Wisconsin's shore erosion plan an appraisal of options and strategies

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

9e.72
L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L

ii
WISCONSIN'S

SHORE EROSION PLAN:

AN APPRAISAL OF

OPTIONS AND STRATEGIES

Roger Springman
Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey
University of Wisconsin-Extension

and

Stephen M. Born
Department of Urban and Regional Planning
University of Wisconsin-Madison, and
University of Wisconsin-Extension

TC
224 prepared for the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
.W6
S6
1979

June 1979

Propr-z tw r CC Lc cr

WISCONSIN'S SHORE EROSION PLAN:
AN APPRAISAL OF OPTIONS AND STRATEGIES

Roger Springman
Steve Born

June 1979

t. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOFSON AVENUE
hANRLESTON , SC 29405-2413

Financial assistance for this study has been provided through
the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, by the Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972 administered by the Federal Office
of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. The Wisconsin Coastal Management Program is
administered in the Office of Coastal Management, Wisconsin
Department of Administration.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

I INTRODUCTION

Role of This Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2

II AN OVERVIEW OF SHORE EROSION IN WISCONSIN

A. Shoreline Setting and Conditions ......... . . 6
B. Causes and Processes . . . . . . . . . . 10
C. Damages and Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 19
D. Traditional Approaches to Damage Reduction . . . . . 22

III ESTABLISHING A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
A. Principles and Guidelines for Reducing Erosion Damages . . 28
B. Planning Process for Damage Reduction Programs . . . . . . 32

IV REMEDIAL APPROACHES TO DAMAGE REDUCTION: STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
A. Types and Characteristics . . ..............38
B. Major Policy-Level Concerns . 40
C. Options and Strategies . .46
State-Level Regulatory Responses . . . . . . . . . . . 46
State-Level Financial Assistance Responses . . . . . . 59
State-Level Technical Assistance Responses . . . . . . 70

V PREVENTIVE APPROACHES TO DAMAGE REDUCTION:NONSTRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES

Introduction . . . ....... . . . . . . 77
A. Existing Nonstructural Framework . 78
Zoning and Land Use Regulation . . ..........81
Acquisition .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Relocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 87
Hazard Disclosure . 89
B. Options and Strategies . .91
Regulatory Strategies for Undeveloped Areas . . . . . . 97
Regulatory Strategies for Developed Areas . . . . . . . 100
Nonregulatory Strategies . 101
Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Relocation . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Hazard Disclosure . .. 104

VI SETTING THE COURSE: SOME FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
A. Monitoring and Research Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
B. Interstate Coordination and Cooperation . . . . . . . . . 110

Where Do We Go From Here? .. . ....... .... 112

Endnotes . . . . . ,..,... ........... . 114

Glossary ,. . . . . . . . . . ... , , , , . 119

Bibliography ............... . , , , , , , , , 121

Appendi . , ............. ........... 125

APPENDICES

A EROSION-RELATED REPORTS AND PUBLICATIONS OF THE WISCONSIN COASTAL
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ................................................... 126

B METHODOLOGY FOR SHORELINE INVENTORY AND COST-LAYOUT .................. 128
C PRE-ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION OF THE LAKE MICHIGAN SHORELINE:
KENOSHA THROUGH MANITOWOC COUNTIES ................................... 131
D PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS FOR SHORE/BLUFF PROTECTIVE DEVICES ........... 132

E PRINCIPAL SOURCES OF FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE RELATED
TO EROSION HAZARDS IN WISCONSIN ...................................... 140
F ISSUANCE OF WATER REGULATORY PERMITS UNDER CHAPTER 30, WISCONSIN
STATUTES ............................................................. 142

G CALIFORNIA SHORELINE EROSION PROTECTION POLICY ....................... 145
H MARYLAND LOAN FUND FOR EROSION CONTROL PROJECTS ...................... 149

I NORTH CAROLINA COST-SHARE PROGRAM FOR CIVIL WORKS PROJECTS ........... 153

J MICHIGAN TAX LEGISLATION FOR SHORE PROTECTION PROJECTS ............... 156

a. PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR SHORE PROTECTION PROJECTS
bo SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ALLOWED FOR EROSION CONTROL DEVICES

