[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
OA TA L COASTAL ZONE N'E INFORMAT I CENTER M jCr monroe county, h! an Coastal Zone 1976 Information AGRICULTURE Q* Center FOUTO MOO USTRIAL% BIERU ft 017 A 0 ow* //I. COM ERCIAL&a'* .el ON56E ASAL,LE RESIDENTIAL 7' RIE /+LUNA Pff I -V U HT 393 .M5 C637 RECREATION 1976 9 zo M, A BIERU.- @_ft @ERCIJ U -e r -to nty Planning Deparkm n 6 and, Commission X This ocument,was prepared in part through financial assistance provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 administered by the Off*ce of Coqstal Zqne Ma@y*nent National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adm in istFbtion TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I NDEX I INTRODUCTION 1 I I MONROE COUNTY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE 3 III BOUNDARY DEFINITION 5 PrOPerty 0 A. Federal/State f CSC 5' 1. Coastal Management Area 6 2. Coastal Planning Zone, 7 B. SEMCOG 7 U-S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA Monroe County COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 7 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE 1. Lakeward C HARLESTON SC. 29405-2413' 7 2. Inland 8 .3. Coastal Planning. Zone 8 IV, DESCRIPTION'OF MONROE COUNTY 9 A. Location 9 Map.of Regional Setting B. Physical Makeup 9. C. Demographic Makeup 9 Tab.le. of Population existing and projected D. Land Use Makeup 10 V AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN IN MONROE COUNTY 13 A. Federal Coastal Zone Areas of Particular Concern (1 14 and Criteria PAGE Areas as Related to Monroe County I - 8 and Criteria C Methodology of inter area ranking D.. Methodology on intra area ranking (overall VI GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 19 Vil ACTION PROGRAMS 21 22 Vill APPENDIXES Ix BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX APPENDIX A - Guidelines For Designation of Areas of Particular Concern APPENDIX B Public Meeting Transcripts and Newspaper Accounts APPENDIX C - Task Force Nomination APPENDIX D Public Nominations APPENDIX E Individual Rating Methodology Sheets APPENDIX, F -,Supporting Maps INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION The Monroe County Coastal Zone Management Report has been an undertaking by the Monroe County Coastal Zone Management Task Force comprised of representatives from County and local governmental units bordering Lake Eric, industry, and con- cerned citizens groups. This Coastal Zone Management Program is being done under the auspices of the Michigan Department of Natural, Resources and S.E.M.C.O.G. as promoted by the passage of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 ( P.L. 92 - 583 ). The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act is designed to stimulate State leadership in planning and management of the coastal zone and bring into harmony the social, economic and ecological aspects of land and water use decisions. Through a series of program development grants, the Act encourages new cooperation among various agencies and levels of government aimed toward the implementation of a coastal zone management program through which various units of government may each exercise management capabilities. The Monroe County Coastal Zone Management Task Force agreed to the responsibility of providing the following information to S.E.M.C.O.G. and the Michigan Depart- ment of Natural Resources: I . Inventory of Water Quality, Aquatic and Terrestial ecosy stems and human resources to be provided by State or other sources and to be reviewed by Task Force for concurrence with local knowledge and for relationship to nomination of areas for particular concern. 2. Task Force to define areas of particular concern to include envi- ronmental areas, high risk erosion, flood hazard areas, ecologic- al importance, natural area, recreation, historic and archeologic sites, islands, coastal river mouths, urban areas, agricultural areas, prime industrial areas and water transportation areas. 3. lEstablish priority use guidelines for each identified area of particu- lar concern, for inclusion in management plan. 4. Define Management Plan Boundary. This task involves the identification of those areas of Southeast Mich- igan which will be included in the shorelands management program. Reports prepared for and by the State to be used include "Michigan Great Lakes Shoreland Zone Boundary Definition" . 5. Develop Management Plan. Development of a proposal to insure the consistent action of local", regional, State, and Federal agencies and units of Government in ,shorelands management related matters throughout the periods of program development and implementation. The staff of the Monroe County Planning Commission provided the task force with professional and technical support. This work was financially assisted by the Michigan Department of Natural Re - sources through the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments. 2 MONROE COUNTY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE: In order to fulfill the criteria that was established by the Federal Coastol-Zone Manage- ment Act of 1972 ( P.C. 92 - 583 ), State of Michigan Coastal Zone Management Pro- gram, and that of S.E.M.C.O.G., Staff of the Monroe County Planning Commission for- mulated what is now known as the Monroe County Coastal Zone Management Task Force. This is a committee of 14 members representing the political subdivisions having shoreline frontage, industrial, commercial, environmental, and citizen interests. The involvement of these individuals in the CZM process was brought about by official s from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, that had contacted the Monroe Coun- ty Planning Commission, asking for the cooperation of Monroe County in the State CZM program. In order to insure the interests of Monroe County,in the CZM planning process it was advisable that a local task force be established. On February 9, 1976 the staff of the Monroe County Planning Commission were authorized to organize the Monroe County Coastal Zone Task Force. The following communities and areas of interest were asked to appoint delegates: I . Berlin Township 2. Estral Beach Village 3. Frenchtown Township 4. City of Monroe 5. Monroe Township 6. LaSalle Township 7. Erie Township 8. City.of Luna Pier 9. Lake Erie Advisory Committee 10. The Port of Monroe 11. The Detroit Edison Company 12. Consumers Power Company 13. Monroe County Board of Commissioners 14. Monroe County Environmental Health Department 15. Monroe County Office of Civil Preparedness Not all preliminary representatives formally advised the Planning Commission as to their delegate on the Task Force. Out of the 15 preliminary representatives there are 14 in- dividuals that comprise the constituency of the Task Force. Those representatives com- prising units of government are usually members of township boards, with the remaining being a supervisor, two mayors, and the director of a city planning department. The other membership delegates are represented by directors of various departments or their assistants, chairmen of committees, and company officials. On March 11 1 1976, in the Frenchtown Township Hal I at 3:30 P.M. the first regular meeting of the Monroe County Coastal Zone Management Task Force was brought to order. Since that time there have been a total of 8 regular meetings and a Public Hear- ing that have been held to outline the goals and objectives of the Task Force, establish what the Task Force's responsibilities oref make nominations for areas of particular con- cern, and adopt a Monroe County Coastal Zone Management Plan. 3 Meetings' locations varied to a I low greater citizen access to the task force. The follow ing is a list of the meeting dates and places: March 11, 1976 Frenchtown Township March 18, 1976 Frenchtown Township April 1, 1976 City of Luna Pier - Senior Citizens Complex April 15, 1976 Monroe County Planning Commission Offices April 29, 1976 Monroe County Planning Commission Offices May 6, 1976 Monroe County Planning Commission Offices May 20, 1976 Monroe County Planning Commission Offices June 10, 1976 Monroe County Planning Commission Offices The Public Hearing to add citizen approval for the Task Force nominations of areas of particular concern was held June 8, 1976 at 7:30 P.M. at the Monroe Township Hall . Besides the Public Hearing, all regular meetings were open to the public for their com- ments and recommendations. Representation by the public sector at@all meetings was quite good, with people representing the interests of citizens groups, environmental areas, industrial concerns, and other citizenry that showed their own personal interests. (see Appendix B 4 BOUNDARY DEFINITION OF COASTAL PLANNING ZONE AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT AREA COASTAL PLANNING ZONE AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT AREA Bound ary Definition As in all reports where management or use of land is concerned, a framework outlining the boundary or the area of influence that is being regulated is defined and pointed out. As in the case of a zoning ordinance this boundary is defined as the corporate limits of the municipality for which it is being written. Land Use plans usually designate the areas where various land uses could be developed, such as: residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural. The Coastal Zone Management Program is no exception. At the federal level, the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 ( P.L. 92 - 583 ) iden- tifies the coastal zone as those shorelands and coastal waters strongly influenced by one another. It states that the coastal zone should include: I . Transitional areas, wetlands and beaches; 2. Coastal waters, including the lands therein and thereunder (this will be interpreted to mean islands and bottomlonds of the Great Lakes); 3. Those coastal waters extending to the international boundary between the United States and Canada or the boundaries between Michigan and other Great Lakes states; 4. Shorelands to the inland extent necessary to encompass those uses of the land having direct and significant impacts on coastal waters. In addition, the act states that "excluded from the coastal zone are lands the use of which is by low subject solely to the discretion ofor which is held in trust by the Federal Government, its officers or agents" . ( Section 304 - a ) At the State level, the Shorelands Protection and Management Act ( Act 245, P.A. of 1970, as amended ) defines the shorelands as the land, water and land beneath the water which is'in close proximity to the shoreline of the Great Lakes. Through this Act, the legislature authorized the regulation of high-risk erosion areas and environmental areas within 1 000 feet landward of the ordinary high-water mark of the Great Lakes. Regu- lation further inland is authorized for flood-risk areas and for environmental areas border- ing or adjacent to waters affected by levels of the Great Lakes. A. State of Michigan Revised Coastal Boundary Definition. In early 1975, under contract from the Water Development Services Division of the D.N.R., the Resource Development Department of Michigan State University undertook the formal task of further defining the Coastal Zone Boundary of Michi,gan. The findings of the M.S.U. study and input by State, regional, and local agencies directed the formulation of the following boundary definition: 5 COASTAL. MANAGEMENT AREA The lakeward boundary of Michigan's coastal management area will extend. from the Ordi- nary-High Water Mark (OHWM) of the Great Lakes to the boundary between the United States and Canada or the boundaries between Michigan and the other Great Lakes states. Included will be the islands and submerged bottomlands of the Great Lakes. The Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) is that line between the upland and lake bottom- land which persists through successive changes in water levels. It is a recognized and documented elevation which must be determined for any point on the shoreline by field survey methods. "Ordinary High Water Mark of the Great Lakes" is defined by Section 2 of Act 247 of the Public Acts of 1955, as amended.. being Section 322.702 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. "Ordinary High Water Mark of inland waters" is defined by Section 2 (H) of Act No. 346 of the Public Acts of 1972, as amended, being Section 281.851. of the Michigan Compiled L,aws. The inland boundary of the coastal zone management area,will extend 1,000 feet land- ward from the OHWM of the Great Lakes; or 1,000 feet landward from: *The OHWM of inland waters directly affected by the changing level s, of the Great Lakes. *The OHWM of coastal lakes if any part of that lake lies within 1 000 feet of the OHWM of the Great Lakes.. These lakes may or may not be affected by changing levels of the lakes, and may or may not be connected to the lakes by river or stream. The management area may extend further inland than stated above to encompass: *Wetlands, if any part of that wetland lies within 1,000 feet of the Great Lakes or within 1,000 feet of the OHWM of inland waters directly affected by the changing levels of the lakes. *Wetlands will be those lands defined -as wetlands under the Michigan Land Cover/Use Classification System (See Appendix F - Monroe County Coastal Zone Map). *Areas, in their entirety, which are publicly owned park or recreation area; or designated under provisions of the Wilderness 'and Natural Areas Act (Act 241, P.A. 1972); or otherwise designated by a public agency for the preservation of natural, wild or wilderness characteristics, if any part'of the area borders a Great Lake or connecting waterway. *Sand dune informationsi in their entirety of any portion of that. information borderson a Great Lake-or connecting water. 6 *Areas falling within the 100 year flood-plain of the Great Lakes. These areas wil I be delineated by flood plain surveys to be conducted by the Federal Insurance Administration, Department of Housing and Urban devel- opment. As this data is not likely to be available for the initial determina- tion of the shoreland boundary, the boundary will be modified in the future to include these flood-risk areas. COASTAL PLANNING ZONE The coastal planning zone will extend to the inland boundary of any city, village or township which has any land Within the management area As those lands and waters failing within the coastal zone management area will be of state and local interest, those lands lying outside of the manage- ment area but within the coastal planning zone will be of primary local interest. The coastal planning zone identifies the governmental unit most responsible for activities occurring within its shorelands and the unit which will have the authority to control shoreland uses through planning and zon- ing. The coastal planning zone also recognizes that those activities taking place in the township, village or city as a whole may have impacts upon the shorelands of the Great. Lakes, ( i.e., encouraging residential devel- opment in landward areas of the township may reduce development pressures within the shorelands B. Southeast Michigan Coastal Boundary Definition. As the State of Michigan further defined the Federal Coastal Boundary Definition, the S.E..M.C.O.G. Coastal Zone Task Force also redefined the coastal zone boundary. Due to the inconsistancy of the S.E.M. C.O.G. coastline as to (and use and geological definitions, S.E.M.C.O.G. in con- jundtion with its constituent coastal communities redefined the Inland Boundary fo the Coastal Zone Management Area to read: The inland boundary of the coastal zone management area will extend from the OHWM inland to the first thoroughfare of major consequence. Definitions of the Lakeward boundary and the Coastal Planning Zone remain the some as that of the State of Michigan. C. Monroe County Coastal Zone Boundary In response to the State of Michigan Coastal Zone Boundary and the S.E.M.C.O.G. revised Inland boundary definition, the Monroe County Coastal Zone Management Boundary would be defined as follows: I . The Lakeward Boundary This would include all that portion of Lake Erie lying between the OHWM of Lake Erie ( 571.6 feet above sea level ) in connection with Monroe 7 County's shoreline eastward to the international boundary of Canada and Michigan, southward to the Michigan/Ohio border, and to the north by the boundary line between Monroe and Wayne County. 2. The Inland Boun ary This will include all that portion of Monroe County lying westerly of the CHWM of Lake Erie ( 57.6 feet above sea level ) inland to 1-75 and North Dixie Highway respectively. To be more specific it is everything east of 1-75 from its intersection at the Michigan/Ohio border going in a northerly direction until it i.ntersects North Dixie Highway, north of the City of Monroe, then in a northeasterly direction following North Dixie Highway until it.becomes the U.S. Turnpike and following the U.S. Turnpike to its intersection with Wayne County. See Appendix F - Monroe County Coastal Zone Map Also included in,the inland boundary are: i. that portion of Eri.e Township, west of 1-75 bounded' on the south by the Michigan/Ohio border, on the west by Hagman Road, and on the north by Lotus Drive, extended easterly to 1-75, and ii. that portion of Monroe Township/City of Monroe lying west of 1-75, bounded by LaPlaisance Rood and the Detroit, To-, ledo and Shoreline Rail Road on the west, and the D. T.. S.R.R. spur to the north. 3. The Coastal Planning Zone The Coastal Planning Zone of Monroe-County consists of the following municipalities:, Townships Berlin Frenchtown Monroe LaSalle Erie Villages Estral Beach Cities Luna Pier Monroe See Appendix F - Monroe County Coastal Zone Map 8 DESCRIPTION OF MONROE COUNTY DESCRIPTION OF MONROE COUNTY Location Monroe County is situated in the extreme southeastern portion of the State of Michigan. It is bounded by Wayne and Washtenaw counties to the north, by Lenawee County to the west.. the Ohio State line to the south, and Lake Erie to the east. With its locationt due to State and County boundaries, Monroe County is unique in that it is one of the few counties of any Great Lakes state that has sole jurisdiction of its state's portion of a Great Lakes coastline. Positioned between the cities of Detroit, Michigan and Toledo, Ohio, the future development of the County will be aided by these two forces. Toledo has already made an impact upon the County in conjuction with the urban growth and population explosion of Bedford Township, one of the County's southern municipalities. Its location also makes Monroe County one of the gateways to the State of Michigan by those entering from the State of Ohio. Besides being one of the. gateways to our State it also has the only Michigan port on Lake Erie. See map of regional setting Physical Makeup The physical makeup of Monroe County is one of rather low relief or topography sloping in a southeasterly direction, from a maximum elevation of 730 feet in the extreme north- west corner to an elevation of approximately 570 feet at Lake Erie. Its overburden is composed of glacial till that was deposited some 10,000 years ago by what is called the Wisconsin Glacier. This overburden varies in thickness from a few inches to nearly 1.60. feet. Over most of the County, however, the drift is considerably less than 30 feet. ( See Appendix F - Overburden Thickness Map ) Glacial deposits consist mainly of clay till reworked by glacial lake water and veneered by lacustrine sands, silts, and clays. Aiong the Lake Erie shoreline there are also large tracts of marshes. ( See Appendix F - Glacial Deposits Map ) The overburden of Monroe County is also related to as lake plain as this area at one time had been all under water due to the glacial recession and melt. Crustal Rebound, or the raising of the earth's surface that had been depressed by the weight of the glacier has brought this land back to where it was prior to the ice movement. The area around Lake Superior is still going through this process. Due to Monroe's relative- ly flat surface features flooding causes extensive amounts of land to be under water. Demographic Makeup As of the lost decennial census taken in 19701 Monroe County numbered 119,215 persons. Of this number 63,503 people or 53.3 percent of the population resided in the eight com- munities that border Lake Erie. The Monroe Urban Area (Frenchtown and Monroe Town- ships and the City of Monroe) accounts for the majority of this population, 47,930 or4O.2 percent of the County population. Forecasts by the County for the year 2000 indicate a population of 209,440 people for the County. Again, the coastal communities will have a majority of the population, 114,616 people or 54.2 percent of the total forecasted popu- 9 lation are expected to reside in coastal communities. The Monroe Urban area will remain the population center of the County with 86,979 persons residing within its boundaries or 41.5 percent of the County's projected population. ( See 1970 - 2000 Population Table Land Use Makeup From a report by the Great Lakes Basin Commission the State of Michigan has 32.5 miles, or 9.5 percent of the shorelands of Lake Erie, almost all of which are located in Monroe County. The shore types of this shoreline vary but basically consist of wetlands inter- spersed with artificial shore types in and near the more developed areas. Residential deve lopment accounts for 15 miles. or almost 50 percent of the total shoreland use of the Michigan portion of Lake Erie frontage. The residential use of the shore is widespread and not confined to the shorelands immediately adjacent to the City of Monroe. Almost I I miles, or 33.8 percent of Michigan's Lake Erie shorelands are state owned des- ignated recreational and wildlife areas. The Michigan portion of the shoreline is devoid of forest land except for isolated woodlots. Agriculture and vacant, underdeveloped lands account for about 5.8 miles of shoreline but these are giving way to residential and industrial uses. Of the 32.5 miles of Michigan coastline on Lake Erie, Monroe County has roughly 31.2 miles of its guardianship. The Monroe County General Development Plan, advises that approximately 13 of those miles, or 41.7 percent of the shoreline, should be designated for residential purposes. Another 14.1 miles of shoreline is designated for recreation and pu6lic/semi -public uses. This amounts to 45.2 percent of the shoreline. The remaining 4.1 or 13.1 percent of the coastline is being designated for industrial purposes to include utilities. ( See Appendix F - General Development Plan Map - Monroe County The 31.2 miles of Lake Erie shoreline in Monroe County likewise are affected by locally adopted development plans. Locally adopted land use plans advise that .11 .8 miles or 37.8 percent of the shoreline be designated for residential purposes. Another 13.6 miles of shoreline are designated for recreation and public/semi-pu6lic uses. This amounts to 32.6 percent of the shoreline @ The remaining 5.8 miles of shoreline, or 18.6 percent of the shoreline, is designated for industrial purposes to include utilities. The minor discrep- ancy between the County plan and local plans will have to be resolved. It is hoped that both the County plan and local plans can be revi.sed so that all are consistent with the final adopted Coastal Zone Management Plan. 10 41 V00 Oki REG I ONAL WISCONSIN SETTING Nkw YORX WI @dsol lod ILLINOIS PE NNSYLVANIA INDIANA OHIO M IDWESTERN REGION DETROIT AN?i ARBOR WASHT IENAW WAYNE* ONTARIO A. MONROE 5-COUNTY AREA LENAWEE CouNty LAKt ERIE TOLEDO 0 ec) MONROE COUNTY 1970 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND YEAR 2000 POPULATION PROJECTIONS BY URBANIZED/NON URBANIZED AREA AND BY MINOR CIVIL DIVISION Ash/Berlin Urbanized Area Ash Township Berlin Township* Bedford Urbanized Area Bedford Township Erie Township* Whiteford Township Monroe Urbanized Area City of Monroe* Frenchtown Township* Monroe Township* Total Urbanized Area Non Urbanized Area Townships Dundee Township Exeter Township Ida Township LaSalle Township* London Township Milan Township Raisinville Township Summerfield Township Non Urbanized Area Villages and Cities City of Luna Pier* City of Milan (part) City of Petersburg Dundee Village Maybee Village Total Non Urbanized Area Monroe County 1970 Poplulation 11,313 5,803 5,510 30,121 21,505 4,494 4,122 47,930 23,894 14,685 9,351 89,364 23,491 2,439 2,486 3,377 4,151 2,522 1,890 4,009 2,617 6,360 1,418 758 1,227 2,472 485 29,851 119,215 Projected 2000 Population 20,893 10,468 10,425 59,128 43,596 7,455 8,077 86,979 30,000 32,443 24,536 167,000 31,674 3,043 2,528 4,791 6,757 3,140 2,185 6,280 2,950 10,766 2,000 1,642 2,227 4,285 612 42,440 209,440 1970-2000 Population Change Numberical Percent +9,580 +4,665 +4,915 +29,007 +22,091 +2,961 +3,955 +39,049 +6,106 +17,758 +15,185 +77,636 +8,183 +604 +42 +1,414 +2,606 +618 +295 +2,271 +333 +4,406 +582 +884 +1,000 +1,813 +127 +12,589 +90,225 +84.7 +80.4 +89.2 +96.3 +102.7 +65.9 +96.0 +81.5 +25.6 +120.9 +162.4 +86.9 +34.8 +24.8 +1.7 +41.9 +62.8 +24.5 +15.6 +56.7 +12.7 +69.3 +41.0 +116.6 +81.5 +73.3 +26.2 +42.2 +75.7 Note: Certain municipal projections enumerated in Table 1-2 have been revised since the publication of Monroe County Population and Economic Studies. Source: Monroe County Planning Commission, Monroe County Population and Economic Studies, March, 1974. * Monroe County Coastal Communities 12 NOMINATION AND, RANKING METHODOLOGIES FOR 'AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN NOMINATION AND RANKING METHODOLOGIES FOR AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN One of the major tasks of the Coastal Zone Management Program is the "inventory and designation of areas of particular concern within the coastal zone" . Areas of particular concern have reference to those general categories that had been identified by the guide- lines handed down by the Department of Naturul Resources. I . Flood Hazard Areas 2. 'High Risk Erosion Areas 3. Areas of Ecological Importance 4. Natural Areas 5. Recreational Areas 6. Historic and Archaeological Areas 7. Sand Dune Areas 8. Islands 9. Coastal Lakes, River Mouths and Bays 10. Urban Areas 11. Mineral Resource Areas 12. Agricultural Areas 13. Prime Industrial Areas 14. Water Transportation Areas From this list of 14 areas of particular concern and after identifying the coast al zone management area for Monroe County, the Coastal Zone Management Taskforce made preliminary designations within the management area from the above mentioned areas of concern. Criteria for their identification was provided in the guidelines for each cate- gory. These were supplemented with the use of the following other sources of information. 