Park development plan and recommendations for beach and bluff stabilization Hagar Township, Michigan

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

MICHIGAN
OCZM GRANT #NA-80-AA-H-CZ157
SUBTASK

HAGAR TOWNSHIP

Park Development Plan
and
'Recommendations
for
Beach & Bluff Stabilization.

PREPARED BY:

ASONMARCHE CONSULTANTS, INC.
95 W. MAIN
BENTON HARBOR, MICHIGAN

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

t Fe;2

XBONMARCHE CONSULTANTS, INC.

95 W. MAIN STREET BENTON HARBOR, MICH. 49022 PHONE: 927-2295

September 14, 1981

Hagar Township Board of Trustees
P.O. Box 135
Riverside, Michigan 49084

Ladies and Gentlemen:

It is with great pleasure that we herewith transmit the "Hagar
Township Park Development Plan and Recommendations for Beach and
Bluff Stabilization". We appreciate your participation and co-
operation in the preparation of this Plan. Your input has ensured
that the proposed project meets the communities needs in a realistic
manner.

Abonmarche Consultants, Inc. looks forward to working with you in
implementing the proposed park improvements.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to work with you.

Very truly yours,

ABONMARCHE CONSULTANTS, INC.

Ikonald E. Schults, Manager Br-ian W. Sodt, AICP

PlanninglEngineeringlEnergy ConservationISurveyingIManagement Consultants

EDWARD BRODERICK, Supervisor HOWARD BISHOP, Clerk FRANCES MARSALA, Treasurer

HAGAR TOWNSHIP
BERRIEN COUNTY
P.O. Box 135 Riverside, Michigan 49084

September 15, 1981

Mr. Chris A. Shafer, Chief
Great Lakes Shorelands Section
Department of Natural Resources
Box 30028
Lansing, MI 48909

Dear Mr. Shafer;

Please be advised that the Hagar Township Board of Trustees,
at a regular meeting on September 14, 1981, accepted and
approved the Hagar Township Park Development Plan and
Recommendations for Bluff Stabilization as prepared by
Abonmarche Consultants, Inc. Previously at a September 1,
special meeting, the Township Board passed a resolution
selecting Alternate III as proposed in the study for
implementation in fiscal year 1981-82.

The Hagar Township Board wishes to express its gratitude
to you and your staff for your cooperation and assistance
in making this project possible. We look forward to work-
ing with you and our consultant in taking this project from
a plan to creating a fine shoreland recreational facility.

Thank you for your assistance.
r
Sin ly,

DWARD BRODERICK
Township Supervisor

/f
DW

THIS PROJECT WAS FUNDED THROUGH

THE FEDERAL COASTAL. ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

THE MICHIGAN DFPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES.,
GREAT LAKES SHORELANDS SECTION

WE WISH TO THANK

MR. CHRIS A. SHAFERJ

AND

MS. MINDY KOCH

FOR THEIR ASSISTANCE

IN MAKING THIS PROJECT POSSIBLE,

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

SECTION I SITE ANALYSIS

1. Inventory and Analysis 1
2. Development Constraints 6
3. Development Assets 7
4. Site Analysis Conclusion 8
5. Recommended Site Development 9

SECTION II RECO1,DENDATIONS FOR BEACH & BLUFF

STABILIZATION

6. Beach & Bluff - Toe Stabilization 17
7. Upper Bluff Stabilization 26
8. Beach Access

Estimated Construction Cost 35
Exhibits 39

SECTION III IMPLEMENTATION

9. Implementation 51
Alternate 1 55
Alternate 11 56
Alternate 111 57
10. Revenue Producing Potential 58
11. Operation & Maintenance Costs 59
12. Implementation Schedule 61

I
I
I SECTION I
I HAGAR TOWNSHIP PARK
I
SITE ANALYSIS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ABONMARCHE CONSULTANTS, INC.
Benton Harbor, Michigan
I

I
I August, 1981
I
I
I
I

1. INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS OF EXISTING SITE CHARACTERISTICS

1.1 Location:

Hagar Township Park is an approximately six acre park
on Lake Michigan in Section 15 of Hagar Township, off US 33 at

the intersection of Bundy Road.
The park property includes roughly 450' of Lake Michigan

beach frontage backed by a 45' bluff. Historically the beach

and bluff area have been highly erodible during periods of high

water and storms.

1.2 Soils:

The majority of the park area, between the bluff and a

creek ravine along US 33,is composed of Oakville Fine Sand soils.

These soils are characterized as a nearly level to gently sloping

well drained soil. This soil has fair potential for recreational

uses and woodland uses as is demonstrated by the wooded nature

of the property.

Septic tank absorption fields drain too well and filtering

is poor. Seepage is common and may be evident along the bluff

face.

For landscaping purposes, tree plantings suited to this soil

include: Red Pine, Eastren White Pine, Jack Pine, Norway Spruce,

Black Spruce, and Black Cherry. Excellent windbreak shrubs

include: Vanhoutte Spirea, Autumn Olive and Tatarian Honeysuckle.

Aut umn Olive is an especially suitable hedge or buffer which

also provides song bird food and cover.

The sandy nature of the soil provides difficulties in
developing picnic areas and playgrounds. There are also moderate
constraints for lawns and landscaping due to the droughty nature

of the soil.

1.3 Hydrology:

A natural watercourse parallels US 33, just inside the park

property. This creek has created a shallow ravine. The

ravine is well wooded and is remarkably undisturbed for an active

public park. A County drain flows into the creek just north of

the park property. However, the creek is not a County drain and-

flows across US 33 twice more before flowing into Lake Michigan

about a half mile north of the park.

The bluff face and pedestrian walkway show some water seep-

age, either from the creek, a drain field, or a perched water

tabl e. The park property drains both to the creek and to Lake

Michigan. Storm water runoff doesn't seem to be a major erosion

problem except along the pedestrian walkway.

1.4 Vegetation and Wildlife:

Hagar Township Park is predominantly a disturbed Climax

Forest community. Oak, Maple, and Beech mature trees dominate

the overstory. Various shrubs including Sasafrass are character-

istic of what little understory is present. Some wildflowers

including Trillium are present in the creek ravine.

Due to unre strained automobile access to the majority of

the park, little plant growth other than mature trees is evident

in the central portion of the park. Pedestrian traffic along

the bluff face has largely eliminated most of the vegetation

which could stabilize the bluff face.

Numerous small mammals are evident in the ravine area.

Due to the parks location on the Lake Michigan Flyway for migra-
tory birds, it is a popular birding spot for local ornithologists
during fall and spring migrations. Many varietys of birds are

evident seasonally. Warblers, and shorebirds are quite common.

Bald and Golden Eagles have occasionally been spotted in the park

area as well as various hawks.

Future planting selections for boundary buffers can also

serve as a wildlife management tool, increasing shelter and food

supply for migratory birds while contributing to the recreational

potential of the park site.

1.5 Topography:

With the exception of the lake bluff, creek ravine, and

pedestrian walkway, the park site is comparatively level. The

South central area of the park forms a slight rise of about 3'

over the surrounding area. The northern boundary is about 4'

lower than the access road. The lake bluff is about 45' above

the beach and presents a fairly precipitous face. The bluff

is the dominant topographic feature of the site, providing an

excellent view while also posing serious erosion and safety

problems. The bluff will be dealt with in considerable detail

in the section "Recommendations For Beach And Bluff

Stabilization Of Hagar Township Park".

