No. 80-6, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal
Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

Maresca, J.W. (1975) *Bluffline recession, beach change and nearshore change related
to storm passage along southeastern Lake Michigan," Ph.D. Dissertation, The
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Meadows, G.A. (1982) "Development of a predictive model for Lake Erie shoreline
stabilization structures as part of the implementation of the Pennsylvania Coastal
.Zone Management Program," Technical Report, Coastal Dynamics, Incorporated, Ann
Arbor, Michigan.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources (1975) "1975 Erosion Areas: Western
Michigan," Lansing, Michigan.

Moore, B. (1982) "Beach Profile Evolution in Response to Changes in Water Level and
Wave Height," unpublished M.S. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Delaware, Newark, Delaware.

OEL (1989) "Coastal monitoring program and shoreline evolution model year one:
Report to the State of Michigan," OEL Report No. OEL-8901-LWMD-10C-5, The
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Perlin, M. and R.G. Dean (1983) "A Numerical Model to Simulate Sediment Transport
in the Vicinity of Coastal Structures," Miscellaneous Report 83-10, US Army Corps
of Engineering, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, VA.

The Univ. of Mich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 OEL-9001-LWMD-10C-5

Saylor, J.H. and E.B. Hands (1970) "Properties of longshore bars in the Great Lakes,"
Proceedings of the Twelfth Conference on Great Lakes Research, International
Association of Great Lakes Research, pp. 839-853.

Scheffner, N.W. and J.D. Rosati (1987) "A Users Guide to the N-Line model: A
Numerical Model to Simulate Sediment Transport in the Vicinity of Coastal
Structures," Instruction Report CERC-87-4, US Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal
Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, MS.

Seibel, E. (1972) "Shore erosion at selected sites along Lake Michigan and Huron,"
Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

US Army Engineers (1988) "Monthly bulletin of lake levels for the Great Lakes," US
Army Engineer Detroit District, Detroit, Michigan, December 1988.

Vellinga, P. (1983) "Predictive computation model for beach and dune erosion,"
Proceedings of Coastal Structure '83, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp 806-
819.

Vellinga, P. (1986) "Beach and dune erosion during storm surges," Communications
No. 372, Delft Hydraulics Laboratory, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The
Netherlands.

Weishar, L.L. and W.L. Wood (1983) "An Evaluation of Offshore and Beach Changes on a
Tideless Coast," Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 53:3, p 847-858.

Wood, W.L. (1970a) "Horizontal particle velocity profiles beneath the crests of waves
breaking on a submarine bar," Technical Report No. 3, Dept. of Geology, Michigan
State University, 68 pp.

Wood, W.L. (1970b) "Transformations of breaking wave characteristics over a
submarine bar," Technical Report No. 4, Dept. of Geology, Michigan State University,
114 pp.

Wood, W.L. (1986) "Coastal response to lake-level variation and storm wave
occurrence in southern Lake Michigan," Proceed;ngs: Symposium on Shoreline
Processes, Indiana Dunes Research Conference, Gary, Indiana, pp. 23-33.

Yang, W-C. (1981) "Surf Zone Properties and On/Offshore Sediment Transport,"
unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Delaware,
Newark, Delaware.

I
The Univ. of Mich. Ocean Eng. Lab 28 February 1990 OEL-9001-LWMD-10C-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix A:
I Bathymetry
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 55

Appendix A consists of overplots of successive surveys at each site. The
dates beneath the plot title are the actual survey dates. In general, the
key proceeds from most recent survey through the original survey. Due to
an error in the Excel software as provided by Excel, the key is illegible.
Therefore, the following table will provide the key for the survey graphs.

Line Type UIV11-5,19-28 UIV16-1 8,29-31 UM32-45
Fall '89 Fall '89 Fall '89
Spring '89 Spring '89 Post-Storm '89
Fall '88 Fall '88 Spring '89
Post-Storm '88 Spring '88 Fall '88
Spring '88 Spring '89

The site names associated with each survey number are tabulated on the
following page.

