/prepared for Alpena County Planning Commission ; prepared by Ayres, Lewis, Norris & May, Inc. ; administered by Division of Land Resource Programs, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources. Ayres, Lewis, Norris & May, Inc. Alpena, Mich.:Ayres, Lewis, Norris & May,1982. Land use Alpena County (Mich.) Planning. Coastal zone management Alpena County (Mich.) MICHIGAN OCZM GRANT #NA-80-AA-H-CZ157 SUBTASK alpena county coastal land management plan 211 ......... ...... . . M5 ............ A47 ...... 1982 Property Of CSC Library Alpena County Coastal Land Management Plan August 1982 Prepared for: Alpena County Planning Commission ZThe preparation of this document was Prepared by: financed through a grant provided by Ayres, Lewis, Norris & May, Inc. the Office of Coastal Zone Manage- Eng i neers-Arch i tects-P tanner s ment, National Oceanic and Atmos- 3983 Research Park Drive pheric Administration, as authorized Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and administered by the Michigan Department of Natural Re- Administered by: sources Division of Land Resource Division of Land Resource Programs Programs. Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Plan Participants Alpena County Planning Commission John Porter, Chairman Robert Allen Nathan Bader Gerald Boguth John Bowen Richard Clute O.B. Eustis Larry Mann Darrell Miller Thelma Parks Elaine Walter Department of Natural Resources Michael Kessler, Project Representative Coastal Program Unit Northeastern Michigan Council of Government Lewis Steinbrecher Consultants Ayres, Lewis, Norris & May, Inc. Engineers-Architects-Planners 3983 Research Park Drive Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Alpena County Planning Commission would like to acknowledge the assistance of several people who helped facilitate the development of this Plan. - Mr. Lew Steinbrecher, Coastal Resource Planner, NEMCOG, assisted in the procurement of the Coastal Zone Management Plan Grant and provided a great deal of encouragement and advice during the Plan's preparation. - Mr. Alan Bokalarski, Administrative Aide - Planner, City of Alpena, graciously cooperated with Alpena County Planning Officials to insure close coordination between the County's and the City's coastal zone planning efforts. This cooperation began as the grant proposals were being formulated in early 1981 and continued throughout adoption of both Plans. - The Alpena County Board of Commissioners provided the Planning Commission with the matching funds it requested, enabling it to be the only County Planning Commission in the State of Michigan to receive a Coastal Management Program Grant in the 1982 fiscal year. - Many people and organizations contributed to the two public workshops and the public hearing convened to discuss this Plan. The Plan is written for them, for all the citizens of Alpena County, and for those people who are just passing through, enjoying only briefly the coastal resources of which we in Alpena County are so proud. TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE MAJOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1-3 2 INTRODUCTION 4 Purpose 4 Coastal Area 4 Planning Process 4 3 COASTAL AREA ANALYSIS 5-36 Environmental Features 5 Soils 5 Geology and Topography 7 Vegetation 7 High Risk Erosion, Flood Risk and Environmental Areas 9 Climatic Factors 10 Unique Environmental Features 10 Alpena County Islands I I Scenic Areas and Visual Resources 14 Socio-Economic Factors 15 Population Trends and Projections 15 Economic Conditions 19 Tourism 19 Recreation 22 Historical and Archaeological Resources 23 Land Use 24 Property Ownership 24 Shoreline Structures 24 Vehicular Circulation 28 Institutional Considerations 28 Local Zoning, Planning and Policies 29 State and Federal Legislation 29 Pertinent Issues in the Coastal Area 29 (Table of Contents continued) SECTION PAGE 4 ALPENA COUNTY COASTAL LAND MANAGEMENTPLAN 37-53 Alpena County Coastal Area Goals and Land Use Policies 37 Natural Resources 37 Economics 38 Recreation 39 Overall Goals 40 Coastal Management Options 40 Coastal Types 40 Management Options 41 Coastal Land Use Plan 44 Management Strategies 46 Legal Programs 46 Acquisition Programs 47 Capital Improvements 48 Tourism Development Strategies 48 Recreation and Natural Resource Programs 50 Jurisdictional Coordination 53 APPENDIX List of Maps and Figures Map I Environmental Considerations Map 2 Developmental Considerations Map 3 Coastal Types Map 4 Coastal Land Use Plan Figure I Soil Classification and Limitation Figure 2 Population Trends Figure 3 Population Projections Figure 4 Number of Housing Units Figure 5 Population Characteristics Figure 6 Employment Characteristics - 1981 Figure 7 Labor Force - Unemployment Statistics 1981 Figure 8 Land Use Ownership Figure 9 Existing Land Use Figure 10 State Statutes With Direct Applicability Figure I I State Statutes With Indirect Applicability Figure 12 Federal Legislation Figure 13 Alpena County Islands Figure 14 Coastal Types Figure 15 Management Strategies Figure 16 Management Option Evaluation Matrix SECTION I MAJOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SECTION I MAJOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1) Public access to Lake Huron and Thunder Bay is extremely limited. Alpena County has only one county park situated on Lake Huron. 2) Poor soils, high water table and shallow depth to bedrock are common throughout the Alpena Coastal Area and will severely limit intensive development. 3) The Alpena Coastal Area has many important wetlands which offer valuable habitat and breeding areas for fish and wildlife. Many of these wetlands have been designated as "Environmental Areas" by the MDNR. 4) The Coastal Area offers a unique configuration of limestone shoals, islands and limestone sinkholes. The shallow waters have caused numerous shipwrecks, and the area supports one of the largest concentrations of shipwrecks in all of the Great Lakes. 5) Moderate increases in population are projected for the coastal area. The coastal area has a strong industrial base, but recent economic conditions have produced a high unemployment rate. M0, -77 -"NNW -4- 14ft !mile ;1ilt X . ....... ... . . . ...... ..... . . ........ 6) Alpena county ranks 29th out of 83 Michigan counties for tourist expenditures. Tourism should be actively promoted to capture a larger share of the tourist Market. Steps could include: - development of a major recreation resort facility; - promotion of the Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve; - promotion of cross-country skiing, speedskating, fishing, and etc; - development of State and County coastal parks. 7) Approximately 58% of the Coastal Area is comprised of privately-owned parcels of more than 40 acres in size. 8) State legislation administered by the Michigan Department of Natural Re- sources will enable regulation of most filling, dredging and major development projects within the coastal area. 9) The Coastal Area contains 10 major islands. Many of the islands contain important wetlands and provide habitat for shorebirds. Future development is not recommended for these island areas. 10) Alpena County Coastal Area can be classified according to "Coastal Types." Only those land areas capable of supporting development without risk to public health or environment should be proposed for intensive development. 11) Coastal townships should adopt more stringent greenbelt zoning provisions and enact a detailed site plan review procedure for coastal development. 12) Alpena County should acquire additional coastal lands for their County Parks System. Priority acquisition should be at El Cajon Bay and either at Monaghan Point or Partridge Point. 2 13) The State of Michigan should purchase the out parcel of land near South Point and develop Negwegon State Park according to the adopted master plan. 14) The County shall encourage the MDNR to establish a sport fisheries manage- ment program for the Thunder Bay area. Sufficient fish plantings should be maintained to insure good recreational fishing for residents and tourists. 15) Utility lines along Squaw Bay should be relocated or buried. In addition, the County should provide information signs for motorists on U.S. 23 pointing out coastal features, county parks, etc. 16) County and Township government should recognize the importance of the coastal resources. Coordinated planning and management efforts should be promoted between County and Township officials. In addition, coordinated 9 coastal management planning should be established between the City of Alpena and the County. ab SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE In 1981, Alpena County sought and received funds from the Michigan Coastal Zone Management Program to prepare a plan for the County's coastal area. The purpose of the Coastal Land Management Plan is to analyze the coastal area resources; identify current issues and problems; propose alternate management options; and recommend a management plan and strategies for the proper use of important coastalresources. COASTAL AREA The Alpena County Coastal Area includes the entire Lake Huron shoreline and and islands within Alpena County. The inland boundary varies (see Map 1) however it generally extends inland approximately one-half mile. The area includes over forty miles of beaches, wetlands, and limestone shoals along Lake Huron. PLANNING PROCESS The development of the plan was conducted in two major phases. The first phase involved the inventory and analysis of background data regarding the coastal area, and the identification of coastal problems and issues. The second phase included the development of alternate management options, selection of a land use plan and preparation of the recommended management plan. The involvement of the community was actively sought during '011 phases of the study. A series of public workshops were conducted