'f Of N, 04 A6--af Jf %kd If
IY"rqac

VA
?'To

V99

(p CC)
0
CO 6)r6+
+
4i -13
6.36+
w ki @o

wom.@rrav- laLF-v,.,T-r%mr.- e34r 6vvtvv@,Y,

1.6 Existing Park Development:
Two buildings are located on the property, a storage building

and a toilet. Both structures are functional, but are in need of

modernization and maintenance.

The entrance drive crosses the creek with a culvert. The

sides of the drive are eroded and should be stabilized. The drive

should be widened as park use increases. The park entrance is

not properly marked and has a poor sight line to approaching

traffic.

A derelict steel and concrete stairway to the beach presents

a safety hazard and is an eyesore. It should be removed.

Several vehicular guardrails are located in the park. In

practice,they do not control vehicl e access and should be removed.

More effective measures should be installed to control vehicle

access.

The existing graded walkway to the beach is in poor condition.

It is eroded and provides poor footing. The sides must be

stabilized and the lower steep incline to the beach should be

leveled off. A surfaced pedestrian walkway to channel foot traffic

to the beach and away from the Bluff would be desirable.

A public right of way is indicated on the plat of Beachwood

on Lake Michigan, along the north edge of the park site. This

right of way is the property of the Township and can be vacated as

long as the property is used as a public park. The right of way

is not part of the subdivision plat and has never been dedicated

as a County road.

Several cottages use this right of way for access, making it

diffi-cult to control access to the park property.

The north and south boundaries of the park are fenced.

The fences are in poor condition and in need of replacement.

There are no natural buffers along the north or south property

lines. The creek ravine and foliage provide an excellent

natural buffer to US 33.

Electricity and water are available on site. A new 2"

well has recently been provided. The toilets have been provided

with an adjacent dry well. Although the toilets could be

improved, utilities appear adequate for future development.

2. DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS

2.1 Bluff Face:

The erosion potential to the lake bluff is well documented

in the engineering analysis. Any potential solution or miti-

gation measure will key upon eliminating pedestrian access to

the bluff face. The bluff and/or appropriate setback must be

fenced and be considered to have no use potential.

2.2 Creek Ravine:

In its present form the creek ravine serves as an excellent

buffer to US 33 and as a small natural area. Excessive foot

traffic should be discouraged. This area should be managed as

a passive use area with limited intrusion.

2.3 Public Highwa
The mapped right of way on the north edge of the site

should be vacated. Access to the adjacent cottages should

be maintained. Parking should be consolidated in the right
of way area to isolate auto traffic from the recreational

potential of the site.

2.4 Residential Development:

The adjacent residences to the south of the park property

should be buffered.

3. DEVELOPMENT ASSETS

3.1 Beach:

During periods of normal water levels the park possesses
an excellent beach. With improvements,the walkway to the beach

is well located in respect to a potential parking area. The

existing stairway should be removed.

3.2 'Forestation:

The numerous mature hardwoods throughout the park provide

a strong aesthetic impact. The combination of shade and a lake

breeze provide a delightful environment on summer days.

A 200' wide zone along the bluff is more heavily wooded.

The root systems of the trees help stabilize the bluff top.

This area is an ideal picnic area.

3.3 Activity Area:

The south central portion of the park will lend itself well

to a more active recreation area as it is more open. Some care-

fully selected trees could be removed, more mature healthy trees

should be retained where possible.

Tree removal and landscaping will depend on activities

selected for development. About two (2) acres are available
for the activity area. Soil constraints largely eliminate
turf based activities. The limited area eliminates ball diamonds.

Some suitable activities include:

1. Childrens playFround with equipment

2. Basketball or volleyball

3. 'Tennis

4. Platform tennis or paddle tennis

5. Shuffleboard

6. Badminton

7. Handball (single wall)
With the exception of the playground, all of these.activities

require a hard surface.

4. SITE ANALYSIS CONCLUSION

Hagar Township Park is well located, and has numerous
attributes for a family oriented community recreational facility'.

Beach activities, picnicking, and small scale active, recreational

games can be provided in a natural manner compatible with sur-

rounding development.

The site is not suited to intensive large scale spectator

sports.

If available parking is restricted to the northern portion

of the site, the facility will accommodate over one hundred (100)

vehicles, a suitable amount for the size and activity potential

of the site.

Fencing off the bluff face and the parking area will control

access and minimize vandalism while still providing access to

the adjacent cottages.

5. RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT

5.1 Public Right-Of-Way
Research and discussions with the township attorney

indicate that the 66' public-right-of-way can be closed by town-
ship board action with the entire right-of-way remaining property
of the township provided access to the cottages utilizing a por-
tion of the right-of-way is maintained. Status of this right-of-
way is of great concern since improvements to the park must be
protected from vandalism by controlling public access and restric-

ting access when the park is closed and unsupervised.
Access to the adjacent cottages should be maintained through

development of the adjacent parking lot. That remaining portion

of the right of way should then be vacated and subsequently

utilized as a pedestrian walkway to the beach area.

5.2 Parking Lot
A parking lot with a capacity of 110 cars should be develop'ed

on the northeast corner of the site. Occupying over 29,000 sq.

ft., this lot should be fenced from the remainder of the park

and from adjoining development to the north. All pedestrian

traffic would be channeled through a 12' gate at the head of the

existing pathway down to the beach. All vehicular traffic would

be restricted to an area adjacent to the park entrance, separat-

ing the pedestrian from the vehicle as soon as possible and

maximizing the recreational potential of the remainder of the

site.

Complete fencing of the lot from the remainder of the park

will allow continued access to the adjacent cottages after the

park is closed. As the lot will remain acces sible after hours,

it should be well lit.

Construction of the parking lot may require eventual re-

moval of up to eight trees to allow maximum utilization of the

lot. However, where the trees do not interfere with necessary

grading or drives, they should be retained if not diseased or

otherwise damaged.

The lot will need to be graded and graveled. Concrete

car stops or guard rails should be utilized to indicate the

layout of parking spaces.

The entrance drive to US 33 will need eventual improve-
ment. Brush and'trees should be removed to improve sight line

to oncoming traffic. US 33 should be properly posted with

park entrance signs. The drive should be widened to two lanes

and guard rails installed.

5.3 Activity Center

The central 1.8 acres of the park are well suited to more

active recreational uses. Due to the complete lack of recrea-

tional facilities in the township, future development of the
a@tivity center takes on special importance. Potential improve-

ments include, playground equipment and two tennis courts.
There*is sufficient area for additional court-type activities 'or
simply grading a cleared open area for equipment which could be
brought by the public,such as, badminton or volleyball. Play-
ground equipment should be installed close enough to the picnic

area to allow suitable parental supervision.

5.4 Picnic Area

The wooded portion of the site overlooking Lake Michigan

is well suited for development as a picnic area. The large

mature trees and comparative lack of underbrush minimize site

preparation. Essentially, all that is needed is to remove
guard rails from the existing gravel parking area and install
tables, grills and trash barrels. A water line could be
extended from the well house to the picnic area. The guard

rails could be reused along the entrance drive over the creek

culvert.

A pavilion is often a popular improvement to picnic areas,

providing shade and shelter. Due to the heavily wooded nature

of this site, it is questionable whether it would justify the

expense.