SURVEY LINES LABEL
ISRP CHARACTER. Label
Nn- NEW BUFFI
Umol NEW BUFFALO NEW BUFF2
UM02 NEW BUFFALO NEW BUFF3
UM03 NEW BUFFALO NEW BUFF4
UM04 NEW BUFFALO NEW BUFF5
UM05 NEW BUFFALO CHIKAMING,
UM06 CHIKAMING, STEPHEN
Umo? STEpHENsVILLE HAGAR
Umos HAGARTOWNSH[P VAN BUREN
Umog VAN BUREN ST PARK GLENN
Umlo GLENN DOUGLAS
Umi I DOUGLAS VILLAGE HOLLAND
UM12 HOLLAND GRAND HAVEN
UM13 GRAND HAVEN HOFFMASTER.
UM14 HOFFMASTER ST PIC WHITEHALL
UM15 WHITEHALL CLAyBANKS
UM16 CLAyBANKS LITTLESABLE
UM17 LITTLE POINT SABLE SUMMIT
UM18 SUMMIT TOWNSHIP LUDINGTONI
Umig LUDINGTON LUDINGTON2
UM20 LUDINGTON LUDINGTON3
UM21 LUDINGTON LUDINGTON4
UM22 LUDINGTON LUDINGTON5
UM23 LUDINGTON ST PIC LUDINGTON6
UM24 LUDINGTON ST PK LUDINGTON7
UM25 LUDINGTON ST PK LUDINGTONS
UM26 BIG SABLE POINT LUDINGTON9
UM27 LUDINGTON ST PK LUDINGTONIO
UM29 LUDINGTON ST PK MANISTEE
UM29 MANISTEE BEN21E
UM30 BEN/MAN CNTY LINE PT BETSIE
UM31 POINT BETSIE PEMSKEYI
UM32 PETOSKEY PETOSKEY2
UM33 PETOSKEY pETosKEY3
UM34 PETOSKEY PEJOSKEY4
UM35 PETOSKEY ST PIC PETOSKEY5
UM36 PETOSKEY TAWASI
UM37 TAWAS TAWAS2
UM38 TAWAS TAWAS3
UM39 TAWAS ST PK TAWAS4
UM40 TAWAS PT SANILAC I
UM41 PORT SANILAC PT SANILAC2
UM42 PORT SANILAC FT SANILAC3
UM43 PORT SANILAC PT SANILAC4
UM44 PORT SANILAC PT SANMAC5
UN445 PORT SANILAC

NEW BUFF1

8/9/89 5/4/89 8/28/88 7122/88 5/1/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Distance (ft)

NEW BUFF2

8/9/89 5/4/89 8/29/88 7/23/88 5/2/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560 N

550

540

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Distance (ft)

NEW BUFF3

8/9189 5/4/89 8/28/88 7/22/88 5/1/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Distance (ft)

NEW BUFF4

8/8/89 5/3/89 8/29/88 7/23/88 511188

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Distance (ft)

NEW BUFF5

8/9/89 5/8/89 8/27/88 7/24/88 5/2/88

600

590

580

Depth(ft) 570

560

550

540

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Distance (ft)

CHIKAMINQ

- 8/9/89 5/9/89 8/26/88 5/2/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Distance (ft)

mmm

STEPHEN

8/9/89 5/22/89 8/30/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Distance (ft)

HAGAR

8/10/89 5/22/89 8/27/88 5/4/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Distance (ft)

VAN BUREN

8/10/89 5/22/89 8/25/88 5/3/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Distance (ft)

GLENN

- 8/10/89 5/22/89 8/26/88 5/4/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540 .. . . . .
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Distance (ft)

mm m m = = m

DOUGLAS

8/10/89 5122/89 8/26/88 5/5/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Distance (ft)

HOLLAND

8/10/89 5/22/89 8/25/88 5/4/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540 -
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Distance (ft)

GRAND HAVEN

8/15/89 5/23/89 8/26/88 5/4/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540 1 j I I I I I I I
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Distance (ft)