1. Aerial Photos 2. Existing Land-Use Maps 3. Water and Sewer Service Area Maps 4. Prime Agricultural Land Maps 5.- Master Plans of Local Communities 6. Native Knowledge. 7. Ownership 8.- Interests of Private and Public Concerns With this information in hand the Monroe County Coastal Zone Management Task Force was able to identify a concern for the total Monroe County skoreline. On the basis of the criteria provided by the guidelines and I ocal criteria, the task force made 24 preliminary designations for areas of particular concern. These nominations cover the entire coastal management area of Monroe County, but do not address them- selves to all 14 areas of particular concern. Only 8 areas were utilized in the nomina- tion process for Monroe. County, as the Task Force made preliminary designations accord- 13 ing to their value of the best use for the land, both from an existing as well as future qualitative pointof. view. A. High Risk Erosion Areas B. Flood Hazards Areas Areas of Ecological Importance D. Recreational Areas E. Islands F. Urban Areas G . Agricultural Areas H . Industrial Areas See Appendix C - Task Force Nominations The Coastal Zoning Management Task Force received 20 public nominations from con- cerned citizens and groups. These were compared .to the task force's designation and ' I where coincidental they were accepted and where in conflict they were considered non acceptable. Phase 11 of the Coastal Zone Plan will include a more particular response to nominations from other sources. ( See Appendix D - Public Nominations Ranking Methodology For Areas Of Particular Concern After the preliminary designation process had been completed, it was the charge of the Task force to then rate the nominations in a twofold manner; 1) by area of particular concern, within specific designations and 2) on an overall ranking scheme, namely across specific designations or on inter-ranking scheme. In ranking -the nominations by specific designation each area was evaluated on the basis of what was thought to be the best criteriia for that type of designation ( i.e., urban, in- dustrial, etc. ). Each designation was capable of achieving a certain score out of a total maximum score potentially available for that area of particular concern designation, based upon the percentile each area received relative to its maximum permissable score. Intra group criteria including the following considerations: Areas of Ecological Importance -- a maximum of 33 points c ould be attained in this group- Twenty points covered criteria outlined in the Draft Copy of Michigan's Coastal Zone Man- ual from the DNR, and 13 points covered areas of relationship.locally devised. The ecolog- ical criteria concerned marshes, open water, and upland areas that would support various wildlife species with 5 points apiece for any area having at least one aspect of the criteria. The other 13 points concerned urban relationship which included: distance from developed areas, water and sewer line availability and ownership. Sites furthest away from develop- ment were felt to be the best for purposes of supporting an ecological concern. Concerning ownership, it was felt that ecological areas should be under public ownership and that the less amount of public ownership the higher the priority ranking points an area was capable of achieving. See Appendix E - Individual Rating Methodology Sheets 14 Agricultural Areas Areas of agricultural concern could receive a maximum of 20 points. Four criteria were established each of which were assigned five points. These included: relationship to public plans, size of area concerned, relationship to water and sewer programs, and proposed activity of land. Public plans included local and County plans. In terms of area, fke larger tke land area tke Mgker fke ran0ing; small- er areas ( less than 250 acres ) could be eventually incorporated with other.areas of concern. Areas farthest from water and sewer lines were assumed less likely to develop and therefore received a higher rating. Agricultural productivity ratings were based on prime agricultural lands information. See Appendix E - Individual Rating Methodol- ogy Sheets Flood Hazard Areas Areas ; f flood hazard concern could receive a maximum of 15 points. The points were allocated on the basis of whether an area was located within the HUD flood hazard boundary ( 2 points ); protected by flood devices ( 2 points ); compatible with local public plans ( 3 points ); the extent of development ( 5 points, with the more developed receibing a higher rating ); and potential for Phase 11 Ecolog- ical Area Nomination ( 3 points ). See Appendi x E - Individual Rating Methodol- ogy Sheets Industrial Areas -- Areas of Industrial concern could receive a maximum of 20 points. Since criteria from the DNR was vague in this area a locally devised set of site evalua- tion criteria was used. The criteria included: Consistency with public plans, availabil- ity of water, sewer and gas lines, accessibility to highway, rail and water transportation, and the availability of vacant developable land or potential developable land. Besides the amount of land available for development, potential development, the most critical relationships used in the evaluation was proximity to transportation links and the avail- ability of utilities. See Appendix E - Individual Rating Methodology Sheets High Risk Erosion Areas -- Areas of high risk erosion concern could receive a maximum score of 29 points. The rating was broken down into 4 areas: I . Characteristics of erosion 2. Aerial photos 3. Proposed plans for area 4. Erosion potential of surrounding area One point was given for each erosion characteristic. A maximum of 10 points could be gained by the amount of recession, and 5 points could be gained for the erosion potential of surrounding lands. Local plans were studied to determine if major development was proposed other than erosion control measures. See Appendix E - Individual Rating Methodology Sheets ) Recreation Areas -- Areas of recreational concern could receive a maximum of 21 points. Most of the concern in this area was existing facilities and the potential for expansion to 15 the site either in terms of development or acquisition. Relationship to public plans was a minor concern although it did have some 6earing on the final rating. See Appendix E Individual Rating Methodology Sheets Island Areas of island concern could receive a maximum of 20 points. Monroe County's islands are primarily associated with ecological areas, so most of the criteria was geared toward ecological concerns'. The ownership criteria reflects an interest in public ownership of these -islands. See Appendix E - Individual Rating Methodology Sheets Urban Areas -- Areas of urban concern could receive a maximum of 1.3 points. Basically urban @reas relate to population concentrations and the criteria denoted. physical features of this type of area, namely; 1) population, 2) percentage of deficient housing, 3) flood prevention devices, 4) amount of developed land, and 5) water and sewer lines. Areas with high concentrations of people, higher numbers or percentage of deficient housing and more developed land got high ratings to indicate the need for flood prevention devices and water andsewer lines or to upgrade the existing protection devices' if in need of repair or overhaul. Urban areas with no flood prevention structures and without water and sewers received higher point values due to the high water marks of Lake Erie and the probability of well water contamination due to saturation of septic tank filter fields. However, most nominations of urban concerns have water and sewer and flood protection. The application of the criteria described above resulted in the following intro group ranking results. See Appendix E Individual Rating Nomination Sheets 16 Rating Methodology Breakdown By . Areas of Particular Concern maximum Areas of Concern Possible Points Points A. Prime Industrial Areas 20 I . Monroe Port Area - Nom. 0 10 19 2.1 Consumers Power Plant Area - Nom!20 13 3. Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant Area - Nom. 06 10 B. Urban Areas 13 1 . Frenchtown Beach Areas - Nom. 07 10 2. City of Luna Pier - Nom. 419 9 3. Bolles Harbor/Avalon Beach Area - Nom. 014 7 C Ecological Areas 33 1. Erie State Game Area - Nom. 022 30 2. Point Mouillee State Game Area - Nom. 01 28 D. Recreation Areas 21 1. Sterling State Park Area - Nom. 09 19 2. Toledo Beach Area - Nom. 0 18 15 3. LaPlaisance Creek Area Nom. 013 10 E. High Risk Erosion Areas 29 1. Woodtick *Peninsula - Nom. 023 '25 2. North Beach - Sterling State Park.- Nom. 08 18 F. Flood Hazards Areas 15 1. Swan Creek Flood Area - Nom. 03 11 1. Enrico Fermi, Flood Area - Nom. 05 10 2. Plum Creek Bay Flood Area - Nom. @01 1 10 2. LaSalle Flood Area - Nom. 016 .10 2. Erie Township Flood Area Nom. 021 8 G . Islands 20 1. Erie State Game Area Islands - Nom. 024 18 H. Agricultural Areas 20 1. Frenchtown Agricultural Area - Nom. #4 18 2. Berlin Agricultural Area - Nom. 02 17 3. Monroe/LaSalle Agricultural Area - Nom. 015 16 4. Otter Creek Agricultural Area - Nom. #17 15 5. LaPlaisance Road Agricultural Area - Nom. 012 13 Note: For specific methodology and point breakdown, see individual area and nomination sheets 17 Ranking Strategy On An Inter Area Basis Inter group ranking was achieved on the basis of the percentile each specific area desig- nation achieved thus assigning an overall rank order based upon these percentiles. This resulted in the foilowing rank order for each specific area nomination: Overall Rating of Nominations of Areas of Particular Concern By Percentil e of Maximum Permissible Score Area Name Percentage of and Maximum Points Position Nomination Number Possible 1. Monroe Port Area - Nom. # 10 95 2. Erie State Game Area - Nom. 22 91 3. Sterling State Park Area - Nom. # 9 90 4. Erie State Game Area Islands - Nom. 24 90 5. Frenchtown Agricultural Area - Nom. #4 90 6. Woodtick Peninsula - Nom. #23 86 7. Pointe Mouille State Game Area - Nom. #1 85 8. Berlin Agricultural Area - Nom. #2 85 9. Monroe/LaSalle Agricultural Area - Nom. #15 80 10. Frenchtown Beach Areas - Nom. #7 77 11. Otter Creek Agricultural Area - Nom. #17 75 1.2. Swan Creek Flood Area - Nom. #3 73 13. Toledo Beach Area - Nom. #18 71 14. City of Luna Pier - Nom. #19 69 15. Enrico Fermi Flood Area - Nom. #5 67 16. Plum Creek Bay Flood Area - Nom. #n 67 17. LaSalle Flood Area - Nom. #16 67 18. Consumers Power Plant Area - Nom. #20 65 19. LaPlaisance Agricultural Area - Nom. #13 65 20. North Beach/Sterling State Park - Nom. *# 8 62 21. Bolles Harbor/Avalon Beach Area - Nom. #14 54 22. Erie Township Flood Area - Nom. #21 53 23. Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant - Nom. #6 50 24. LaPlaisance Creek Area - Nom. #13 48 18 MONROE COUNTY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM GOALS AND OBJECTIVES MONROE COUNTY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The Coastal Zone Management Plan has as its main purpose, to fulfill the following goals and objectives: Goals A. To bring into harmony the social, economic and ecological aspects of the coastal management area of Monroe County. B. To retain the integrity of the Monroe County shoreline. C. To develop and promote the adoption of regulations for all areas of particular concern that pertain to Monroe County. D. To maximize the recreation potential of the Lake Erie shoreline and its environs. E. To develop and promote the adoption of a list of permitted uses for each area of particular concern that pertains to Monroe County. F. To encourage the stabilization of the Lake Erie water level . G To encourage the economic development of the Port of Monroe and its environs. Objectives A. - To bring into public ownership all areas of ecological importance con- sistent with the adopted areas of particular concern map and to preserve their natural values for public enjoyment. B. To encourage utilization of the Farmlands and Open Space Program, Act 116 P.A. 1970, to conserve all prime agricultural lands in the Monroe County coastal zone. C. To encourage structural flood protective solutions in certain areas'; especially in the urban and industrial areas. . D. To evaluate all Flood Hazard areas for Phase 11 Ecological Importance designations. 19 E To enhance existing Industrial areas. for future growth, which may in- clude, land reclamation activities. F. To protect the shorelands from further erosion. .G. To develop existing and future recreation areas to their fullest level, and to acquire and develop those areas that are potential ones. H . To protect from further erosion and keep in a natural state all island designations. I . To conserve open space where available. J.. To evaluate cost/benefit studies that have been done relative to flood protection strategies particularly for coastal communities lacking capital intensive facilities to determine the feasibility of an evacuation strategy. 20 ACTION IPRO GRAMS To encourage the fulfillment of the CZM Goals and Objectives the following action programs are to be initiated by the CZM staff as endorsed by the-Task Force. Short Range Programs I . To develop a model CZM Ordinance for Monroe County, to. include permitted uses for each area of concern or district. 2. To work with all Coastal Communities in bringing about unified plans and requ- lations within Monroe County. 3. To re.-evaluate and update the existing plan that the CZM Task Force had put together. 4. To evaluate the CZM plan to all plans in Monroe County to create a harmony and consistency among them. Ongoing and Long Range 1. To analyze. and review all projects which affect the Monroe County, Coastline. 2. To work with all parties in developing the maximum economic potential of the Port of Monroe area while at the same time maintaining and enhancing its en- vironmental integrity. 3. To develop and aid in regulating a sound clean water program for Monroe County. 4. To adopt and promote a resolution to bring into public ownership all areas of ecological importance consistent with the adopted areas of particular concern map and to preserve their natural values for public enjoyment. 5. To analyze and review all reports that concern Monroe County's coastline, or those reports which could affect it. 6. To encourage the development of structural flood protection devices for those areas along the coastline of Monroe County in need of flood protection; espe- in the urban and industrial portions. 7. To review and comment on all Coastal Zone Management nominations concern- ing Monroe County. 21 APPENDIX Guidelines For Designation Of Areas Of Particular Concern A Criteria already specified for the 14 areas of particular concern are: 1 Flood Hazard Areas The Federal Insurance Administration, as part of the flood insurance program, is in the process of designating flood. risk areas along the Great Lakes shoreline. Desig- nation of flood risk areas will be based on determinations that an'area is within the 100-year flood plain of the Great Lakes; that is, for the area in there exists a one percent probability of a flood occurring at any particular point in time. Prelimi- nary designation based on historical data of Great Lakes flood risk areas has been completed and maps are available from the Federal Insurance Administration. Final designation will be based on engineering studies conducted at those sites where pre- liminary designations have been made. These studies are now in process and should be completed within two years. The designation of flood risk areas of particular concern should conform to those areas designated by the Federal Insurance Administrator. It will be useful as the information becomes available from 'the on-going engineering studies to define those areas where critical flood areas occur. For the purpose of general designation as an area of particular concern, the 1-year flood plain appears to be more than adequate. 2. High Risk Erosion Areas As part of its responsibility under the Shorelands Protection and Management-Act (Act 245 of 1970, as amended) the Michigan Department of Natural Resources has used a two-step process to identify high risk erosion areas. A. Step I involved a field check of Great Lakes shorelands to determine if certain physical conditions existed. An area was considered likely to be a high risk erosion area if it exhibited at least two of the follow- ing characteristics: vegetation removed narrow beach flat beach bank slumping turbidity of adjacent waters damaged erosion.control structure damaged land structure protective works present unusual angle of repose B. Step 11 involved the use of past and recent aerial photos to document bluff recession in those areas identified as potential high risk erosion areas in Step 1. If it is determined from this process that bluffs have receded at an average rate of at least one foot per year and the area is designated as a high risk erosion area. 22 3. Areas of Ecological Importance op A . Marshes lakeward or landward of the ordinary high water mark that have capacity as: i) A production, brood rearing, feeding, resting or migra- or tion habitat for waterfowl and/or other migratory birds. ii) A traditional waterfowl hunting area. iii) A habitat supporting a significant furbearer population. B.. Al I open water areas ( from the water 's edge to a depth of 20 fathoms that have submerged aquatic plants that are important to waterfowl. C. Areas of the upland along the shoreline that have any or all of the follow- ing wildlife values: i) A staging or stopover point for migratory birds. ii) A gull or tern nesting colony or a heron rookery. iii) An eagle or os- prey nest. iv) Valuable habitat for deer, furbearers, hawks, owls, game birds, songbirds and/or threatened or endangered animal species. D. Marshes -lakeward or landward of the ordinary high water mark which: i) Are significant fisheries for important sport and/or commercial species, or provide spawning and/or nursery areas for important species. ii) Sup- port significant fisheries through management,, or have potential for pro- viding significant spawning and/or nursery areas for important species. E. Al I open water areas from the water's edge to a depth of 20 fathoms that are: i) Traditionally important sport and/or commercial fishing areas where important Species concentrate. Or, known spawning or nursery areas for important fish species. ii) Potentially valuable fishing areas where management efforts are currently underway to develop the fishery, or potentially good spawning and nursery area for lake'trout or other -e'x- panding fish populations. iii) Valuable fish habitat areas not now pro- viding a sizeable fishery and not currently under management, but with significant fishery values for future development. F. Upland or wetland areas supporting: i) Threatened or endangered plant species. ii) Latitudinally displaced plant species or aggregations of these i species, which occur because of the climatic influences of the Great Lakes. G. Marsh and other wetland areas, not necessarily of high wildlife or fish value, but functioning as a natural water quality and flood control mechanism through regulation of nutrient release and water exchange between lake and share. 4. Natural Areas The Wilderness and Natural Areas Act Act 241, P.A. 1972 ) is currently the most important tool at the state level for protection of natural areas. Guide- lines established by the Act and the Wilderness and Natural Areas Advisory Board will be used to select those natural areas of particular concern in Michi- 23:1? gan's coasta I zone. Natural areas by definition may be an area of land, water or both which: a) Have retained, have reestablished or can readily reestablish natural character. b) Possess one or more of the following ckaracter'istics: Unusual flora or fauna 1) Biotic, geological, physiographic or palentological features of scientific. or educational value or 2) Outstanding opportunities for scenic pleasures, enjoyable contact with nature or wilderness type of experiences (soli- tude, exploration and challenge In addition, the area must meet the criteria under one of the following categories: A. Wilderness areas 1) Large size: Has 3,000 or more acres of state land or is an island of any size. 2) Primitive: Generally appears to have been affected primarily by forces of nature with the imprint of man's work substantially un- noticeable. 3) Wilderness recreation: Has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. 4) Notable natural features: Contains ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, scenic or historical value. B. Wild Areas: 1) Size: Is less than 3,000 acres of land. 2) Wilderness to nature observation type of recreation: Has outstand- ing opportunities for i) personal exploration, ii) challenge, or iii) contact with natural features of the landscape and its biological community. 3) Wilderness-like: Possess one or more of the characteristics of a wilderness area. 24 C Research Natural Areas: 1) Educational or scientific natural area: Has retained or reestablished its natural character, or has unusual flora and fauna or biotic, geo- logic, or other similar features of vegetational or scientific value, but it need not be undisturbed.. 2) Verified by scientists: It has been identified and verified through re- search and study by qualified observers. 3) May be sub-unit: May be coextensive with or part of a wilderness area or wild area. D. Nature Study Areas: 1) Must have essentially the same characteristics as a research natural area. 2) Adaptive to development and use of facilities for conservation, edu- cation and nature study or much more intensive use than research natural areas. E. Manage d Natural Areas: -1) Same as for research natural areas. 2) An ecosystem that is maintained at a chosen state of development or is brought to a desired stage of development by the use of cultural tech- niques or controls over a short or long period of time. These controls are known to favor the maintenance or the development of a particular bio- logical community or may be designed to preserve or restore a desired plant or wildlife species. 5. Recreation Areas A . Existing shoreland recreation areas and facilities. B. Sites that have been identified by State and regional agencies for further acquisition and development. C . Those areas which have been identified, by State agencies as being areas with high recreation potential even though State acquisition or development has not been recommended for the near future. 6. Historic and Archaeologic Sites A . Is it connected with an event resulting in significant contribu- tions to the pattern of history or prehistory? 25 B Is it associated with an important phase of growth or decline of a local society or movement? C. Is it associated with the lives of historically significant persons? D. Is it associated with important contributions to science, tech- nology, politics, the arts, or humanitarian causes? E. Does it embody distinctive characteristics of type, period or method of construction? F. Does it represent the work of a master? G Does it possess high artistic value of unusual and unique work- manship? H Is it one of a kind? I Is it part of a Great Lakes bottomland containing ship wrecks? J Is it at least 50 years old (this criteria could be overruled) ? K. Is it a district or group of structures or other objects which individ- ually are not unique but which taken together represent a certain historic scene or way of life? It should be emphasized that these criteria can be used for preliminary identifi- cation of historic and archaeological sites of importance at state as well as reg- ional and local levels. 7. Sand Dune Areas Sand dune areas wil I be defined as those geomorphic features composed primarily of unconsolidated sand, whether wind blown or of other origin. Of particular concern will be the follwoing dunes: A. Perched sand dunes or other dunes of dramatic relief. B. Exhibit ing unusual flora or geologic qualities. C Experiencing intensive recreationil use. D. In a natural state and deserving of protection from consumption uses including residential development and mining activity. E . In need of reclamation due to past removal of sand and/or vegetation. 26 8. Islands Islands will be considered as areas of particular concern in essentially two ways, depending on their size, physical characteristics, degree of development and primary resource values. A. Extensions of Mainland For most large islands with relatively diverse biological communities and stable physical characteristics, areas of particular concern will be the some as those for mainland shorelands. That is, those areas of inland shoreline having characteristics descr-ibed in the other areas of parti cu lar concern. reports wi I I be treated i n the same way as the mai n - land areas. B. Designated in Their Entirety If data is available to show that an island possesses unique physical or biological characteristics, it will be considered as an area of par-;- ticular concern in its entirety. Quite obviously if an island in its entirety or nearly so meets the criteria of one of the other areas of particular concern, it-will also be included in its entirety. .9. Coastal Lakes, River Mouths and Bays A. Coastal Lakes (directly connected with the Great Lakes by natural or man-made waterways). 1) Connected lakes with an established importance as spawning and habitat areas for Great Lakes Fish species, or importance to waterfowl and other marsh life. 2) Connected lakes supporting marinas and docking facilities for commercial shipping and recreational boating of a total or partial Great Lakes nature. 3) Connected lakes where changing Great Lakes water level has substantial impact ( i.e. increased erosion, flooding, etc.). B. River mouths. Because of a need to protect fish and wildlife habitat, the continuance of development pressures and the potential impact of upstream discharge on the, Great Lakes, all-Great Lakes coastal river mouths should be designated as areas of particular concern. Designation would focus management attention on the actual river mouth and its surroundings and highlight the potential impacts of upstream discharge on the Great Lakes. 27 C. Bays I Bays of high value as fish and wildlife habitat. 2) Bays of heavy recreational use. 3) Bays with a high degree of existing and potentially conflicting uses. 4) Bays where water quality has been reduced by over-development and discharge. 