5.5. Creek Ravine

It is recommended that the wooded creek ravine be main-

tained in its natural state. Excessive pedestrian traffic

should be discouraged. Although limited in size the creek

ravine is a quality natural area and serves as an excellent

noise and sight buffer to U.S. 33.

5.6 Bluff Face Landscape_Improvements

To minimize further erosion to the bluff face from human

activity, pedestrian access must be eliminated. This may be

accomplished in two ways. A chain 1;ink fence and-.appropriAte

vegetation will discourage foot traffic.

A 4' chain link fence should be installed parallel to the

bluff roughly 20' back from the edge. The fence should extend

from the south property line to the pedestrian walkway. A 4'

fence will not obscure the view to the lake but will encourage

use of the walkway. The area between the fence and the bluff

edge should be planted to robinhood rose hedge, buffalo berry,

or red, green or winter barberry. Hedging grade stock should
be installed 2 to 3' apart and will require little maintenance

other than occasional pruning where appropriate.

The bluff face itself provides additional problems. The'

bluff is predominately clay along the base extending in some

areas up over 20'. The upper portion of the bluff is predominately

sand. The majority of the existing ground cover is a variety of

spurge. This plant is of little value except in minimizing

wind erosion to some degree.

American beach grass should be planted in the upper sand

portions of the bluff. With foot traffic eliminated, the beach

grass should establish well and gradually push out less desirable

species such as the spurge.

The lower lying heavy clay strata is often accompanied

by springs or wheeping from the bluff face. Discussions with

area nurserymen suggest a different type planting. Black

locust is recommended. This is a 20-30' tree with thorns and

an extremely heavy root development. This should be planted
3' apart in alternate rows over the lower half of the bluff,

above the rip rap at the bluff toe. Even as a young plant, the
black locust will serve as a thorny hedge discouraging pedes-
trian access from the beach. The black locust will do very

well in the heavy clay and root development will tend to

eliminate the springs and wheeping, with the trees using much of

the available water. Heavy root growth will compliment other

measures in tying down the toe of the bluff. Local experience
indicates areas planted to black locust are among the last to
be eroded by lake action. It is a fairly clean tree with little

leaf debris.

An appropriate mixture of fencing and landscaping will
largely eliminate foot traffic, thereby allowing the bluff face
to stabilize. Channeling beach users from the parking lot

directly to the pedestrian walkway will further minimize the

tendency to use the bluff face as a "short cut".

5.7 Additional Landscaping

The only additionally recommended landscaping i.s a hedge

along the south property line to serve as a buffer. Hedge

quality autumn olive is recommended. It will do well on this
soil, will form a dense bufker from 8 to 10' high, and, in

addition, autumn olive will provide song bird food further

enhancing the natural attributes of this site.

5.8 Perimeter Fencing
As site improvements are installed, the township may

wish to complete fencing the perimeter of the park. Fencing

the parking lot will be sufficient initially.

Six foot chain link should then be installed along the
north and south property lines and possibly along US 33 behind the

existing guard rail. The Berrien County Road Commission should

I
I be contacted to determine fence location, preferably behind the
guard rail but out of the ravine itself.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I . . .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
14

P% A V-@ I F"

BLACk::. LC)C-U:$r
MP-1--S

6): 90
VA

Q Act- vc

10-i
is

7- WAA,

SECTION Il

HAGAR TOWNSHIP PARK

RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR BEACH AND BLUFF STABILIZATION

D. C. Wiggert, P.E., Phd.

R. J.-B. Bouwmeester, Phd.

and

ABON14ARCHE CONSULTANTS, INC.
Benton Harbor, Michigan

August, 1981

6. BEACH AND BLUFF-TOE STABILIZATION

6.1 Introduction

The Hagar Township Park is located in an area of fairly

high bluffs of glacial drift. The bluffs rise about 40 feet

above lake level and have in the past decade receded as a result

of periods of high lake levels and storms. During a three-year

period (1970-1973) net annual changes in beach and bluff profiles

were recorded by Davis (Reference 1). These profiles are re-

produced below to demonstrate the erosion problems at this site.

1970-71
F-1 1971-72

1972-73

The beach width of Hagar Township Park has fluctuated con-

siderably. This is in part a result of water level fluctuations

of the lake, and in part due to erosion and accretion of the

beach itself.

In order to illustrate in more detail the nature of the

erosion problems, some observations made by Davis (Reference 1)

are quoted:

A modest beach was present at the beginning of the
study. After an initial period of beach erosion, some
accretion occurred in October 1970, followed by more
@rosion up until shore-ice formation. After the shore-
ice breakup, the beach was similar to that at the start
of the study, and a swash bar was present. Growth of
the beach continued although there was some erosion in
May and July of the first year.

Late surmiier of 1971 was characterized by modest
erosion followed by accretion. Erosion was dominant
during the late fall high-energy period, and.minor beach
erosion and bluff recession followed the melting of
shore ice. This continued through the remainder of the
second year.

Early fall was a period of much beach erosion al-
though there was accretion in the usually high-energy
month'of November 1972. The spring of 1973 was marked
by erosion to the extent that by June therewas no beach
and about 1 foot of water at the base of the bluff. ' -Slump-
ing and some recession of the bluff also occurred in this
period.

-Based on observations made at Hagar Township-Park during the

final year,.Davis Concludes:

The beach at this site is narrow, and even during
minor storms waves attack the base of the clayey bluff.
The clay till is soft and almost quick due to a very high
moisture content. Erosion to the toe of the bluff re-
sults in mas.s wasting and much'loss of material from the
profile.

6.2 Beach Stabilization

The large fluctuations in beach width are associated with

the occu rrence of the relatively large variations in lake level

and with the occurrence of storms. Major beach erosion occurs

particularly during storms approaching from the north and north-

west when the lake water levels are high. Under these conditions,

the wave energy approaching the shore is maximum as a result of

the long fetch and the high water levels, whil.e the angle of

wave attack is such that strong longshore currents are generated

yielding much potential for a quick-transport of eroded sand.

Devices to retard or reduce erosion of an existing or re-

stored beach include groins, Z-walls* (Reference 8), shore-

connected breakwaters, offshore breakwaters, and others. Because

Hagar Township Park beach is not intended to become a highly

developed recreational facility, it seems that any type of break-

water is cost excessive. Further, such structures may leave

neighboring beaches more vulnerable to erosion. The desired

stabilization of the beach may be achieved by a properly designed

and constructed.groin system. The periods of rapid kccretion

of beaches in this area are an indication'that long-shore-sediment

transport is sufficient to prevent significant dowhdrift beach

erosion.

6.3 Recommended Groin System

A groin system is recommended that will trap enough sand

to create a relatively stable beach or accretion of new beach

areas. The height and length of the groins, however, will be

sufficiently low and short to prevent erosion problems downdrift.
The selected number of groins and dimensions*and spacing

of the groins are based on design guidelines for the Great Lakes

as established by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Reference 2).
The following' groin system is proposed:

Three groins to be installed at 75, 200 and 325 feet south

from the northern property line (see Exhibit 1);

The orientation of the groins is perpendicular to the

shoreline;
*NOTE: When reference is made to Z-Wall's in this report, we do not necessarily
refer to or endorse the manufacturer of the "Z-Wall", however, we are
referring to a precast concrete "Z" or "W" shaped erosion control device.
Presently, we are not aware of other equivalent or similar systems.