K SELECTED LAND USE INFORMATION ON INCORPORATED AND UNINCORPORATED
COASTAL AREAS ........................................................ 159
L CHAPTER NR 115, WISCONSIN ADMINISTRATIVE CODE: SHORELAND
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ................................................... 161
M EXECUTIVE ORDER 67, 1973 ............................................. 165

N CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS "BLUFF AND RAVINE STEEP SLOPE
ORDINANCE'. ........................................................... 167

0 ADMINISTRATIVE RULES, MICHIGAN'S SHORELAND PROTECTION AND
MANAGEMENT ACT ....................................................... 171

P SELECTED REFERENCES: GENERAL, NONSTRUCTURAL, AND STRUCTURAL ......... 175

TABLES
Page

I Shoreline Use and Ownership-Lake Michigan (Illinois State
Line to Northern End of Door County).... ... . . . 0 7
II Shoreline Use and Ownership-Lake Superior . . . . . . . . 9
III High Water Periods and Episodes Along Lakes Michigan and
Superior: 1860-1976. o * . o 0 . 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 a 0 *. 14
IV Preliminary Summary of Erosion-Related Damages: 1972-1976
(by category) . . . . . . a o . . 0 0 . a o . a .e 20
V Historical Use of Shore Protection Devices in Milwaukee, Racine,
and Manitowoc Counties . 0. a . a . o a o o . a . a 24

VI Guidelines for the Development of Shore Erosion Damage
Reduction Programs in Wisconsin . . . . . . ..0 0 . o 0. 31
VII Structural Solutions Applied to Wisconsin's Erosion-Prone
Shoreline: Initial Cost Estimate . .. 0 0 * . a . . .. 0 37

VIII Michigan Demonstration Project Summary: 1974. . . 0. o a 41
IX Snore Protection-Related Statutes Administered by the Bureau of
Water Regulation and Zoning, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources. . . 0 .a 0 0 . a 0 a . a 0 a a . 0 a 0 . 0 a. 47
X California Coastal Commission Shoreline Protection Project
Policies. . a a . 0 0 a 0 a 0 a .. 0 0 0 0 a o 0 57
XI Local Land Use Planning and Land Use Regulation Powers in
Wisconsin . . . . . a o 0 o o * O 80
XII Factors Influencing the Development and Implementation of
Damage Reduction Strategies 0 0 . 0 0 . . ... 108

FIGURES

1 Wisconsints Shore Erosion Study Plan . . . . . . * 3
2 Actively Eroding Areas: Wisconsin's Great Lakes Shoreline. . . 11
3 Beach Profile and Related Terms . . o a . . a e a 13
4 Bluff Profile Changes Near Port Washington . . . ... . 16
5 Generalized Planning Process for Damage Reduction Programs . . . 34
6 Chapter 30 Permit Process . . 0 . . a . .. . 0 0 * * * * 0 49
7 Erosion Hazard Delineation: Area Approach . 0 0 . a a 0 . 9 . 94
8 Erosion Hazard Delineation: Setback Approach . . a 0 0 a a a 96
9 Setback Measurement from the OHWM Along Coastal Bluffs . . . . .. 97

PREFACE

The effective management of erosion hazard areas along Wisconsin's
Great Lakes shoreline requires a combination of state and local actions.
Studies of erosion management alternatives by the Wisconsin Coastal Manage-
ment Program have shown that erosion problems can be handled in a large
number of ways by state and local governments. In this regard, this
document was prepared to serve as the basis for public policy formulation
and action in Wisconsin. It was not intended to prescribe single,
community-specific solutions for the Great Lakes shoreline. By providing
the factual basis for tailoring structural and nonstructural approaches to
fit specific problems, individual communities and state agencies can select
appropriate responses, consistent with their style and management needs.