10. Urban Areas Urban areas of particular concern will be defined as those parcels of land which are: A. Vacant and adjacent to the Great Lakes or connecting waterways; or, B. Occupied by structures in need of rehabilitation or redevelopment; or, C. Occupied by structures that no longer contribute significantly to the tax base of the community; or, D. Occupied by uses that do not require orare not enhanced by a shore location; AND located within the boundaries of: E. An urbanized area as defined by the Bureau of Census adjacent to the Great Lakes or connecting waterways (See Appendix A): 1) Central City of 50,000 or more 2) Surrounding closely settled territory. This will include incorporated places of at least 2,500 inhabitants, unincorporated areas provided that each has a closely settled area of 100 housing units or more, or small parcels of land less than one square mile having a population density of 1,000 inhabitants or more per square mile. F. Those central urban areas of 2,500 inhabitants or more incorporated as cities or villages adjacent to the Great Lakes or connecting waterways (see Appendix B). 11. Mineral Resource Areas A. Demand for the mineral on a local, state or internat ional level. B. Quality of the deposit. C. Quantity of the deposit. 28 D. Minability. E . Amenability to concentration and processing. F. Availability of water, energy supplies, economical transport and other mineral commodities necessary in processing. 12. Agricultural Areas Those lands defined as farmlands according to the land eligibility requirements for the Farmland and Open Space Preservation Act ( Act 116, P.A. 1970), or portions thereof, failing within the coastal zone boundary: A. A form of 40 or more acres, in one ownership, which has been devoted primarily to an agricultural use. B. A farm of 5 acres or more in one ownership, but less than 40 acres, devoted primarily to an agricultural usel which has produced a gross annual income from agriculture of $200 per year or more per acre of cleared and tillable land. C. A form designated by the Department of Agriculture as a specialty farm in one ownership which has produced a gross annual income from an agricultural use of $2,000 or more. . I D. Parcels of land in one ownership which are not contiguous, but which constitute an integral part of forming operations being con- ducted on land otherwise qualifying as farm land. 13. Prime Industrial Areas Vacant, undeveloped or under utilized lands and structures that may be particu- larly well suited for industrial users, especially those which require a waterfront location. These areas may offer water transportation opportunities for the move- ment of raw materials or manufactured products. Also, they may offer the avail- ability of a large and inexpensive water supply. In existing industrial areas, re- lated service areas and utilities and surface transportation facilities may also be in place. 14. Water Transportation Areas Ports and related facilities associated with waterborne transportation. Docking and mooring areas, storage facilities, ferry routes and landings, shipping chan- nels, and related land and water facilities in the coastal zone may be nominated. 29 APPENDIX "B" Public Meeting Transcripts And Newspaper Ac,counts Minutes Monroe County Coastal Zone Taskforce Meeting PLACE: Frenchtown Township Hall DATE: March 11, 1976 TIME: 3: 3 0 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Max M. McCray - Port of Monroe Tom LeGendre - Consumers Power John Powell - Estral Beach Darryl Smith - Berlin Township Mayor Clyde Evans - Luna Pier Edward Daniels - Frenchtown Township George Matthews - Detroit Edison Larry Liebold - Lake Erie Advisory Commissions A. John Richwine - Monroe Township William Frey - Erie Township Ronald F. Nino - Monroe County Planning Commission John Iacoangeli - City of Monroe OTHERS PRESENT: David J. Brouwer - SEMCOG Bill Walsh - D.N.R. Mauric e W. Roach - Wayne County Planning Commission A.C. McCormick - Lake Erie Advisory Commission John Chasesa - Monroe County Rod and Gun Club Frank J. Nagy - Monroe County Planning Commission 1. The meeting was called to order by Mr. Ronald Nino at 3:40 p.m. Mr. Nino then asked if the proposed Membership List adequately represented the interests along the Monroe County Shoreline of Lake Erie. Mr. McCray felt that more representatives should be on the committee to include: more industry, marinas, and home owner associations. Mr. Nino commented that too large a committee could cause problems and that our meetings were open to the public should these individuals or groups want specific interests acknowledged. Marinas and home owner associations are private and individualized and they are too numerous to include in the taskforce.' It was also brought.up that the Township ,orMunicipal representative would speak for the concerns of all interested parties in his jurisdiction. 2. The next item on the agenda was for the election of a chairman to head the taskforce. Mr. Nino nominated Richard Micka as a possibility to .head the c. ommittee and it was seconded by Mr. Larry Leibold. Mr. McCray then asked that the nominee be someone other,than,Mr. Micka, as his concerns are more oriented toward one specific goal. The chair- man should be one of a more general background and interests along the -coastline. This item was then tabled momentarily by Mayor Evans as he wanted to -find out what the specifics or purposes of this meeting were and to go into item number three. 3. Mr. Nino introduced Mr. Bill Walsh from the Department of Natural Resources who presented the Michigan'Coastal Zone Management Program Outline. This outline coiisisted of-. purpose 2. basic premises 3. Michigan Program Development 4. Major Regional Agency participation 5. three principal tasks 6. Coasta].Zone Management Boundary 7. direct and significant uses 8. control of direct and significant uses 9. area of particular concern 1-0. implemen ta t ion 11. schedule Following Mr. Walsh, Mr. Nino introduced Mr. David Brouwer who is the Staff representative from SEMCOG. Mr. Nino then introduced Mr. Maurice Roach from the Wayne County Planning Commission and also representing the Wayne County Shoreland Taskforce, who gave a brief rundown of their efforts over the past year or so to implement a program of Shoreland Management along the Detroit River. This group covers an area from Lake St. Clair south alonta, the Detroit River to the mouth of the Huron River. Following Mr. Roach the dis cussion on the appointment of a Chairman was continued with Mr. McCray nominating Mayor Evans for the position. This was seconded by M. LeGendre. However, further discussion on the interests of Mr. Richard Micka, in regard to the position of Chair-man, ended in the nominations be post- poned until the next meeting which is to be held at the Frenchtown Township Hall on March 18, 1976, at 1:00 p.m. 4. At this time, each person present stood up and introduced himself and told which organization he represented. 5. Mr. Nino then adjourned the meeting at 5:10 p.m. Mi nute% Monroe County Coastal Zone Taskforce Meeting PLACE: Frenchtown Township Hall DATE: March 18, 1976 TIME: 1:00 P.M. 1. The meeting was called to order by Mr. Nino at 1:10 p.m. Frank Nagy of Staff called the roll and informed the Taskforce.that there was a quorum present. 2. Mr. Nino introduced Mr. Fred Clinton from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources - Coastal Zone Section. He talked on his department's roll in the Coastal Zone Management Program as it relates to the State. This is to identify those areas of particular concern along the shore- line which extend 1000 feet in from the Ordinary High Water Mark. Mr. Clinton introduced Dick Sikkenga of his staff who, through a slide presentation, outlined the procedures of the Shorelands-MAnagpment- Programs into the following steps: 1. Identification of areas 2. Property ownership 3. Field inspection a) map boundaries b) evaluate fish and wildlife habitat 4. Prepare individual management plan 5. Confer with local units 6. Confer with property owner 7. Informal meeting with property owner 8. Evaluate comments 9. Formal designation He also showed the appeals procedures for property if local property owner did not agree with the State. They are: @1. Make protests to D. R. N. within eight weeks of formal designation 2. Hearing granted 3. Hearin held four-eight weeks of receipt of protest 4. Natura? Resources Commission makes decision 5. If not satisfied still can go to circuit court Chuck Wolverton, from D. N. R., showed how they.analyze Environmental area by the following criteria: 1. IMarshes a) catail b) sedge c) brush 2. Shallow water and mud flat areas 3. Sand spits and reefs 4. Islands 5. Upland areas He then followed by outlining the uses of the environmental areas by the following list: 1. Nesting 2. Buy fish for spawning 3. Rearing of young 4. Acid in feeding 5. Migration 6. Overwintering Fred Clinton ended the presentation by the D. N. R. in going over Act 270 Shoreland Management Program on how it affects local units of govern- ment to include zoning ordinance amendments.' He explained that his boundary designation extended landward 1000 feet from the 0. H. W. M. (Ordinary High Water Mark). Monroe County's 0. H. W. M. is'571.6 feet.- He further outlined the three areas in Monroe County that the State has designated as areas of particular concern. They are: 1. Pt. Mouilee 2. Erie State Game Area 3. Ford Marsh - City of Monroe Bill Walsh talked on the roll of the Taskforce in conjunction with the D. N. R. Program. 3. The next item of business was the election of a.chairman. Richard Micka nominated John Iacoangeli. Jim Jones stated two had been nominated the previous meeting. John Iacoangeli then nominated Richard Micka and Mayor Evans nominated Max McCray. Jim Jones suggested a dual chairmanship which was seconded by Richard Micka. Ron Nino supported this type of proposal but amended it to the top two vote getters. The first vote ended in a three way tie and on the second vote Richard Micka and Max McCray were elected co-chairmen. 4. As it,was getting late, the meeting adjourned. The next meeting was set for Apri'l 1, 1976, at the City of Luna Pier. Minutes April 29, 1976 Monroe County Coastal Zone Management Taskforce Meeting 1. Mr. Richard Micka called the meeting to order at 1:40 p.m.. 2. Mr. Frank J. Nagy of Staff made a brief update of map and made reference to the extension of time for the CZM Program in Southeast Michigan, from six to eight weeks. 3. MT. Nagy of Staff then opened discussion of flood hazard areas and out- lined them. Areas of discussion were: Estral Beach/Frenchtown area, City of Monroe, LaSalle and Erie Township areas. Some discussion over the designation of Estral Beach as flood hazard was made by Mr. John ChascsaY of the Lake Erie Advisory Committee@ concerning the long time residency of some people out there and that it could be flood proofed. Mr. Nino commented on, the flood hazards vs urban classification., as it related to Estral Beach. He then made note that in areas not committed or having sewers that the flood hazard's designation was best suited for it at this time. Mr. Richard Micka brought up the nominations for areas of particular concern that had been prepired by the LEAC, 'Lotus Garden Club, Monroe County Rod and Gun Club, and the United States.Fish and Wildlife Society. Mr. Nagy confirmed nominations for areas of particular concerti and stated that areas nominated are consistant with preliminary designations of flood hazards. Mr. Nino commented on the State Phase II Program which could further deli- neate these areas as environmental importance. After much discussion, it was moved by Mr. Fred Keesler, Monroe County Health Department, to approve of preliminary designation of flood hazard areas with public approval. It was seconded by Mr. Jim Jones of Detroit Edison. Motion was passed with Mr. Michael Putnam, of Consumers Power Company, voting against it.'. 4. Industrial Areas MnGeorge Anderson of Ford Motor Company was present and expressed the con- cern of his company as to the nomination of Ford property, by the DNR, for an ecological area of particular concern. He would like to see the Depart- ment in an industrial classification. Mr. John'Tomaro, also of Ford Motor Company, made mention of the fact that the property, since the high water, has not shown the water plants (Lotus Plants) in some years. -2- Minutes April 29, 1976 Mr. John Iacoangeli, of the City of Monroe, stated that this problem should be resolved between Ford and the State of Michigan, and he also said that he would like to see this area classified as urban; as in his mind, an urban designation could also include industrial uses. Mr. Anderson of Ford Motor Company went along with this idea. Mr. Nino stated that he could see an industrial use in an urban designation, but if they would go urban for the area, why not go industrial. Mr. McCray interjected that in a recent directory by the State on Marine Transportation that included industrial parks, Monroe's Port area is the only one in the State that could be served by rail, highway or boat. No other area has all three modes of transportation in 67 industrial park sites. 14r. Putnam of Consumer Power Company stated he would like to see a dual designation for lands in Luna Pier as industrial and flood hazards. Mr. Nagy of Staff stated that an area could have only our designation and that this designation was the one best suited for it. Mr. Jones of Detroit Edison advised Taskforce that Item 16, Fly Ash Pit area, would be used in forty to fifty years and that his companywould prefer an industrial designation. Mr. Micka agreed with an urban designation of area. Mrs. Jeanne Micka commented on Professor Doxiodos' report, from Detroit Edison, stating that marshes in the Great Lakes have a need.and that industry and ecology can live together. Mr. Jim Jones stated that the Edison.Fly Ash Pit be put in with industrial classification and Item 13. Mr. Anderson of Ford Motor Company wanted company's property (Item 10) in industry too. Mr. John Iacoangeli made a motion that, under recreation designation, it should read or include future recreation properties. It was seconded by Mr. Richard Micka. Motion was passed with Mr. McCray voting no. It was brought up that definition of urban area be made by Staff. Mr. John Iacoangeli made a motion that Items 10, 12, 13, and 22 be postponed until the next meeting. Mr. Micka seconded the motion. Motion was passed. The next meeting would be Thursday May 6, 1976, at 1:30 p.m. at the Planning Commission's Conference Room. Mr. Jim Jones moved for adjournment at 3:32 p.m.. It was seconded by Mr. Micka. The meeting was adjourned. In response to a question from Mr. Micka, Mr. Nagy explained that the area of Plum Creek Bay was nominated about seven times, for various areas of concern, through the public nomination process. Mr. Jones introduced a motion to accept the transcript of the pub- lic hearing. The motion was supported by Mr. Straub. Mr. Kuror spol,,c to the committee regarding the hot water discharge created by the Detroit Edison Company. He advised the committee members that they-should read the minutes from the meeting which was held at Howard Johnsons. Mr. Nino told the committee that he i.s not sure how far Staff will be able to gc with Phase Two, but will probably get into the follow- in areas: (a) specifics of what land.uses will be perm *itted, if particular areas of concern should be recreational and flood- proofing areas of urban concern, and (c) finding the best method of floodproofing. Mr.'Nino said that they may also get into model zoning. Mr. Kuron told the committee,that he wished Mr. Nino could put the previous statements down in writing because he has been asking ques- tions like these for years and has not been able to get the answers. Mr. Kuron also suggested sending out questionnaires to homeowners so that we can find out what property owners would like to see taking place. Mr. Brouwer told the committee that we will have to get the ratings in to SEMCOG by June 29th. 5. The meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m. by Chairman Micka. It was decided that the next meeting will be scheduled for July 8, 1976. -3- MON ROE COUNTY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT TASKFORCE Minutes CL 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Richard Micka. 2. Mr@ Nagy gave definition on Urban area,-.as outlined in Areas of Par/ticular Concern in Michigan Coastal Zone, second draft. Basi- cally, it stated a more density-prone state; population, number of houses, people oer-square mile. Mr. Putnam of Consumers Power Company expressed interest in a more precise definition as to specific uses; i.e., commercial uses, in- dustrial uses. The H.U.D. 100-year flood boundary on map,,- statiug-thAt i tv- s would lessen the amount of land in to approve some of the areas, was outline'd-by John.:_J,,a" "04 T@ 1V flood areas, as outli a by H.U. Richard Micka spoke on the H.U.D. Flood Insurance Program as considera- tion for making nominations. Ronald Nino stated that all urban users are those that are heavy users of the land and that the H.U.D. Flood Program has no bearing on the decisions of this committee. Mr. Anderson of Ford Motor Company stated that a changing of the land could also change the use of it and that the management proposals of this committee could preclude,the development of certain lands. Mr. Nino agreed that management proposals will change, or MA @to k* I change,-the local zoning ordinances. He further stated that the Taskforce was jumping to management proposals before we had identi- fied the area. Mr. Jones of Detroit Edison still wanted a firmer definition of urban'. Max McCray noted that the County Board of Commissioners is in the process of developing an Economic Development Plan. It is in ses- sion now. From this, Monroe County could get industry and jobs. An industrial marine area could need thousands of acres of land, and Monroe's port area is one of the prime marine industrial sites in the State@. Mr. Putnam noted that he would like the area north of Consumers Power Plant in Erie to be for industrial purposes. Mr. Jones consulted with Consumers Power Company and Ford Motor Com- pany in regard to whether they would go along with urban designation of their lands. Both responded, saying they would not and that they preferred industrial designation. At this time, Mr. Jones made a motion stating that areas 12 and 13 be industrial. Mr. Frey of Erie Township supported the motion. Motion carried. Richard Micka, ney. A motion was introduced by Max McCray stating that Item Tefi,be included with Item 13. John Richwine supported the motion. Mr. Jones requested that most of Item 16 be included in industrial, also. Mr. Putnam moved that part of Item 22 be added to.Item 23 for in- dustrial designation. Mr. Jones then moved to amend the previous motion to state that Item 10 and most of Item 16 be added to Item 13 as industrial, and that part of' Item 22, south of Rapideau Drain, be added to Item 23,'in-.the City of Luna Pier, for industrial designation. The motion was sup- ported by John Richwine. Motion carried. Richard Micka, ney. 3. High Risk Erosion (areas) Frank Nagy identified the north shore of Sterling State Park and the Woodtick Peninsula as an area of critical erosion process over the years. A motion was made by Jim Jones stating that these areas be.so desig- nated. The motion was supported by Fred Keesler. Motion carried. 4. Recreation Land Frank Nagy identified three areas for recreation: 1) The Sterling State Park area west to 1-75. 2) The D.N.R. property on the north side of LaPlaisance Creek. 3) The northern part of Luna Pier and the southern.area of LaSalle Township south of North Shores. Jim Jones made a motion that the areas be so designated. Harold Straub supported the motion. Motion carried. 5. Coastal Lakes, River Mouths, and Bays Mr. Nino pointed out that the 209 Water Quality Program would handle this and he suggested that it be deleted. A motion was made by Max McCray for the deletion of Item 8. Mr. Akos. of LaSalle supported the motion. Motion carried. -2- 6. Island It was pointed out by Mr. Nagy that islands in the Maumee Bay area are the only areas identified. Mr. LaBeau of Frenchtown introduced a motion to approve designation. The motion was supported by Harold Straub. Motion carried. At this time, designation of areas of particular concern was completed. The next phase was to write nominations, rate nominations by area of concern, and then by overall rating of the County. The next meeting was set for May 20, 1976 at 1:30 p..m. in the Conference Room of the Monroe County Planning Department. -3- M i I) It Les May 20, 1976 Monroe Coastal Zone Management Taskforce Meeting 1. The meeting was called to order by Mr. Max McCray at.1:30 p.m.. 2. The minutes of the previous meetings, April 29 and May 6, were approved by Mr. Laboe and seconded by Mr. Jones. 3. Mr. Leibold asked to read a minority report on behalf of Mr. Micka, but it was objected by Mr. Jones. It was agreed that the report be passed out. Mr. McCray commented that it would be too lengthy to read, but that the five-page letter attached be made part Of the minutes by reference. Every member received a copy of the report. The action to receive and file the report was approved by Mr. Laboe and seconded by Mr. Smith. No one objected. 4. Mr. Frank Nagy gave a brief update on the time se hedule for nominations to be finalized by the Taskforce. He stated the inventory should be turned in by June 15, 1976 and the complete and final copy should be in by August 1, 1976. 5. Mr. Nagy gave a review on nominations for areas of particular concern by the Lake Erie Advisory Committee, Lotus Garden Club, Monroe County Rod and Gun Club, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. He stated that specific management proposals would have to be made on nominations. Mr. Ron Nino commented in regard to public nominations. He suggested that the Taskforce go on record as receiving these nominations and to advise that to the extent,they are consistant with the Taskforces' action they are recognized. Mr Nagy advised that Mr. Vanslambrook, a representative of the Union Camp, would like a statement to be read into the minutes. There was no objec- tion. The letter was read,and it recommended that the land remain in an industrial designation. Further discussion took place. Mr. Max'McCray commented that Staff will make sure that every member receives a copy of the public nominations, and they would review them at a later date for compliance with the actions already taken by the Taskforce. It was moved by Mr. Eva ns and seconded by Mr. Straub that the Taskforce acknowledges the receipt of public nominations and that those inconsistent with the approve-d Taskforce Nomination, be deemed "not acceptable". Motion was carried. Mr. Nagy stated the Staff made a.preliminary breakdown on ranking areas. He stated that the nominations will be printed and mailed out for the next meeting. Minutes May 20, 1.976 r Mr. Laboe recommended that the Planning Department continue their good job and made recommendations relative to inter and intra.*ranking force of parti- culnr concern For the next meeting. The next meeting on June 10 at 1:30 p.m., it was decided would be devoted to discuss the ranking of the Taskforce's 24 nominations. A Public Hearing will be held at either the Monroe Township [fall or the Frenchtown Township Ball. Staff will. further look into this matter. The results of this public hearing permitting, will be discussed at our June .10 meeting. Mr.. Laboe moved that the meeting be adjourned at 2:55 p.m.. It was seconded by Mr. Keesler. The meeting was adjourned. -f-'NE MANAGEMEW TASKFORCE MINUTES DATF: June 9,. 1976 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Brouwer, Mr. Jones, Mr. Richwine, Mr. Kuron, Mr. Chichester, Mr. McCray, Mr. Chascsa, Mr. Felder, Mr, Anderson, Mr. Straub, Mr. Micka, Mr. LaBeau. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Smith, Mr. Powell Mr. lacoangeli, Mr. Akos, Mayor Evans, Mr. Frey. PUBLIC PRESENT: 11 r s , 'Ba i i STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Nagy, Mr. Nino 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:40 p.m. by Mr. McCray. 2. Chairman Micka called for a motion to accept the minutes from the previous meeting. The motion was introduced by Mr. Straub and seconded by Mr. Richwine. Mr. Micka asked the committee members if there were additions or corrections to the minutes and Mr. LaBeauthen called attention to the misspelling of his name. Mr. Micka then raised a question in regard to Paragraph 5, item five, and Mr. Nagy, in response, explained that all nominations will be included. Mr. Jones told the commmitee that in regard to Paragraph 3, he was not objecting - just questioning. At this time a vote was taken to accept the minutes. All were in favor. Motion carried. 3. Mr. Nagy explained to the committee the nominating process and also the rating procedure. He noted that Staff first reviewed the rank- ing order by specific groups and then analyzed each area of impor- tance. The criteria was then established. John.Chascsa addressed the committee, noting that the port area is a multipurpose'area'. He further added that it has a great e'nviron'mntal atrnnspherl?, Mr. Nino told the committee that one problem that exists is that we've excluded environmental values and they should be considered. He also added that Monroe should take the position that we have done our share of preserving the coastal line and the good judge- ment of the industrialists should be depended on. Mr. Nino also suggested -that in@dUstry mnay be frightened nff by environmental meanduring throughout industrial areas because of the heavy responsibility of the paper work that industries are charged with. Frank Kuron commented on the Port of Monroe and said that citizens are leary of industrialists' judgements because of incidents that haw-! taken place in the pasL. John Chascsa addressed the committee and said that industry is not all bad but not all good. He further stated that industry must get along with the people in order to survive. Mr. Nagy then told the committee that the overall rating of the nomination was done on a percentile basis from the score by their group and put in a declining rank from highest to lowest. At this time, Mr@ McCray suggested a motion to accept the method- ology approach and it was supported by Mr. LaBeau. Before voting on the motion, Mr. Straub raised a question on Nomination V, "D", and Mr. Nagy explained that sewer and water were used as criteria. Mr. Nino told-the committee that there is a typographical error and "D" should read, "percentage of developed land". A vote was then taken. All were in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Brouwer spoke to the committee members and stated that the com- mittee should be more specific in management proposals. He further noted that we are in the management development stage at t 'he present time. SEMCOG is trying to provide the state.with general information. The question was then raised by a committee member as to why SEMCOG asked for just seven suggestions and Mr. Brouwer explained that seven is just a number picked at random. Mr. Nino told the committee that this project is part of next year's budget and he would like to do the least amount of work possible on the project this year. Mr. Nino then told the committee that he feels staff can handle three areas of concern. Mr. Brouwer then explained that SEMCOG is interested in conclusive information. Mr. 