The groins are 50 feet long and are tied to the bluff;
The groin top level is at the "extraordinary" high water

level which is 580.5 feet IGLD (International Great Lake

Datum 1955);

The groin height is 15 feet;
The face of the groin is protected against scour by riprap

stone;

Further- construction details and dimensions of the groins

are given in Exhibits 2 and 3.

6.4 Alternative Z-wall- System

An alternative to wood groins to trap beach sand, maintain

an existing beach and possibly creat e additional beach width is

construction of a precast concrete Z-wall svstem.

Although not considered as effective as wood groins in trapping

littoral sand drift, Z-wall has been successful in reducing beach

erosion and in some instances has maintained and created additional

beach widths. The size and location of the Z-wall will be such

that a minimum of beach erosion problems downdrift will be anticipated.

The following Z-wall system is proposed in two phases:

Phase I: Installation of 84 feet of Z-wall adjacent to

and in line with the southerly neighboring property owners

steel sheet pile retaining wall. The north end of the

'Z-wall would be tied back into the bluff with half

Z-panels (see Exhibit 4);

Phase II: Installation of 98 feet of Z-wall from the

northerly property line of Hagar Park south. This would

protect the beach in front of the proposed access walkway

(see Exhibit 4);

Phase I should be implemented immediately, and Phase II

should be implemented when continued serious beach

erosion threatens the access walkway (presently, lake

levels are such that adequate beach widths are found

in this walkway area. Should future lake levels remain

at existing elevations or drop, the Phase II Z-wall

may not be required until such time when high lake levels

are experienced);

The orientation of the Z-wall system is parallel to the

shoreline-
a)
The Z-w 11 panels would be placed direc@tly on the exist-

ing beach near the existing shoreline. No dredging or fill

would be required other than that necessary to place the

panels in a level area;

The Z-wall height is six feet. Each panel is approxi-

mately 14 feet long. Two panels are required for each

14 lineal feet of shoreline protection;

The inside "vee" of the Z-wall- is protected against

scour by riprap stone;

Further construction details and dimensions of the groins

are given in Exhibit 5.

6.5 Bluff-Toe Stabilization

The most critical aspect of the restoration of Hagar.Township

Park is the stabilization of the bluff-toe. Further erosion and

recession of the bluff resulting from storms and high water levels

can only be prevented by adequate toe protection. Although the

proposed groin system has a stabilizing effect on the erosion process,

i.e., it-retards and reduces the erosion, it is emphasized here

that such a system does not provide adequate protection of the toe

against major storms.

Devices to retard or reduce bluff erosion include, stone

revetments, Z-walls , wood timber sheet piling, steel sheet piling

and vertical concrete retaining walls.

6.6 Recommended Stone Revetment

A stone revetment placed at the toe of the bluff parallel to

the shoreline is recommended to adequately protect the bluff against

wave erosion and permit growth of a vegetative cover on the face

after the slope is reduced by excavation (see Section 7 .41). Such

a structure is relatively economical (if stone material at the

time of construction is sufficiently available) and is very effective

in the dissipation of wave energy. Further, the recommended stone

revetment will not cause unnecessary erosion of the beach when the

bluff is attacked by waves, as would be the case, for example, with

a vertical sea wall.

The design water level is based on a maximum hourly mean

water level with an average return period of once in 20 years.

This level is 581.9 feet IGLD and includes the effect of wind

setup (Reference 5).

The design height of the stone revetment should be such that

the design wave does not over-top the revetment; i.e. the height

of the revetment should reach a level equal to design water level

plus an estimated value for the wave runup. The wave runup is

calculated using a formula given in Reference 6, namely,

R =Hbr
B + J_Hbr/L cotan 0

6.7 Alternative Z-wall System

An alternative to stabilize the toe is construction of a

Z-wall across the entire length of the shoreline. The use-of

the Z-wall has shown to provide adequate toe protection for a

majority of the wave attack to the bluff, however, due to the

relative short height of the panels above the'beach area, some

over-topping due to extreme large wave actions may be anticipated.

Additionally, the initial cost of the Z-wall is significantly

lower than the stone revetment. The maititenance cost of the Z-wall

are also anticipated to be significantly lower than those maintenance

costs associated with the stone revetment.

6.8 Alternative Vertical Retaining Walls

A second alternative method to stabilize the toe is a vertical

steel sheet pile, wood timber pile, or concrete sea wall. However,
their destabilizing effects on the beach and relatively high costs

make these methods less suitable for Hagar Township Park.

6.91 E ffects on Neighboring Properties

The groins are designed sufficiently low and start back in

the existing beach areas to prevent substantial erosion. With the

net longshore transport from north to south (Reference 2), some

minor erosion is possible south of the Park, However, if any erosion

will occur, no damage to the southerly bluff will result because of

the bluff protection by existing steel sheet piling.

The -stone revetment will have no adverse effects on the

properties on either side of Hagar Township Park. On the north
side the stone revetment will effectively dissipate the wave energy

so that no undesirable discontinuities in wave patterns result.

On the south side the stone revetment will stop the bluff erosion

at the transition from the unprotected bluff of the Park to the steel

piling of the neighboring property.

6.92 Comparison of Groin/Stone Revetment System to Z-wall System

A comparison of the overall impacts of the groin/stone revet-

ment vs. Z-wall system follows:

Overall Beach Protection: Relative to the Z-wall system,

and in areas of strong littoral currents, (such as Hagar

Township Beach) groins appear to provide a larger increase

in effectiveness for beach accretion.

Overall Bluff Toe Protection -Groins do not provide any

direct substantial wave attack protection to the toe of

the adjacent bluff. Z-wall systems have been found to

provide a moderate level of bluff toe protection in con-

junction with their ability for beach accretion. Properly

designed stone revetments provide excellent bluff toe

protection.

Effects on Neighboring Property Owners: Generally, groin

systems have been found to result in some increases in

erosion to neighboring property owners beach and bluff areas.

Z-wall and stone revetment systems do not seem to cause

significant increases in neighboring property erosion

probl ems.

Objections to Construction Permit Application: Generally
speaking, short,groin systems (those less than 50' in length)
and Z-walls proposed in the Southern Lake Michigan area have

received few objections.

Initial and Maintenance Costs: The initial cost of the

three groins and stone revetment is estimated at $188,750.

The initial cost of the Z-wall' systems are: Phase I -

$16,200 and Phase II - $18,300; total both phases of

$34,500. A Z-4all system across the entire length of

beach area is estimated to cost $80,050.

Significant Maintenance costs to the groin/stone revetment

system are expected to be incurred within 5-10 years after
installation. The Maintenance cost of the "Z-x/all-'system

is minimal throughout its useful life of 10-20 years.

Construction Effects: Both systems will be anticipated to

be constructed using a crane/barge platform rig. Therefore,

no significant differences in co nstruction methods/effects

are anticipated.

Aesthetic Appearance: Both the groin and 'Z-wall systems

do not appear to have significant differences regarding

objections to or other considerations due to appearance.

The major differences on an overall basis of appearance

that the groins are a wood timber material, and the 'Z-wall

is a precast concrete material. The stone revetment, how-

ever,: is often objected to in beach areas due to its

appearance.