The Wisconsin Coastal Management Council, the policy-making body for
the Coastal Management Program consisting of twenty-nine state and local
government representatives, discussed alternative erosion policies
through the winter of 1979. On March 21, 1979 the Council adopted a twelve-
point action strategy largely based on Erosion Plan findings. Simultaneously,
the Council began to implement a number of these actions, particularly those
that relate to regulatory process improvement, shoreland zoning, and hazard
disclosure. A complete listing of these actions is provided on the
following page. This twelve-point strategy-provides an initial state and
local government response to the policy questions raised in Chapter VI of
this report.

p~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Listing of Actions Taking by the Wisconsin Coastal
Management Council (3/21/79)

1. Adopt the "guidelines for damage reduction programs"' as a set of
policies for state agency actions and a framework for local govern-
ment action. Publicize and encourage incorporation in state and local
policies~.

2. Recommend to DNR that they specify the criteria used in making decisions
or applications for shore structure permits (environmental impact,
downdrift effect, design considerations, etc.)

3. Clarify the permitting process, streamlining it where possible, s~eeking
to simplify forms and procedures.

4. Have DNR establish systematic coordination and review sessions for
professionals at the local, state, and federal levels to exchange
information on existing problems and alternative solutions.

5. Up-grade DNR staff expertise on coastal and bluff engineering for the
development of improved procedures and criteria,

6. Conduct training seminars for private engineers, public works offices,
and others on coastal and bluff engineering.

7. Conduct public information workshops on erosion hazards for lending
institutions, realtors, civic groups, etc.

8. Locate high risk erosion areas and provide map(s) to the Real Estate
Examining and Licensing Board for publication, alerting realtors and
their clientele to the location of hazards.

9. Establish a technical assistance capacity to answer local property
ownerst questions; assist local governments in developing erosion
programs; and to help in training programs.

10. Encourage local governments to undertake erosion planning using
incentives, information, and technical assistance provided by the state,

11. Initiate a study of beach nourishment, its feasibility and impact on
reducing erosion damage as well as its impact on the environment.

12. Seek demonstration projects of innovative solutions to erosion damage
mitigation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Numerous individuals, some over a four-year period, have contributed
to the Coastal Management Program's Shore Erosion Study Plan.
Some have been involved in data gathering, others in analysis, and yet
others in review and comment on the many working papers which underpin
this document. We wish to especially note the contributions of Tuncer Edil,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Wisconsin-
Madison; Charles Hess, Department of Health and Social Services (formerly
with the Department of Natural Resources)* Ted Lauf, Department of Natural
Resources; Dave Mickelson, Department of Geology and Geophysics, University
of Wisconsin-Madison; Al Miller, Wisconsin Coastal Management Program,
Department of Administration; and Douglas Yanggen, Environmental Resources
Unit, University of Wisconsin-Extension.

In addition, we would like to gratefully acknowledge the following for
their contributory roles: Onno Brouwer, UW-Madison (formerly with DNR);
Ed Brick, DNR; Kent Butler, University of Texas-Austin (formerly with
UW-Madison); Rich Cohen, UW-Madison (formerly with the Office of State
Planning and Energy); Robert DeGroot, Owen Ayres and Associates (formerly
with GNHS); Doris Fischer, Department of Revenue (formerly with GNHS);
Mark Greenwood, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor (formerly with Office of
State Planning and Energy); Dave Hadley (formerly with GNHS); Serge Hanson,
U.S. Forest Service (formerly with Owen Ayres and Associates); Gregory
Hedden, Sea Grant College Program, University of Wisconsin; Norman Lasca,
UW-Milwaukee; Richard Lehmann, UW-Extension; M.E. Ostrom, GNHS; David Owens,
North Carolina Coastal Management Program (formerly with Office of State
Planning and Energy); Gordon Pirie, UW-Milwaukee, Michelle Rothenburg
(formerly with Office of State Planning and Energy), Al Schneider, UW-
Parkside, and Paul Tychsen, UW-Superior.