'Jones introduced a motion directing staff to proceed with as many areas as they feel they can handle. The motion was supported by Mr. Straub. All were in favor. Motion carried. 4. The 'transcript of the public hearing was reviewed, and Mr. Nagy explained that in most instances the plan was adopted. An area of debate Was the LaSalle Game Area (it could be utilized as a recrea- tional area). Mr. Nagy then added that the Coastal Zone Act states that C.Z.P.'s must be done. It was noted that the Corp cannot act contrary to the Coastal Zone Plan. Mr. Morris then addressed the concern of State water levels and said that he feels it is something that the Coastal Zone Management Taskforce should consider. Mr. Nagy told the committee that at the public hearing Mr. Collino stated that he would like to make sure that no more utilities are allowed along our shoreline. -2- Minutes Public Hearing on Coastal Zone Management Nominations Place: Monroe Township Hall Date: Jiuie 8, 1.976 Time: I17:30 P.M. 1. Mr. Max McCray opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. and welcomed the people who are in attendance. He introduced himselfand gave a brief summary of the conception of the CZM Taskforcesdoing so far: a) When it started b) Who makes up the Taskforce c) How many meetings we have had d) Where we have had them He also went into a brief discussion of the nominations that we have made and the proposed map that is before them tonight for the recom- mendations and comments. At this time he turned the meeting over to -Mr. Ronald Nino of the Planning Department. Mr. Nino gave a brief history behind the Coastal Zone Management Program in Monroe County; how it was started as part of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of-1972 (P.L. 92-583)., He also mentioned the jump that the State of Michigan had in adopting the Shorelands Protection and Management Act (Act 245, of P.A. 1970). Although they seem alike, the Federal Act supercedes the State Act; but the State Act can be incorpor- ated in the State Coastal Zone Management Plan. -Mr. Nino also pointed out that reasons for the formation of the Taskforce@as they related to th*e DNR and SEMCOG, and what our co@imitteels objectives are. He then turned the meeting over to Mr. Frank Nagy of Staff to show the nomina- .tion process that we used. Mr. Nagy pointed out the boundary indentifications of the Coastal Zone Management Area as it relates to Monroe County and made note of the modi- fication to the Coastal Management Area boundary as it relates to the Southeast Michigan region; that being the first road of major consequence inland from the ordinary high water marsh. At this t ime, he reviewed a little of what Mr. McCray had stated about the Areas of Particular Concern and identified all 14 areas of concern, from Agricultural to Urban areas. After identifying the areas, he went through each area individually and pointed out the criteria that had to be used to identify these areas. As Monroe County's shoreline is relati- tively flat and not too many uses are located along its shores, not all 14 areas were "used in the nomination process. He then went through the list of nominations on the map starting out with the Berlin Township, Pointe Mouillee Game Area and concluding with the nominations of Islands Of PZIrtiCLIlar Concern in the Erie State.Game Area. At this time Mr. Nino gave a few final words on the nomination process and asked the audience what its feelings were toward the Taskforce's nominations and for their comments. Public Hearing Questions Mr. John Chascsa M.V.C.C.. Ile asked how we arrived at a 95 percent for item 10, Port of Monroe area. Mr. Nino commented that this was part of bur methodology for a ranking of priorities first within a specific area and then as.it related to an over- all ranking. He also mentioned that the question asked has no bearing on this meeting and that it will be on the agenda for Thursday's meeting. Mr. Leroy H. Stein - LaSalle Township. fie asked why wasn't the LaSalle Game,Area included in the ecological area instead of Recreation. Mr. Nagy of Staff commented he didn't know that was dedicated as a Game Area and if he would so chose, he could make a nomination himself. -Public Nomination forms were passed out. His comments would be aimed at the next CZM meeting. Mrs. Dorothy Bailey asked if the Ford property was nominated for industrial purpose!;. Mr. Nag), commented on this and stated the Taskforce has nominated it Industrial. Presently the State of Michigan DNR has nominated it an Ecological Area. Ile also made mention of Union Corp. marsh lands. Mrs. Bailey agreed witli the Taskforce's decision, and she wanted areas 11 and 12 defined. Mr. Nagy stated area 11 was of Flood Hazards north of Dunbar Road, and area 12 was nominated for agricultural purposes. Mr. Anthony Collino - Monroe Township wanted the Plumb Creek Bay Area put in Recreational due to boat usage and not to allow steel plants or power, plants to be put along our shores. His comments were taken into advisement. Mr. C. J. Roelant - Berlin Township asked about the Farmland designation and what it meant to a landowner if he wanted to sell his land. He also had comments on the Act 116, Farmland and Open Space Program. Mr. Nino stated that if it was outside of the sewer or water service area and not consistant with the township plan, that it should not be allowed to happen. ,,Mr. Daryl. Smith - Berlin Supervisor backed up Berlin nominations but pointed sewer and water service area south of Swan Creek to be shown. Mr. George Morris - Monroe Township asked the immediate flood protection III __ -- shorel i ne and t hat' the Taskforce @Ioiig the I.i strive for stable lake levels. Mr. Nino agreed with his comments but stated that planning is a process, and it will take some time to implement these tasks. Nothing could be done tomorrow. Mrs Jo Vick - Avalon Beach commented on son's-in-law property at Detroit Beach; that it is under water and should be put into a recreational classi- fication. Mr. Nagy said he knew the area and gave her a Public Nomination Form. Mr. Jack L. Champion - Monroe Township asked about permanent diking, and if the plan has to be adopted. Mr. Nino stat'ed diking could not come tomorrow, and this plan must be adopted or a plan with management goals and policies in order to attain permanent diking faster. Ms. Marlene Miller concluded the public hearing by asking if lots could be sold, or were there restrictions. Mr. Nino said yes, lots could be sold by the owners and there were no restrictions. Mr. McCra-y then. ended the public ilearing thanking those who attended. PUBLIC HEARING Place: Monroe Township Hall Subject: CZM Plan T i tile: Seveii-thirty ji.m. Oate - @)Luio 8, 1976 OF Name Representing Mr. George A.. Anderson Ford Motor Company Mr. Russel P. Breyfogle Self Mr. Jack L. Champion Real Estate IT Mr. William A. Hunt University-of Michigan Mr..-Leroy H. Stein Self Ms. Marlene Miller S elf Ms. Doloris Morris Self Mrs. Jo Vick Self Mr. John lacoangeli City of Monroe Ms. Dorothy Bailey Monroe Township Mr. Lawrence.Geto Monroe Township Mr. J. L. Jones Detroit Edison Company Mr. F.E. Agosti Detroit Edison Company Mr. C. J. Roelant Berlin Township, Landowner Mr. Darryl Smith Berlin Township Mr. Kenneth Chichester Consumers Power Company Mr. John Chascsa M.V.C.C. Lake Erie Advisory Committee Mr. R.G. Micka Lake Erie Advisory Committee Mr. James Duffy Commissioner, County Board Mr. George Ehman Commissioner, County Board Mr. George Morris Self Ms. Dorothy Morin Self Mr. Max M. McCray Port of Monroe ~0 Coastal Lon~ Studyj~qq~~q@~ta~q@~t Should Land Near Ford Plas~qh~~qd What are t~h~O~t ~6~1' ~1~, ~irlic~. For example, Frank I~agy of ~~~r concern" ~;~d~o~i~i~, ~I~b~c the department said t~i~l~l~a~t the Be Saved for Environment? ~~ Port of Monroe probably would ~~~~nt ~v ~c~o~a~st~l~i~l~i~r~" The ~c~o~u~n~iv ~n~i~a~m~, ~yen the ~I~n~gl~i~es~t, ~1~)~1~*~l~o~ri~[Y Should Ford Motor Co. he both sides are to supply ad- the Preparing of a state g the water transportation required to preserve some 25~o d~it~i~on~al information and Coastal Zone Management ~e ~~~~~l~l is to make ~s~" ~ ~~n~s i~t~, that r~e9~w~'~d at !Ile if,- ~c~i~t~i~ssi~q(~ica~tion~. acres of wetlands It owns east future meetings are ~pian~ned~. Plan. ~~~u~r~-~t~w~n T~h~u~r~s~(~h~i~v ~0 tile The task force ~I~,~,; to ~d~is~CUS~S ~i~t the Monroe Chassis However, ~h~e r~n~i~m~e clear the The task force also is ~7 ar~t~m(~I~nt ~r~e~c~orr~i~n~i~e~l~l~- Division or should the land be company ~i~s opposed to sug~@~,~,~estin~g designations ~(~i~t the dep retained ~as an industrial s~il~e~? removing a -p~r~i~n~e industrial different areas of the coun~t~@ Management ra~sk ~For~r~e~. ~(~l~a~t~i~o~l~l~s at, its next ~i~l~l~e~c~t~i~t~i~g~, :~3~0 Made up of r~e~p~@ ~v~s~e~1~1t~a~[~j~v~c_~, p~.T~y~). April 15 it, lite planning That question is currently site' ~, from that current coast, having already taken ~~ ~t~c~O~a~S~t~a~l C~0~1~T~l~o~1U~h~1~tw~:~@ and ~C~O~r~h~o~l~i~r~si~o~n ~c~o~r~g~e~r~en~e~e room~, ~i~wi~ng debated among F~nr~q@ ~0:-~s~1f~l~e~ati~o~l~l action ~(~l~i~t naming' flood ~i~n Monroe County Services Build- ate of~f~i~ria~k. in light of hazard, agricultural a~n~d Indus ria~l and ~0~1~v ~1~1~1d s~t~, The property~. adjacent to environmental areas -- with task force Wag ing~. he state identifying th~e the. Port or ~' m~onroe, ha~s ~~r~~s~t~,~,~. the ~t~i~on ~W The ar~va as the till -tremendous industrial ~t~he exception of the Ford orm~ed at state ~sugg~e~s ~u~n~ly Coast generally acreage. as an ~env~ir~onn~i~en got local involvement i~n pr~epar- Monroe ~C~o ~ir~ea under the Sh~or~e~l potential' ~' for th~e future. he marshes. rids east of 1-75, from and~s Ing a statewide coastal zone ~1~Pc~l~u~d~es~)I~a Protection ~an~d Management management plan. 0hi~o. ~N ~t~he freeway's in- Act. said. Other categories - in ad. The idea is to identify lands ~i~erch~a~ng~e ~"~I~th N~. Dixie ~I~ligh- Designating the acreage as dition to those three - a~re along the Great Lakes of spe- way. ~j~i~,~l~,~o~i~n there north, it in- However, the designation "environmental' ~' would urban, industrial, hig~h-r~i~sk cial concern a~nd ke rec- ~c~lu~d~e~s lands ~c~a~it of N. Dime ~'~%asn'~t been made fin ~a] ~yet, preclude erosion and water tran a any future to m~. ~-nd Ford has objected to any development plans of the ~sp~qa~r~tation areas. ~~~n~iendat~i~ons for managing a~nd U ~'S. Turnpike. them, . Mr. Nagy said that any ci~ti- hange in th~e status of the company, Mr ~- Anderson said. Environmental interests ar~e There are 13 ~c~a~(cgor~i~c~s of ~7e~ns can ~n~o~r~n~ina~t~e ~,in "area of ~;~an~d. It currently is zoned worried that the we~t~lan~d special areas: flood hazard: particular concern. They c~an ~;~,~e~avy industrial by the City of "To preclude that is not areas in the Ford-Port ar~e~@~j ec~log~ica~lly-s~e~i~i~siti~%~c~; ~r~uk~fura~!, ~oo that by contacting their local ~'~4~on~roe, which ha ~.~s not as ~yet ~%~~I~)~) be classified as Industrial re~reati~o~n~@ h~is~Lo~l~i~c and ~ar~cheo~- coastal government officials, he ~d~i~e~n a posit ion o~i~l the matter. what we c~o~ik~i~i~d~er in the logic; sand dun~c~@ island; coast- said, such as the township ~su~- .late's best interests.' ' he by the task force, though it ~1~1~,~1~,~s or, city mayor or Vill F~i~ed Clinton~, chief )I till~, ~s a[ lake, river mouth and bay; ~p~er~"~i~l age ~, ~i~n~d made no final decision on Ford ~. president. ~h~oreland~s Management 1. ~'~@~o~it ~, marsh area. urban; mineral resource; agri- He said citizens should note ~4 the Department of Natural' While one arm of the state is One person active in cultural; prime industrial, and the specific area that they want ~te~s~our~ees~, said the proposing removing a prime ~ protecting the lotus locally water transportation. ho~r~e~la~nd~s act concerns land industrial site, other arms are said Thursday that she did not ~ent is t~o to no~"lina~te: give ~i~t~s Physical ~i~)~ca~ted within 1,00~0 feet from encouraging industrial "another Rouge com- The planning departm charact~e~r~i~.~s~ti~c~s~@ ~i~i~i~,~l~i~c~at~e which ter mark deve~l~O~qW~e want ~,gest coastal land, that fit. type of area ~qj~qil~e~y would like it he ordinary high wa nt in th~6 state, he ~plex'' In Monroe, imposed by ~s~ug complained. those categories and then give ~"' be ~c~l~as~s~@~j~fi~ed ~@~i~:~4~, and r~ec~om~- I the (;treat Lakes. people ~wh~o live outside ~th~" priority to areas within each I~a ~I Ile said that already 4~,000 to community, a reference ~ eg~4~)~rv, in terms of their need r~n~e~n~d how ~i~t, should be ~"~'A~l~l~o~g~ed A n e n v ~I r ~o ~i~t m ~v n t~) at to k~v~ep it it, ~1~1~1~3t ~t~~l~i~t~"~f~l~, ~-1~1 ~.~1~c~%~i~gn~ati~on would mean such ~5~,~t~X~X~1 acres of the Monroe Mr. Anderson. Port Director for management. ~'Ind couldn't be developed in County coastline is in state Max M~cCray ~a~nd count, ~@~,n~y way that would alter its and-or public ownership. Planning D~ir~qi~q&or Ronald ~q@ ~' Mr. Anderson said that the Nine. She said preen belt, G~en~era~l~)v~, a~l~l area is con- state doesn't intend to provide should be mixed with th~e it] d~ered ~"~onv~ironm~en~l~a~l- if it ~com~1~wr~i~sat~io~n if the ~indu~str~i~j~I du~str~% County Shoreline ~@~.~i necessary ~f~or p~re~s~e~r~%~a~t~i~o~l~l potential of ~th~e land ~I~,~, Sonic 1~8 nominations have ~,~.~( fish and wildlife, Mr. removed. been submitted to the p~l~3~n- ,.'I inton said. Compensation ~isn~, t ning department, which is ~S~i~s~ite -~a~ler resources authorized ~in the act as passed serving as staff for the task Ideas Conf I ict I ~o ~i~t ~e ~i~! ~R- f~@r~@~,~p t~9rr~I~3~-~;~r~y~I~v~9~0~i~v~.r~(~,n~I vegetation including lotus But he did say it is possible A ~Pumber of local Where the task force's and - are located in the area and to get tax advantages, if the environmental ~o~q-~- organizations and individuals' private nominations conflict that there is "some fish a~c- area is designated en- Frank Nagy of the depart- along with the federal Fish with each other is generally in ~iv~i~ty'~' In the waters. v~ir~onm~ental~, under the state ment said the task force will and Wildlife Service, have the Monroe metropolitan "We observed herons a~nd Farmland and Open Space consider ~the nominations foi, called for preserving ex coastal area, where some I ~I~n~-~,~ervat~ion Act. specific are&-, after It has tensive areas of M~onr ~- private groups would prefer egrets feeding there.' ~' he oe said. and the area i~s used ~a ~1~1tima~t~ely. the. decision for made ~i~ts general designations. County's coastline. an environmental classification In specific areas ~it~op~ov~er point during d~e~s~i~w~wa~t~i~n~g the area ties with Anyone can make a The Monroe County Coastal migrations by waterfowl. the ~DNR director. ~he~s~a~id, bu~t nomination, he said. Zone Management Task Force that the task force has he noted there is an ~a~pp~e~i~l~i ~F~@~P~rh~e,~l~i~v ~i~t~"~(~. ~t~"~,~;~k ~f~f~"~'~, has been sent some 28 suggested for industrial. suggestions for categorizing For "ample, some of the different portions of the coast, private nominations call for almost all of them calling for preserving parts of the Plum preserving some part of it. Creek area. Marshes east and C~O~-~1~1~tY ~1~,~qA~d~s~L~a~i ~L~o~n~t ~t~a~@~k ~l~0~r~V~e ~1~1~1-L Many of them are at odds west of the Monroe Chassis George Anderson of the Management Task Force, again at 1:30 p.m. Thursday in with the task force's Division, Ford Motor Co., also v~omp~an.~,~.~" s property which is In the process ~of (he planning department ~a~t suggestions. are at issue. mana~u~em~ent division said making r~e~com~mend~.~a~t~io~i~ls in ~t lit- coun~t~Y ~'~,~i~er~v ~i ~c~c~s ~Buildi ~ti~g, T~e task force was formed Ford wants its land east of at state recommendation to the plant kept in an industrial get I a~t input on the classification, and the owner prepa Ocion of a statewide ~of the marsh west of the plant, rat coastal zone management Union Camp Corp., made it plan, which in turn will form know. at Thursday's task part of a national plan. force meeting that it wants the County planning officials same classification for those serving as staff for the task lands. force have said the state will Among groups and in- The task category, preventing erosion' make the final determination dividuals making nominations force Thursday of Woodt~qick Peninsula In Erie on the plan. were the Lake Erie Advisory voted to include the State Game Area was ranked nominations in its report, so As part of its work the local Committee, the ~qL~qootu~qs~qlGarden they - along with the task ahead of doing t~qhe same thing group moat identify coastal club, the Monroe county Rod force suggestions - will be at ~qS~qW~qir~ql~qi~qng~qState Park's north areas of particular concern and Gun Club, Joseph P. presented at a public hearing beach . for any of a number of reas~qo Kleiman of Birmingham, to be scheduled, probably The task force also is to - environment,,,, ~6qn~4qs Associated Yacht Clubs, Inter- some time in June. make recommendations (of urban, flood industrial, Lake Yachting Association, managing the different hazard li~qt other action, the group agricultural, high-risk' Great Lakes Basin Com- coastal areas It has identified erosion, recreation - or any mission, M~qi~qth~qae~ql Richards. of listened to staff suggestions in the comity. Its n~qext~q'~ql~qi~qn~qeeti~qng of a number of other Detroit and the federal Fish for ~8qj~qiv~qing priority to areas of will be at ~q1~q:~q3~q0 p.m. June 10 In categories. and W~qildife Service. particular concern within planning offices in ~6qf~6qt~q'~qc~qo~qu~qnty Fish and Wildlife each category. For example, Services Building at E. First nominations account for In t~qhe high-risk erosion St. and Conant Ave. almost half of those sub- mitted. ~0 ~qC~q6 of ~f ~qb~z~~ ~qn 4~P A], ~h~qS ~qp~f ~qm~ ~~~ s Near Ford~q?~lant_ eC 0 se 1 ~0~0 ~l~4qp~q"~2qa~6qn~2qi~" e~2q4~q) ~4qwg ~6qst~'~6qt u~6qn~2qt~4qy Land ~8qU What part of Moor~"~' ~C~,~,~.~,~ql~qI_~~q!~I sh unity- ~l~i~m~n~qf~6q%= ~l~m:r~@ni~f almost any, type' of Task' Force, David Brower of pits ~i ~f~qd ~qRN~qi d~o v~ql~4~o~pm~e~nt. th~e ~ou~lh~east~' Michigan O~u~l~i~tY~, ~s coast shou~l~qd~h~e,~i~j ~~~q;r the ~i~@nv~iron~n~o~e~n~f For ~q)~o~iiI s~a~i~ql~l~~qf~qie ~9~qi~Iw ~h~qi~qi~0q*~qo~q6l~eni ~i~;~'pr~ov ~I~l~i~f~f~i~ql~l~'~i~t~h~q( foe the task 12 ~,~a~id ~m~qa~ch ~of IN~, Ford- of Governments, du~qs~try? For recreation? ~t~v is - using that for ~ql~lir~t~le~q@ ~'~@~qi~a~qld~: I t~qha~V th~e~@~; final ~'~M~qi~th Po~r~qh area h~i~is~'~b~6en Identified ~" ~it~lia~m Walsh oI the state What, r~e~qgulat ions ~sh~ould~.~h~e ~r~e~c~re~a on' r~0qAen~, the ~,'pits are or~ity~"~'~f~o~r ou~t~f~in~f~r~ig~. land ~e~w or Natural afl~o~od~p~l~i~qf~qin h~v~t~qW federal _1~@~vpar~lm ad~o~)p~t~ed~, - if any to make ~'~f~qi~qf~l~i~.~~(~q4~. ~4qW~'~9~1~)~@~qy~ea~qr~g Film n~t~k~q@~@~'~, ~4 ~-r~i~l~in~v~i~d'a Jill ~1~q@~ ~I~I~I t~h~l-1~1~1~, ~I~l~e~~6~o~l~ir~l~-~i~"~, and ~s~y~l~v~a~oi~l~e~r ~@~, _ 'I;- ~" ~ ~' b~e~lhe~s~t~at~e. ...... ~p~i~n~j~i ~A~o~n~e~s ol Me ~V. ~S~ Arm~v sure the lands stay in those, But ,while they a~re being ~q4u~qA~lrial c~las~sif~qf~qtat~io~n would Corps uses? f~il ~,~l~qe~qd ~qh~qe~@~,~sa~t~(~qi~ th~6~''company Private ~-~ind~i~v~i~d and ~qf~lict with ~qifi~qat~q@ of ~Kngin~e~cr~s T~he 'county Co~4~s~t~al Zone pre~~qt~qo"~r~q+~qcd aft ~i~qn~qdu~st~qi~fa~l ~qUro~t~i~qo~s also ~i~c~e~n ~qj~i~q@~qm~i~&~qo~a~l~qs~qe~, uses co ~' ~' ~~"~'~'~) ~! S~i~ate officials have said the Management Task Force' des' ~'~t~i~ for ~ar~e~a~s~,~a~nd~.the task -force ~Fhe City of Monroe is ap- : ~, ~ ~l~6qe~q" ~q0~8q%~, ~4~,~q4~1ing some -of the ~ flood a 1 ~i~n ~0 fI Ile coastal answered the first of those The t ~_~~~i~e~P~(~j~'r~t~6~qdIY ~h~qas received. I& of force ,a so ar~r~ide~si~qg~n~ations~,~~e said.' ~' manageme ~~~le~R~fA~nn~s. In :wrapping up suggest ~ther~n, mainly ~con~c~qe~qr~ne~d~,~,w~0qp r~i~t program is to e~qd~:~'~,~qA~h~at C~on~a~qu~0qm~6~q!s guide uses and development Power ~1~q4~',~, r~ie ~e~m work; a~s~e Of Its ~1E ~Y along the ~9tate~' s shoreline. Thursday the first ph preserving portions of ~@ the ~q@~)~l her m ~' bers ~-~o~t the task ~2qW'W"~n~sh~8q*~6q%~e~1 ~4q"~qf~l~8qo~qet~qW in. ~i~@ county coa~s~t~a~l~-e~n~y~irori~m~e~l~d~, ~f~o~r~-~C~T said th~e ~t~wo issues ~qi~qt~* su~qgg~qi~o~g ~, ~l~0qAd ~@ u~s~qf~qt~e~f~o~ir d~qu~o~qs~qi~qhal~, ~qi~r~qi~q@~ju~d~h~qj~qg ~so~r~i' ~-~i~qW -M~, aren't related. They pointed to continuing 0 ev~er~@~, r. ~I~n~O~W In~.I the ~r~entir~e Aen~gth ~qf~qf~qf~, ~oastal Problems, such as of: the of E~qr~qle~,1~1~q0~.~'~q@~t~qp~i ~add~l~i ~qf~qt~Al ~f~ly ~i i~cat~cd tire state w~o I ~@~as the ~c ~~count ~Y~' ~s ~s~t~i~greli~ne, and in one Ash pits. uld ~@place~qfhe area out ~in~ed erosion, flooding, Pollution ~ktrong-e~mp~h~a~l;~is~@~q& t~ ~h~i task c~2qT~n~ty~'~s coast gener~"ally cas~e~J~t finds itself ~I~l~i conflict and ~cor~i~f~f~i~ct~ing uses and said Termed to be of ecological ~for~ce~,~re~e~qb~qu ~f~i~i~6~1n~"da~l~l~' includes ~l~a~q6d~s east of 1-75~, ~1 with the state. ~On~s where hat the coast is being ~~,~i~r~r~ip~o~t ~an~o~b~@`~we'~te lands they-~'d~o~n't ~@c101 ~,~I~f~li~q6~qi, ~Wit~i~t~'~,the fr~i~qm~i ~Oh~j~O~q:t~0 t~l~i~qe~~freew~ay~'~s developed at a "breathtaking That I concerns what u~se ,genera ~qi~qy ~"~qj~n ~id 'around the' ~@~qjs~q@~qt~q6~qg~te~' ~s fi~qhdin~'~qg~qi~','s~u~ch~'~E~i~@~s` ~' th in~qler~change~. N~. r~qd ~m~qa~,~qs~h~J area., in e I ~qf~qt~h rate." Highway. From there no should be made of wetlands Pointe Mou~illee and Er~ie~qSt~ate 'the ~"n~eXt~~qph~.~qs~c~;_~Of~, t~h~e ~I n~qy I udes lands east of N~. D~~I~x In 8 Pamphlet explaining owned by Ford Ga~qm~qe~re~as Motor ~Co 'late official, ~an~d U~. ~S. Turnpike the pro~gr~i~m~i~'~~, ~~l~A~i~ch~, ~are located east of, t~he~. Other categories _of grotto's work wi~W~he to~@~m~ake sav that eventually assistance Mon~r~qW ~C by~,`~j~@~t~f~i~qe 0 in m ~6 n d ~9 land ~1:~1~~6~f~i~l~,~; 'for rh~e task force is made up in could be provided to local ha~qs~qs~i~s~D~i'i~9~ion~. u~q4es~@~ r~qi~qc~i~n~a~m~a~ted ~' " ~' "' ~' ~p~Ar~t of r~6~pr~e~s~e~n~tat~i~ve~s from governments to prepare local ~qj~a~sk~i ~@ma~n~qa~ql~qg~i~r~j~g t~h~e ~@ ~dre~A~g in' the e~' ~qj~qj~qj~@~l~o~j ~0qf~0qt ~J~, ~@ I I., I ~ ~-~1 ~" ~1p~1p~1p~1p~p~p~p~~0qk~qi~" ~el~qi~i~qi~qis~if~6q6t~qion~s~@ he Its and zoning The ~stat ~@~ has% ~l~r~qi~it~ially~@ ~for~ce~@j~n ~dj~f~j~qe~ren~qt~,~q@~# ~c~qTmmun~it~i~6~s that border Lake shor~v~ia~nd pla identified that ~ land as an ~c~,~o~u~.~n~t~2p~p~p~1p~p~p~p~p~p~p~1p~p~p~ ~id ~c ~f~e~.~~r~ ~0~s~o ~z~@ ~f~f~q@ environmental ~@area, but 'the agricultural ~"~'~t~0q"~I~"~ ~qi~a~z~" ~i~n~2qX~qces, for waterfront ~qf~qt~d r erosion, ~- ~qm~:~q4~q"~'~i~qt~i The ~o~n~l~y~:.~q0e ~r~ab~erS e county task ~lor~ce backed Ford ~8qN911~1~. ~qF~IS~q4. ~'~0~L~,~"((Other in~dd~it~ion ~q1~q@~,n for research and for d ~6 ~n In ~qorop~o~s~ing it. be use~d~@ f~or~'~~~q-~D~a~n ~od ~an ~d ~q@~qn t~,~.~,k~8qV 'Mr.' M~i~cka and purchase of easements for negative votes I~ Mr~' N~i~q@o. ~- properties. ~N~qir ~, ~'Jones~,~q:~qar~qe Max M~cCray of unique Industry. ~T~h~6~~,.~g~r~qW~v~,~,~w~a~qs ~"~qf~qo~r.~,~" ~qi~qj~,~@~2~,~:~sugge~s~lio ~s I d~I~l~ql~e~Port 'of Monroe, Donald Although the local task force ~t~H ~c ~q4~1 state suggestion, ~q8~2q6~1 ~I~qn fact ~qt~qh~o~�~'ta~sk ~foree voted ha r ~i~s~q@~d~q@~q@ M ~q@~, ~0~id~t of Consumers Power, has suggested certaiIn uses for t~o n~6m~i ~' t~e t~h~e entire ~@ area ~qi~n~put~i In the ~f~p ~2q-~4~9~g~, ~i~@~q6~( ~Y, _~r ~c~o~,~u~!~tt:~q@~~, en- n~o ~r~e~qo~qm ~qgarry F. Grenaw~itzk~e of the the coast here, there are other east ~qo~r ~1~, vir~onmental ~qin~te~@~re -75 from Sterling State C~o~l~ia~l~l~t~e~ql~.~.~" ~Z~e~n~$~. ~st~s, ~o~:~@~o~u~nt~y-env~iro~nmental health, ~y~pe~@~.~, of ~rea Park ~b~qbu~th ~t~1~r~host~~ to ~V~q6~qf~qi~i~4q6~~;~j~n~,~, lie ~@expres~sed~,~,o ~. ~it~ion to. o~qlf ice and Harold Straub of the a ~s ~Pf Particular plies concern' than can be ~iden- LaP~la~i~sance Creek it" '~9~1 the~,e~x~t~~qe~nt ~o~qi~l~l~1p~p~2p~ u~str~ial area ~qount~y~.~,~.~,~q9~f~qQ for in- ce~, j~qbf ~,~,~~'~qY~U ~t~qi~fi~ed under the coastal ~n~A du~s~tr~ial u~se~, a~long~,wi ~~O~rt)~'~Of Mo~n~r~0e~.~own~ed I d progr~am:`~@`h~lsto~l~,~i~c ~'~r ~~1~; ~@,~, being set aside, though ~4q6 said Prepa~8q@~8q&~q5~q@~.~'~.~@~. ~th some an he ~p~qref~qe~qri~l~qi~d~0qA~q& t~qo an ~0 Unofficial me~0qm~q6~o~q@~qr~s~' ~l~u~qi~qf~e ~@~C~-~qh~qeol ~and ~d~r~- west of the freeway: t~o~' be "~tirb~an Inc Og~i~V areas, natural ~q6~4qN~qO~4qW~,~,~q@~q;~ ~t~he ~c~,a~A~-~q0f~iC~q4t~J~0~n~, Maurice Roach of the Wayne areas, sand dunes, mineral Part of t~hat industrial ~arrea task.. which ~r~e~~Portedly ~qy~%~7ould ounty Shorela~nd P~la~rmi~n' ater tran- resource areas. consists of the Detroit Edison ~9. w ~@~,~,~qP~o~qj areas and ~v~oastal,~~1akes, river m~0~vt~h~@~@a~qi~qid Sj~ am ~P~4qbti ~6q0 D ~qles ~qtg n On', Of C~2qO~: un~@ ~8qt~0qY C~qi~2qb~q" '~~.~1p~Are~las~ A public hearing on a statewide ~- coastal zone use. leterm~ina~t~ions made by the management~pian. IIts recommendations ~can ~be Monroe County Coastal Zone An industrial designation by viewed at the county planning Management Task Force 'is That plan would have the the task force for marsh lands department. located in the ~0 ~~P~. M. authority to require local owned by Ford Motor Co. east county Services Building, 1410 scheduled for 7:3 communities to adopt zoning of the Monroe Chassis E. First St. Tuesday in Monroe Township provisions in accord with it, Division also is in conflict with State officials have said the hall, 4925 W. Dunbar Rd. Mr. Nap, said, but he also the state's identification of indicated t~hat the state would that as an environmental aim ~(I f the coastal The task force, in its work place strong emphasis on the area. management program is to over the last several weeks. county'splan. guide uses and development has outlined areas of special About half of the outside along the state' s shoreline. concern along the county's In any event. the state will nominations sent to the task They point to continuing coast. have the final say in force are from the U. S. Fish p~rob~i~e~*m~s~. such as erosion designating areas of par- and Wildlife Service. and a flooding, ~l~a~t~illu~t~i~on and con Among those are. ecological. t~icu~lar concern, the planners industrial, agricultural. Or. say. number of local en. fli~cting uses and said that the vironmental organizations ban, flood hazard, high-risk The task force also has been have submitted nominations. coast is being developed at a sent some 28 nominations bv -breathtaking rate.