7. UPPER BLUFF STABILIZATION

7.1 Characteristics of Bluff

The bluff at the Hagar Township site consists pre-
dominantly of'unconsolidated material with the presence of clay

lenses exposed at the face. There is approximately a 44 feet

drop to the beach, with a slope of 1.14 H : lV. The face-is

highly erodable, both at the toe due to wave action, and at the

upper regions due to causes mentioned below. This section will

address the problem of upper bluff erosion and will suggest means

to retard the bluff from rapid recession.

7.2 Causes of Erosion

There are three suspected sources of erosion on the upper

bluff face. First, due to the presence of soil moisture, there

was observed (on May 25, 1981) a substantial amount of ground-
water-seepage from the top sand layer and from the sand lenses

interspersed in the lower lying clay material. This flow may be

intermittentil occurring predominantly during the wet seasons.

However, there may be more continuous sources of.groundwater

which would proVide a continual-seepage face to appear;. Extensive

seepage can lead to slumping 'of the bluff. In addition to natural
groundwater movement, possible additional sources'of seepage

flow at the site are the drainage ditch located at the eastern

extremity and a septic field (if one exists).-

A second cause of erosion may be attributed to surface

runoff from the upper ground level, and on the bluff face itself.

This overland flow process will create rill and gully erosion

and*ultimately seriously damage the-bluff. overland flow occurs

due to precipitation excess, once the soil is incapable of ab-

sorbing moisture because of saturated conditions. An additional

source of overland flow on the bluff face originates from the -

groundwater seepage faces.. Overland*flow is not considered to

be-a serious problem, except-under extreme conditions-of intense

rainfall of sufficient duration or of intense snow melt. These

events, combined with groundwater seepage on the face of the

bluff, may contribute to surface erosion.

The third source of erosion stems from human activity,

which at the Hagar ownship site, takes place at a high level.

The creation of footpaths on.the bluff face leads to channeli-

zation of overland flow, and ultimately formation of gulleys.

Vehicular activity close to the top of the bluff damages the
vegetative cover there, which can lead to further surface erosion.

An additional source of bluff.erosion is wind-action.

This is not considered to be a serious problem at the site except,

pprhaps, at the northern side where a sand bluff exists.

7.3 Recommended Remedies for Bluff Erosion

Due to the extreme erosion-conditions in evidence at the.

site, an optimum recovery measure would be to utilize a combined.

management strategy of structural control at the toe of the bluff

(see Section 1), drainage and vegetative controls on the face,

and traffic control at the ground surface.

7.31 Control of Vehicular and Foot Traffic at Top of Bluff

Vehicles should be prevented from advancing beyond

designated parking areas. Foot traffic is to be discouragedil

if not prevented, from creating paths along the edge of the bluff

and on the bluff face. A fence should be constructed, set back

from the bluff edge, with a green belt provided in-between. The

foliage could consist of dense low growth, such as brambles to

discourage pedestrian traffic. All access to the beach should

be directed to the walkway on the north side of the site (see

Section 3).

7.32 Drainage Controls at Ground Surface

An investigation could be conducted to see whether the

highway drainage ditch and the septic field are causes of addi-

tional groundwater flow resulting in seepage faces occurring

more continuously in the bluff face. If such is thecase, the

drainage ditch could be lined and the flow rechanneled to a

drain pipe laid and bu ri ed in the north access site, and the tile

field could be intercepted in a similar manner.. We suspect that

these flows either are intermittent or are insufficient-to war-

rant detailed consideration. A more relevant problem is the

presence of natural groundwater seepage.on the face of the bluff.

This is addres sed in the following section.
7.'4 Bluff Alteration

A major problem related to bluff stabilization at the

site is the steepness of the bluff slope (1.14 H : 1V). This is

caused primarily by wave erosion at the toe and subsequent

undermining of the clay wall. In addition, the gulley erosion
taking place in the higher zones of the bluff'tend to 'inhibit

stabilization with appropriate vegetative cover. Any effective

remedy to bluff erosion must consider major alterations to.the

bluff'itself. Furthermore, it is necessary to.account for the

.private property on either side of the site.

In order to stabilize the bluff, the primary task is to

protect the toe from wave-action.* This is 'accomplished by con-

struction of a revetment and enhancement of the beach (see

-Section 1). Two alternate bluff.alterations are'p'regented below,

ranging from extreme modification Jhigh cost) to minimal .(low

cost).

7.41 Alternate A (see Exhibit,8)

Excavate the bluff from,a 1.14 H 1 Vslope to 1.5 H,

to 1 V slope. -This. would create an additional set-

back of. 16 feet at ground level. 'Such an alteration

would allow vegetative growth to become established.

on the face (Reference 3).

The south'side of the-site c6uldr6ceive th"e,excess

slope material to build up a-terraced hillside to the

adjacent private property.

Locate an-interceptor.file drain-at the top of the

bluff. -Terrace the bluff face to'create berms and

drains midway and near the toe, to intercept runoff

and seepage.flows. The channels'and tile drains are

to be routed to drain pipes down to the beach area.

Remove all fallen trees from the bluff area. Any

trees removed at the top of the bluff should have their

roots left intact to hold in the soil (Re ference 3).

Establish vegetation on the face and top of the bluff.

A dense cover should be selected (juniper, bramble,

etc.) to discourage foot traffic. Use selective vege-

tation to provide an aesthetic view of the lake at the

top of the bluff. Further'down,-it may be desirable

to plant some-trees willows are effective (Reference

3).

At the south side of the site-the established hillside

could be terraced with rail-road ties .(to be anchored

into the bluff), and grasses and shrubs planted. This

is an area iqhich-may require repeated maintenance.

At the.north side of the site, the access walkway is

to be developed (see Section 3).; Plantings are to be

provided to stabilize the bluff region: appropriate

dense cover on the.clay and beach grass on the sand.

(Reference 3).

7.42 Alternate B (see Exhibit 9)

Retain bluff with its present slope (1.14 H I V).

This will not halt the surface erosion process, since.

it is likely that vegetation will not grow effectively.

However, toe erosion will be inhibited by construction

of the revetment.

Attempt to intercept any significant groundwater

seepage with lateral berms and surface drains channeled

to the beach.

Remove fallen trees on bluff face. Trees removed at

the top of the bluff should have their roots left intact

to hold in the soil.

Prevent.surface runoff at the top of the bluff by con-

struction of a diversion berm.

If borrow material is available, terrace the south side

of the site as in Alternate A, to protect the adjacent

property from further erosion.

Alter the north side of the site as in Alternate A.

BEACH ACCFSS

To prevent injury and enhance the visual aesthetics of the

site, it is recommended that the unused stairway and foundation

be'removed. The north side access path must be developed to

accommodate pedestrian traffic and minimize erosion damage. The

natural slope of the access.route is approxim ately 4 H : 1 V.

This is to be maintained. The following alterations.and additions

are recommended (see*Exhibit 10),

A sand bluff exists on the north side. 6f.the walkway,

adjacent to private property. . This bluf f should be.

maintained by the planting of American beachgrass

(Reference 4).

On the south side of the walkway, 'prepare a slope of

1.5 H : 1 V and plant appropriate vegetative cover

(beachgrass on sand and brambles and juniper plus trees

on clay) to discourage foot traffic.