Finally, we wish to especially thank the Wisconsin Geological and
Natural History Survey, and in particular Mike Czechanski and Valarie Wulf,
for providing the necessary supportive services for this document, and
serving as the coordination point for a large part of Study Plan activities.

vii

viiji

Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

In mid-1974, Wisconsin began its formal participation in coastal
management planning under provisions of the national Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Act of 1972. That Act offered coastal states, including the Great
Lakes states, the opportunity to receive federal financial assistance
while developing a program to improve the management of their coastal
shorelands and waters. For those state programs approved by the federal
Office of Coastal Zone Management, U.S. Department of Commerce, Additional
assistance was provided to implement the management plan. Executive Order
49 of 1977 officially created the Wisconsin Coastal Management Council, the
policy-making body for the coastal program. The Wisconsin Coastal Program
was approved by the federal government on June 8, 1978--the first
Great Lake state to receive program approval.

From its inception, the principal goal of the Wisconsin Coastal
Management Program was to preserve, protect, develop, and, where possible,
restore the resources of Lakes Michigan and Superior. Through the exten-
sive involvement of state and local officials and citizens, a number of
major coastal problems and issues were identified for Program attention
and action. Shore erosion was consistently ranked as a high priority
concern of riparian property owners and local government officials.
Interest and concern in shore erosion was high because Lakes Michigan and
Superior were at record high levels during this period (1972-1976), and
coastal property owners, businesses, and governments were suffering
millions of dollars in damages as a result of extensive erosion. In
response to this concern, the Coastal Management Program initiated a
shore erosion planning study in late 1974.

Wisconsin's Shore Erosion Study Plan was directed towards coordinating
all related erosion activities, developing a more complete coastal data
base, identifying erosion hazard areas, analyzing various structural and

nonstructural damage reduction options, and "packaging" necessary informa-
tion for state policy decision-making, primarily through the Wisconsin
Coastal Management Council. In addition, several special studies on

subjects such as lake level regulation, ordinary high water mark definition

-1-

and delineation, and erosion damage compensation were also conducted. A

diagram of the Erosion Study Plan is found on Figure 1. Appendix A
contains a complete listing of all erosion-related reports and working
papers of the Coastal Management Program. Information from this entire
work effort has been incorporated into this summary report--Wisconsin's
Erosion Plan: An Appraisal of Options and Strategies.

During this four-year study effort, a great wealth of supportive infor-
mation was generated by the Coastal Management Program. Vertical and
oblique aerial photography, shoreline recession rates, geologic and geo-
technical data, and inventories of shore protection structures represent
a few of the "tools" which were required to underpin the Study Plan. Much
of this information was immediately made available to, and used by, state
agencies, local governments, and regional and county planning agencies in
their coastal planning and management activities.

Role of this Report

Coastal erosion is not a new problem or hazard along the Great Lakes
shoreline. Erosion of Wisconsin's shorelines began at least ten thousand

years ago-after the retreat of glacial ice sheets, the establishment of
the present outlet conditions, and the stabilization of post-glacial lake
levels. Depending upon the rate of shoreline recession (retreat) and the
effectiveness of any structural actions taken to reduce these rates, all
buildings and economic activities in close proximity to the Great Lakes
can become endangered along erodible beaches, dunes, and bluffs. At
present, about 150 miles of Wicni's Great Lakes shoreline have serious
erosion hazard problems. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recently esti-
mated damage losses at $16 million along Wicni's shorelines between
1972 and 1976.

Coastal erosion directly affects several thousand coastal property

owners and a greater number of Wisconsinites through impacts upon public
facilities and beach and bluff use, e.g. public facility protection, higher
park and beach maintenance costs, limitations for marina and boat launching
development. Hence it is appropriate that the state take a close look at
the impacts of, and damage reduction options for, coastal erosion along
Lakes Michigan and Superior. But, it should be noted that erosion is only