to gain input and community reaction to various aspects of the plan. 4 SECTION 3 COASTAL AREA ANALYSIS SECTION 3 COASTAL AREA ANALYSIS ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES The environmental features of the Alpena County Coastal Area offer both oppor- tunities and limitations to the type and extent of future development. Certain areas are unsuitable for septic systems which are poorly drained, subject to flooding or susceptible to shoreline erosion. While these factors place restrictions upon development, other natural resource factors present opportunities for development. The scenic and pristine attractiveness of the shoreline and woodland areas offer a unique setting for recreation. It is helpful to examine these natural resource factors in detail to determine both the opportunities and constraints. The examination involves an inventory of resource factors, and a determination of the capability of the natural resource base to support future development. Soils In order to minimize construction costs and risks to the environment, it is desirable for future development to be located upon sites with suitable soils. Poor soils present problems such as poor foundation stability and septic field failure. The coastal area soils are divided into four major classifications as developed by the Soil Conservation Service. These classifications and corresponding limitations are summarized in Figure 1. In general, most soils within the coastal area are not suitable for septic systems. High water table and shallow depth to bedrock are common conditions which will limit development. The Development Considerations Map outlines general areas where soil conditions are suitable for development. It should be noted, however, that on-site soil testing should proceed prior to all actual development. 5 Figure I Alpena County Coastal Area Soil Classifications aml Limitations Development Type Limitation Location Rubicon Grayling Slight Alpena Township - Nearly level to gently sloping, Portions of land near well drained sandy soils Partridge Point and North Point Roscommon - Tawas - Rubicon Severe Alpena Township - Level, poorly to very poorly Portions of land near drained soils on wet sandy Squaw Bay plains Carbondale - Lupton - Tawas Severe Alpena and Sanborn Twps - Very poorly drained organic Portions of land scattered soils on marshland and swamps throughout the coastal area Summerville - Kiva Severe Alpena Township - Well drained, shallow stony Portions of land from Rock- soils on limestone plains port to Alpena 6 Geology aM Topography The surface geology of the coastal area was formed 10,000 to 20,000 years ago by glaciers which deposited glacial till, an undifferentiated mixture of rocks and soil. Prior to the glacial activity, the area was covered by an ancient sea which receded and left deposits of coral which later became limestone. In some areas the action of groundwater has dissolved limestone and left caverns or sinkholes. Sinkholes are a unique geologic phenomena and two of these sinkholes are located in the coastal area, near El Cajon Bay in Alpena Township. The topography of the coastal area is relatively flat. Elevations range from 659 feet above mean sea level near Rockport, to 580 feet near the shores of Lake Huron. The average elevation is approximately 600 feet. While most of the coastal area is flat, Lake Huron has left ancient beach ridges in some portions of the county which are a few feet in height. These ridges parallel the shoreline and support interesting vegetative patterns: dry site species are dominant on the high ridges, and wet site species in the low troughs. Veget43tion The distribution of vegetation is largely determined by soil conditions, depth to bedrock, topography and water levels. Physiographic conditions and corresponding vegetation are outlined in the Alpena County Coastal Types Map (see Section 4). In the past, wetlands were considered to be useless land and were often filled or drained. Wetlands are now recognized GS important fish and wildlife habitats and groundwater recharge and stabilization areas. Wetlands also improve water quality and reduce flood flows. Two primary types of wetlands found in the coastal area are the emergent marsh and cedar swamp. Emergent marshes are seasonally flooded and have high water tables. Typical vegetation includes phragmites, bulrush, sedges, grosses and alders. 7 Cedar swamps are also seasonally flooded, and support deciduous and coniferous species such as cedar, aspen, birch and spruce. Emergent marshes and cedar swamps are inventoried on Map 3. The largest wetland areas are located near Squaw Bay and El Cajon Bay. Other important wetlands are located near Norwegian Creek and on offshore islands. Limestone plains and sand plains are located throughout the coastal area and support cedar, aspen, birch, spruce and fir. These tree species are especially valuable for wildlife habitat and contribute to the attractiveness of the coastal area. 7Z" 8 High Risk Erosion, Flood Risk and Environmental Areas The Shorelands Management Act, Act 245 P.A. 1970, provides for the regulation of land use and development along the Great Lakes Shoreline in designated high risk erosion, flood risk and environmental areas. The Department of Natural Resources has designated high risk erosion and environmental areas in Alpena County. These areas are included on the Environmental Considerations Map. High risk erosion areas have been designated in four locations along Alpena's coastline. Two high risk erosion areas are located north of Ossineke, one is located south of the City of Alpena and one is located near Whitefish Point. Environmental areas (ire defined as areas necessary for the preservation and maintenance of fish and wildlife. These areas are necessary for nesting, feeding and rearing of young, or for some other critical life process of coastal fish and wilflife species. Alpena County's designated environmental areas include the wetlands mentioned previously, and include lands near Hardwood Point, Norwegian Creek and M 1sery Bay. Portions of Sulphur Island, Sugar Island and Crooked Island are also designated environmental areas. Flood risk areas in Alpena County have not been designated by the DNR under Act 245. However, the Federal Insurance Administration has mapped Special Flood Hazard Areas for Alpena Township. This was done under a national program to identify flood risk areas and provide flood insurance to residents in these areas. Virtually the entire shoreline has been classified as (3 Special Flood Hazard Area under this Federal program. Upon more detailed study by the Federal Government and enactment of local regulations by the Township, Township residents in flood risk areas may be eligible for Federal flood insurance. 9 Climatic Factors The annual mean temperature of the coastal area is 44 degrees, which is slightly wormer than inland areas which are removed from the warming effect of the lake. Annual mean precipitation is 28 inches and average annual snowfall is 70-80 inches. Cold winters and moderately warm summers present both limitations and opportunities for tourism, industry and general life in the area. While climatic conditions offer numerous opportunities for winter sports, late fall and early spring periods are often slow for tourism and long winters limit outdoor activity. Unique Environmental Fecitures Unique environmental features include plants, wildlife and geologic formations which are not commonly found in Michigan. Threatened and endangered plant and wildlife species have been designated by the State. The threatened and endangered species found in the Alpena County Coastal area are as follows: Plants - Iris lacustris (Dwarf Lake Iris) - Pinquicala vulgaris (Butterwort) - Carex scirpoidea (Sedge) - Tanacetum huronense (Lake Huron Tansy) - Cirsium pitcheri (Pitcher's thistle) Fish, Birds and Wildlife - Coregonus artedii (Lake herring) - Sterna hirundo (Common term) - Accipiter cooperii (Cooper's hawk) - Buteo lineatus (Red-shouldered hawk) - Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Bald eagle) 10 Cirus cyaneus (Marsh hawk) Pandion haliateus (Osprey) Hydroprogne caspia (Caspian tern) Synatomys cooperi (Southern bog lemming) In 1981 a detailed inventory of plant and wildlife species was conducted on Grass Lake Island, Potter Point Island, the Misery Bay Islands, and Thunder Bay Island for the Bureau of Land Management by Ecological Research Services Inc. From this survey the following Michigan threatened and endangered species were found on the following islands: North Misery Bay - Common Tern Thunder Bay Island - Iris lacustris - Carex scirpoidea - Pinguicala vulgaris - Common Tern - Laspian Tern Unique geologic formations include the limestone sinkholes located near El Cajon Bay. The sinkholes are a unique phenomena within the Great Lakes. Interpretive facilities could be developed explaining the characteristics of these sinkholes. Together, the interpretive facility and sinkholes hold the potential of attracting additional tourists to Alpena County. Alpena County Islands The Alpena County shoreline is dotted with fifteen islands. The islands are unin- habited and range in size from 200 acres to small shoal areas. Figure 2 lists these islands and inventories various characteristics. Nearly all of the islands offer important habitat for shorebirds. Many have been designated environmental areas by the MDNR. Because of these characteristics, Figure 2 Alpena County Islands Island Size Ownership Characteristics Middle Island 158 acres State 22 acres Dock, lighthouse and access Private 136 acres roads - nominated for area of particular concern. Misery Bay 30 acres Bureau of Land Largely undisturbed, shrubby Islands Management vegetation, excellent shore- bird habitat. Crooked Island 68 acres Private Designated environmental area, wetlands and excellent habitat for shorebird. Gull Island 9 acres Michigan Designated environmental Nature Assoc. area, nature sanctuary for shorebirds. Sugar Island 68 acres Private Designated environmental area, shorebird habitat, largely undisturbed. Thunder Bay 161 acres Bureau of Dock, lighthouse, access Island Land Management road, heavy disturbance. Gross Island 2 acres Michigan Prime habitat for shorebirds Nature Assoc. - close proximity to City of Alpena. Sulphur Island 29 acres Private Designated environmental area, flat shrubby vegeta- tion, shorebird habitat. Scarecrow Island I acre National Wildlife Prime shorebird hab i tat, Refuge federal management. Des- ignated wilderness area. Bird Island I acre Michigan Prime shorebird habitat, low Nature Assoc. shrubby vegetation. 