- erosion, recreation and island private and public individual's T~qhe county coast has They also say that even- areas. . and organizations suggesting generally been outlined as tually ~qassIstance could be The group eventually is to categories for portions of the including lands east of 1-75 provided to local governments suggest ways for managing coast, some of which conflict from Ohio to the freeway- ~qs to prepare local shoreland lands in those categories. with the task force recom- interchange with N'. Dixie plans and zoning ordinances, Frank Nagy of the county mendations Highway. From there north, it for waterfront renewal. lot planning department, which is The conflict centers on the ~q;n~qc~qludes lands east of N~q. Dixie research and for purchase o~qf serving as staff for the task Monroe harbor area, in which and it% extension. ~q1~q: S. Turn- easements for unique force, said the group's some individual interests have pike. properties. nominations of areas of ~qcaL~qled for preserving certain The task force is made up of special concern are bas~qi~qc~qa~ql~qiv lands there that the ~ql~qa~qsk force representatives from com- in accord with local an~0qa ~qhas ~qsugge~qsl~qed ~qf~qor industrial munities that border Lake county land use plans. Erie and from the Port ~qOf The task force wa~qs formed Monroe, Lake Erie Advisory at state sugge~q,~q,~q;tion to get local Committee, Detroit Edison involvement in the forming of Co.. Consumers Power Co.. the county health department and the county Office of Civil Preparedness. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING This is to advise th@@.it i Public Hearing will be held Oil June 8, 1976, at the hour of 7:30 p.m.; at the Monroe Township Hall, 4925 West Dunbar Road, concerning the Monroe County Coastal Zone Management Taskforce's intent to define areas of particular concern along the shoreline of Monroe County pursuant to the Federal Coastal Zone Manage- ment Act of 1.972 (P.L. 92-583). The purpose of this public hearing is to allow the Mo nroe County Coastal Zone Management Taskforce to iiiform-. the public of its intentions regarding the eventual completion of a Shoreland Management Plan and to give interest ed citizens, private and public agencies, an oppor@unity to present their views.con.cerning the criteria being esta'blished regarding the plan, and the extent to which persons may be for or a.gainst adopting the taskforce's determinations of particular concern. Interested publics are encouraged to attend said public hearings. Those persons so desirous may view the plan for identifying areas of particular concern in the offices of the Monroe County Planning, commission. CO CHAIRMAKMAX McCRAY CO CHAIRMAN RICHARD MICKA APPENDIX 1101 Task Force Nominations AREA OF ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE Name (if any): Point Mouillee State Game Area County: Monroe Township: Berlin City or Village: Northeast of Village Estral Beach Town, range and section: T5S, R10E, Sections 23, 25, 26, 35, 36; T6S, R10E, Sections 1,2 and 11. Easily identifiable boundary features (rivers, streams, roads, political boundaries, section lines): Wayne County to the north, U.S. Turnpike, Roberts Road to west, and Lake Erie east and south. Present Ownership: Private and State of Michigan Present Use: State game area, rifle range and private vacant land. Anticipated changes in use or development (within ten year time frame): No change anticipated except maybe expansion. Surrounding land-use(s): Agricultural to west, residential to southwest and northwest. Environmental characteristics: Nesting by wading birds, shorebirds, dabbling ducks. Migrations and nesting by geese, and diving ducks. Spawning ground for many aquatic fish species. Extensive marsh lands that give refuge to muskrat and mink. Briefly describe issues relating to this area: Designated as recreation or open space by both Berlin Township and Monroe County on their Master Plans, already under the ownership of the state in most part as game area. Barrier dike presently under construction to preserve area from harsh water treatment from northeast winds upon Lake Erie. Area surrounding nomination for most feelings is undeveloped. Briefly describe management needs: 1. Bring into public ownership by acquirering all areas of major importance not yet publically owned and keep it in a natural state. Other comments: Prepared by: Monroe County Coastal Zone Taskforce 1410 East First Street Monroe, Michigan 48161 1@ C, Vi'LLAGE 0' @,'l OF 7 i 0 71H 0 R 00. 5 20 21 x 011- 28 29 -0 34 31 32 33 -.i 31 0! 10 6 VIA 14 L a ccA.4 i a pq __PLOAD VILLAGE- L o z HrOWN rOWA(SH /P ",;, qp s u OCKW MAP OF: BERLIN TOWNSHIP PL ANN I N O.@ COMMISSION MONRO COUNTV. MONROE COUNTV EICHIGAN . .... ..... . AGRICULTURAL AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN County: Monroe Township: Berlin City or Village: Northwest- of the Village of Estral BeaclL Town, range, section: T5S, R10E. Sections 34 T6S, RWE Sections 4. 8 and-9. Easily identifiable boundary features (rivers, streams, roads, politlcal boundaries, section lines): North Dixie Highway/U.S. Turnpike on the north,-Swan Creek oll-the south, Port Sunlight Roadand the Village on Estral Beach on the east. Present ownership: Private. Present Agricultural Use: Primarily corn and wheat with yields between 87-115 bushels of corn per acre and 38-50 bushels of wheat per acre. Anticipated changes in use or development (within 10 year time frame): Both water and sewer lines are in the area and their could be urban development in Sections 5 and 8 with partial development in Sections 4 and 9. Surrounding land-use(s): Residential to the east and west. Mostly apricultural to the northwest. Briefly describe issues relating to this area: Cash crops such as corn and wheat yield more per acre in these lands than the state average of 68-81 bushels per acre.. The existing sewer and water lines will cause some development to the area but will only extend eastward to Trombley Road and its extension north, and along Swan Creek on the south.. Briefly describe management needs: 1. Promote Act 116, P.A. 1970 for all prime agricultural land in CZM area. Other comments: Prepared by: Monroe County Coastal Zone'Taskforce 1410 East First Street Monroe, Michigan 48161 76 N, Q, V L. AGE' / SOUTH 0 ROCKWOOD. Al 23 2 20 21 25 son 36 Loc-o-4,04 It V1 L LA GE ESIrRAL BEACH j6. @@EMCH7-OWIV o e IL 0 o-4 ft 6eultce- Aiteks BASE MAP OF: BERLIN TOWNS I . MONROE COUNTV MONROE C 0 UN TV, P L A NN I N 0 COMMISSION MICH" N _A FLOOD-RISK AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN County: Monroe Township:-Berlin City or Village* Village of Estral Beach Town, range, and section: T5S, RIOE, Sections 7, 8, 9 and 10. Easily identifable boundary features (rivers, streams, roads, political boundaries, section lines): Bounded on the south by Post Road and Swan Creek, west by North -Dixie Highway, north @y Section lines 7, 8, 9 and 10, and east by Lake Erie. Present Ownership: Private Present Use: Urban, Aaricultural and open water 6r marsh. Anticipated changes in use or development (within ten year time frame): --Existing_sewer and water lines will cause urban development to area. Surrounding land-use(s): Primarily agricultural with Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant to the south of area. Briefly describe issues relating to this area: Recent high water levels of Lake Erie have caus*ed periodic flooding to the Village of Estral Beach and surrounding areas along Swan Creek. Some land that once could be farmed is now under water,, at all times. Briefly describe management needs: 1. Urban Areas -- Provide necessary flood protection. 2. Non-Urban Areas.-- Evaluate for Phase II Ecological Importance Designations., Other comments: Prepared by: Monroe County'.Coastal Zone Taskforce 1410 East First Street Monroe, Michigan 48161 VILLAGE-" OF ROCKWOOD., sour" 7r "1 16 DAD X z @A 20 f V@ z u 25 p 28 21 Pfff of Z@ 31 0 171 14. 5 ee- 04 L A....... 41 Oi VILLAGE E S TRA LBEACH AT 10 r4 Loc-&4 #0' A @IREIVCHTOWN TOWNSH", BASE MAP OF: BERLIN TOWNSHI. MONROE COUNTV YAC l4vt CIE cou"Tv. PLANNING COMMISSION MICHIGA N ...... ... ... AGRICULTURAL AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN County: Monroe Township* Frenchtown City or Village: Southwest of village of Estral Beach. Town, range, section: T6S, R10E, Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 30 and 31. Easily identifiable boundary features,(rivers, streams, roads, politlcal boundaries, section lines): Berlin Township boundary to-the north, North Dixie Highway to the west, Brest and Point Aux Peaux Roads to the south and Lake Erie to the east. Present ownership: Private Present Agricultural Use: Primarily corn and wheat with yields between 99-124 bushels per acrp. for corn,and 40-50 bushels i)er acre for wheat. Anticipated changes in use or development (within 10 year time frame): NatEr and sewer lines are in.' or a presently.going in along the Beach are@s. some dP-,7P1npmPnr wJ11 be seen AouLh gf Roint Aux Peaux Road. Detroit Edison may expand somewhat Surroun-ding land-use(s): Residential to the sauth and north, (at Enrico.Fermi. Tndji-,trj;j (.Fnrirn Fe rmi-) to the eaAt. -.Agricultural to tho west. Briefly describe issues relating to this area: The land is presently in agriculture and acreage yields are rather high (higher than the state). Water and sewer lines will not extend beyond Point Aux Peaux Road. Development is not expected to this area until after the.year 200.0. Briefly describe management needs: 1. To promote Act 116, P.A. 1970 for all prime agricultural land.in CZM area. Other comments: Prepared by: .Monroe County Coastal Zone Taskforce 1410-East First Street Monroe, Michigan 48161 76 ow --sm- - mi An up 'M ow eo --zz le@ 41 wl 25 lo ` Mn" Alf" No !zzz. -ZZ- 80/ FRENC MAP OF: IH couNrv ccmmissloN PLAN ING 610 FLOOD-RISK AREA OF PARTICU LAR CONCERN County:' Monroe Township: Frenchtown City or Village: South of Villag of Estral Beach. Town, range, and section: T6S, R10E, Sections 16, 17, -20, 21 and 29. Easily identifable boundary features (rivers, streams, roads, political boundaries, section lines): Area bounded on north bX township line and Swan Creek, east and south by Lake Erie, west by Toll Road. Present Ownership: Detroit Edison and Private. Present Use: 'Some marsh and open undeveloped land.' Anticipated changes in use or development (within ten year time frame): Detroit Edison ..-has future plans for a Science Center on its holdings, other area to remain primarily the same. Surrounding land-use(s): Residential development either side of southern extremities. Remaining area in agriculture. Briefly describe issues relating to this area: Recent. high water levels of Lake Erie have inundated these lands leaving some constantly under water. Other areast area periodically flooded,. but usually near those areas where agricultural .activities are employed and area predominantly undeveloped and owned by Detroit" Edison. Briefly describe management needs: 1. Urban Areas -- Provide necessary flood protection. 2'. Non-Urban Areas Evaluate for Phas e II Ecological Importance.Designations. Other comments: Prepared by: Monroe County Coastal Zone Taskforce 1410 East First Street Monroe, Michigan 48161 "N TI Iz 10 4 20 Z.. I'z 30 N, 29 27 jo MEACHOWN BASfj._ mo'@Ancsff cou"ry COFAM)sSION r., 1 c 241 .... .. .. . .......... AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN _Oynty: Monroe Township: City or Village: ENE, City of Monroe Town, range and section: T6S, R10E, Sections 16 and 21. Easily identifiable boundary features (rivers, streams. roads and political boundarje5, section lines): Bounded on the east by Lake Erie, north by Swan Creek, -south by Point Aux Peaux Road, and west by Toll Road. Present Ownership: Detroit Edison Company Present Use: Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant. Anticipated' changes in use.or deyelopngnt (within 10 year time fmme): No change in use is expected. Surrounding land-use(s): Forming is done to the west of* the site'. To the south, if residential development at Stony Point. Industrial Characteristics (if known): Presently the Atomic Power Plant is inactive. In the future it is expected to complete construction of the facility and eventually to.start producing atomic power. Served by rail line and highway. Briefly describe issues relWng to this area; This area is served by rail, but highway is not up to standards for heavy amounts of truck traffic. Its location on Lake Erie is excellent for its need for water to operate, however, surrounding area to west and north has been inundated by high water levels and much marshland has been lost. Erosion problems. Briefly describe management needs relating to this area; 1. To enhance area for Duture industrial development. 2. To provide necessary flood protection floodproof. Other comments: Prepared by: Monroe County Coaszait Taskforce 1410 East Street 9 z! 77 "Fid .1 0 1 15 ol 0 v zz Pelf-, 26 27 0 1IL: tS, -,-r Ai APO", BASE MAP OF: FRENCHTO WAOMMOM COUNTY ftlo MR I-LANCIR No COMMISSLON URBAN AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN County: Monroe City or Village: NE of City of Monroe (Frenchtown B Area) Site location (adjacent roads, physical features): N. Dixie Highway and Point Aux PeauX Roads on north, Sandy Creek on west, and,Lake Erie on east and south. Present Ownership: Private Present Use: Primarily residential Anticipated changes in use or development (within ten year time frame): Some residential development due to water and sewer lines. Adjacent Land use(s) Recreation to southwest, agricultural to -north. Does present use of this parcel require a waterfront location? Not necessarily, but people will build as close to water as they,.can where water is present. Is it enhanced by a waterfront location? Yes. Occupied by structures in need of rehabilitation or redevelopment? Yes. High water and flooding in recent years has done extensive damage to dwelling units and other structures. What would be the best use of this parcel of urban'waterfront? For Housing and Recreation. Briefly describe other issues relating to this area: This area of Frenchtown is the heaviest populated.area of the Township. A mixture of permanent and temporary diking existing along most of the.shoreline with the exception of the area between@Stony Creek and'Stony Point Peninsula. Water lines are already in the area and sewer line 'construction is underway. Briefly describe management needs: 1. To provide necessary flood protection 2. To conserve open space where available 3. To bring into public.ownership areas lacking sewer and water. Orher corxrents: Prepared by:. Monroe County Coastal Zone Taskforce 1410 East First Street Monroe, Michigan 48161 A A STUl- 10ST -10-- N a 17 Is 5 Is !@- -.... - , It, o 24 ,r 19 3o 4 nOrnina jan LOC(X+IOA 'S" 74'1 ck. ILI BASE MAP OF: FRENCH MONROE COUNTY m P L A NN I N 0 COMMISSION High Risk Erosion Area of Particular Concern IName (4f any): NQrth shore Sterling state Park County: Monrop- + y a.@7n: North of City-of Monroe 7r,Wr, rarce -:@nd s@ction: T6S, R9E @?s;ly "rI-rt-'r-iable bou I ndary features (rivers, streams, roads, political boundaries, 7ines'@: North by Sandy Greek, West by Waterworks Street, south by Stat Park Road, and east by Lake Erie. h4 -esert owners 1p: State of Michigan I Dreser' use: Part of Sterling State Park undeveloped Surrou -nding land-usp(s): North is residential as well as to the west, south by_ industrial development. 'ia.-act,@?ri st'4 cs Vegetation Removed- tree lined barrier beach has eroded@away almost completely over the years. Narrow Beach varies between 50-150 feet from 1964 to widths of 200-30@ feet. Length of Beach -- has shrunken from 2700 feet in 1964 to around 1600 feet in 1975. Flat beach rotective Works Present None; Lake Erie high water table has caused much marshland I to be submerged today. No protective system has been utilized to protect or save these lands. Rriefly describe the issues relating to this area: Sterling State Park could develop most of the land it holds on Lake Erie.@ Camping i could expand along,with boating. Detroit Beach Marina, due north of site,could expand if channel.were.bettered. Difficult to tell water depth in area for large water craft. Briefly describe management needs.: 1. Try to protect from further erosion or bring back to original form. Prepared by: Monroe County Coastal Zone Taskforce U-0ther comments- 1410 East First Street Monroe, Michigan 48161 A7 xi /* v I,,- 0 @@4 30 ,@01 z AN /,@ La c_m4l, ont BA5E MAP UF: FRENC MONROE COUNTY PLAMINAMO COMMISSION tz- ... ...... .... 4,N\ RECREATION AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Name:- qtOrl-ing Rtnte Pnrk Aran County: Monroe Township: Frenchtown City or Village: City of Monroe Town, range and section: T6 and 7S, R9E_ Easily identifiable boundary features (rivers, streams, roads, political boundaries, section lines): City of Monroe Corporation Line, to south, 1-7 to th e west, North Dixie Highwayand Sandy Creek to the north, and Lake Erie to the East. Present Ownership: Private and.Public. Recreational Use or potential (picnicking, camping, hiking, etc):--Picnicking,camping, golfing, fishing, active and passive recreation types, boating, @!nd informative (biological. botanical-science center to natural areas). . Anticipated changes or increases in use or development (within ten year time frame)-.-- State will probably add to development of Sterling State Park. Surrounding land-use(s): Residential ana Agricultural to the north, industrial-a-n-T- vacant marsh land to the south, and west. If the area is not n6w an established recreation area, briefly describe the physicl.@-' characteristics of the area which make it particularly suitable for recreational use: If the area is an established recreation area, briefly describe characteristics (facilities, size, natural features): There are presently two (2) 19 hole golf courses bordering its,western.half. Sterling State Park which is presently part.developed part undeveloped and contains between 800-1000 aeres of land. More than 50 percent of their holdings are water though. Has the area, or should the area be identified for acquisition.and devalo?menc as a recreation area? By both Frenchtown Township and Monroe County Master Plans. Briefly describe issues relating to the area: This area has the largest park in one ownership (State) and at present time is only partially developed. Two (2) 18 hole golf courses are in close proximity to the State park and except for a subdivision and some agricultural lands, is predominantly briefly d 'escribe management needs: recreation oriented.. 1. To develop existing or future recreation areas to their fullest level, and to acquire and develop those areas that are Prepared c,,,. potential ones. Monroe [email protected] Taskforce Other Comments: 1410 Eas- L Monroe, 461o.L ---------------- ... . ..... ....... T 4- 0 Z@ 22 z :o 30 to. 7' &4 c@ G&4 I o 0 BA-S-1 MAP OF: FR 6 COUNTY momwo commission INDUSTRIA@ AREA OF pARTICULAR CONCERN Qouq_U: Monl!)e Townshjp:Mo@roe City or Viliage:city of_monroe Town, range and section: VS, R9E Easily identifiable 'boundary features (rivers. strea s. roads and political boundaries, section lines): Bounded on the north by City/Frenchtown Line, east by Lake Erie, South by LaPlaisanc'e Creek, and west by 1-75, LaPlaisance Road and the Conrail Rail Spur. Present Ownership: Port of Monroe, Fords, Detroit Edison, Union Camp &*Consolidated Paper Companies, ana tne City or Monroe. Preseht Use: Ford's Largest Chrome Plating Plant, Edison Coal Burning Power Plant and Fl Ash Pit Port 01 fices, Turning Basin, and the Monroe Metro Sewage Treatment Plant. Anticipated changes in use-or development (within 10 year time frame): Is rated as one of Michigan's Orime.industrial/marine park with anticipated industrial growth. Surrounding land-use(s): Recreation and open space lands to the north. Residential and industrial to the west, and residential to the south. IndustTial Characteristics (if known): Present industrial uses are Port of Monroe, Ford's, Detroit Edison, and City of Monroe Metro Sewage Treatment Plant. Zoning: Industrial Transportation Systems: This area is served by Rail Road, Interstate Highway (1-75), and has a deep water channel, and turning basin.. Rated by State as one of the prime sites for industrial/marine complex. Briefly describe issues relating to this area.; Due to its close proximity to Rail, water and highway transportation it is an ideal area for industry. Local plans have designated this area for industry. It is the only Michigan Port on Lake Erie and should be utilized to its fullest capability. .Briefly describe management needs relati6q to this area; 1. To enhance area.for future industrial development. To provide necessary flood protection floodproof. Monroe Cou;-.-Ly Co-s-1--L askforce 14io Las-@ Monroe, Michi@, gan 3 Q j tu z A@ @j ILI IRENCIrow/v -jL JL uj w ... . .. DUN- Ile q w r p L -4SALLC r,@Wfvs".. BASE MAP OF: MONROE T COMMISSION _7 ICHIGA MONRO-- COUNTY MONROK FLOOD-RISK AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN County: Monroe Township: Monroe City or Village: South of City of Monroe Town, range, and section: T7S, R9E Easily identifable boundary features (rivers, streams, roads, political boundaries, section lines): North by City of Monroe line, west by Conrail R.O.W., south by Dunbar Road. Present Ownership: Private Present Use: Residential and ORen sRace. Anticipated changes in use or,development (within ten year time frame): change, Surrounding land-use(s): Industrial almost completely around it with the exception -of some aericulture south of Dunbar but west of 1-75. Briefly describe issues relating to this area: Recent high water levels of Lake Erie cause this area to inundate periodically. This area acts as a water containment area from the changing Lake Erie water levels and the water flows of Plumb Creek. Briefly describe management.needs: 1. Urban Areas Provide for necessary flood protection. 2. Non-Urban Areas Evaluate for Phase II Ecological Importance Designations. Other comments: Prepared by:, Monroe County Coastal Zone Taskforce 1410 East First Street Monroe Michigan 48161 @T a --- Lr- Lo uj 5 a DUN- (t "SALLE BASE MAP OF: MON R ONRO MONROE COUNTY F-LANNI fyG--- CONIMISSiON AGRICULTURAL AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Councy: Monroe Township: Monroe City or Village: South of CitX of Monroe Town, range, section: T7S, A9E, In Old Private or French Claims. Easily identifiable boundary features (rivers, streams, roads, politlcal boundaries, section lines): North by east D nbar, southwest by LaPlaisance Road and east by'I-75. Present ownership: Private (Judy Land Companyy Present Agricultural Use: Corn, and wheat with yields on 106 bushels per acre for corn and 44 bushels for wheat. Anticipated changes in use or development (within 10 year time frame): Water and sewer lines are in area, could not keep in agricultural use. Surrounding land-use(s): The site and lands to south are agricultural, north is City of Monroe/with Plumb Creek Marsh, east industrial. Briefly describe issues relating to this area: Presently undeveloped, but with water and sewer lines existing could only keep in agriculture until it could be developed. Agriculture is designated for this area by Monroe Township Master PLan, where the county plan indicates residential development. Briefly describe management needs: 1. Promote Act 116, P.A. 1976 for all prime agricultural land in CZM area. Other comments* Prepared by: Monroe County Coastal Zone Taskforce 1410 East First Street Monroe, Michigan 48161 76 t 1 11 p Tow@s@wp C17, Ir fv A (..o c. j v -E!@ ldt L4S4LLE 7'oWfVs"1p BASE MAP OF: MONROE I FAONROF COUNTY IPA 0 N R 0 F F-L ANN I NO COMMISSION - - MICHIGA RECREATION AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Name: LaPlaisance Creek Area County: Monroe Township: Monroe City or Village: 1 mile South of City of Monroe Town, range and section: T7S, R9E In Private Claims east of 1-75 Easily identifiab le boundary features (rivers, streams, roads, political boundaries, section lines): E. Dunbar Road to north, 1-75 to the West, LaPlaisance Creek to the south, and Lake Erie to the east. Present Ownership: State and Private Recreational Use or potential (picnicking, camping, hiking, etc): Part used as Marina Facilities presently. State is to start development of fishing site boat launching facility in spring. Anticipated changes or increases in use or development (within ten year time frarne); With state project completed more boating opportunities on Lake Erie will be available-' to county and regional populace; lessen congestion at existing boat launching tacill-ties. Surrounding land-use(s): Detroit Edison Fly Ash Pit to north, Marina Facimties in !diate area, and residential development to south (Bolles Haibor/Avalon Beach .Subdivisions). If the area is not ndw an established recreation area, briefly describe the p1lysical characteristics of the area which make it particularly suitable for recreat-i-onal use: If the area is an established recreation area, briefly describe characteristics (facilities, size, natural features): Existing facilities in area are: 1)Ted Hoffman Memorial Park (fishing, boat launching), 2)Monroe Marina (38 slips), 3)Monroe.Boat Club (100 slips), and 4) Trouts Yacht Basin (85 slips). LaPlaisance Creek gives easyaccess to Lake Erie. Has the area, or should the area be identified for acquisition and deve_'ow.@u-- a recreation area? Both Monroe Township and Monroe County Master Plans identify this area for recreational use. Briefly describe issues relating to the area: This area has long been a Marine Recreation Area as can be noticed'@by the many Marine's or Boat Clubs. LaPlaisance Creek gives quick access to Lake Erie f-or fishing or pleasure boating. ;,-_@iefiy describe management needs: 1. To develop existing or future recreation areas to their i'tepare_ o.