Walkway (Alternate A). Provide sectional platforms

of treated wood placed with a 8 H : 1 V slope and

fastened to railroad ties. The platforms are approxi-

mately 8 feet in.length by 6 feet wide, and thd ties

are to be anchored into the bluff. (see Exhibit 11).

With this design, a single step will be encountered

every 8 feet.

Walkway (Alternate B). Lay the 8 feet by 6 feet plat-

form directly on the natural 4 H : 1 V slope and anchor

the upper end of each platform with 6 to 8 feet metal

stakes (see Exhibit 12).

-7. Handrails to be placed on both sides of walkway.plat-

form to assist pedestrians in ascent and descent, and

.to prevent traffic on adjacent bluff faces (see.

Exhibit-11).

Beach and Bluff Stabilization

of Hagar Township Park

Recommendation Summary

(listed in order of highest priority)

1. Placement of stone revetment and low-level groins at
toe of bluff to inhibit wave erosion and stabilize beach.

Alternative: Installation of Z-wall panels at toe of
bluff to inhibit wave erosion and stabilize beach.'

2. Development of beach access area:

grade southern face to 1.5 H to 1 V to accommodate dense
vegetation

plant beach grass on northern face

placement of walkway

3. Remove fallen -trees on face of bluff and plant a green belt
of dense vegetation at top of bluff. Construct fence to
discourage foot traffic on bluff.

4. Remove stairwa, and foundation.

5. Stabilize bluff slope with terracing and drainage system.

References

1. "Coastal Changes, Eastern Lake Michigan, 1970-1973",
Richard A. Davis, Jr., Technical Paper No. 76-16, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center,
October 1976.

2. "Help Yourself; A Discussion of Erosion Problems on the Great
Lakes and Alternative Methods of Shore Protection:, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, North Central Division, September 1978.
3. "The Role of Vegetation in Shoreline Management", prepared
by the Great Lakes Basin Commission Staff, available from the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

4. "Dune Building and Stabilization With Vegetation", Special
Report No. 3, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineer-
ing Research Center, September 1978.

5. "Report on Great Lakes Open Coast Flood Levels," U.S. Army
Corps-of Engineers, February 1977.

6. "Two Dimensional Tests of Wave Transmission and Reflection
Characteristics of Laboratory Breakwaters," William Feelig,
Technical Report 80-1, U.S. Army, Coastal Engineering Re-
search Center.

7. "Design Wave Information for the Great Lakes," Report No. 3,
Lake Michigan. Hydraulics Laboratory, U.S. Army, Engineering
Waterways Experiment Station, P.O. Box 631, Vicksburg, Missis-
sippi, 39180, November 1976.

8. Z-walls, Speidel Foundation and Marine Inc., 220 North Wayne
Street, St. Joseph, Michigan 49085, 1973.*NOTE: When reference
is made to Z-wall's in this report, we do not necessarily refer
to or endorse the manufacturer of the "Z-Wall", however, we are
referring to a precast concrete "Z" or "W" shaped erosion control
device.- Presently, we are not aware of other equivalent or
similar systems.

HAGAR TOWNSHIP PARK

ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS

I. PARK DEVELOPMENT ITEMS

1. Parking Lot Improvements
Grub and grade 30,000 sq. ft.
8" gravel compacted in place $11,100
85 parking stops @ $8.00 each* 680
2 floodlights @ $110.00 each 220
702 LF NBR chain link fence
6' high including one (1)
12' wide gate and 3" OD
end, corner and gate posts 5,967
2. Park Improvements $1779-67 $17,967
15 tables @ $165.00 each $ 2,475
6 grills @ $80.00 each * 480
8 drum caps @ $35.00 each 280
1 redwood playstructure 22'
X 27', capacity, 20 - 25
kids, includes: chain
ladder, chinning bar
slide, main structure,
swing, and ring swing 3,000
2 tennis courts, including
fencing 20,000
1440 LF of 6' high NBR chain
link fencing @ 7.50 LF
installed 10,800
95 hedge quality autumn olive 100
@37,135 $37,135

3. Park Entrance Drive Improvements
Remove miscellaneous shrubs etc. $ 1,000,
Fill at entrance 1,200
Guard rail* 100
Relocate power pole 500
Gravel 600
0 $ 3,400

All items noted with asterisk do not include labor
cost for installation. All others assume installed
cost by outside contractors.

Note: Construction cost of horseshoe pits is assumed
to be by Hagar Township personnel.

!I. BEACH AND BLUFF EROSION CONTROL ITEMS

1. Remove existing stairway, four)dations,
trees and sheet pilinp $ 6,000

2. Install Wood Groins
150 LF G;oin @ $195.00 $29,250
30 Ton Rip Rap @ Y35.00 1,050
Engineering, Administration
Contingency @ 15% 4,550
@34,850 $34,850

3. Install Z-wall Beach Protection

Phase I
B-4--LF Z-wall @ $170A0 $14,280
12 Ton Rip Rap @ $35-00 420
Engineering, Administration 6C
Contingency @ 15% 2,200
Phase 11 $16,900 $16,900
98- _LF `-1--wall @ $170. 00 $16,600
15 Ton Rip Rap @ $35.00 525
Engineering, Adninistration &
Contingency (a 15% 2,515
$_Lq, 70(F $19,700

4. Install Stone Revetment - Bluff Protection
Excavation, filter cloth, small
and large rip rap stone,
425 LF @ $315.00 $133,875
Engineering, Administration &
Contingency @ 15% 20,025
$133,87-5 $153,900

5. Install Z-wall' Revetment Bluff Protec-
tion
425 LF Z-wall @ $165.00 $70,125
60 Ton Rip Rap @ $35-00 2,100
Engineering, Administration &
Contingency @ 15% 10,825
@800050 $80,050

'NOTE: If the Z-wall systems in Item 3 of*Phase I and Phase II
beach Protection are implemented in conjunction with this
bluff protection system, the total lineal feet of- Z-wall
may be reduced by the length of the wallas described in
Phase I-and II. The total cost would also be reduced
accordingly.

BLUFF STABILIZATION ITEMS

1. Bluff Set Back Alternate

Excavate bluff for 1.5 : 1.0
slope $7,500
Plant beach grass/black
locust * 2,000
Berm 1/3 slope and provide
drainage tiles ** 10,000
Install fence across top of
bluff 360 LF @ @6.00 2,160
Engineering, Administration &
Contingency @ 15% 3,240
$24,900 $24,900

2. Bluff Diversion Berm/Inter
ceptor Drain Alternate
Soil Borings/Moniter Wells $2,000
Drainage tile along top of
bluff 400 LF @ @13.00 5,200
Drainage tile to toe of bluff
100 LF @ $30.00 3,000
Leaching basin at toe of bluff
2 EA @ $1,500 3,000
Lateral berms with drains
15 EA @ $690 9,000
Plant Beach Grass/Black Locust* 2,000
Install fence across top of
bluff 360 LF @ $6.00 2,160
Engineering, Administration &
Contingency @ 15% 3,940

$30,300 $30,300

3. Wooden@Beach Acces.s-Walkway
Alternative A - Railroad Tie Anchors
Treated wooden deck
1200 SF @ $5.00 $ 6,000
Railroad tie anchors
50 each @ $56.00 2,800
Hand rail ( both sides walk-
way) 200 LF @ $5.00 1,000
Beach Grass/Black Locust
along walkway* 500
Engineering, Administration &
Contingency @ 15% 1,500
$ IT 1-9-0-0 $11,800

Alternative B - Screw Type/Stake Anchors
Treated wood deck
1200 SF @ $5.00 $ 6,000
Screw type/stake anchors
50 each @ $35.00 1,750
Hand rails (both sides of
walkway) 200 LF @ $5.00 1,000

Beach Grass/Black Locust
along walkway* 500
Engineering, Administration &
Contingency @ 15% 1,350
$10,600 $10,600

(See previous note)
*-,'@Water absorption by the Black Locust trees
may be sufficient to mitigate seepage from
watertable, thus not requiring this item.