12 0 0 z 4 @Y fronmental APC % 4" Ot Imp 'N X -Q- J sinkholes -'environmentai\Apc LY L % Iq envlronmen@ai Y area environmental area environmental area area environmental AP environmental APC envlrop@ nt environmental are V@ 10 - Legend natural & environmental area Of Particular concern designated environmental area (act 246) high risk erosion area scenic views c anvironme is[ area environmental APC ..r W ENVIRONMENTAL environmental area ,,a-- CONSIDERATIONS alpena county environmental APC COASTAL LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN P11. AYRES, LEWIS, NORRIS & MAY, INC. engineers architects planners Approved by the Alpena County Planning Commission according to P.A. 282 of 1945 Chairman Date 0 2 3 miles the islands are fragile environments and cannot support intensive development. It is recommended therefore that use of these islands be carefully planned. Limited use is possible on Middle Island and Thunder Bay Island because of their size, pre- vious disturbance and ability to support moderate use. Other islands are much more fragile. Use of these islands should be restricted. Scenic Areas and Visual Resources The visual resources are areas offering exceptional views of the coastal area. Unique and important views usually have these characteristics: 1) offer a long view from an elevated vantage point or clearing; 2) offer an excellent view of the shoreline or coastal feature; and 3) are usually accessible to large numbers of people, (i.e., from a roadway or public access point). While the Alpena County Coastal Area offers beautiful scenery, the topography is typically flat and the vegetation is dense. These factors limit views and screen areas that offer unique visual resources. In addition, much of the coastal scenery is inaccessible to many people. Important scenic areas and visual resource areas are denoted on Map 2, Develop- ment Considerations. The areas include the following locations: - South Point and Hardwood Point - Squaw Bay (from U.S. 23) - Whitefish Point and North Point - Misery Bay and El Cajon Bay - Rockport These visual resources are an important natural resource and deserve protection and proper management. 14 SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS Population and economic characteristics are an important consideration in a de- tailed analysis of the coastal area. This section will examine these characteristics with regard to future development considerations. Population Trends aM Proiections Since 1960, the population of Alpena County as a whole has experienced steady growth. Population trends are summarized in Figure 3. Of all the minor civil divisions in the County, only the population of the City of Alpena has declined. From 1970 to 1980, the City's population declined 11.5 percent. Alpena Township and Sanborn Township, which with the City of Alpena comprise the coastal com- munities, have experienced substantial growth. Alpena Township, which is the Tr larger, more populated of the two coastal townships, experienced a 12.8 percent growth from 1970 to 1980, from 9,001 to 10,152 persons. Sanborn Township's population during this same period grew 41.4 percent, from 1,624 to 2,297 persons. Population projections for 1980 to the year 2000, provided by NEMCOG are summarized in Figure 4 and indicate that population growth is expected to continue. The City of Alpena, which has experienced a population decline in recent years, will grow in the future, though more slowly than other areas. The City's population is expected to increase 8.9% between 1980 and 1990. Alpena Township will grow approximately 17 percent during this same period, while Sanborn Township is expected to grow 17.7 percent. The population of Sanborn Township will grow more slowly in the future than it has in recent years. Another indication of the rate of development in a county is the number of housing units. From 1970 to 1980, the number of housing units in Alpena County increased 33.5 percent, from 10,468 to 13,977 units. Data for coastal communities are sum- marized in Figure 5. Data collected during the 1980 census indicate that 99.4 percent of Alpena County's population is white. Population characteristics are summarized in Figure 6. 15 Figure 3 Population Trends - Alpena County 1960-1980 Percent Change 1960 1970 1980 1970 to 1980 Alpena County 28,556 30,708 32,315 5.2 *Alpena City 14,682 13,805 12,214 -11.5 *Alpena Twp. 6,616 9,001 10,152 12.8 Green Twp. 811 863 1,003 15.5 Long Rapids Twp. 886 878 1,006 14.6 Maple Ridge Twp. 907 1,091 1,572 44.1 Ossineke Twp. 1,188 1,353 1,607 18.8 *Sanborn Twp. 1,413 1,624 2,297 41.4 Wellington Twp. 344 269 286 6.3 Wilson Twp. 1,709 1,824 2,098 +15.0 *indicates Coastal community Source: 1980 Census of Housing and Population - Michigan PHC80-V-24 16 Figure 4 Population Projections - Alpena County 1980 -2000 1980 1985 1990 2000 *Alpena City 12,192 12,417 13,299 15,200 *Alpena Township 10,122 11,100 11,888 13,588 Green Twp. 1,080 1,235 1,323 1,512 Long Rapids Twp. 1,008 1,087 1,164 1,331 Maple Ridge Twp. 1,572 1,725 1,847 2,112 Ossineke Twp. 1,604 1,729 1,852 2,117 *Sanborn Twp. 2,302 29525 2,704 3,091 Wellington Twp. 286 308 329 377 Wilson Twp. 29072 2,368 2,536 2,899 *coastal community Source: NEMCOG 17 Figure 5 Nimber of Housing Units Coastal Communities - Alpena County 1970 1980 % Change Alpena County 10,468 13,977 33.5 Alpena City 4,484 4,894 8.7 Alpena Township 3,057 4,293 40.4 Sanborn Township 558 971 74.0 Figure 6 Population Characteristics Alpena County - 1980 White 32,134 Black 19 American Indian 83 Asian 33 Other 46 Alpena County Total 32,315 Source: 1980 Census of Housing and Population-Michigan PHC80-V-24 18 Ecommic Conditions Alpena County has the most diverse economy of the counties in northeastern Michi- gan, due in a large part to its abundant natural resources. In 1981, 24.9 percent of all wage and salary jobs in the County were in the manufacturing sector. Although this percentage is lower than the State average, which usually hovers around 32 percent, it is greater than is found in adjacent counties. The Huron Cement Division of the National Gypsum Company is the largest employer in the County. Huron Cement ships limestone and shale to its customers and uses these materials in its own operations as well. This plant is the largest of its kind in the world, and with it Alpena County ranks first in cement, clay and shale in the State. Other large employers in the County include the Abitibi Corporation, which produces decorative hardboard; the Besser Company, which manufactures cement block machines; the Fletcher Paper Co; the Detroit Gasket and Manufacturing Company, which manufactures automobile carpeting; and Thunder Bay Manufacturing, which operates a grey iron foundry and fabricates punch presses. The non-manufacturing sector comprised 53.4 percent of the County's employment in 1981, while the governmental (Federal, State, County, City, education, health, etc.) sector comprised 21.7 percent. Employment characteristics are summarized in Figure 7. These figures represent the total employment in the County, including both County residents and workers who commute to Alpena from adjacent counties. Labor force statistics provide information on the workers which reside in Alpena County. Labor force characteristics are summarized in Figure 8. These statistics indicate that unemployment which was at 16.9% in December of 1981, is a serious problem in Alpena County at the present time. Tourism Alpena County has only a limited amount of tourism activity at the present time. This is evidenced by the fact that the largest chain motel in the County has only a seven percent difference in business activity between January and July. Overall, Alpena County ranked 29th out of all 83 Michigan Counties in terms of tourist 19 Figure 7 Alpena County Employment Characteristics - 1981 (by place of employment) Annual Average Current Data % Dec. 1981 Total Employment 10,825 100.0 10,050 Manufacturing Sector 2,700 24,9 2,150 Non-manufacturing Sector 5,775 53.4 5,525 Government 21350 21.7 29375 Figure 8 Alpena County 1981 Labor Force/Unemployment Statistics (by place of residence) Annual Current Average (December 198 1) Total Civilian 16,075 15,200 Labor Force Employed 13,800 12,625 Unemp loyed 2y275 2,575 Rate of Unemployment 14.2% 16.9% Source: Michigan Employment Security Commission 20 expenditures in a 1975 Michigan Travel Bureau Survey. Alpena County's percent of total employment involved in tourist-related industries is estimated at 2.74%, well below the average percentage for other northeastern Michigan counties. A number of factors may explain why tourism has failed to capture a significant market within the Coastal economy. The factors include: - poor freeway access and remote location; - lack of major tourist attractions; - lack of waterfront access sites; - lack of widespread local support; and - lack of promotional efforts. The lack of a major expressway is often cited as a major reason for lack of tourism, yet northwestern Michigan has similar transportation systems. A more plausible explanation is the lack of major tourist attractions. Alpena County does not have