@/ fullest level, and to acquire and develop those areas that*,, are potential ones. Taskfo-rCo Other Co=ents: 14 10 13a 6 -_- i @lionroe, III Nil tj .6 7-@WA/S"t, BASE MAP OF*. MONROE MONROF COUNTV MONR C PLAN I NG CommossION OMIC HI 0 A 14 URBAN AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN County: Monroe City or Village: South of City of Monroe'(Monroe Township Beach Area) Site location (adjacent roads, physical features): On north by LaPlaisance Creek, south by Woodchuck Creek. west by 1-75, and east by Lake Erie. Present Ownership: private Present Use: Primarily residential Anticipated changes in use or development (within ten year time frame): Expansion of residential area with completion of water and sewer lines. Adjacent Land use(s): Industrial to the north, agricultural to west, vacant with some residential to south. Does present use of this parcel require a waterfront location? Not necessarily, but people will build as close to water as they can where water is present. 'Is it enhanced by a waterfront location? Yes. Occupied by structures in need of rehabilitation or redevelopment? Yes.' Recent, flooding and high water levels have done extensive.property and structural damage to the area. Temporary dikifig has been constructed, but even these are in need of repair. What would be the best use of this parcel of urban waterfront? For Housing and Recreation. Briefly describe other issues relating to this area: Water is in the area now and sewers are presently under construction. The Bolles Harbor/Avalon Beach area is too heavily developed.to try a relocation program. Lake Erie's water levels will probably remain high for some time, and wave action from high winds from the NE, E, SE have done extensive damage to the temporar y diking. Briefly describe-management needs: 1. To provide necessary flood protection 2. To conserve openspace where available 3. To bring into public ownership areas lacking sewer and water. Other comments: Prepared by: Monroe County Coas-cal 70n%@ Taskforce 1410 East First Street Mqnroe, Michigan- 4 8161 66 (L Xl@ L4S4L4. TOWNSH/@ BASE MAP OF: MORROE T MON FV0 E COUNTY MONROE c PLANNIF40 COMMISSION AGRICULTURAL AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN County: Monroe Township: LaSalle and Monroe City or Village: South of City of Monroe Town, range, section: T7S, R9E, Port of Ole French Claims. Easily identifiable boundary features (rivers, streams, roads, politlcal boundaries, section lines): LaPlaisance Road and LaVigne,Road on north and eastj 1-75 on the west, and Otter Creek on the south. Present ownership: Private Present Agricultural Use: Primarily corn and wheat with average hields of 105 and 44 busheld per acre respectively. Anticipated changes in use or development (within 10 year time frame): Water and sewer lines in.Monroe Township will increase development to area, LaSalle should stay the same, at least in this area. Surrounding land-use(s): Residential to east and south, agricultural to the west along with Monroe Rod and Gun Club shootina'range.- Briefly describe issues relating to this area: The Bolles Harbor/Avalon Beach areas of Monroe Township are sewered and water. This area could not be kept in agriculture although cash crop yields are high. Should be kept in agriculture as long as possible though. Briefly describe management needs: 1. Promote Act i16, P.A. 1970 for@all prime agricultural land in CZM area. Other comments: Prepared by: 'Monroe County Coastal Zone Taskforce 1410 East First Street Monroe, Michigan 48161 76 All, P 1c, j 25 7 4, -zz 3 Q_. 29 28 -lk 32 33 co@, 34\ OWIVSH/P BASE MAP OF: LA SALLE TOWNSHIP MONROE COUNTY MONROE C OUPdTV. PLANNI N G COMMISSION FLOOD-RISK AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN County: Monroe Township: LaSalle City or Village: North of City of Luna Pier Town, range, and section: T7S, R8E and R9E Easily identifable boundary features (rivers, streams, ro ads, political boundaries, section lines): Bounded on the north by Monroe Township, east by Lake Erie, south by City of Luna Pier, and west by 1-75. Present Ownership: Private and Public. Present Use: Re@idential, agricultural, commercial'and open space. Anticipated changes in use or.development (within ten year time frame): .No change.. Surrounding land-use(s): Residential to the north and south, to the west is primarily agricultural. Briefly describe issues relating to this area: Recent high water levels of Lake. Erie have caused periodic flooding problems primarily in the LaPlaiBance Woods. Grand View Beach areag., Otter Creek has water problems from two areas; 1) Lake Erie high water. levels and gales from east or southeast,,and 2) Spring run-off of its tributaries which also causes flooding..@ Briefly describe management needs: l.. Urban Areas --,Provide necessary flood protection. 2. Non-Urban Areas Evaluate for Phase II Ecological Importance Designations. Other comments: Prepared by: Monroe County Coastal Zone Taskforce 1410 East First Street Monroe, Michigan 48161 ol 4 15 Z5 2s 0 2 2=z:5/ STEIN-0-- ol . ..... 29 z 28 cu 32 33 \PN- rowVSH/P BASE MAP OF: LA SALL ETOWNSH I P morlp or. MONROU COUNTY, Alp ft a MICHIGAN .... ... .... 17 AGRICULTURAL AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN CounLy: Monroe Township: LaSalle City or Village: North of Luna Pier Town, range, section: T7S, R9E - Old French Claims Easily identifiable boundary features (rivers, streams, roads, politlcal boundaries, s.ection lines): s. otter Creek Road on north, 1-75 on west, Sulphur Creek on south, and Lake Erie on east. Present ownership: Private Present Agricultural Use: Corn and wheat with average yield-S of -100. b-ushels per acre and 45 bushels per acre respectively. Anticipated changes in use or development (within 10 year time frame): Sewer and water are rumoredfor this area of LaSalle. If they come, development of area will also. Surrounding land-use(s) Residential east and south. Agriculture nOrth and west.. Briefly describe issues relating to this area: Located in or-near LaSalle Townships HUD.Floodplain. Should sewer and water come, so will development. The LaSalle and County Master Plans so agricultural and' recreations designations for this area respectively. Briefly describe management needs: 1. Promote Act 116, P.A. 1970 for all prime agricultural land in CZM area. Other comments: Prepared by: Monroe County Coastal Zone Taskforce 1410 East First Street Monroe, Michigan 48161 76 4,0 .11 A., Al Z 7. . . . . . . . . . 35 3 34 IT BASE MAP OF: LA-SALLE TOW MONROE COUNTY M 0 N " on COUNTY P L A NN I N 0 COMMISSION MICHIOAN RECREATION AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Name: Toledo Beach Rpcreation Arpa County: Monroe Township: LaSalle City or Village: Luna Pier Town, range and section: T7 and .&S. R8E; Sections 36 T7S. k8E, Section 1- T8S, R8E. Easily identifiable boundary features (rivers, streams, roads, political boundaries, section lines): S. Otter Creek Road on north, 1-75 to the west. Allen Cove Road to the south and Lake Erie to the east. Present Ownership: Public and private. Recreational Use or potential (picnicking, camping, hiking, etc): Boating and picnic area. Anticipated changes or increases in use or development (within ten year time frame).--.- Surrounding land-use(s): Residential to the north and south. Agricultural also to north and to the west. If the area is not n6w an established recreation area, briefly describe t.-@e physic"-'- characteristics of the area which make it particularly suitable for recreational use; If the area is an established recreation area, briefly describe characteristics (facilities, size, natural features): North Cape Yacht Club, Toledo Beach Marina and picnic area. Sandy beach frontage, watery marsh lands.' Has.the area, or should the area be identified for acquisition and deveioi?mt@nc a-.-- a recreation area? Both LaSalle Township and Monroe County Master Plans have identified this area for recreational usage. Bri,efly describe issues relating to the area: Basically'the majority of area is undeveloped and consists of open water areas and marsh land. Development consists of the Toledo Beach Marina And the North Cape Yacht Club. Briefly describe management needs: 1. To develop existing or'future recrleation areas to their fullest level, and to acquire and develop those areas that are Preparec' Dy: potential ones. Monroe Co@,nty Ccastal Z,@-,- -a@kforce Other Comments: 1.410 EasT Fl.-st Strc,@@-- Monroe, Mlichigaa 4&16@ -0 ie 21 2 2 I_pt@@ xi 21 17 ,.o o 29 28 .......... . 31 32 5-5 35 MAP OF: LA SARLE TOW 010"Now CoUmTv, PLANN.MG comalosslo" MICHIGAN RIC ARDE C@UNTV URBAN AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN County: Monroe City or Village: City of Luna Pier Site location (adjacent roads, physical features):Allen Cove Road on the north, 1-75 on the west, LaPointe Drain on the south, and Lake Erie on the east. ...... Present Ownership: Private and public Present Use: Urban Community Anticipated changes in use or development (within ten.year time frame): gewer and water are in ground now, so there could be more development to vacant areas of city nq dpqcrihpd above, Adjacent Land use(s): Vacant and marsh to north, agriculture to west, vacant and industrial(Consumers Power) to south. Does present use.of this parcel req uire a-waterfront location? Not necessarily, but people will build as.close to water.as they can where water is present. is it enhanced by a waterfrontlocation.? Yes. Occupied by structures in need of rehabilitation or redevelopment? The,City of Luna Pier has many structures in need'of rehabilitation as it has been annually unindated by.water for many year6. Temporary diking has been erectedbut that also is in need of repair. What.would be the best use of this parcel of urban waterfront? Housing and Recreation Briefly describe other issues relating to this area: In recent years both water and sewer have been installed in the area along with its own sewage treatment plant. A Federal'Housing Project is currently under construction and should be nearing completion. The Army Corps of Engineers have studied the area extensively and are soon to publish a report as to what measures should be taken for this area. Briefly describe management ne.eds: 1. To provide necessary flood protection 2. To conserve open space where available 3. To bring into public ownership areas lacking sewer and wa ter Oche.c @c,.-iucents: Propared by: Monroe counzy Taskforce 1410 East First Monroe, Lz>ccL+l On 10 11 Li Ea 4 1 10 11 jL .......... IASE MAP OF: CITY OF LUNA P", 20 INDUSTRIAL AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN County: Monroe Township: Erie City or Village: City of Luna Pier Town, range and section: T8S, R8E, Sections 11 and 14. Easily identifiable boundary features (rivers, streams, roads and political boundaries section lines): Bounded on the north by LaPoint Drain, east by Lake Erie, south by City of Luna Pier Line, and west by I-75. Present Ownership: Consumers Power Company Present Use: Consumers Power Company - Luna Pier coal burning Power Plant and Fly Ash Disposal site. Anticipated changes in use or development (within 10 year time frame): Will expand Fly Ash Pit to north side of Erie Road when area on Woodtick Peninsula is filled. Surrounding land-use(s): Urban area of Luna Pier to the north, Erie State Game Area and Ottawa Bay Development Lands to south, and I-75 to west. Industrial Characteristics (if known): Present use: Consumers Power Comapny - Luna Pier Power Plant. Served by: 1. Rail Road to bring coal. 2. I-75 immediately to the west. 3. Lake Erie to supply needed water source. Relationship to public plans: Both City of Luna Pier and the County General Development Plans designate area as industrial. Present Zoning: Industrial. Briefly describe issues relating to this area: To retain this area in an industrial state as designated by both the City of Luna Pier and the County of Monroe in their Master Plans to meet existing as well as future needs of the Consumers Power Company. Briefly describe management needs relating to this area: 1. To enhance area for future industrial development. 2. To provide necessary flood protection -- floodproof. Other comments: to 3 10 11 i*?.;i UTI I' =1 fn'-T .13 TU 4 110MMAT)OA/ toil FISE MAP OF: CITY OF LUNA'Rj: MONROE COUNTV MONROE TY, ...... CJ,6.A NN I N 0 COMMISSION MICHIGANCOUN .. .... ..... .. 21 FLOOD-RISK AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN County: Monroe Township: Erie City or Village: South of City of Luna Pier Town, range, and section:T8 and 9S, R8E, Sections 10,15, 21, 22, 28, 32, 33, 34, Fr 3, Fr4, and Fr5. Easily identifable boundary features (rivers, streams, roads, political boundaries section lines): Bounded on west by CZM Boundary (1-75), south by Stat e of Ohio line, east by City of Luna Pier, and State of Michigan property (Erie State Game Preserve). Present Ownership: Private Present Use: Some residential and undeveloped open land and marsh. Anticipated changes in use or development (within ten year time frame): No change. Surrounding land-use (s) : Agricultural to west, industrial and marsh to east, urban (Point Place) to the south. Briefly describe is sues relating to this area: Recent high water levels of Lake Erie have caused periodic inundation to the area. The Maumee Bay area has been hit hard by wave action from the northeast. Ottawa ' River, and Halfway Creek have annual spring runoffs, but the Lake Erie water levels keep some areas, previous dry, under water constantly. Briefly describe management needs: 1. Urban Areas -- Provide necessary flood protection. 2. Non-Urban Areas-- Evaluate for Phase II Ecological Importance Designation. Other comments: Prepared by: Monroe County Coastal Zone Taskforce 1410 East First Street Monroe, Michigan 48161 LASALLC rowivsHip 'p UNA 10AV Q 'r Y or LL A PIER." r OA. IN . ..... 29 2' 26 om IV /o I_UCAS COUIV 7- Y OH/o O@ @OL E CIO WAS@INGTON rqw/VSHIP c/- O@ BASE MAP OF: ERIE TOWNSHIP MONROE COUNTY MO NROE COUNTY. PLANNINO COMMISSION MICHIGAN 22 AREA OF ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE Name (if any): Erie State Game Preserve County: Monroe Township: Erie City or Village: South of City of Luna Pier Town, range and section: T8S, R8E, Sections 14, 15, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 33, 34, 35 and 36. Easily identifiable boundary features (rivers, streams, roads, political boundaries, section lines): City of Luna Pier to north, I-75 to west, Ohio State Line south and Lake Erie to west. Present Ownership: State and Private Present Use: game area on preserve. Anticipated changes in use or development (within ten year time frame): No change. Surrounding land-use(s): Industrial and residential to north, residential south and agricultural to east. Environmental characteristics: Nesting, resting, feeding area to many aquatic fish, water, fowl and animals. Extensive tracts of open water and marsh lands. Briefly describe issues relating to this area: Further erosion of the Woodtick Peninsula would greatly harm the preservation of this area in its present state. Recreation or open space is the designation of this area by both Erie Township and Monroe County on their Master Plans. One of the two large natural habitat areas in Monroe County. Briefly describe management needs: 1. Bring into Public ownership by acquirering all areas of major importance not yet publically owned and keep in a natural state. Other comments: Prepared by: Monroe County Coastal Zone Taskforce 1410 East First Street Monroe, Michigan 48161 'o PIER to LL cl-ry ol., L LINA P I ER T - @7 zo 2 X@ 10AD 3 2 26 17 34 COUIV 7- Y oli 0 L 0 CA S TON TOWNSH P f C@Ty 0@ rOL600 BASE MAP OV ERIE TOWNSHLE wtom E COUNTY FA 0 M R 0 t OUNTY. 10- MA N IRO C I- L A NN 4 N 0 -COMMISSION CHIGA 23 Area of Particular Concern Name (if any): Woodtick Peninsula County: Monroe Township: Erie City or Village: South of Luna Pier Town, range and section: T8S, R8E, Sections 14, 23, 25, 26, 35 and 36. Easily identifiable boundary features (rivers, streams, roads, political boundaries, section lines): North by Luna Pier, west by Section lines 14, 23, 26 and 35, south by Ohio State Line, east by Lake Erie. State of Michigan Partial Fly Ash site of Consumers Power and part of Erie State Game Area. Industrial to north, vacant open water, marsh to the west. Vegetation Removed -- some of tree barriers are gone, high water has removed much of the marsh land. Narrowness of beach and peninsula -- varies between 100-400 feet, today 1970 widths of 600-1000 feet. Briefly describe issues relating to this area: If this peninsula disappears, the Erie State Game Area would be quite suseptable to erosion and extinction. Briefly describe management needs: 1. Try to protect from futher erosion or bring back to original form. Other comments: Prepared by: Monroe County Coastal Zone Taskforce 1410 East First Street Monroe, Michigan 48161 r.7 (4j IQ 0 L tj IVA PIER E-C t J 2. AlA-. -Al 29 2 B 26 !@n 31 LUC-45 COUN7Y OH 0 WASHIMG10M TOWNS"IP- 8ASE MAP OF: ERIE TOWNSHIP .'@W A F L A N N I N G COMMISSION MONROE, CHIGA COUI'dyy, MONROE COUNTV ISLAND AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Name: (Odeen) Indian and Gard Islands and other small ones in Erie State Game Area. County: Monroe Township: Erie Town, range ;and section: T8S, R8E, Sections 26, 27, 34-and 35. Present Ownership: Private (Gard is Ottawa Bay Development Company) Public (Indian is State of Michigan and other smaller nameless i.slands.). Presenz Uses: Nesting of water fowl and vacant Ao.ticipated changes or increases in use 6r development (within ten year time frame): No change in usage. Should thEse islandsbe designated in their entirety? These islands of Indian (Odeen), Gard, and other nameless ones should be designated in their entirety. Unique physical or biological characteristics: They are located in an area of ecological importance, namely the Erie State Game Area and vicinity. They are u-sed by the various Water fowl and fish as nesting, ,spawning, resting, and feeding sites. 6riefly describe issues relating to this island: They are some of the few islands in ecological areas in Monroe County and should be preserved for their use as nesting, rest, feeding, and-spawning for the various water fowl, mamals, and fish that habitate the area. Brief*ly describe management needs: 1. To keep in natural state and protect from erosion. 6ther Comments: Prepared by: Monroe County Coasta! 1416 East First Strect Monroe, Michigan 48161 LEONA PIER #QI tgl@ (4) 0 . " . Ll Cl/ T y 01- LUIVA Pl--R 'oAD qA or- SuS ST-0, O.D ',,2 x 26 @0 -- ------- J _j 31 35 Iz min&4so n LAW.;- ... . ... --- LUCAS C0UN7Y OH 10 ',:,N rrowtvvsHoi@p Cl'T"Y 11F rOLE011 0D L-64J BASE MAP OF: ERIE TOWNS .H I P MONROE COUNTY MONROE COUN TV. PLANNING COMMISSION M IC0411MAN APPENDIX "D" Publid' No inati' m ons.. Nominator: Lake Erie Advisory Committee Address: 1216 Riverview Monroe, Michigan 48161 Date: April 14, 1976 COASTAL AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN NOMINATION FORM Name of area nominated: Union Camp Marsh Location: County Monroe Township, City or Village City of Monroe Boundary features (rivers, roads, section lines, etc.) T7S R9E Sections 4 & 9 I-75 at the River Raisin (south boundary) in Monroe near Ford stamping plant and adjacent to Sterling State Park. Elm St. on the South and I-75 on the West (a small parcel of marsh exists on the west side of I-75 also. Present Ownership: Private (Uniion Camp Paper Company) Under which category does this area qualify? (Please check only one) high risk erosion flood hazard x ecologically sensitive natural area recreation area historic and archeologic site sand dune island coastal lake, rivermouth, bay urban mineral resource agricultural prime industrial water transportation Why is this area of particular concern to you? (physical characteristics, damages, opportunities, present use, problems, etc.) This is a true wetland area which represents the last remnant of the famous Monroe Marshes. The area is used by a great variety of birds in residence and in migration. It represents a spawning area for fish and is a haven for muskrats. The habitat is suitable for establishing beds of American Lotus. What do you think should be done with the area? (public acquisition, local zoning, preservation, etc.) The marsh should be added to the public trust. Both parcels of marsh east and west of I-75 should be acquired and held in the natural condition for the benefit of posterity. The marshes are in close proximity to Sterling State Park and the famous battleground site from the war of 1812. Other comments: The Union Camp Marsh is accessible from and in full view of I-75. The natural aura of the wetlands is stark relief from the monotonous, non-descript, flat terrain so common along I-75 north of Monroe. This area presents great fascination for tourists entering Michigan especially if lotus blooms were in evidence during late summer. PLEASE RETURN TO: Citizen Shorelands Advisory Council Michigan Department of Natural Resources Stevens T. Mason Building Lansing, Michigan 48926 OR: SEE PACE /8 214 71 T .6 Ilk t L @A T vw. v 0 E !C-. MA J, Aln It, I.. fi; 0 U TH A NP, VZ,7 I _f 'lA X, N V V I "Z y" Ael IT t4vAll' A/l V pm. P- N P, \ P2 C2 12 I . .......... . ./I /il F..." i 7@% M'@EL -4.1 SA,' BAv 13 P., Alomve- PM P.1; -.7 P.'.' R.C P.21 P-n .12 mv@n Rt It P.E SUE PACE /0 24 m 0 5L, IZA151@ T6 7@ 25 'A T V-", Err 0 E 75 bi )U I H '4215 Ix tro, SEE PACE 1Z X4 LA PLAISANCE Y,, BAV Nominator: Joseph P. Kleiman Address: 18915 Redford Birmingham, MI 48009 COASTAL AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN NOMINATION FORM Name of area nominated: Union Camp Marsh, near Monroe Location: County Monroe Township, City or Village Monroe Boundary features (rivers, roads, section lines, etc.) East of I-75 just north of Raisin River Present Ownership: Union Camp Under which category does this area qualify? (Please check only one) high risk erosion flood hazard ecologically sensitive natural area recreation area historic and archeologic site sand due island coastal lake, rivermouth, bay urban mineral resource agricultural prime industrial water transportation Why is this area of particular concern to you? (physical characteristics, damages opportunities, present use, problems, etc.) Union Camp was willing to sell a few years ago. Area is excellent for imigrating birds and breeding birds. What do you think should be done with the area? (public acquisition, local zoning, preservaton, etc.) Public acquisition for wildlife refuge and natural area Other comments: Marshes west of I-75 should be preserved also, I think those are also o3wned by Union Camp. PLEASE RETURN TO: Citizen Shorelands Advisory Council Michigan Department of Natural Resources OR: Stevens T. Mason Building Lansing, Michingan 43926 Nominator: Lotus Garden Club Address: 1216 Riverview Monroe, Michigan 48161 Date: April 5, 1976 COASTAL AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN NOMINATION FORM Name of area nominated: Lotus Beds Location: County Monroe Township, City or Village Berlin, Frenchtgown, Monroe, LaSalle and Erie Twp. Boundary features (rivers, roads, section lines, etc.) R8E, R9E and R10E The lower reaches of Swan Creek in Berlin Twp., Plum Creek Bay in Monroe Twp., Otter Creek in LaSalle Twp. and Muddy, Bay and Halfway Creeks in Erie Twp. present Ownership: Public and Private Under which category does this area quality? (Please check only one) high risk erosion flood hazard ecologically sensitive natural area recreation area historic and archeologic site sand dune island coastal lake, rivermouth, bay urban mineral resouce agricultural prime industrial water transportation Why is this area of particular concern to you? (physical characteristics, damages, opportunities, present use, problems, etc.) The American Lotus (Nelumbo Lutea) is considered to be an endangered species by the State of Michigan. It has been on the list of protected species for a number of years prior to the endangered designetion accorded in 1976. What do you think should be done with the area? (public acquisition, local zoning, preservations, etc.) Public acquisition should be supplemented by a restoration or seed planting progress with permission of private owners on a continuing basis. Smiths Island, formerly Lotus Island, in the plum Creek Bay Wildlife Area should be given special consideration for restoration of lotus beds. Other comments: The State should attempt to reintroduce American Lotus (No lumbo Lutes) at Sterling State park where the public could observe the spectacular beaury of lotus in bloom. PLEASE RETURN TO: Citizen Shorelands Advisory Council Michigan Department of Natural Resources OR: Stevens T. Mason Building Lansing, Michigan 48926 Nominator: Lake Erie Advisory Committee Address: 1216 Riverview Monroe, Michigan 48161 Date: April 5, 1976 COASTAL AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN NOMINATION FORM Name of area nominated: Smiths, Foleys and Kauslera Islands Location: County Monroe Township, City or Village Monroe Township Boundary features (rivers, roads, section lines, etc.) T7S R9E Section 16 located in Monroe Harbor, east of I-75 in Plum Creek near Lake Erie and one mile south of the River Raisin. Present Ownership: Smiths Island is owned by the Port of Monroe. Foleys and Kauslers Islands are in private ownership. Under which category does this area quality? (Please check only one) high risk erosion flood hazard ecologically sensitive natural area recreation area historic and archeologic site sand dune island coastal lake, rivermouth, bay urban mineral resource agricultural prime industrial water transportation Why is this area of particular concer to you? (physical characteristics, damages, opportunities, present use, problems, etc.) The islands are an integral part of the Plum Creek Bay Wildlife Area as designated by the Michigan Conservation Dept. in 1963 (see map attached). The thermal discharge from the Monroe Power Plant attracts fish and wildlife and provides open water in the winter for waterfowl. What do you think should be done with the area? (public acquisition, local zoning, preservation, etc.) Public requisition and re-dedication of the Plum Creek Bay wildlife Area. Other comments: Canvasback ducks were observed by a qualified specialist of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources to be feeding on alewives in the open water between the island in Plum Creek Bay during the second week of February 1976. The Canvasback is a protected species. Blackcrowned Night Herons use Smiths Island also. PLEASE RETURN TO: Citizen Shorelands Advisory Council Michigan Department of Natural Reources OR: Stevens T. Mason Building Lansing, Michigan 48926 CORPS OF YNGINEERS U. S. ARMY U-S LAI@EiUHVLY DEPARTmENI Cf CONSERVAT WEST END OF LAXLE ERIE PLOM CREEK BAY W!LD SCALF. I 14I,j- C/ SOUNQI.