VA- 125 1 -r

F" I W N-> 4.7

Tor- C3jF" V5L-Q;=Ir IC -77

A .0

@F@O

@jj
LJ1
all

tm c>
hi

-r-@x Ves

wcmob@*
b- I A, "3;-: -V@-: V-
WOO t@- P-1 7-1 H Z5;-= 1?-1' \>/AwL-AZ6

17 T I H LS JP-- t,--
V/P

woo th. VA'T- I VI-7

Lill

I ES

IVJ6-rAvL-L- KIP@-WAIP' P-@ V16.

.98
@-75- @-

Z- WA" LF--rAo@-

L@-WAU- 6r=o-'Tfo

14@ 4 3/4

14/- 7to,

T-L-

HAX I MU @A WAVS (1-4L-
\WA7rAEV- LxrG-VX-7t--

X\' -3 \,VA7;-= Z
571V
-VILT L "r 1: TO 579-1 7/l/61

777@-
- ---------------
- -, ;w7

O;qz O-F, VSL-ov,@r

..O@o
liz

CZ>

@ P-1: @ 95w@

Z:5-

C,Cf

1.01 WALKWAY

A wv,-@ 6 V+ I P- P-,&,
;@x I ts I -r V1, I I

ti
G xe rL-A7--@70@r-"

WAtLY-WAY

1-@ V-.D 6 ki 1-:rtl5t @-@T- i,-D
P* ll@@ 7-1 6 Q;z vs \<C) ;e: 6

G I

125

I
I
I SECTION III
I HAGAR TOWNSHIP PARK
I IMPLEMENTATION
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
ABONMARCHE CONSULTANTS, INC.
I Benton Harbor, Michigan
I August, 1981
I
I
I
I
I

9. IMPLEMENTATION

Development of park improvements and erosion control measures
will be contingent upon the financial resources available.
Township funds are limited. County funding is not available
at this time and is not likely to become available.

Successful development of Hagar Township Park will be tied
to the Townships ability to leverage additional funding from
Federal grant programs. Two funding programs remain avail-
able; The Coastal Zone Management Program (CZM) and the
Resource Conservation and Development Program (RC&D).

9.1 Coastal Zone Management:

An application for $50,000 in construction funds has been
submitted to CZM for Hagar Township. CZM funding for construction
projects is ending. If this application is approved, it will
be the last opportunity to use this program for construction.

The CZM program requires a 20% local participation. The
$50,000 request would be matched by $12,500 from Hagar Town-
ship resulting in a potential construction budget of up to
$62,500 for 1982.

CZM will fund site improvements such as: recreational im-
provements, fencing, parking lot, walkway, bluff cutback,
and bluff and walkway revegetation. However, CZM will not
fund erosion control structures such as: groins, stone.revetments
or Z-walls,

9.2 Resource Conservation and Development:

The Sauk Trails RC&D District Office has placed Hagar Township
Park on a list of potential funding projects for "Critical
Area Treatment Measures (Erosion and Sediment Control)".
This program.applies to critically eroding areas which cannot

be stabilized by ordinary conservation and management measures,
and if left untouched would cause severe sediment or erosion
damage. These measures may be carried out on critically
eroding areas on public or private lands that:
(1) if left untouched will adversely affect the community
or the general public, and
(2) the treated area will be maintained in trees, shrubs,
and grass or other protective cover.

Eligible practices include, but are not limited to:
(1) Critical area planting
(2) Fencing (except boundary fences)
(3) Grade stabilization structures
(4) Stone Revetments - Riprap
(5) Mulching
(6) Tree planting
(7) Terraces
(8) Subsurface drains needed to stabilize critical areas.

The RC&D Critical Area Program requires 25% local participation
for.Critical Area Treatment Measures.

Another funding resource through RC&D is for Basic Facilities.
Under this program waterbased recreation is an eligible
activity. Eligible improvements include:

(1) roads, trails, paths and walks providing access from
public highways,and between different parts of the
development
(2) parking areas
(3) scenic overlooks, observation towers and platforms
(4) water, electric and sanitary facilities for the park

The RC&D Basic Facilities Program requires a 50% local
participation.

There is a waiting list locally for funding through the
Sauk Trails RC&D office. Fund.ing is on a first come-first
served basis among eligible projects. The local office
indicates late 1982 or 1983 would be a realistic estimate
for a funding timetable.

Of critical impact to this project is the fact that RC&D
will only fund shoreline erosion structures above the ordinary
high water mark. It is their position that devices con-
structed below that point are the responsibility of the
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers.

As funding is not available from the Army Corps, this issue
effectively eliminates the recommended option of revetment
at the toe of the bluff combined with beach stabilization
groins. This option is not cost effective without substantial
Federal cost participation, and such participation is not
currently available.

The recommended alternative of installation of Z-wall
panels at the toe of the bluff above the ordinary high
water mark to inhibit wave erosion or at the southerly,
property line to stabilize.,the beach is eligible for,
funding 4s.a,Critical Area Treatment through Sauk Trails
RC&D Council.

The following implementation alternatives are designed to
maximize federal grant participation due to the limited
financial resources of Hagar Township. Several alternatives
are presented to give the Township a variety of options
while ensuring a complimentary mix of improvements are considered.

.The implementation alternatives are presented in order of
decreasing cost while reflecting on effective mix of recom-
mended implementation measures.

9.3 ALTERNATE I

This alternate is a two year project designed to fully
implement recommended park improvements and beach and bluff
stabilization measures within the parameters of existinF
federal grant programs. 1982 CZM construction funding will
be utilized to implement recreational improvements, etc.,
on top of the bluff. 1983 RC&D funding will be utilized
for beach and bluff stabilization measures.

1982 PARK DEVELOPNENT (CZM)
1. Parking lot improvements $18,000
2. Park improvements less
tennis courts 17,100
3. Park entrance drive 3,400
4. Alt. A. beach access
w a 1 kw a y 10,300
5. Engineering, administration
& contingency @ 15% 7,300
$56,100

CZM $44,900 local $11,200

1983 BEACH AND BLUFF STABILIZATION (RC&D)

1. Remove stairway $ 6,000
2. Excavate slope 1.5:1.0 7,500
3. Install bluff fencing 2,200
4. Plant grass & trees 2,000
5. Install Z-wall 72,200
6. Engineering, administration
& contingency @ 15% --13,500
$103,400
1983 construction + 12% -12,400
$115,800

RC&D $86,900 local $28,900

9.'4 ALTERNATE II

This alternate is also a two year project which scales back
the amount of improvements while maintaining a viable project
concept. Due to the past performance of Z-wall on simi:lar
beach environments, it is possible that installation of Z-wall
at the south property line will mitigate the most serious
bluff erosion problem while building up additional beach to
protect the remainder of the bluff. If needed, the remaining
Z-wall could be installed sometime in the future.