features such as the Porcupine Mountains, Sleeping Bear Sand Dunes, or Tahquamenon Falls. In addition, the area is without a State park and extensive areas of public access to the waterfront. To some extent all of the above reasons offer explanation for the lack of tourist activity. In addition, tourism has not had widespread local support. For the most part, residents have felt that the clean unspoiled environment should be kept for themselves. However, it is believed that economic conditions may moderate this belief. High unemployment rates, evidence that the major industries in the Alpena area are vulnerable to changing economic conditions and a realization that tourism is a major industry and job-producing activity, have sparked a change in this attitude. No new steps are now being taken to actively promote tourism on a statewide and local level. The "Say Yes to Michigan" campaign has brought national attention to the state. In addition the East Michigan Travel Association, Alpena Chamber of Commerce and the Alpena Tourist Association are actively promoting the area on the regional level. The Michigan Travel Bureau has determined that promotional 21 efforts are an effective tool for increasing tourist activity. Promotional efforts include media coverage, promotional brochures and travel/trade shows. Specific strategies for development of tourism within the Alpena Coastal Area are discussed in Section IV of this report, and statistics regarding the tourist industry in Alpena County are provided in the appendix of this report. J'i TJ MEMNO-N_-- -7Z' W Recreation Given the size of the Alpena County Coastal Area and its resident population, there are relatively few public recreation sites. An inventory of these sites is as follows: Newegon State Park - Currently undeveloped, not open to camping but used as an unadministered park. Nicholson Hill Road - Public boat launch facility. Boat Access 22 Sanborn County Park County administered park with swimming and picknicking facilities. Only County Park in the Coastal Area. State Forest Campground Public camping, beach and picnic area located near Ossineke, administered by the MDNR. Only camping area in the Coastal Area. Perhaps the most popular recreation activity in the Thunder Bay Area is fishing. Numerous fishermen are often seen near Squaw Bay, Misery Bay and Thunder Bay. Brown Trout, Lake Trout, Steelhead and Perch have all been popular and maintained a successful sport fishery. New MDNR Brown Trout fish hatchery facilities are expected to be in operation this year. With these new facilities, larger fish plantings and improved water quality conditions, the overall sport fishery for Thunder Bay is expected to improve. Historical cnd Archaeological Resources The Alpena County Coastal Area was the site of a number of early settlements. These settlements are recognized as important archaeological sites and are inven- toried on Map 2. Five sites have been identified and include: - Devils River prehistoric shrine (Sanborn Township Sec. 12) - Devils River burial ground (Sanborn Township Sec. 12) - Norwegian Creek settlement (Alpena Township Sec. 17) - Morris Bay Stone Fort (Alpena Township Sec. 28) - Hooley Creek settlement (Alpena Township Sec. 13) (Source: Richard Clute - Alpena Community College) In addition to these archaeological sites, Alpena County has G rich history that is largely based upon the natural resources of the area. The French fur traders were 23 the first Europeans to visit Alpena County. After the French and Indian War, the area fell into the hands of the British and eventually into the hands of the United States government. In 1840 the County was surveyed by Douglas Houghton and the first settlers arrived soon after. Alpena County was organized in 1857 just prior to the start of the intensive lumbering era. The first log mark was registered in Alpena County in 1870, and. was accompanied by the establishment of major industries. These included the Fletcher Paper Mill, Besser Co., Detroit and Mack- inac Railroad, and the Huron Portland Cement Plant. The lumber, agricultural, mining, and manufacturing industries attracted a wide range of employment opportunities. German, Polish and French immigrants found jobs and homesites within the County and comprise a large percentage of the ethnic population. Land Use Information on the existing land use in the coastal area was obtained from aerial photographs, published reports and on-site investigations. Land uses are sum- marized in Figure 9, and are classified according to the specifications of Act 204, P.A. 1980. Property Ownership It is important to note property ownership patterns within the coastal area in order to assess development pressures and trends. Map 2, Development Considerations, denotes current property ownership patterns. A tabulation of these patterns is included in Figure 10. Shoreline Structures Map 2 also identifies major shoreline structures within the coastal area. The majority of these structures are bulkhead systems which have been backfilled by 24 Figure 9 Alpena County Coastal Area Existing Land Use Approximate Land Use Classification Acreage % of Total 1. URBAN BUILT UP I I Residential 3,200 22% 12 Commercial Services 200 1% 14 Transportation, Communication, Utilities 400 3% 171 Extractive (open pit) 800 5% 193 Outdoor Recreation 20 -- 4. FOREST LAND 43 Mixed Broadleaf and Coniferous 3,100 20% S. WATER 51 Streams and Waterways 200 1% 6. WETLANDS 62 Emergent Wetlands 2,560 16% 64 Shrub Wetlands 1,280 8% 65 Forrested Wetlands 3,600 24% Totals 15,360 100% 25 Figure 10 Property Ownership Patterns Alpena County Coastal Area Type of Ownership Acreage % of Total Small holdings (private ownership 4,292 28% of less than 40-acre parcel) Large holdings (private ownership 8,960 58% of more than 40-acre parcels) State holdings 2,048 13% County holdings 20 --- Federal holdings 40 --- 15,360 100% 26 0 rockport Nor\ monaghan point long lake crook J N j t7' L KI whitefish 0 J o ...... bay .6 huron Portland thunder bay Island (federal owned) f F Partridge point t X if Legend large tracts of private land (40 acres or more) state owned land sell suitable for development recreational area of particular concern sanborn shoreline structures thunder bay underwater preserve archaeological sites DEVELOPMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS -alpena county COASTAL LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN wagon neg AYRES, LEWIS, NORRIS & MAY, INC. thund.. _k ,ad. engineers architects planners Approved by the Alpena County Planning Commission according to P.A. 282 of 1945 vk Date Chairman m07 0 1 2 a miles dredging operations and are used to facilitate the docking of ships and boats. It should be noted that construction of shoreline structures which require dredging or filling below the ordinary high water mark is regulated by State law. Vehicular Circullotion The major road servicing the coastal area is U.S. 23. In past years, plans were announced to study relocation and improvement of U.S. 23 as a four lane limited access freeway. The new freeway would be located west of the existing U.S. 23 corridor. The Michigan Department of Transportation has abandoned consideration of th is f reeway in I ight of budget cutbacks and traf f ic data wh ich indicates that the existing two lane facility is capable of handling present traffic loads. Secondary roads servicing the coastal area include: Partridge Point Road (paved asphalt) North Point Road (gravel) Indian Road (gravel) El Cajon Bay Road (gravel) Monaghan Point Road (gravel) Rockport Road (gravel) These roads are maintained by the County and provide access to numerous private roads and drives throughout the coastal area. In addition to these roads, Boarlear private airport is located within the coastal area. INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Prior to development of specific management plans, a review of institutional and planning issues is important. Institutional considerations include legal concerns, policies, plans and programs already enacted by local or state governments. In addition, a number of pertinent issues are reviewed which will have an impact on future development in the coastal area. 28 Local Zoning, Planning ar-A Policies Both Alpena Township and Sanborn Township have enacted comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances to manage future growth. Existing plans and ordinances regulate the type of use and function of use within coastal areas. For the most part each township has designated the coastal areas as low density residential or forest reserve. In addition the Township Master Plans have noted the poor soil conditions, scenic quality, and natural constraints to development. Development policies and objectives call for the protection of the natural environment and the promotion of development which is compatible with the coastal area resources. State and Federal L2g:islation A number of State and Federal statutes govern activities in Alpena County's coastal zone. These statutes are summarized in Figures I I through 13. The statute which perhaps most directly influences developmental activities in the coastal zone is Act 245, P.A. 1970 as amended, The Shorelands Protection and Management Act. Under the Act, new construction in designated high risk-erosion, high risk flood and environmental areas is regulated by MDNR. The designated area extends from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) to a maximum of 1000 feet inland. In Alpena County, high risk erosion and environmental areas have been designated and protected. The State of Michigan holds the title to the bottomlands of the Great Lakes. Act 247, P.A. 1955, as amended regulates dredging, filling and construction in Great Lakes bottomlands. Permits must be obtained from the MDNR in order to undertake any such activity. Leases to operate marinas in the Great Lakes are