HOFFMASTEIJ

8/15/89 5/23/89 8/22/88 5/4/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540 -
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Distance (ft)

WHITEHALL

8115/89 5/23/89 8/21/88 516/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Distance (ft)

CLAYBANKS

8/15/89 5/23/89 8/20/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540 ---- r--7 !---!--7 --- T- 1 T -r---T-=
o 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Distance (ft)

mm m mm

LITTLESABLE

8/17/89 5/23/89 8/20/88 5/10/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Distance (ft)

SUMMIT

8/17/89 5/24/89 8/21/88 5/10/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Distance (ft)

=,= m = = = m =

LUDINGTOM

8/17/89 5/24/89 8/20188 7/25/88 5/11/88

6oo -

590 -

580 -

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Distance (ft)

LUDINGTON2

8/17/89 5/24/89 8/19/88 7/25/88 5/11/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4@O
Distance (ft)

LUDINGTON3

8/17/89 5/24/89 8/20/88 7/25188 5/11/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Distance (ft)

LUDINGTON4

8/17/89 6/6/89 8/19/88 7/24/88 5/11/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Distance (ft)

LUDINGTON5

8/17/89 6/6/89 8/19/88 7124/88 5/13188

600

590

580

"ON-1
Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Distance (ft)

LUDINGTON6

8/16/89 6/6/89 8/20/88 7/26/88 5/14/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Distance (ft)

LUDINGTON7

8/16/89 6/6/89 8/20/88 7/26/88 5/14/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Distance (ft)

LUDINGTON8

8/16/89 6/5/89 8/19/88 7/26/88 5/14/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Distance (ft)

LUDINGTON9

8116/89 6/5189 8/19/88 7/26188 5/14/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560 -

550 -

540

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Distance (ft)

LUDINGTON10

8/16/89 6/5/89 8/19/88 7/25/88 5/14/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Distance (ft)

MANISTEE

8/18/89 6/6/89 8/19/88 5/17/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Distance (ft)

BENZIE

8/21/89 6/6/89 8/19/88 5/18/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Distance (ft)

BETSEE

8/22/89 6/6/89 8/18/88 5/18/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Distance (ft)

PETOSKEYt

8/22/89 7/19/89 6/7/89 8/18/88 5/17/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Distance (ft)

PETOSKEY2

8/24/89 7/19/89 6/7/89 8/18/88 5/18/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540 -
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Distance (ft)

PETOSKEY3

8/24/89 7/19/89 6/7/89 8/18/88 5/17/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Distance (ft)

m m m m m m m

EETOSKEY4

8/25189 7119/89 617/89 8/18/88 5/17/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Distance (ft)

PETOSKEY5

8/24/89 7119/89 6/7/89 8/18/88 5/18/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Distance (ft)

TAWAS1

8/24/89 7/18189 6/26189 8/16/88 6129/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Distance (ft)

TAWAS2

8/24/89 7/18/89 6/26/89 8/16/88 6/29/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Distance (ft)

TAWAS3

8124189 7118189 6126189 8116188 6129188

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Distance (ft)

TAWAS4

8/23/89 7/18/89 6/26/89 8/16/88 6/29/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Distance (ft)

mm m m

PT SANILACI

8/25/89 7117/89 6/29/89 8/15/88 6/28/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540 -
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Distance (ft)

PT SANILAC2

8/25/89 7/17/89 7/6/89 8/15/88 6/28/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Distance (ft)

PT SANILAC3

8/25/89 7/17/89 7/6/89 8/15/88 6/28/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Distance (ft)

PT SANILAC4

8/25/89 7/17/89 7/6/89 8/15/88 6/28/88

600

590

580

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Distance (ft)

PT SANELAC5

8/25/89 7/17/89 7/6/89 8/15/88 6/28/88

600

590

Depth (ft) 570

560

550

540
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Distance (ft)

JOAA Cl SERVICES CTR LIBRARY
11, @ [
1@
1
3 6668 14111683 2 1
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I