1982 PARK DEVELOPMENT ITEMS (CZ11)

1. Parking lot improvements $18,000
2. Park improvements excluding
US33 fence & tennis courts 11,500
3. Entrance drive 3,400
4. Walkway 10,600
5. Engineering, administration
& contingency @ 157/0 6,500
$50,000

CZM $40,000 loca 1 $10,000

1983 BEACH AND BLUFF STABILIZATION (RC&D)

1. Z-wall south section $14,300
2. Stairway removal 6,000
3. Excavate bluff 7,500
4. Beach grass & trees 2,500
5. Bluff fence 2,200
6. Engineering, administration
& contingency @ 15% 4,900
$37,400
1983 Const. + 12% 4,500
$41,900

RC&D $31,400 local $10,500

9.5 ALTERNATE III

This alternate-considers the minimum level of improvements
to restrict access, provide recreational improvements, and
mitigate beach and bluff erosion. Additional erosion control
measures can be installed at a later date as needed and as
funding is available. If RC&D monies are available in 1982,
this alternate could be constructed in one year.

PARK DEVELOPMENT ITEMS (CZM)

1. Parking lot improvements $18,000
2. Park improvements excluding
fence along US33 & tennis
courts 11,500
3. Entrance drive 3,400
4. Bluff fencing 2,200
5. Beach grass & trees 2,500
6. Walkway 10,300
7. Stairway removal 6,000
8. Engineering, administration
& contingency @ 15% 9,200
$63,100

CzM $50,00.0 local $13,100

BEACH AND BLUFF STABILIZATION (RC&D)

1. Z-wall south section $14,300
2. Engineering, administration
& contingency @ 15% 2,100
$16,400

R.C&D $12,200 local $ 4,200

10. REVENUE PRODUCING POTENTIAL

Periodically, throughout the summer of 1981, the park site
was visited to gain a perspective of user characteristics on high
use days. This was not an attempt to perform a statistical anal-
ysis. But was rather a subjective evaluation gained through
observation and interviews.

10.1 USER CHARACTERISTICS

Atz given time, on a weekend afternoon with good weather,
between 40 and 60 vehicles would be parked in the park. The
vehicles were usually evenly divided between Michigan and out-of-
state license plates. Michigan vehicles were generally local.
Out-of-state plates were generally owned by persons.who owned or
rented cottages or second homes locally. Comparatively few park
users arrived from outside of Berrien County for the purpose of
using Hagar Township Park.

An average of 3 persons per vehicle arrived, and throughout the
day there was a fairly slow but regular turnover. A typical stay
in the park was about 4 hours and roughly a total of 80 different
vehicles would arrive. Total daily usage on a weekend averaged
200 to 240 persons.

10.2 REVENUE POTENTIAL

As the park is improved, we would expect local usage to increase,
predominantly by drawing persons who are currently using "Roadside"
beach in the northern portion of the township. However, we do not
anticipate enough additional usage to justify typical revenue pro-
ducing efforts, such as, sale of user permits or concession for
refreshments. :

The administrative problems involved in a permit system would
outweigh revenue received from the comparatively small number of
park users.

As most park users are staying in a local home or cottage, the
revenue potential'from. the sale of refreshments is fairly limited,
in comparison to other facilities where the day user originates
outside the local area.

11. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

The recommended development strategy is designed to minimize
annual maintenance..
- Fencing: Quality chain link fencing, properly installed, will
be largely maintenance-free and have a life expectancy in
excess of 20 years. There is a potential for vandalism
which should promptly be repaired.

- Parking Lot: The proposed gravel lot may occasionally need
additional gravel or some grading to fill holes.

- Walkway: The walkway is designed to be replaceable in 8 ft.
sections for ease of maintenance. Lower sections could
be removed during the winter to minimize potential damage.

- Erosion Control - The cost effective erosion control measure of
.Z-wall and planting's is-largely maintenance-free and would
not be an annual cost.

- Equipment: Tables, grills and recreation equipment should be
removed and stored during the off season.

Most maintenance costs the township will face, will be people
related, such as, litter and vandalism. Litter and vandalism can
be minimize through proper security, supervision, lighting and
regula@rily emptied trash receptacles.

A two man crew, working two weeks a year, will be able to perform
typical annual maintenance efforts. A week will be necessary to
open the park in the spring and a week will be necessary to close
the park in the fall. During the balance of the 'summer, Part-time
student help may be necessary for cleaning and litter removal.

An annual budget of $5,000 for manpower and material should be
suff icient for normal maintenance expenses-

HEAVY MAINTENANCE

2 man crew/2 weeks 160 hours @ $8.00/hour = $1,280

OPERATIONAL MAINTENANCE

Part-time student 20 hrs/wk x 13 wks
260 hours @ $4.00/hour = $1,040

Supplies, equipment and.material $2,680

.$5,000

The full amount allocated for supplies, equipment and material will
not be used each year and the balance should be reserved and allowed
to accumulate for unexpected or extraordinary maintenance costs.

12. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

12.1 Alternate Selection

At a special meeting on September 1, 1981, the Hagar Township
Board of Trustees selected Alternate III for implementation in 1982.
Further,*at that meeting the township announced approval of con-
struction funding through the Great Lakes Shorelands Section,
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Approval by the Federal
office of Coastal Zone Management is anticipated by October 1, 1981
for the 1981-82 fiscal year.

Upon completion, this study will be forwarded to the staff of the
Saulk Trails RC&D office where a measure plan will be completed.
RC&D construction funding is possible during-fiscal year 1981-82.
As CZM construction funds cannot be carried over, RC&D funding for
1981-82 in a coordinated manner will be helpful to ensure the
erosion control device is installed before bluff plantings are
put in place.

12.2 Implementation Schedule

Assuming funding is approved, the following implementation
schedule is anticipated. This schedule may be modified if RC&D
funds are not forthcoming.

October, 1981: CZM final approval and contract executed between
Township and Consultant for final design, specifications, bid
and contract documents, and construction management services.

October, 1981 - December, 1981: Final design and construction
drawings completed. Permit process initiated. RC&D measure
plan completed and approved.

January, 1982 - February, 1982: Bid., specifications, and contract
documents completed.

March, 1982: Bids advertised and let. Contractor(s) selected
(pending permit approval)

April - June, 1982: Construction completed.

July 4, 1982: Project completed and opened to public.

BERRIEN COUNTY COURTHOUSE

,,Jr. 0
BERRIEN COUNTY OFFICE OF:
Planning Department
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ST. JOSEPH, MICHIGAN 49085
AARON ANTHONY, DIRECTOR TE LEPHON E: 616 983-7111, EXT. 254

August 25, 1981

Abonmarche Consultants, Inc.
Brian W. Sodt
95 West Main Street
Benton Harbor, MI 49022

Dear Mr. Sodt:

This letter is in reply to your inquiry as to the availability
of recreation funds from the County.

Since the acquisition of the Bi-State/Manion property, all
County development funds directed towards recreation are
earmarked for the Bi-State Park in order to bring that park
into usable shape. I am not aware of any funds not already
allocated.

If you have any additional questions, please contact me.

Sincerely,

BERRIEN COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT

Aaron Anthony, Planning Director
r1c

N AA COASTAL SERVICES TR LIBRAR
*@4

3 6668 1411 4