also conveyed under this Act. Federal programs are summarized in Figure 13. Pertinent Issues in the Coastal Area oo It is helpful to examine current issues which can affect future development within the coastal area. 29 Figure I I State Statutes With Direct Applicability to Activities in Alpena County's Coastal Zone Statute Type of Jurisdiction Act 245, P.A. 1970, as amended Local zoning or MDNR permit process regu- Shorelands Protection and lates new construction in designated environ- Management Act mental, high risk erosion and high risk f lood areas. (Note: high risk erosion and environ- mental areas have been designated in Alpena County.) Act 247, P.A. 1955, as amended Permit from MDNR required to modify or Great Lakes Submerged Lands construct in Great Lakes bottomlands. Morino Act leases also issued under this Act. Act 184, P.A., 1980 Provides for designation and protection of Great Lakes Bottomland Thunder Bay Great Lakes bottomlands pre- Preserve serve. Recovery, alteration, or destruction of abandoned property in this area is not per- mitted without a joint permit from MDNR and Michigan Department of State - History Divi- sion. Act 346, P.A. 1972 Permit from MDNR required to dredge, fill or Inland Lakes and Streams Act construct in inland lakes or streams. Act 347, P.A. 1970 Permit from local enforcement agency re- Soil Erosion & Sedimentation quired if a proposed project would disturb one Control Act or more acres of land or move earth within 500 feet of G lake or stream. Act 203, P.A. 1980 Permit from MDNR required to dredge, fill, Wetlands Protection Act construct, or drain any wetland continguous to inland lakes and streams, or the Great Lakes. 30 Figure 12 State Statutes With Indirect Applicability to Alpena County's Coastal Zone Statute Type of Program Act 231, P.A. 1970 Regulation of land use along designated rivers Natural River Act by zoning. Thunder Bay River is proposed for study for designation. Act 24 1, P.A. 19 72 Protection of designated natural areas. Nor- Wilderness and Natural thern portion of Negwegon State Park has been Areas Act proposed for study for designation. Act 64 1, P.A. 19 78 Counties must prepare solid waste manage- Solid Waste Management ment plans. Solid waste facilities must be Act located, constructed and operated in accor- dance with this Act. MDNR reviews plans, issues permits and licenses. Act 64, P.A. 1978 MDNR regulates transport of hazardous wastes Hazardous Waste Management and construct ion/operat ion of disposal facili- Act ties through licenses and permits. Act 127, P.A. 1970 Provides legal standing for agencies or citizens Michigan Environmental to challenge environmentally destructive Protection Act actions in court. Act 203, P.A. 1974 Protection of listed endangered or threatened Endangered Species Act species. 31 Figure 13 Federal Legislation Related to Alpena County's Coastal Zone Land and Water Mgg5xLement Coastal Zone Management 0 6 USC 1452) National Flood Insurance Flood Disaster Protection Act Federal Land Policy and Management Act Wilderness Preservation Act Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 0 Environmental Protection Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (Administered in conjunction Section 10 with Section 404 permit pro- 0 gram) PL 95-217 Clean Water Act (Administered by MDNR. Certi- Section 401 - Water Quality Certification fication that project is in com- pliance with State water quality standards) Section 404 - Dredge and Fill Permits (ACOE permit program jointly administered with State Acts 346 and 247) PL 85-624 Fish and Wildlife Coordination PL 93-205 Endangered Species Act PL 89-655 National Historic Preservation Act National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 (42 USC 432 1) Estuary Protection Act 0 6 USC 1244) 32 Oil and Gas Drilling The Niagaran Reef trend is an oil and gas bearing geologic formation which runs across Northern Michigan roughly from Oceano County to Presque Isle County. There is considerable uncertainty about the boundaries of the formation, but on the basis of available information, it does not appear to enter Alpena County to a great extent. The trend is narrower in the east and produces less oil and gas. To date, a total of sixteen wells have been drilled in Alpena County for the purpose of hydrocarbon exploration. One well (located in Alpena Township) produced gas but was abandoned in 1978. The remaining wells were dry holes. There has been no drilling in Alpena County since the mid-1970s, which indicates a disinterest in exploration in this area. Drilling in the Great Lakes has been prohibited by a policy of the Natural Resource Commission since 1960. This policy is outlined in the MDNR's policy manual Policies and Procedures - Commission Policy 2310 Minerals - Oil and Gas Leases on State-Owned Bottomlands of the Great Lakes, pursuant to Act 326 P.A. 1913, as amended by Act 278 P.A. 1957.) The Policy was reaffirmed in 1976. Several bills are in the State Legislature at the present time which would prohibit drilling the Great Lakes by statute. Coastal Power Plants Several years ago, Consumers Power Company was considering construction of a new fossil or nuclear plant. Nine sites were under consideration, including one near Rockport in Alpena's Coastal Area. The nine sites include: Rockport Alpena Co. National City losco County Korn-Weadock Bay Co. (existing plant expansion) Quanicassee Bay Co. Whiting Monroe Co. (existing plant expansion) 33 Erie Monroe Co. Campbell Ottawa Co. (existing plant expansion) Muskegon Co. Muskegon Co. Wastewater System Palisades Van Buren Co. (existing plant expansion) Since that time, nuclear power has been ruled out due to regulatory problems and resulting delays in the completion of the Midland nuclear plant. The Quanicassee and Palisades sites, both of which were "nuclear only" options, are thus no longer under consideration. The search for a new site will begin after a completion date and size of plant are determined. Any of these sites could be reconsidered, but a number of unnamed sites may also be studied. At the present time, it is impossible to determine exactly when a new plant will be needed or to predict what criteria will be used to evaluate the sites. However, it is important to emphasize that Rockport is only one of a number of sites under consideration, and even if it were developed at some as yet undetermined time, a fossil fuel plant (i.e., coal) would probably be constructed. Negwegon State Park Negwegon State Park has been designated as a State Park since 1962 but it was not until 1974 that the Natural Resources Commission approved the Negwegon State Park Master Plan. The plan calls for twenty-five rustic campsites, beach, picnic area, trails and service facilities. It is believed to be a compromise between the 41 intense development interests and preservation interests. There has been no development to date. The area is administered by MDNR's Park Division, and is infrequently used at the present time. It is open to hunting and hiking. No camping is permitted and no facilities are available. 34 The Parks Division makes a request for funding for park development to the State It Legislature each year. Fiscal priorities for the next five years indicate that funding for major developments at Negwegon State Park are proposed for 1984, 1985, and 1986. However, development could be further delayed by State budetary constraints. It should be pointed out that Alpena County is one of the few Northern Michigan counties without an administered State Park. The presence of a park would attract tourists and aid the overall development of tourism within Alpena County. Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve Act 184, P.A. 1980 established Great Lakes bottomland preserves that have his- torical or recreational value. The Act requires divers and salvagers to obtain permits prior to removing artifacts from shipwrecks resting on the bottom of Michigan's Great Lakes. The Act created the Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve, an area encompassing all of Thunder Bay as well as offshore areas of Alpena County to a depth of ISO feet. The limestone shoals and shallow waters of the Thunder Bay area have produced one of the richest shipwreck areas in all of the Great Lakes. There (ire more than 80 known shipwrecks in this area. A map of the Preserve is included in the following page. With this unique resource, the Thunder Bay area has the potential of becoming an attraction for divers and tourists. A similar underwater park in Tobermory, Canada attracts over 15,000 visitors a year and over 5,000 divers. It is estimated that expenditures from divers alone amount to nearly a million dollars for the local economy each year. The only other underwater preserve in Michigan is located in Alger County and contains approximately twelve to twenty-four shipwrecks. 35 THUNDER BAY BOTTOMLAND PRESERVE I IE MIDDLE ISLAND W IF @jl, ALh@ -] AV A PENA 0 ::River 50' EPTH/CONTOUR 1J. Rive SOUTH POINT 1: L E F6r st A 36 HURO TII3bIAL- 0 0 w SECTION 4 ALPENA COUNTY COASTAL LAND w MANAGEMENTPLAN 0 0 9) 0 0 SECTION 4 ALPENA COUNTY COASTAL LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN The Alpena County Coastal Land Management Plan is designed to provide direction for the future development and management of the County's Coastal Areas. The recommended plan consists of four elements: Coastal Area Goals and Land Use Policies; Coastal Management Options; Land Use Plan; and Management Strategies. ALPENA COUNTY COASTAL AREA GOALS AND LAND USE POLICIES A key element in the preparation of the coastal area management plan is the identification of community goals and policies which reflect the County's desires regarding the development of the coastal area. The goals and policies, combined with the technical studies conducted in conjunction with this plan, serve as the foundation upon which the management plan is built. Further, the goals and policies are broad statements which reflect general sentiment within the county. Specific strategies which outline implementation of these goals are noted in later sections of this plan. The following goals and policies were identified by the Alpena County Planning Commission: Natural Resources 1. The high water quality of Lake Huron, Thunder Bay, and adjoining inland lakes and stream should be maintainedand improved. Recommendat ions proposed in the "Water Quality of the Thunder Bay Watershed" management plan should be implemented in order to provide quality habitat for wildlife and improve recreation opportunities for tourists and residents of Alpena County. 