%:(;S IN @'@,FT G STATME MILE, c@ -w OLD RAISM RtVElq C3 IT -Z ---------- A -Z z5t-111H PLUM CREEK 7 DIKED PLUV CF BAY I.I.. c", 1. Ilay I .Zr .7 :77 -4 '-!A K E LA- PLAI@A@@ 2 P A Y .... ....... L A PLAISANCE SAY 2 6-SLLES HAP601i Nominator: Lotus Garden Club 1216 Riverview Monroe, Michigan 48161 Date: April 5, 1976 COASTAL AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN NOMINATION FORM Name of area nominated: Lotus Beds Location: County Monroe Township, City or Village Berlin, Frenchtown, Monroe, LaSalle and Erie Twp. Boundary features (rivers, roads, section lines, etc.) R8E, R9E and R10E The lower reaches of Swan Creek in Berlin Twp. Plus Creek Bay in Monroe Twp: Otter Creek in LaSalle Twp, and Muddy, Bay and Halfway Creeks in Erie Twp. Present Ownership: Public and Private Under which category does this area quality? (Please check only one) high risk erosion flood hazard ecologically sensistive natural area historic and archeologic site sand dune\ island coastal lake, rivermouth, bay urban mineral resource agricultural prime industrial water transportation Why is this area of particular concern to you? (physical characteristics, damages, opportunities, present use, problems, etc.) The american Lotus (Nelumbo luten) is considered to be an endangered species by the State of Michigan. It has been on the list of protected species for a number of years prior to the endangered designation accorded in 1976. What do you think should be done with the area? (public acquisition, local zoning, preserveation, etc.) Public acquisition should be supplemented by a restoration or seed planting program with permission of private owners on a continuing basis. Smith Island, formerly lotus Island, in th Plum Creek Bay Wildlife Area should be given special consideration for restoration of lotus beds. Other comments: The State should attempt to reintroduce American lotus (Neolubo Lutes) at Sterling State park where the public could observe the spectecular beauty of lotus in bloom. PLEASE RETURN TO: Citizen Shorelands Advisory Council Michigan Department of Natural Resources Stevens T. Mason Building Lansing, Michigan 48926 Nominator: Monroe County Rod and Gun club RECEIVED Address: -P.O. Box No. One Monroe, Michigan 48161 Apr-6 1976 Date: April 5, 1976 SOUTHEAST MicHIGAN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS COASTAL AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN NOMINATION FORM Name of area nominated: Plum Creek Bay Wildlife Area Location: County_ Monroe Township, City or Village. Monroe Township Boundary features (rivers, roads, Section lines, etc.) T7S R9e Section 16 Foot of E. DUNbEr Rd., Monroe, Michigan - Extends from Kentucky Ave. on the west to lake Erie on the Eest. Present ownership: Public Port of Monroe) Private (Detroit Edison - residential) Under which category does this area qualify? (Please check only one) high risk erosion island flood hazard coastal lake, rivermouth, bay x ecologically sensitive urban natural area mineral resource recreation area agricultural historic and archeologic site prime industrial sand dune water transportation Why is this area of particular concern to you? (physical characteristics, damages, opportunities, present use, problems, etc.) Thermal discharge from the Monroe Power Plant ettrects fish and wildlife. Open water condition persists through the winter freeze and holds migratorv birds that subsist on fish ie. elewives ......... . What do you think should be done with the area? (public acquisition, local zoning, preservation, etc.)The entire area influenced by the thermal discharge inclu in Plum Creek up to Foleys Island should be designated as a green 'belt* with at least a 200 foot back to encourage. regene ration of wildlife habitat. Other comments: Restoration of environmental values along the Monroe Waterfront is dependent on the establishment of a wildlife reserve which recognizes the habitat potential inherent in the open spaces provided by flyesh basins and the thermal characteristics of the power plant discharge. It would be ecologically irrspponsible PLEASE RETURN BY APRIL 1, 1976 TO: to ignore the influences generated by the operations of the Monroe Power Plant as an Citizen Shorelands Advisory Council indirect benefit to wildlife reserves. Michigan Department of Natural Resources Stevens T. Mason Building OR: Lansing, Michigan 48926 28-03-0457-gn-03 3 Nominator: ILYA MARITIME COORP COMM Address:471 arbor ave MONROE MI 48161 COASTAL AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN NOMINATIN FORM Name of area nominated:Plump creek Bay wildlife area ..Location: County Monroe Township, City or Village CIty of monroe Boundary features (rivers, roads, section lines, etc.) Present Ownership:Gartof MOnroe Under which category does this area qualify? (Please check only one) high risk erosion island flood hazard coastal lake, rivermouth, bay x ecologically sensitive urban natural area mineral resource recreation area agricultural historic and archeologic site prime industrial, sand dune water transportation Why is this area of particular concern to you? (physical characteristics, damages, oppertunities, present use , problems, etc.)-this area has been used for a land fill knowing there is some areas left that are north sarring What do you 'think should be done with the area? (public acquisition, local zoning, preservation etc.) Reserve & restore what is still left. a ____ help would be disesable. Other comments:____ of monroe must set as a public _______ aprk of monroe not a land fill all _____ should be rebuilt to contain the islands land fill . . ... ...... PLEASE RETURN By T0: Date received 4-30 date forwarded to state agency Citizen Shorelands Advisory Council Date forward or state agency action Michigan Departnent of Natural Resources regional action Stevens T. 'Mason Building still appeal _____ Lansing, Michigan 48926 commission support other Nominator:Associated tacht chups Address:471 ARBOR AVE MOnroe Mi 48761 Lary Laiband Environemntal Committee 28-03-0459-GN-03 COASTAL AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN NOMINATION FORM Name of area nominated:Plumb Creek bay wildlife area Location: Monroe Township, City or Village Boundary features (rivers, roads, section lines, etc.)wast kentuckey East lake Erie North Raisin River to Dunbar rd. Present Ownership:Private, Public, Port of Monroe & THe Detroit Edisen Rd. Under which category does this area qualify? (Please check only one), high risk-'erosion island flood hazard coastal lake, rivermouth, bay x ecologically sensitive urban natural area -mineral resource recreation area agricultural historic and archeologic site prime-industrial sand dune water transportation Why is this area of particular concern to you? (physical characteristics, damages, opportunities, present use, problem,.;, etc.) Resting area for ducks ___ during migration. Nursery for Fish and WIldlife. Return the louis beds among raisin pt. What do you think should be done with the area? (public acquisition, local zoning, preservation, etc.) Return to the public trust. Restore all wildlife Habitat. Nature with if chearaged cohabitat with industry. Other comments: If thess Marshes are destroyed they are gone forever. We Borrow the environment from our grandchildren lets preserve it for them PLEASE RETURN BY ____ _____ TO: Citizen Shorelands Advisory Council Michigan Department of Natural Resources Date recives 4-30 Date forwarded to state Agency Stevens T. Mason Building Lansing, Michigan 48926 Date forwareded to region state agency action Regiona Action ____ rejected Commision appeal other Nominator: Associated Yacth Clubs Address: 471 Arbor Ave MOnroe MI 48161 glary Leibond Environmental COmmittes COASTAL AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN; NOMINATION FORM 26-00-0460-GN-01 Name of area nominated: Berier Beaches of west shore lake Erie Location: County MOnroe Has all of the west end of lake Erie Township, City or Village Lunapier, Frenchtown Monroe, Erie Berlin Boundary features (rivers, roads, section liens. etc.) Rasin pt., woodtick, sterling state park, Plumb creek Wildlife area, Erie State Game area. Present 0wnership: PrivATE & public Under which category does this area qualify? (Please check only one) x high risk erosion island flood hazard. coastal lake, rivermouth, bay ecologically sensitive urban natural area mineral resource recreation area agricultural historic and archeologic site prime industrial sand dune water transportation Why is this area of particular concern to you? (physical characteristics, damages, opportunities, present use, problems, etc.)Trees over 100 years old Have been uprooted gone forever. we must kep this Western Berier at all costs WHAt do you think should be done with the area?(public acquisition, local zoning, preservation, etc.) Preserve at all Costs. These Areas are the nursery of lake erie fish & wildlife. Other comments: Dredge Disposal sites to protect & preserve The berier Beaches must be encouraged PLEASE RETURN BY TO: Date Recived 4-30 Date forwarded to State Agency ________________ state agency resion Citizen Shorelands Advisorv Council Regional ______ Michigan Department of. Natural Resources Stevens T. Mason BUilding state approved rejected Lansing, Michigan 48926 commission apprasel other RECEIVED Nominator: Lake Erie Advisory Committee APR - 6 1976 Address: 1216 Rive rview Southern Michigan Monroe Michigan 48161 Date: April 5, 1976 COASTAL AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN NOMINATION FORM Name -of area nominated: All remeining tree lined barrier beaches on the west shore of take Erie. Location: County Monroe Township, City or Villag Barlin Frenchtown, LaSalle, Erie Townships Boundary features (rivers, roads, section lines, etc.) R8E R9E R10E -The entire west shore of Lake Erie including such places as Lagoona State park Raisin Point.. Woodtick Penninsula etc. Present Ownership: Public and Privete Under which category does this area qualify? (Please check only one) high risk erosion island flood hazard coastal lake, rivermouth, bay ecologically sensitive urban natural area minera1 resource recreation area agricultural historic and archeologic site prime industrial sand dune water transportation Why is this area of particular concern to you? (physical characteristics, damages, opportunities, present use, problems, etc.) Ancient cottonwoood trees line-sandy barrier beaches which are being washed away by wave action of Lake Erie. this is a unique geographical feature of western Lake Erie and is on the verge of vanishign forever. The terrier beach at PTE. Kouilles is gone and the woodtick is fast going. what do you think should be done with the area? (public acquisition, local zonfng, preservation, etc.)- -Every effort must be made to limit sand mining operations and dredging of water intake channels for utilities. Restoration of berrier beaches with confined disposal fecilities ie. Fte. Mouillee Barrier Island is a good altern- ative. Other comments:Dredge cuts and borrow __pits have destroyed many segments of this unique topography. Alternative disposal sites for Ottawa River Dredgings should consider eroded sections of the Woodtick Penninsula as an artificial barrier concept that does not clash with the natural terrain of western lake Erie. PLEASE RETURN TO: Citizen Shorelands Advisory Council Michigan Department of Natural Resources Stevens t. Mason BUilding OR: Lansing, Michigan 48926 Nominator: Ilya Maritine Comm Address: 471 Arbor Ave Monroe MI 48161 28-00-0458-GN-01 COASTAL AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN NOMINATION FORM Name of area nomiated: The burres beaches alon teh west Shore Location: County Monroe Township, city or village boundary features(rivers, roads, section lines, etc.) Present ownership: There are public & private under which category does this area qualify? ( please check only one) x high risk erosion island flood hazard coastal lake, rivermouth, bay ecologically sensitive urban natural area mineral resource recreation area agricultural historic and archeologic site prime industrial sand dune water transportaion Why is this area of particular concern to you? ( physical characteristics, damages, opportunities, present use, problem, etc.) Those Berrows act as a buffer to the shore line monroe county has preffered loss as many places along the shore of Lake Erie What do you think should be done with the area? ( Public acquisition, local zoning, preservation, etc.) protecting bulkheads & ____ sea walls or _____ to protect these erosioin areas other comments: PLEASE RETURN BY APRIL 1, 1976 TO : citizen shorelands Advisory council Michigan Department of Natural Resources Stevens T. Mason Building Lansing, Michigan 48926 Date received 4-30 date forwarded to state agency date forwarded to region State agency action Regional action Staff approved rejected committion approval other coastal lakes, River mouths & bays of ______ _______ 28-03-0261-FA009 Name(if any): Raisin River, Plumb Creek bay county: Monroe co. township: City or Vilalge: Monroe Town, range and section: T7S, R9E Sections 15,16 22 TPSR9E Easily indentifiable boundary features (rivers,streams, toads, political bounadries, section lines): Present Ownership: primarily private, some public Monroe Port commission Present Use: owned march- receives ____ from maintenance dredging Anticipated changes in use or development(within ten year time frame): Increased fill activity; industrial expansion surrounding land-use(S): power plant __rsh disposal rits-Detroit edison nowe contests areas once designated plumb creek bay wildlife area. Environmental characteristics: Highly productive ecosystem-fisheries & waterfowl production area Date recevied 4-8 Date forwarded to state agency date forwarded to region 4-15 state agency action regional action staff approval rejected commission approval other Briefly describe issues relating to this area: Popular fishing area-especialy around power plant discharge tremendous amounot dredgin & filling has seriously degraded the estuary & water quality is poor. Monroe port commission spoiling over power plant watch was taken all of flow even eversing flow * thermal discharge may be harmful to fishereis of area Breifly describe management needs: Restoration should be undertaken Privately-owned, unaftered portions should be purchased or zoned natura control of the former plumb creek. Bay wI area should be returned to michigan DNR & redesignated as a wl area or recreatonal park management potential for waterfron is high other comments: Relocation of port authority landfill likes to preserve integrity smith's Island should be undertaken Please return to Water Development Services Prepared by Divison, Department of Natuaral Resources USFWS Coastal lakes, River mouths & Bays of Part. Concern 6 28-04-0260-FA-09 Name (if any): Sulphur creak & Muddy Creek Estuary county: Monroe Co. township: La Salle City or Village: Town, range and section: T7S, RSE Easily idnetifiable boundary features (rivers, sterams, roads, political boundaries, section lines: South end-Allen's Cove Present Ownership: Present Use: Marina development- a large portion remains unaltered Anticipated changes in use or development (within ten year time frame): future modification & development, expansion of marine facilities Surrounding land-use(a): Environmental characteristics: Area is realtively secluded and is therefore attractive to wildlife, especially waterfowl- some nesting occurs here High water levels resulting in marsh reclamation Heavily vegetated dikes provide nesting cover for shore & song birds Herons & egrets common & migratory wildlife make extensive use of the area Briefly describe issues relating to this area: Date received 4-9 Date forwarded to State Agency Date forwarded to Region 4-15 State Agency action Regional Action Staff approval rejected Commission approval other Briefly describe management needs: Discourage furthur development through zoning or public acquisition Expalsion of marine facilities should be allowed only in area north of tole beach March south and west of existin marine should remain unaltered. should receive "environmental areas" designation Please return to Water Development Services Prepared by: Division, Department of Natural Resources USFWS AREA OF FCOLOGICAL IMPORTAIvICE --,-76- - V N5Me (if any' s, cie 6 A Coun t y: ro f@ D Tr,woshlp: T@ City or Village:_ Taurn, range and section: 7-S"S, P/0 6- 5 Easily identifiable boundary feaCures (rivers, streams, roads, political boundaries"".",.', section lines): rship - Present Owne --I A Present $+jAIr Ilk' IfIt" r- vv@ Anticipated changesAn pse,or develoiMent (within ten year time frame): Zm. 1 x Surrountin g land--use (s) Environm ental characteristics: t' r 7- A-i4 Briefly describe issues relating to this area: Briefly describe management needs: 1A, I' Date ircaivcd---3-6 3te Agency ----Da'e fo-.-.ardtd to SI ate lorivardEd to Rep.on --- @LL-5@-State AgEncy action Rt@ionol Action 001-er co=.ents: S"If 2ppfcval -reJected zpprolval --other Please return to Water Development Services Prepared by: Division, Department of Natural Resources Nominator:_-IJ05P A11- ko- Address: L COASTAL ASTAS OF PARTICUL@R CONrCEFN N0.1-fINATIO."I FORM -7@) Name of area no minated: r )_"@ e.5 P Location: County V///-) 41 e k-) L 0. c Tournship, Ci ty or Village_ C, I) I te r- Bound 'Atures (rivers, roads, se 7' ary f e. -ctici lines, etc.) I'le 1111"N L/ 0 61) /":), - QW\ - IqIuAW.I@Z rr.o. Y- Or Present Ownership: 1/-;@7 V Under,;..-hich category does this area qualify? (Please check only one) 'high risk erosion island flood hazard coastal lake, rivermouth, bay ecologically sensitive -urban natural area mineral resource recreation @rea agricultural historic and archeologic site prime industrial sand dune water transportation Why is this area of particular concern to you? (physical characteristics, damage;3 opportunities, present use, problems, etc.) rV7 1;@ v-54 r-r-. rie kvi t0 r.? Or Ll sej 1--),4 1 S, If j J What do you think shoul-d be done with the area! (public acquisition, local zonin- preservation, etc.) EI XIP Other co=ents: PLEASE RETURN TO: 'Citizen Shorelands Advisory Council Michigan Department of Natural Resources OR: Ste,.?,ens T. I.-fason B',jilding Lansing, IMichigan 48926 t,@j Sv@,v@, V.'rcl C.I f any) Oer a rt, acrer.) C, ty or Village:. low;l, range and section: -,r 75 identiflable boundqry fea- ers, streamas, -roads, political boundar Iv BLc @.y ures W Ye@ -S. section lines) L e, P 15 S_CzM one f3 r,"tr6% t. ri-h Present OwnershiP. Preserit Use CrEfol. re 6+;.e, fe Arit'@clpated changes A'a use or development (within ten year t -in e frame): 5 S%ArC S ldolelwl-111 Z,zv-'ro-:.= 'nz-al c1haracteristics; DVer Creek, xcc@- F r A Lx L I kd S @@,A wmie, TA&) 1'@ of 7_1 k.) r w, La 44% Afladdr-Or.0-bu-S ke- Qw e 5 CJ t@,L it j @-09i_e Ow_ ko 44 BrIefly describe issu es relatina to this area; r J 'Brieilly Cescribe manage s: ment 'need JI I ncy- r)ata for% to state Aee Other cc=.-@ents Date :4 . . . I Date forwarded to P.Enion---state ACCICY Cclion. Fogon on al AC!, Cen-.:nisi on zppm,!al C,h@r Please return to I ,4ater Development Services Prepared by; of Xazurzl Resources 77 Z@; -0 2-07@ 69-7 -F4'- e2 C! COASTAL LAKES, RIVER MOUTHS AND BAYS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Name. County: 0 V. r-' I owns hip (s) r t-., e, lk-i-b N.J %'l,. -re SR E' SZ-17'r, 30 Present Ownership: Present Uses: Anticipated changes or increases in use or development: 77-7 Special characteristics, conflicts or impacts: Coastal-Lakes: 10'e"_w tx River 11ouths: y Va C_ -Bays-. Date received-A-10 __Date forwarded to State Agency-__ Datxe fSrwarded to Reainn_@@ -S,tale Agency action Briefly describe issues relating to this area: Jr Regional Action ow ;0#1 __Ls'aff approval -rejected approval -othcr - Briefly describe manage;-_ent needs: Other coraments: 5FcJ -07 COASTAL LAKES, RIVER MOUTHS AND, BAYS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Name: .557@0/jv 1e-1r1j-r V r A4 'r k a r-0- County: v?, 0 tE ef, Township(s): k 4-c Present Ownership: Present Uses: Anticipated changes or increases in use or development: Special characteristics, conflicts or impacts: -coa-&-tal- e r r i Z 105f A: r r l k- v 6-0 Rive-r K@uths or-- A,' It @11- Cr 9 Date receliv'ed -Date to Warded to State Agency- Bays: 4 1 1 1 Dalle forwaided to Region Slate Agericy action ReCiopal Action _--staff appreval _-rciected ------ __cwnm;@--ion appioval --other ------- Briefly describe issues relating to this area: -1 444 OT ?0@ ell" ;I_/j s C, Briefly describe management needs: vAt- 4-iL '91 4'1 4 7 4@ 41 tA. T? z_@ 'J, @71 Other--commen t S ir.7 G,5 -F/q -06f COASTAL LAKES, RIVER MOUTHS AND BAYS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Name: L5'Ll. 'Zi '@5- 7-6@-"ld ^8 &" ,L ',.e ))np .S'0a11-- 7@ .County: i - *:t /1' Township(s): 4--_C @,j Z4, 2 17 *4 @2 0 ro Prcsent Ownership: fresent Uses:- Anticipated changes or increases in use -6r development: T L Special characteristics, conflicts or impacts: Coastal Lakes: C- River Mouths: 47.4 17 .Bay-s t 7- Lc-a'm 7@ 31c feceived- D@-te forwarded to SUWA.-ency Briefly describe issues relating to this ar JPa!e forwarded to REpion-A-L5-state Agency actiou@'--- Rezicni Act;on S'@Cff IT r.10V31 tox..-nossw, approval eVier @Briefly describe management needs: Other comments' -0-r- 01 V, COASTAL LAKES,, RIVER MOUTHS AND BAYS OF PARTICUIAR CONICERN Ce Name, County: 4, Township(s): Present ownership: '03es'. 1/1"/ Anticlln,a@ad7changes or increases in use or development: Z::@@--e CZ Special characteristics, conflicts or e flOved forward2d to State Agency a'e fou:ardcd W Rorion Slite A.-exq 2cUcn-- Coa-s-tal--Lal,es: ireg:onal Action np;"oval -r-.,;ec'1cd. P�ver Mouths: -4- Briefly e-escribe issues relating to this.area: 10 A-1 0 L) Briefly describe management needs.. 10 t4 Other comments: 00 410 -4P I I I12-0 A# to state Ag n@yd@' r -e W5' -0 2,_2 7 740 I;Fae (if any) County: Township:_ City or Village: :2 o, 2 1, W1 Tourn, range and section:'I. 4Z /0, C Eavily identifiable boundary features (rivers, streams, roads, political boundaries, oection lines): -Present Ownership: Present Use: ,,:r S Anticipated changes in use or development (within ten year time frame): P%14L_IItA_ Surrounding lartid-use(s): C @71 ZI Environmental characteristics: Briefly describe issues relating to this area: Briefly describe management needs: ed- @Dale Tece: ate Ot'her ca--tents: Pleas'e return to Water, Development Services Prepared -.by: Division, DeparLmenL of.Natural Resources US rW5 14 '76, -F1 0 Name (if any): A County: 6.1- Township:__ E )-tF* City or Vii-la-g(T.; Town, range and section:- -,),3, 2-4, 7 3 3. Z S& z Easily identifiable boundary features (rivers, stream6, ro'ads,' polltical bouindairries, section lines): Present Owne b rship- Cz Present Use: Anticipated changes ip use or development (witbin. ten year time frame): rfcreM*1 q S r o u n d i n g I an -u s e (s) r i A*lr-- ul. ftr-., Environmental cbaracter@',stics: ri I V Ile 0@ AT L Briefly describe Issues relating to this area: Briefly describe management needs: if J@ 9- 1 4- 4:x C: C_-e 14 Da-'e rECe;ved__... DOE f0;V.'GrdCd lic St3te A-e.-z-,____ Other comments: Da!e lortvarded ',o Re,-;on Reg:bnal Action -staff L'Pprov2l -re I:ecl@d [:::::CoMn;"S:Cn approval __ot"cr .return Please to Water Development Services Prepared by: Division, Department ofNatural Resources 05 Nominator:- 2-1gene A. Jarec'ki -Chnirm-an. lalimae Planning Board Addre,ss: Great Basin cor.T-mission J, - Q - (09 1, ") 5 COASTAL AR&Is OF PAP.TICUL10" CONCERN MMNATION FORM 2b Name of area nominated: North Katim B-.AY Lo cation: County _!jTnT To,@.-nship,. City or Village@_Fxie Township Boundary features (rivers, roads, section lines, etc.) That area separated ':71 i1, from Lake Exie by the Wondtick Peninsula extendip@ south froia the Mic -.,an shorellne a dis- ta _Yimatelv I njle east of th mainland terminatin; at North Cape,_ and bounde'@ -i by.the Ohio State, Lucas County li te of 4 miles appro lie sout.1 ine- Present Owners"Up: Private, State UnderwhIch-category does this area qaalify? (Please check only one) high risk erosion island flood hazard X coastal lake, rivemouth, bay ,ecologically sensitive urban natural area mineral resource recreation area acyricultural historic and archeologic site prime industrial sand dune water transportation Why i s this area of particular concern to you? (physical characteristics, damages opportunities, present use, probletts, etc.) Deterioration of unique marsh veg Ietationand habitat due to d6triorating water quality and habitat de9truction. Lake flooding.ofresidential areas. Uliat do you think should be done with the area? (public acquisition, local zoning, preservation, etc.) Complete shoreland and bay managment and zoning for wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, open space, and public.recreation. Other comments: Encouragement of flood plain (shoreland) management programs for 0 residential areas frequently flooded and furtFer res3dential., commercial and industrial development limited to strict and compatible elIVIronmental consiUeraf S. PLEASE RETM TO: Citizen Shorelands Advisory Council Michigan Department of Natirral Resources OR: Stevens T. IL-son Building Lansing, Michigan 48926 -- --------- - -Z FA U-S 'Z6-00-0 -P5 j;Ut i iWLAJI-.L;Ab, A.Lit Litt @j ;;,-,;iie(ifany): /os-r ;:cc. CA'.Zy or Village:_ T ,,oivn, range and section: 1`43"A.Y identifiable boundary features (rivers, streams, roads, political boundaries, w aectIon lines) Present Oumership: 171I've? /C- Present Use. r ,4rit`cipated changes in or development (within ten..year time frame): C4 s4 r, 01( uIr '-f rl' '0 ro V Slur-COU-11"i-ing !and-use(s) A Z-av-i-ro-amental characteristics: 0)7 J. 7-- 4, Briefly describe issues relatinS to this area: 2-ve- A ke- Briefly descxibe -manao, ,ement needs rd"d ho 6ate A@Vcv Date ev A'6TICY@2 !io;) Icr i Cd ) @51 Rcz@Orl 01 'SS n 11'-A -7, aFe d 'Cr',,,T, ,_a ior Please return to Water Development; Services Prepared by: Divis-ion, Depar;-me'nt oz@ Natural Resources f C O's. Ftv-5 ZI C, any) Cop t;;. z Y Z2 IA Clzy Oz Village:- Town, range and &ection: 7-7,5, E 4 o -@? 1 Y identifiAble bouzdary feazlures (rI.V-2rS. streauis, roads, political boundaries, --Ior. lines) Sectl Pz@z!L,eint Owr;ership: P r e f; en Z 'U s e 41 rn Aill 7L,- D'L-_ pop" 6*@ Chan6ges in use or developum en t (w t., int e nyear time frame): .4 /5 " .- I Sur-, O.L;i-'dIng lz-"d-use(s) cbaraczer-is tics: C'4 6 ill Ire w A-61- Ode (ezemed- --Date lam-ardad to Sla'e Agency- Lale toruarl@d t@ Pe' @;c, @t;te AZ2:-,c az-zion ACI;Cn Cescriba issues relating to this zppfaval --.---rejected a /'. rgf J71 r, Bv@el"Iy describe ;-.eeds /'I LAP, -zo OLher C0=11ents: 77 'Ye ?lease -return to Water Dc-velop:men't Services -1 1 Prepared by: zuv@'_ @@'a5o@ c- AC Z If C Z 1.0 X-- ;Plk, Al- 41 any) C7, Ive 71 1610 Jrv CIZY or Village:_ -c,w;-., range and sec-tion: 7-7cy, Eavily 16entifi.