37 2. Wherever possible, greenbelts and development setbacks should be provided between water bodies and developed areas. These strategies will help insure that the scenic quality of the shoreline is preserved and that the water quality is maintained. 3. High risk erosion areas as designated by the Department of Natural Resources should be earmarked for special consideration by the Townships. Minimum and recommended setbacks should be required to insure protection of life and property. 4. Floodprone areas as designated by State and Federal agencies should be recognized by local government. Development restrictions should be applied to these f loodprone areas. 5. Unique wildlife habitat areas and environmental areas designated by the DNR and other public agencies should be protected from development. 6. Wherever possible, the public should acquire important environmental and recreational sites within the coastal area. 7. Air quality should be improved to minimize the negative impacts of poor air quality on human activities in the coastal zone. 8. The signif icance of cultural and historical resources in the coastal zone should be recognized and such resources should be maintained for the benefit of the community. Economic 1. Tourism should be promoted in Alpena County as an important facet of the local economy. 38 2. Existing industrial uses should be maintained and recognized as an important component in the local economy. New industries, especially those utilizing the lumber and limestone resources, should be attracted and located in areas with the least potential for impacting the surrounding environment. 3. Existing recreational opportunities should be promoted and new recreational facilities developed. 4. U.S. 23 should be maintained as a safe and efficient transportation corridor for access within the coastal zone. 5. While recognizing the importance of oil, gas and power generating facilities, such facilities should be carefully planned so that impacts to surrounding areas are minimized. Recreation 1. Existing public access sites and private marinas on Lake Huron and Thunder Bay should be substantially improved. Wherever possible, additional public access sites should be developed. 2. Scenic views of Thunder Bay and Lake Huron should be improved and maintained. Wherever possible, additional viewing areas should be developed within the U.S. 23 corridor. 3. Existing beaches should be kept in an orderly condition. Management strategies should place special importance on periodic cleaning of the beach areas. 4. The County should promote the development and management of the Under- water Preserve. 5. The County should promote development of a sport fishery within the Alpena Coastal Area. 39 Overall Goals Management strategies within the coastal area should be consistent with the overall objectives of the State coastal management program. 2. Proposed management strategies should be consistent with local control and implementing procedures. Zoning controls and regulations pertaining to sen- sitive or unique areas should be implemented. 3. Intergovernmental cooperation between township and County agencies should be promoted. COASTAL MANAGEMENT OPTIONS The natural resource and cultural data presented in Section I of this plan provides a basis for development of management strategies and planning options. However, prior to development of specific recommendations, the data must be organized into a meaningful system. This section classifies coastal types and presents manage- ment options and strategies for future development. CoastGI Types The importance of natural features as indicators of the development capability of land was discussed in Section 111. The Alpena County Coastal Area can be divided into coastal types on the basis of natural features (such as soils, water table, geologic conditions and vegetation) and man-altered conditions. Coastal types were developed from data gathered from existing maps, published reports, high altitude infrared aerial photography and on-site investigation, and include: - Emergent Marsh - Cedar Swamp - Limestone Plain - Sand Plain - Man-Altered Area 40 Figure 14 summarizes the general physiographic conditions and development capability of each coastal type. For example, the Emergent Marsh coastal type is characterized by shallow water and shrubby vegetation. These areas are important for fish and wildlife habitat. The Emergent Marsh is incapable of being developed because of the high water table and the potential threat to fish and wildlife habitat. Map 3 outlines the boundaries of the various coastal types. It should be noted that the boundaries are approximate. Small areas, less than a few acres in size are not inventoried. The map is accurate as a generalized guide, but further on-site investigation of specific areas will be necessary prior to development to determine the coastal type and associated development capability. Management Options Management options and appropriate land uses can be suggested for each coastal type which are suited to the characteristics of the coastal area. Figure 15 outlines the management strategies for the Alpena County Coastal Area. The proposed management options for the coastal lands include: - Conservation - Limited Recreation - Recreation - Low Density Residential Degree of - Forestry Land Use - Residential Intensity - Commercial - Industrial - Extractive 41 ALPENA COUNTY COASTAL TYPES Figure 14 b cf@ j 0 -44! 4 Emergent Marsh Cedar Swamp Limestone Plain Sand Plain Man-Altered Area Physiographic Physiographic Physiographic Physiogrophic Physiographic conditions Conditions Conditions Conditions conditions Shallow waters and shrubby Mature cedar forests ore Shallow stony soils ore Well drained and wet sandy Man-oltered areas show wetlands provide habitat for located on ancient beach located on fractured lime- soils support a mixture of evidence of grading, clear- fish and wildlife. ridges. Seasonal flooding is stone bedrock. Swoles and Aspen, Birch and coniferous ing, or structural develop- not unusual. old beach ridges provide a species. ment. mixture of habitats for As- pen, Birch, and Cedar. Development Development Development Development Development Capability Capability Capability Capability Capability The areas are incapable of The areas are generally in- Shallow depth to bedrock High water tables in some Lands ore already impacted supporting development be- capable of supporting de- places severe restrictions on areas place limitations on by development. Capability cause of high water tables. velopment because of high septic fields, Development development. Well drained of supporting additional de- water table. However, a capability is limited. areas with suitable potable velopment is variable. few upland sites may sup- water ore most suited for port low density residential development. or limited recreation activ- ities. % X') limestone plain emergent marsh V J Ig "T J j cedar swamp V limestope plain ...... ...... % 7 + -4- man-altered area J P. E N A. -j -7 0 + Y" 1 emergent mar'sh N @man-altered area limestone plain emergent marsh j cedar swamp + sand plain man-altere d area sand plain t emergent marsh 14. " code swamp dd Ilk -altered area man q Legend -KN . . . . . . . . . . emergent marsh cedar swamp r limestone plain M@' , - A sand plain man-altered area mergent marsh cedar swamp COASTAL emergent h TYPES 01pena county COASTAL LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN AYRES, LEWIS, NORRIS 8c MAY, INC. engineers architects planners Approved by the Alpena County Planning Commission according to P.A. 282 of 1945 ------- Chairman Date 0 2 3 miles Figure 15 ALPENA COUNTY MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES Emergent Marsh Cedar Swamp Limestone Plain Bond Plain Man-Altered Area Management Options MarKmjement Option Management Optiorn Management Options Manog,--t Options - Conservation - Conservation - Conservation - Recreation - Recreation - Limited Recreation - Recreat ion - Residential - Residential Management Strategy - Low Density Residential - Low Deusily Residential - Forestry - Extractive & Forestry - Extractive & Forestry - Industry - Industry Enforcement of State Legislation Mareogement Strategy - Industry Marxigement Strategy Management Strategy - P.A. 245 of 1970 Enforcement of State Legislation MorKqjen-vent Strategy (Environmental Aren Permit) Enforcement of State Legislation Enforcement of State Legislation - P.A. 247 of 1955 Some as Emergent Marsh Enforcement of State Legislation (Dredge & Fill Permits) Same as Emergent Marsh Same as Emergent Marsh - P.A. 346 of 1972 Enforcement a' Count " S Some as Emergent Marsh (Inland Lakes & Streams) Health Department R.Xq.IX,0.2 Enforcement of County 11 State Enforcement of County,& State - P.A. 203 of 1980 Enforcement a' C ntr a State Health Department Regulations nt Regulations (Wetlands Permits) - Septic fields Reolig Departme@ffiequlot ions - Wells - Septic fields - Septic fields - Septic fields - Wells - Wells Enactment of Local Zonin Enactment of Local Zoning - Wells - Greenbelt zoning - Site plan review Enactment of Local Zonin Enactment of Local Zoning Enforcement of Local Zonin - Performance controls - Greenbelt zoning - Site plan review - Site plan review - High risk erosion setbacks - Performance controls - Site plan review - Greenbelt zoning - Greenbelt zoning - Flood hazard regulations - High risk erosion setbacks - Greenbelt zoning - Landscape buffer strips - Landscape buffer strips - Area, setback, height regu- - Landscape buffer strips - Performance controls - Performance controls Miscellaneous Strategies lations - Performance controls (dust, noise, odors, (dust, noise, odors, - Scenic easements - Use regulations (dust, noise, odors, buffer zones, etc.) buffer zones, etc.) - Purchase of development - Flood hazard regulations buffer zones, etc.) - High risk erosion setbacks - High risk erosion setbacks rights - High risk erosion setbacks - Area, setback, height regu- - Area, setback, height regu- - Purchase and use by county Miscellaneous Strategies - Area, setback, height regs. lations lotions - Use regulations - Use regulations - Use regulations for park - Scenic easements hazard regulations Purchase and use by state - Purchase of development - Flood hazard regulations - Flood hazard regulations - Flood Purchase and dedication rights - Mining, lumbering regs. - Extractive, lumbering Miscellaneous Strategies to nature association - Purchase and use for county Miscellaneous Strategies restrictions park Miscellaneous Strategies - Scenic easements - Purchase and use for state - Scenic easements - Purchase of development park - Purchase of dev. rights - Scenic easements rights - Purchase and dedication - Purchase and dedication - Purchase of development to nature association to nature association rights The options above (ire listed according to degree of land use intensity. The com- patibility of each management option and coastal type is indicated in Figure 15. For example, very few development options are available for Emergent Marsh areas, while Sand Plain areas are not as sensitive to development and can support recreational, residential and industrial uses. Prior to the selection of a preferred land use plan, each land use option can be evaluated in terms of environmental, economic and social benefits. Figure 16 provides a summary of the relative benefits of each land use option. For example, the increased environmental benefits of a conservation land use option may be offset by the decreased economic benefits. On the other hand, decreased environmental benefits may be associated with industrial and commercial uses. This summary matrix is not necessarily intended to show preference for one type of land use over another. Instead, the matrix graphically portrays the relative benefits and concerns which should be considered by local officials in the land planning process. Coastal Land Use Plan The Land Use Plan depicted in Map 4 serves to translate the general goals, develop- ment policies and coastal resource analysis, into a narrative and graphic illus- tration. It is based largely upon existing land use patterns, development capability and adequacy of community facilities and services. The Land Use Plan is not intended to serve as a zoning map nor dictate the use of individual parcels of property. Rather, it is a generalized guide to the development and management of the Alpena Coastal Area. The following location standards for each Major type of land use were used: Conservation users are planned for all environmentally sensitive areas. This category includes all offshore islands, wetlands and lands designated by the MDNR under Act 245, P.A. of 1970. Also included is the El Cajon Bay area. 44 Alpena County Planning Commission ALPENA COUNTY COURT H13USE ALPENA, MICH113AN - 49707 ALPENA COUNTY COASTAL LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 CORRECTION -- Map 4 T. 31N. - R.9E Section 27 T. 30N. - R.8E Sections 10 and 11 Designated Environmental Areas (PA 245) exist in these three sections. They are acknowledged on Map 1, Environmental Considerations. These are the only Environmental Areas (EAs) in Alpena County that were not included in areas recommended for "Conservation" on reproductions of Map 4. It is our intention that.these EAs identified on Map I be utilized only for conservation purposes, as per the narrative on page 44. Map 4 is hereby corrected to reflect a recommendation of "Conservation" for areas in the above referenced Sections which are identified as EAs on Map 1. Adopted: November 3, 1982 Attested by: A Joh Porter, Chairman Figure 16 Management Option Evaluation Matrix Alpena County Coastal Area 0 Significant Benefits 0 0 Moderate Benefits 0 Z Limited Benefits > 'V U1 Protection of Air Quality 010 Protection of Water Quality 0 MIN w Ga Ga Ea [a Protection of Fish Habitat 0 G 162 Q E3 S E3 E3 E3 E3 S Protection of Wildlife Habitat M M 12 Gi Gal Preservation of Wetland Values 0100 0 E3 E3 I E3 E3 E3 Protection of Terrestrial and Aquatic Vegetation Q E3 E3 S E3 Preservation of Geologic Uniqueness Q a w -15- E13 Reduced Flood Damage and Shoreline Erosion 0 01010 G I E31 S E3 91 Reduced Costs of Sewage and Water Services 0 MjMjw N B E3 B 0 Increased Tourism 2 WIMIS a E3 E3 E3 S Increased Employment 2 Q 0 S 12 Q 9 0 M 0 Increased Tax Base 812 G2 2 S 2,M M,111 U" Reduced Land Acquisition Costs B 12 _q M N on so Reduced Public Service Costs MINIM 0 a E3, E3 2 Q :16 Protection of Public Health 0 MIN M M 0 Q Q Q 4- 0 Preservation of Recreation Opportunities 210M. 9 1@ 22 22 Preservation of Unique Resources JOIN a @ 2 E3 El E3 2 Improved Availability of Goods and Services 6 2 B E3 E3 E3 B 82 Improved Housing E3 12 2 ii EB E3 2 22 45 "T Industrial *'onservation w-den ally, residential "'N N, J recreation > _J!, 0_1 u low-deftelty residential -7 A L 31 & p., 7" ir 0 naervation aloA ILI tL consarval@n 7t Industrial 03 -,t conse ji low-denalty residential low-density resid nUal j ,00 ;@@ conservation modkun-density residential -4, fo c@?nservatlon i, @,L'j 4 L\ medliam-density resiftntle, Legend conservation recreation recreation low-density residential Industrial conservation LAND USE PLAN alpena county COASTAL LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN AYRES, LEWIS, NORRIS & MAY, INC engineers architects planners Approved by the Alpena County Planning Commission according to P.A. 282 of 1945 V., Chairman Date 0 1 2 3 miles Limited Recreation and Recreation uses are planned for areas within Negwegon State Park, Partridge Point, Monaghan Point and Rockport. Low Density Residential areas include parcels less than a few acres in size (approximately 300 feet of frontage). These low density areas are proposed in areas north and south of Misery Bay. Medium density areas are proposed for existing residential areas north of Ossineke (approximately 200 feet of frontage). High density uses are not currently proposed (approximately 100 feet of frontage). Industrial uses are proposed near the existing Huron Portland Cement Plant. Forestry uses are not now proposed within the coastal area. However, under proper management and special use procedures, forestry operations may be permitted. MANAGIEWNT STFZATEGIF-S Five primary Management strategies are available for implementation of the Alpena Coastal Management Plan. These strategies include legal programs, land acquisition, capital improvements, tourism development, recreation and natural resource programs, and jurisdictional coordination. A summary of each technique is provided. Legal Programs Figure 15 summarizes management techniques for each land use option. State and Federal Legislation pertinent to the coastal area is also reviewed in Figures I I through 13. It should be emphasized that nearly (111 activities which involve filling, dredging, earthmoving and major construction within the coastal area will require a MIDNR permit. This permitting process is designed to protect the valuable resources of the coastal area. State and local officials and concerned citizens should monitor and enforce activities within the coastal area. 46 On the local level, the three most common techniques for regulating development in the coastal area are: site plan review, - zoning ordinance (setback, height, use regulations), and - health department regulations Site plan review procedures could take a more active role in controlling develop- ment. Both Alpena and Sanborn Townships could enact a more stringent review of proposed development through the use of site plan review procedures. In addition, greenbelt zoning could be enacted for coastal areas. These greenbelts would pro- vide a vegetative buffer between developed areas and less intensive coastal land uses. Acquisition Programs Other than Sanborn County Park, Alpena County owns no land for public access to Lake Huron. It is strongly recommended that additional lands be purchased for County residents and tourists. Acquisition priorities for County recreation use are as follows: a) El Cajon Bay Area (in conjunction with previous efforts through the State Land Trust Program). b) Acquisition and development of an additional County park on Lake Huron. Facilities would include swimming and boat launch. Possible sites include Monaghan Point or Partridge Point. c) State acquisition of the private parcel near South Point in Negwegon State Park. d) Purchase of scenic easements or development rights at important sites along the shorelines. This option is generally less expensive than outright purchase. Possible sites for scenic easements include: Long Lake Creek, Whitefish Bay, Squaw Bay and North Point. 