-ble bourdary feaz@ures (zAivars, streams. roads, political boundaries, sectior, 14-nes): Freben,6 C@@nershipl. Fresezt 'Use: ZxA I.nzic@`pat d changes 'n use or development (within t e nyear time frame): vt V LA Surrou;-,dlng acter-'st-I cb.ar Ics: 7ex z o- -arded tr I'DOC fece:Ved -Da-te tom . i S,.a!e Agen, 4 CLI 111;a@e tori-ar&d to PaJio State AE!micy a:Itian- papal Acftn '61"riefly dc6crlbe issues relating to this ar,@a:_strif zpprovai _--(ejected -/ -ellf - , ). -S 74,- 4 A , _e@ Drlel"L.y Cescribe ranzasement needs e5, av A" :4. Othe r co=ents: /111. S-7/co /C "t I vie Please re-turn, to Water, Development Serv-1-ces Prepared by: D @, v ISLAND AREA OF FARTICULAR CONMERIN '7* 4' Township: Town, r:-i n o eand section: -rI S 0 Present [email protected]!rship: PcesenL P717 Anticipated chaa,-es or inLreases in use or developmenV (within ten year time fraime). Should this island be designated in its entirety? .Unique v'hysical or biological characteristics: A" S44L Briefly describe iSSLe,, relating to tnis island: Erioflly d.-:.-scribe rianagement needs: Other Cc,:inents: @C S*zt'.? ;Dstu Prep4K d by. T II @LA.t-CM-1 7E -0 (2. __J4 0 TV I P, Wr 14 ame (if any "t V I County:__ Tovnship: r 4 City or Village: Town, range and section: -7-5-5 10 C A,. A!4 2-.C-.3 4 , Easily Identifiable boundary features (rivers, streams, roads,,.political boundariesqf@' section lines): ez S rresent Nrnership: Lgv'rlk le Present Use: 1 4- e i*, LA ;__1J c-, Anticipated chariges in @jse or development (wit"hin ten year time frame),: 40' Surrounding land-use(s): k A* Environmental characteristics: Mla"% 11-t J@w *-J3-,.a( Crf-z@ -e I AA Oil, 177 T'b-6#.o- Wa4 Briefly describe issues relating to this area: Le.-JI. 1@ U,".&Y- .4 Briefly describe nanagement needs: q-g forwardEd to St2te AgEn Date rece:ved- -Date 4- 1 e Anency act 40n- Ca!e loreardcd to Re.@ion Regional Action rejected Other comments: -stalf apploval -- I i -COMMission approval- other ,Ia4' J, Please return to Water Development Services, Prepared by: Division, Department of Natural Resources @ I 1@ " , . 0 o"'* '-" ft. *f Vominator: n - n, -@r e Address: 7--- E@7 C -2 COAST@AL A-RFAS OF PkRTICULAR CO-OCERN NO'-ITI-.-'ITION FO:@21 rD Y@j Eame of area nomivated: 'A 4-1 r1r -P s e 0 U-r + 0 " ; 0 @- I --, C-- Locati0q: County r,,- r o To,wnship, City or V"Ila,,,,e .L c@__ -- /- / -4=1 Boundary features (rivers, roads, section lincs, etc.) 'nese'nt O'w nership: 1zly'l-ed Under which c ategory does this area qualify? (Please check only one) high risk erosion island flood hazard coastal lake, rivermouth, bay L,,@ ecologically sensitive urban natural area mineral resource recreation area historic and archeologic site prime industrial sand dune water transportation I-Thy is this area- of particular concern to YOU7 (physical characteristics, damages opportunities, present use problezz-, etc.) r P-.A I -@ep r PS*r/W'0 10JI j? ki 100 -n , d 1, -P V ra')P VThat do you think should be done with the area? (public acquisition, local zoning, preservation,.etc.) -5;@ U r Pre vp.,:l Ok-y vv,@orc Other co=.ents: RETURN TO: Citizen Shorelands A,,@visory Council, Michigan Department of Natural Resources OR: Stevens i@. X.ssan Building 1 14 ki Lans-Lii,;, I.UcL@I-J,@,@,--ln -And 11 stl.e tm an Id 2 -0@ Nominator: Address: V- COASTAL ARILkS OF PArTICUj,&n CONCERN FOMINATION FORM Name of area @nominated: Location: County_. To-.,mship, City or ViDlage Boundary f eatures ivers, roads,,, pection linesi etc.) Present O-wnership: Under which category does this area qual@fy? (Please check. only one) high risk erosion island flood hazard coastal lake, rivenuouth, bay ecologically sensitive urban natural area mineral resource recreation area _agricultural hi storic. and archeologic site ol prime industrial sand dune water transportation Why is this area of particular concern to you? (physi al chatacteris tics, damages opportunities, present use roblems., etc.) P W What do you think should be done with the area? (public acquisition, local zoning, presenration, etc.) mments: Other co =22- 17@; P LE2 S ERETMN TO: Citizen Shcrelands Advisory qounci Z Michigan Department of Natural Resources OR: Stevens T. Ilason 'Building Lansing, Michigan 48926 APPENDIX "E" Individual Rating Methodology Sheets RATING METHODOLOGIES BY AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Areas of Industrial Importance County Nomination Number and Area Name Nomination #6 Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant 1. Consistant. With Public Plans Yes 2 points No 0 points 2 2. Availability of Water, Rail, and Highway Transportation a) all three (3) available to area 5 points b) two transportation systems available 3 points c) only one (1) system available I point d) none available 0 points 3. Availability of Water, Sewer,and Gas a) all, available 5 points b) two available 3 points c) one available 1 point d) none. available 0 points 5 4. Availability of Vacant Developable Land a) For Immediate Development 1) 0-100 Acres I point 2) 100-250 Acres 2 points 3) 250-500 Acres 3 points 4) 500 + Acres 4 points I b) Potential Developable Lands 1) 0-100 Acres 1 point 2) 100-250 Acres 2 points 3) 250-500 Acres 3 points 4) 500 + Acres 4 points l TOTAL POINTS 10 Maximum permissable score Rating 10 =50% 20 RATING METHODOLOGIES BY AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Areas of Industrial Importance County Nomination Number and Area Name' Nomination #10 Monroe Port Area 1. Consistant With Public Plans Yes 2 points No 0 points 2 2. Availability of Water, Rail, and Highway Transportation a) all three (3) available to area 5 points b) two transportation systems available 3 points C) only one (1) system available I point d' 0 points none available 5 .3. Availability of Water, Sewer,and Gas a) all available 5 points b) two available 3 points c) one available I point d' none available 0 points 5 4. Availability of Vacant Developable Land a, For Immediate Developmebt 1) 0-100 Acres I point 2) 100-250 Acres 2 points 3) 250-500 Acres 3 points 4) 500 + Acres 4 points 3 b) Potential Developable Lands 1) 0-100 Acres I point 2) 100-250 Acres 2 points 3) 250-500-Acres 3 points 4) 500 + Acres 4 points 4 TOTAL POINTS 19 Maximum Permissable Score Rating 19 95% 20 RA'rlN('. mr,rHODOLOGTES BY AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Areas of Industrial Importance County Nomination Number and Area Name Nomination #20 Consumers Power Plant 1. Consistant With Public Plans Yes 2 points No 0 points 2 2. Availability of Water, Rail, and Highway Transportation a) all,,three (3) available to area 5 points b) two transportation systems available 3 points 6) only one-(l) system available 1 point d) none available 0 points 3 3. Availability of Water, Sewer,and Gas a) all available 5 points b) two available 3 points c) one available 1 point d) none available 0 points 5 4. Availability of Vacant Developable Land a) For Immediate Development, 1) 0-100 Acres I point 2) 100-250 Acres 2 points 3) 250-500 Acres 3 points 4) 500 + Acres 4 points b) Potential Developable Lands 1) 0-100 Acres I point 2) 100-250 Acres 2 points 3) 250-500 Acres 3 points 4) 500 + Acres 4 points 2 TOTAL POINTS 13 Maximum Permissabli, Score Rating -13 65% 20 RATING METHODOLOGIES BY AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Areas of Ecological Importance County Nomination Number and Area Name Nomination #1 Pointe Mouillee State Game Area 1. Criteria of Ecological Importance A. Marshes lakeward or landward with capacity for: 1) brooding, feeding, resting area for migratory fowl 2) traditional waterfowl hunting area 3) habitat supporting furbearing population 5 points 5 B. All open water area to a depth of 20 fathoms having submerged aquatic plants important to waterfowl 5 points 5 C. Upland areas with following wildlife values 1) stopover area of migratory,birds 2) gull, tern, orheron rooderies J 3) eagle or osprey nest 4) habitat for deer, furbearers, hawks, owls 5 points D. Marshes lakeward or landward with the following 1) significant fisheries of sport or commercial species 2) support significant fisheries through management or potential areas for spawning for important species .5 points 5 2. Location from Urban Areas 1 0 -@ mile 1 point 2. 1-2 -1 mile 2 points 3. 1-2 miles@ 3 points 4. 2-3 miles 4 points 5. 3-5 miles 5 points 3 3. Relationship to Water and Sewer Lines 1. 0 --2 mile I point 2. '-2 .-1 mile 2 points 3 points 3. 1'2 miles 4. 2-3 miles 4 points 5. 3-5 miles 5 points 4 4. Public Own(irsb 1 p 1. 0-50% 3 points 2. 50-75% 2 points 3. 75-100% 1 point I TOTAL POINTS 28 Maximum Permissable Score Rating 28 85% RATING METHODOLOGIES BY AREAS OF PARTICULAR.CONCERN Areas of Ecological Importance County Nomination Number and Area Name Nomination #22 Erie State Game Area 1. Criteria of Ecological Importance A. Marshes lakeward or landward with capacity for: 1) 'brooding, feeding, resting area for migratory fowl 2) traditional waterfowl hunting area 3) habita.t supporting furbearing poptilation 5 points 5 B. All open 'water area to a depth of 20 fathoms having submerged aquatic plants important to waterfowl 5 points 5 C. Upland areas with following wildlife values 1) stopover area of migratory birds 2) gull, tern, or heron rooderies 3) eagle or osprey nest 4) habitat for deer, furbearers, hawks, owls 5 points 5 D. Marshes lakeward or landward with the following 1) significant fisheries of sport or commercial. species 2) support significant fisheries through management or potential areas for spawning for important species 5 points 2. Location from Urban Areas 1 0 -!@ mile 1 point 2. @-2 -1 mile 2 points 3. 1-2 miles 3 points 4. 2-3 miles 4 points 5. 3-5 miles 5 points 4 3., Relationship to Water and Sewer Lines 1 0 --2 mile I point 2. [@ -1 mile 2 points 3. 1-2 miles 3 points 4. 2-3 miles 4 points 5. 3-5 mites 5 points 4 4. Public Ownership I. D-50%, 3 points 2. 50-75% 2 points 3. 75-1007 .1 point 2 TOTAL POINTS Maximum Permissable Score Rati ng 30 =91% 33 RATING METHODOLOGIES BY AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Urban Areas of Particular Concern County Nomination Number and Area Name Nomination #7 Frenchtown Beach Area I.. Physical Features of Area a) Population 1) 0-1,000 people 1 point 2) 1,000-2,500 people 2 points 3) 2,500 + people 3 points 3 b) Percentage of deficient housing 1) 0-10% 2) 10-25% 2 points 3) 30% 3 points 3 C) Flood Prevention DeVices (Residential Area) i) Permanent or Temporary Structures I point 2) No Structures 2 points d) Percentage of Undeveloped Land 1) 0-25% 1 point 2) 25-50% 2 points 3) 50-100% 3 points 2 e) Availability of Water and Sewer 1) Existing or Proposed I point 2) Not Proposed 2 points TOTAL POINTS 10 Maximum Permissable Score Rating 10 77% 13 RATING METHODOLOGIES BY AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Urban Areas of Particular Concern County Nomination Number and Area Name Nomination #14 Bolles Harbor/Avalon Beach Area 1. Physical Features of Area a') Population 1) 0-1,000 people 1 point 2) 1,000-2,500 people 2 points 3) 2,500 + people 3 points 2 b) Percentage of deficient housing 1) 0- 10% 1 point 2) 10 -25% 2 points 3) 30% 3 points 2 c) Flood Prevention DeVices (Residential Area) 1) Permanent or Temporary Structures I point 2) No Structures 2 points d) Percentage of Undeveloped Land 1) 0-25% 1 point 2) 25-50% 2 points 3) 50-100% 3 points I e) Availability of Water and Sewer 1) Existing or Proposed 1 point 2) Not Proposed 2 points _I TOTAL POINTS Maximum Permissable Score Rating 7 = 54% 13 RATING METHODOLOGIES BY AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Urban Areas of Particular Concern County Nomination Number and Area Name Nomination #19 City of Luna Pier 1. Physical Features of Area a) Population 1) 0-1,000 people I point 2) 1,000-2,500 people 2 points 3) 2,500 + people 3 points 2 b) Percentage of deficient housing I ) 0-10% 1 point 2) 10-25% 2 points 3) 30% 3 points 3 Flood Prevention DeVices (Residential Area) 1) Permanent or Temporary Structures I point 2) No Structures 2 points 1 d) Percentage of undeveloped land 1) 0-25% 1 point 2) 25-50% 2 points 3) 50-100% 3 points e) Availability of Water and Sewer 1.) Existing or Proposed I point 2) Not Proposed 2 points TOTAL POINTS 9 Maximum Permissable Score Rating 9 = 69% 13 RATING METHODOLOGlES BY AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Recreation Areas of Particular Concern County Nomination Number and Area Name Nomination #13 LaPlaisance Creek Area 1. Relationship to Public Plans a) Consistent 2 points b) Not Consistent 1 point 2 2. Existing Recreation Area and Facilities a) Existing or Proposed x I point b) Year-round Use x I point c) Playground Equipment 1 point d) Picnic Area. (Group Recreation) I -point c) Baseball or Softball Field I point f) Shelter Building or Restrooms x I point g) Swimming 1 point h) Wooded Area I point i) Boating x 1 point j) Boat Launching Facilities, x 1 point k) Golf 1 point 1) Camping (Short or Long Term) 1 point m) Fishing x I point n) Leisure Area (Benches, Walks, Etc.) x I.point 7 3. Further Expansion to Site I ) No expansion 0 points 2) 0-100 acres 1 point 3) 100-250 acres 3 points 4) 250 + acres 5 points TOTAL POINTS 10 Maximum Permissable Score Rating 10 = 48% 21 RATING METHODOLOGIES BY AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Recreation Areas of Particular Concern County Nomination Number and Area. Name Nomination #9 Sterling State Park Area 1. Relationship to Public Plans a) Consistent 2 points b) Not Consistent I point 2 2. Existing Recreation Area and Facilities a) Existing or Proposed x I point b) Year-round Use x I point c) Playground Equipment 1 point d) Picnic Area (Group Recreation) x I point e) Baseball or Softball Field I point f) Shelter Building or Restrooms x I point g) Swimming x I point h) Wooded Area x I point i) Boating x I point j) Boat Launching Facilities x I point k) GOLF x 1 point 1) Camping ( short or long Term) X I POint m) Fishing X I point n) Leisure Area (Benches, Walks., Etc.) X I point 12 3. Further Expansion to Site 1.) No expansion 0 points 2) 0-100 acres I point 3) 100-25O acres 3 points 4) 250 + acres 5 points 5 TOTA P0INTS 19 Maximim Permissable Score Rating 19 = 90% 21 RATING METHODOLOGIES BY AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Recreation Areas of Particular Concern County Nomination Number and.Area Name Nomination #18 Toledo Beach Area 1. Relationship to Public Plans a) Consistent 2 points b)' Not Consistent 1 point 2 2. Existing Recreation Area and Facilities a) Existing or Proposed xJ point b) Year-round Use . 1 point c) Playground Equipment I point. d) Picnic Area (Group Recreation) x. 1 point e) -Baseball or Softball Field 1 point f) Shelter Building or Restrooms X I point g) Swimming X 1 point h) Wooded Area x 'I point i) Boating x 1 point j) Boat Launching Facilities 1 point k) Golf I point 1) Camping (Short or Long Term) x 1 point m) Fishing 1 point n) Leisure Area (Benches, Walks, Etc.) x I point .8 3. Further Expansion to Site 1) No expansion 0 points 2) 0-100 acres I point 3) 100-250 acres 3 points 4) 2SO-+ acres 5 points 5 TOTAL POINTS is Maximuni Permiqsable Score Rating 1.5 71% 21 RATING ME'THODOLOGI [.,'IS BY AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Flood Hazards Acres of Particular Concern County Nomination Number and Area Name Nomination #3 Swan Creek Flood Hazards Area I Within H.U.D. Flood Hazards Boundary Yes 2 points No 0 points 2 2. Presence. of flood Protection devices None 2 points Yes 0 points 0 3. Consistent to Public Plans Not at all 3' points Pa rt ia I t y 2 points Consistant I point 2 4, Developed or Underdeveloped Land Developed extensively 5 points Slightly devel.op,ed 3 points Undeveloped 1point S. Potential for Phase 1.1 Lcological Areas a All 3 points b Part 2 points None I point TOTAL POINTS Maximum.Permissable Score Rating 73% RATING METHODOLOGIES BY AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Flood Hazards Acres of Particular Concern County Nomination Number and Area Name Nomination #5 Enrico Fermi Flood Hazards Area 1. Within H.U.D. Flood Hazards Boundary, Yes 2 points No 0 points 2 2. Presence of Flood Protection devices None 2 points Yes 0 points 2 3. Consistent to Public Plans Not at all 3 points Partially 2 points Consistant 1 point 1 4. Developed or Underdeveloped Land Developed extensively 5 points Slightly developed 3 points Undeveloped I point 3 5. Potential. for Phase Il Eco logical Areas a) All 3 points b) Part 2 points None 1 point 2 TOTAL POINTS- 10 Maximum Permissable Score Rating 10 = 67% 15 RATINC METHODOLOGIES BY AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Flood 11azards Acres of Particular Concern County Nomination Ntimber and Area. Name Nomination 11 Plumb Creek Bay Flood Hazards Area 1. Within H.U.D. Flood Hazards Boundary Yes 2 points No 0 points 2. Presence of Flood Protection devices None 2 points Yes 0 points 3. Consistent to Public Plans Not at alt 3 points Partially 2 points Consistant I point 4. Developed or Underdeveloped Land Developed extensively 5 points Slightly developed 3 points Undeveloped I point 3 5. Potential for Phase If Ecological Areas, a) All 3 points b) Part 2 points c) None I point 2 TOTAL POINTS 10 Maximum Permissable Score Rating __IO 67% 15 RATING METHODOLOGIES BY AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Flood Hazards Acres of Particular Concern County Nomination Number and Area Name Nomination #16 LaSalle Township Flood Hazards Area 1. Within H.U.D. Flood Hazards Boundary Yes 2 points No 0 points 2 2. Presence of Flood Protection devices None 2 points Yes 0 points 0 3. Consistent to Public Plans Not at all 3 points Partially 2 points Consistant Ipoint 1 4. Developed or Underdeveloped -Land Developed extensively 5points ,Slightly developed 3points Undeveloped Ipoint 5 5. Potential for Phase II Ecological Areas a) All 3points b) Part 2 points c) None 1point 2 c) one TOTAL POINTS 10 Maximum Permissable Score Rating 10 67% 15 RATING METHOLOGIES BY AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Flood Hazards Acres of Particular Concern County Nomination Number and Area Name Nomination #21 Erie Township Flood Hazards Ares 1. WithIn H.U.D. Flood Hazards Boundary Yes points No 0 points 2 2. Presence of Flood Protection devices None 2 points Yes 0 points 0 3. Consistent to Public Plans Not at all 3 points Partially 2 points Consistant 1 point I 4. Developed or Underdeveloped Land Developed extensively 5 points slightly developed 3 points Undeveloped 1. point 3 5. Potential for Phase II Ecological Areas A) All 3 points b) Part 2 points C) None 1 point 2 TOTAL POINTS 8 Maximum Permissable Score Rating 8 = 53% 15 RATING METHODOLOGIES BY AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Areas of High Risk Erosion County Nomination Number and Area Name Nomination #8 North Beach - Sterling State Park I. Characteristics of Erosion a) Vegetation Removed xI point, b) Narrow Beach 1 point c) Flat Beach I point d) Bank Slumping I point e) Turbidity of Adjacent Waters xI point f) Damaged Erosion Control Structures I point g) Damaged Land Structures I point h) Protective Works Structures I point i) Unusual Angle of Repose x1 point 5 2. Past to Present Aerial Photo Documentation a) 0-25% Recession 2 points b) 25-50% Recession 5 points C) 50-100% Recession 10 points 10 3. Proposed Plans for Are.) (If Any) a) Plans Propo sed for Area 0 points b) No Plans Proposed for Area 5 points 0 4. Erosion Potential. of Surrounding Lands 1. High 5 points 2. Slight 3 points 3. None at all I point 3 TOTAL POINTS 18 Maximum Permissable Score Rating 18 62% 29 RATING METHODOLOGIES BY AREAS OF-PARTICULAR CONCERN Areas of High Risk Erosion County Nomination Number and Area Name Nomination #23 Woodtick Peninsula 1. Characteristics of Erosion a) V.ugetaLjon Removed x I point b) Narrow Beach x .1 point c) Flat Beach x I point d) Bank SILIMI)ing 1. point e) Turbidity of Adjacent Waters x I point f) Damaged Erosion Control.Structures I point g) Damaged Land Structures I point h) Protective Works Structures I point i) Unusual Angle of Repose x I point 5 2. Past to Present Aerial Photo Documentation a) 0-25% Recession 2 points b) 25-50% Recession 5 points c) 50-100% Recession 10 points 10 3. Proposed' Plans for Are;i (If Any) a) Plans Proposed for Area 0 points b) No Plans Proposed for Area 5 point,s 5 4. Erosion Potential of Surrounding Lands 1. High 5 points 2. Slight 3 points 3. None at All I point 5 TOTAL POINTS 25 Maximum Permissable Score-Rating 25 86% 29 RATING METHODOLOGIES BY AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Agricultural Areas of Particular Concern County Nomination Number and Area Name Nomination #2 Berlin Agricultural Area 1, FUtUre Master Plan Relationship 1. In accordance 5 2. Not in accordance 0 5 2. Size of Area 1. 0-100 acres I 2. 100-250 2 3. 251-500 3 4. 500-1000 4 5. 1000 and above. 5 5 3. Relationship to Water and Sewer Lines 1. 0-11 mile I 2. !@-l mile 2 3. 1-2 miles 3 4. 2-3 miles 4 5. 3-5 miles 5 2 4. Productivity of Ac reage Corn and Wheat. 1. Below State average yield peracre 1 2. Average State yield per acre 3. Above aver .age State yield 5 5 Total Points 17 Maximum Permissable Score Rating 17 85% 20 RATING METHODOLOGIES BY AREAS-OF PARTICULAR CO NCERN Agricultural Areas of Particular Concern County Nomination Number and Area Name Nomination #4 Frenchtown Agricultural Area 1. Future Master Plan Relationship 1. In accordance 5 points 2. Not in accordance 0 points 5 @2. Size of Area 1. 0-100 acres point 2. 100-250 2 points 3. 251-500 3 points 4. 500-1,000 4 points 5. 1,000 and above 5 points 5 3. Relationship to Water and Sewer Lines 1. 0-31 mile 1 point 2. k-l.mile, points 3. 1-2 miles 3 points 4. 2-3 miles 4 points 5. 3-5 miles 5 point's 3 4. Productivity of Acreage Corn and Wheat 1. Belo-,,T State average yield per acre 1 point 2. Average State yield per acre 3 points 3. Above average State yield 5 points 5 TOTAL POINTS* 18 Maximum Permissable.Score Rating 18 90% RATING METHODOLOGIES BY AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Agricultural Areas of Particular-Concern County Nomination Number and Area Name. Nomination #12 LaPlaisance/Dunbar.Road Agricultural Area 1. Future Master Plan Relationship 1. In accordance 5 2. Not in accordance 0 2. Size of Area 1. 0-400 acres 2. 100-250 2 3. 251-500 3 4. 500-1000 4 5. 1000 and above 5 2 3. Relationship to Water and Sewer Lines 1. 0-31 mile 1 2. @-l mile 2 3. 1-2 miles 3 4. 2-3 miles 4 5. 3-5 miles 5 4. Productivity of Acreage Corn and Wheat 1. Below.State average,yield peracre I 2 Average State yield per acre 3 @3. Above average State yield 5. 5 Total Points 13 Maximum Permissable Score Rating 13 65% 20 RATING METHODOLOGIES BY AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Agricultural. Areas of Particular Concern County Nomination Number and Area Name Nomination #15 Monroe/LaSalle Township Agricultural Area 1. Future Master Plan Relationship 1. In accordance 5 2. Not in accordance 0 5 2. Size of Area 1. 0-100 acres I 2. 100-250 2 3. 251-500 .3 4. 500-1000 4 5. 1000 and above 5 4 3. Relationship to Water and Sewer Lines 1. 0-11 mile 2. @-i mile 2 3. 1-2 miles 3 4. 2-3 miles 4 5. 3-5 miles 5 2 4. Productivity of Acreage Corn and Wheat 1. Below State average yield peracre 1 2. Average State yield per acre 3 3. Above average State yield 5 5 Total Points 16 Maximum Permissable Sco.re Rating 16 80% 20 RATING METHODOLOGIES BY AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Agricultural Areas of Particular Concern County Nomination Number and Area Name Nomination #17 Otter Creek/I-75 Agricultural Area 1. Future Master Plan Relationship 1. In accordance 2. Not in accordance 0 5 2. Size of Area 1, 0-100 acres I 2. 100-.250 2 251-500 3 4. 500-1000 4 5. 1000 and above 5 3 .3. Relationship to Water and Sewer Lines 1. 0-;j mile 1 2. 31-1 mile 2 3. 1-2 miles 3 4. 2-3. miles 4 5. 3-5 miles 5 2 4. Productivity of Acreage Corn and Wheat I Below State average yield peracre I 2. Average State yield per acre 3 3. Above average State yield 5 5 Total Points 15 Maximum Permissable Score Rating 15 75% 20 RATING METHODOLOGIES BY AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Islands of Particular Concern County Nomination Number and Area Name Nomination #24 Erie State Game Area Islands 1. Physical Features and Location of Island., A) Proximity to Urban Node i) 0 to 1/2 mile I point ii)1/2 to mile 2 points iii) I mile + 3 points 3 B) Amount of Development i) 0-25% 3 points ii) 26-50% 2 points iii) 50% + 1 points 3 C) Size 1) 0-10 acres 1 point ii) 11-50 acres 2 points iii) 51 + acres 3 points 2 D) Natural setting 2 points 2 E) Of biological importance 2 points 2 F) Nature area of Fish and Wildlife 2 points 2 Suseptibility to Erosion 2 points 2 H) Ownership i) Public 3 points ii) Public and Private 2 points iii) Private 1 point 2 TOTAL POINTS 18 Mazimum Permissable Score Rating __18 =90% 20 APPENDIX "Fil Supporting Maps 1 Monroe County CZM Map. 2. Monroe County General Development Plan Map 3. Overburden Thickness Map 4. Glacial Deposits Map B19LIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Geolo�ital Surivoy Division, MfthigAh bepArt@Oht Of Natural Resources. Geolo gy for -Environmental Plannin4 in Monroe County, Mic 1970. Water Development Services Divi.sion, Michigan D.N.R.. Areas of Particular Concern in Michigan's Coastal Zone Second Draft Copy; 1975. Monroe County Planning Commission, Monroe County Land Use Plan; 1975. Great Lakes Basin Commission, Appendix 12 Shore Use and Erosion; 1975. .Geological Survey Division, Michi-gan Department of Commerce. Bul.letin 4 - The Glacial Lakes Around Michigan; 1967. .Water Development Services Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Zone Boundary Definitton; 1976. -Z MONROE COUNTY COASTAL ZOFN-EMANAGEMIENT TASKFORCE Members Representing *Richard Micka Lake Erie Advisory Committee *Max M. McCray Port of Monroe Darryl Smith Berlin Township John Powell Village of Estral Beach Everette LaBeau Frenchtown Township John Iaxoangeli City of Monroe John A. Richwine, Jr. Monroe Township William Akos LaSalle Township William Frey, Erie Township Mayor Clyde Evans City of Luna Pier James L. Jones Detroit Edison Kenneth A. Chichester Cons.umers Power Fred Keesler Monroe County Health Department Harold D. Straub Office Civil Preparedness MONROE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF Ronald F. Ninoi Director Carolyn Coleman, Senior Planner Rowland Yin, Associate Planner Kenneth Carlson, Associate Planner Frank Nagy, Assistant Planner Lynne McKee, Research Assistant Raymond-Williamson, Chief Draftsman Christopher Carr, Draftsman William Balog, Draftsman Margarete Miller, Clerk-Typist Judith McKay, Clerk-Typist Diana Snavely, Clerk-Typist *Co-Chairmen of CZM Taskforce