47 Capital Improvements Specific capital improvement programs are recommended for the Alpena County Coastal Area. These improvements include: a) Purchase and development of an additional County park located on Lake Huron. b) Relocation of utilities on U.S. 23 within Squaw Bay. Direct burial of power and telephone lines would improve scenic quality. c) Improvement of auto access from U.S. 23 to the coastal area. North Point Road and Monaghan Point Road could be upgraded. d) Improvement of the public information system of coastal areas. Signs should inform motorists along U.S. 23 of coastal features, County parks, etc. e) A public water supply system should be planned and constructed for residential properties between Squaw Bay and Ossineke. Tourism Development Strategies Specific strategies for development of tourism within the Alpena Coastal Areas are as fo I I ows: a) Determine the tourist development objectives, e.g., new jobs, attraction of outside income, development of additional recreational facilities, etc.). b) Determine the available tourist market (desires, origin of travel, etc). c) Adopt tourist development policies which will not detract from the scenic and environmental attractiveness of the coastal area nor inconvenience residents of the Alpena area. 48 d) Encourage investment in new and upgraded tourist facilities. The 14 facilities will require large amounts of capital investment and local financial institutions should be sensitive to these needs. e) Recognize the Lake Huron shoreline and the Alpena Coastal Area as a primary drawing card for tourism. While scenic and environmental quality must be protected, waterfront access and waterfront facilities should be developed which utilize the attractiveness of the shoreline. f) Encourage development of a major resort complex containing lodging, restaurant, conference facilities, and recreation such as golf, swimming, cross-country skiing, etc. 9) Promote development of a tour train. The Detroit and Mackinac Railroad should be considered for seasonal tours. The tours could run from Tawas to the City of Alpena. Passengers could enjoy the views of the Lake Huron shorelines as well as other coastal features. h) Promote development of the Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve. Develop- ment should include. - information brochure visitor center - charter boat facilities - interpretive facilities i) The "Bay Queen" restaurant passenger ship operating out of Charlevoix, Michigan is a successful tourist operation. It is feasible that a similar ship could operate from the Alpena area and tour Thunder Bay as well as the Thunder Bay Islands. In addition, the numerous shipwrecks could be pointed out to passengers. 49 j) Promote recreational activities which utilize the scenic and natural resources of the Alpena Coastal Area. Activities include: cross-country skiing backpack ing/hiking/nature interpretation (e.g., sinkholes) fishing snowmobiling k) The Alpena area is becoming Northern Michigan's center for speedskating and hockey. Efforts should continue to establish a strong program and facilities which can attract national competitions. 1) The County Parks and Recreation Program should intensify development of facilities within the coastal area. An improved system of information should inform motorists on U.S. 23 of the recreation facilities in the coastal area as well as county-wide parks. For example signs should be installed directing visitors to Sanborn County Park from U.S. 23. Recreation and Natural Resource Proqrcirrts The following recreation and resource programs should be implemented. Specific programs include: * National Marine Sanctuary designation should be sought to promote management of the coastal zone's underwater biological, geological and historical resources. * A local Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve Committee should be estab- lished to coordinate activities related to the Coastal Area's underwater resources. * Activities and projects promoting non-consumptive use of the Underwater Preserve's resources should be encouraged. 50 * Cooperative relationships between the local Underwater Preserve Com- mittee and similar groups in Munising and at Fathom Five Provincial Park should be encouraged. * The MDNR should implement the adopted 1974 Master Plan for Negwegon State Park as quickly as possible. Recommended strategies for phased development of the Negwegon State Park are as follows: 1) Designation of the Park on State Highway Maps, tourist brochures, etc. 2) Installation of signs, barriers and enforcement programs to prevent off-road vehicle use of the beaches. 3) Formally commit park development funds from the 1984, 1985 and 1986 MDNR budgets for Negwegon State Park or secure funds from other sources for park development as quickly as possible. 4) If funds are not immediately available for complete development according to the 1974 Master Plan, the MDNR should develop park in phases. Initial phases should at least include access road, and day use facilities to be constructed in the near future. 5) The MDNR should acquire privately held parcels within Park boundaries. 0 Existing and proposed public beaches should be maintained and managed in a safe and orderly fashion. Off-road vehicles should be restricted and beach areas should be policed and maintained. Wherever possible easement should be acquired from private land owners for public beach. 0 The County should encourage the MDNR to establish a fish management 51 program for the Thunder Bay area. The program should monitor fish populations and stock fish species in sufficient numbers to insure excellent recreation fishing for tourists and residents. * Local effects should promote recreation fishing in the Thunder Bay area and develop new boat launch access sites near Misery Bay, North Point and South Point. Existing boat launch facilities near Devil's River and Nicholson Hill Road should also be improved to accommodate larger boat traf f ic. * County and city recreation and coastal management programs should be coordinated. County programs should be consistent with proposed development schemes outlined in the Alpena City Coastal Land Use and Design Plan. 52 Jurisdictional Coordination County, state and township officials should coordinate efforts within the coastal area. Specific programs could include: a) Invitations from County and Township planning commissions to MDNR officials to speak on coastal programs and permitting procedures. b) Presentation of the Alpena County Coastal Management Plan to the township boards, planning commissions, and building inspectors. c) Formulation of a' permanent county-wide Coastal Zone Planning Com- mittee to monitor and coordinate development and activities within coastal areas. d) County programs should be consistent with management strategies outlined in the Alpena City Coastal Land Use and Design Plan. T I- i-x 53 14 -N APPENDIX I P i, P 1, F I @) 1 '.1 TOURISM IMPACT RANKING - NORTHEAST MICHIGAN COUNTIES 1975 % of Total Travel Percent Tourism Travel Per Capita Travel Generated Personal Generated of Total Impact County Expenditures Expenditures Personal Income Income Employment Employment Ranking A lcona $ 3,702,702 $ 436 $1,023,427 3.21% 125 5.05% 27 Alpena 15,147,419 458 4,186,747 2.72 512 4.26 29 Arenac 4,375,921 329 1,209,505 2.10 148 2.74 40 Cheboygan 32,987,711 1,709 9,117,803 11.39 1,115 15.17 9 Clare 19t859,949 932 5,489,290 7.51 671 9.65 14 Crawford 19t859,949 2,452 5,489,290 18.13 671 18.26 6 Gladwin 3,702,702 223 1,023,427 1.60 125 2.99 44 losco 15t820,637 549 4,372,824 3.22 535 7.06 23 Montmorency 3t7O2,702 537 1,023,427 4.01 125 5.43 24 Ogemaw 3t7O2,702 250 1,023,427 1.91 125 2.49 45 Oscodo 3,366,093 552 930,388 4.66 114 6.42 .21 Otsego 27,601,963 2,060 7,629,183 13.37 933 19.04 7 Presque Isle 13tl27,763 931 3,628,514 6.65 444 11.10 14 Roscommon 19,186,730 1,332 5,303,212 9.93 649 16.75 10 Source: Michigan Travel Bureau, An Evaluation of Major Tourism Industry Development Opportunities in Northeast Michigan. W NORTHEAST MICHIGAN TRAVEL ACTIVITY CHARACTERISTICS IN COMPARISON WITH OTHER MICHIGAN REGIONS Category Northeast Northwest East U.P. West U.P. South Seasonal Share Of Travel Activity JGn-Mar 12.8% 14.8% 5.7% 10.2% 19.5% Apr-June 23.6 21.8 25.9 22.2 27.0 July-Sept 47.1 44.9 55.5 46.9 32.1 Oct-Dec 16.5 18.6 12.9 20.7 21.4 Type of Customer Business 11.7 10.6 8.5 13.0 42.6 Group/ Convention 1.7 16.3 4.2 8.0 22.0 Tourist 86.6 73.1 87.3 78.9 35.2 Length a Stay I-Night 42.3 28.7 33.6 38.9 41.5 2-Nights 34.7 28.9 37.2 28.9 29.9 3-6-Nights 6.5 31.9 10.1 13.2 12.0 1 week or more 16.5 10.4 19.1 18.8 16.3 Source: Michigan Travel Bureau ESTIMATES OF POPULATION POTENTIAL BY MONTH, ALPENA COUNTY HOUSING MOTELS CABINS PRIVATE PUBLIC QUARTERS HOTELS COTTAGES CAMPS CAMPS TOTAL JANUARY 33000 7177 1064 120 0 41361 FEBRUARY 33000 6799 894 108 0 40801 MARCH 33000 5777 817 111 0 39705 APRIL 33000 4698 420 128 0 38246 MAY 33000 7826 1467 1202 0 43495 JUNE 31659 8904 2912 3202 0 46676 JULY 31659 11,376 4670 4794 0 52499 AUGUST 31659 11,680 4670 4489 0 52498 SEPTEMBER 33000 6651 1246 1173 0 42070 OCTOBER 33000 7930 620 219 0 41769 NOVEMBER 33000 6246 585 150 0 39981 DECEMBER 33000 6639 541 137 0 40316 Source: Michigan Travel Bureau Alpena County Planning Commission ALPENA COUNTY COURT HOUSE ALPENA, MICHIGAN - 49707 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE ALPENA COUNTY COASTAL LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS The Preliminary Draft Alpena County Coastal Land Management Plan and four accompanying maps have been reviewed and accepted; and, WHEREAS This acceptance followed a public hearing which was duly advertised; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED1 that the Alpena County Planning Commission accept the Preliminary Draft Alpena County Coastal Land Management Plan including four maps., as revised,, as the Alpena County Coastal Zone Management Plan and as the first portion of the Alpena County Master Plan as per PA 282 of 1945 and Alpena County Ordinance No. 1 of 1978. The above resolution passed at the September 1, 1982 meeting of the Alpena County Planning Comm-ission by a vote of- 9 Ayes 0 Nays Attested IT- John Porterl-Chairman v , 91 0 0 0, " 0' Dnnartm,:@r@l Commerce KO:%A 1@ -,, - ,t3 t 2234 Center Library th Avenue Charlast0sk- SC 29403-2413 04 LO 04 0