Figure 1: Wisconsin's Shore Erosion Study Plan

Shore Damage
Surveys

Beach Erosion
Studies - Corps
of Engineers

Shoreline Studies - Recession Rate
Sea Grant Measurement Study
Geotechnical
Coastal Erosion Shore Structure Pablic Perception Investigation
Bibliography Files - Dept. Survey of Erosion of Shoreline Analysis of
Natural Resources Hazards Structural
Index of Coastal Characterization Alternatives Wisconsin's
ImageryC Illinois Coastal Delineation of of Reaches Shore Erosion
Erosion Studies Erosion Problem Analysis of Plan
Map and Chart Areas Inventory of Nonstructural
Index Michigan Shore Shore Protection Alternatives
Demonstration Delineation of Structures Shoreline
Program Erosion Reaches Monitoring

Red Clay Project Program

Lake Level Studies -
IJC and UW/CMP

PLUARG Task Force -
IJC

INVENTORY RELATED PROGRAM INFORMATION FIELD ANALYTICAL PLANNING-

REVIEW/COORDINATION STUDIES STUDIES STUDIES IMPLEMENTATION-

MONITORING

facet of a far larger hazard area management problem in Wisconsin, as
indicated by comparing the above damage figures with statewide flood
damages in excess of $50 million during 1978 alone. At some point, the
state may wish to consider a more comprehensive approach to resolving
common hazard area management problems.

This report, Wisconsin's Erosion Plan: An Appraisal of Options and

Strategies, assesses state-level policy options to reduce shore erosion
damages along the Great Lakes shoreline. The report describes and evalu-
ates policy alternatives for mitigating erosion damages through both
structural and nonstructural measures on developed and undeveloped lands.
Although the Erosion Plan does not provide a series of specific recommen-
dations for immediate policy-level action, the focus is on before-the-fact
strategies rather that after-the-fact emergency measures. Erosion control
or structural strategies have generally not proved cost-effective over the
short and long term. However, given the continuing amount of riparian and
local government interest in structural. approaches, particular attention
has been given to the possible role of state government in providing further
financial and technical assistance. Also, it should be pointed out that
the Shore Erosion Study Plan produced a geotechnical data base that can be
utilized in follow-up, site-specific engineering feasibility studies.

Chapters IV and V are the "heart" of Wisconsin's Erosion Plan,

Chapter IV, Remedial Approaches to Damage Reduction: Structural Alterna-
tives, reviews basic structural options and their limitations, then analyzes
three types of possible state-level responses: regulatory framework
modification, financial assistance, and technical assistance. Chapter V,
Preventive Approaches to Damage Reduction: Nonstructural Alternatives',
highlights four major preventive options: land use regulation, acquisition,
relocation, and hazard disclosure, then assesses some alternative imple-
mentation strategies. The final chapter, Setting the Course: Some Final
Considerations, provides a brief overview of research, monitoring, and
interstate coordination needs for the effective reduction of damages in
Wisconsin. A wide range of management-related information is contained in
the Appendix. Those topics of special interest include a listing of
financial/technical assistance sources, several laws and programs from
other coastal states, and cost-data for structural solutions.

-4-

From the outset, the intent of this Study Plan summary report has
been to provide the factual basis for making decisions and choosing among

alternative courses of action. Consequently no recommended, or "best",
courses of action are found within the ErosionPlan. The process of
selecting the "best" option(s) is often, in the case of policy decision-
making, a value judgement. For example, is it "best" to reduce future
* ~~~erosion damages by preventing further development of erosion-prone lands
by regulation? Or, is it "best" to achieve this objective by providing
relevant information about the potential hazards to prospective developers,
land purchasers, realtors, lending institutions, local government
officials, etc.? To a great extent, the answer to this question depends

upon one's point of view., Yet anouther illustration--if land use regulation
is to be the focus of damage reduction actions, is it "best" to regulate at
the local or state levels? "Best", as regards public policy, is a sub-
jective determination--a point all too often overlooked by technical
specialists. Such questions are resolved by a political process. In

laying out the various alternatives for the Wisconsin Coastal Management
Council, state agencies, and local governments, we hope that the Erosion
Plan will serve as a sound foundation for the policy-making process.

One final note. This report is a policy plan, not an area-specific
action plan. As such, it does not provide a detailed blueprint for each
foot of shoreline--as traditional land use plans and maps do. Regardless
of what actions, if any, the state may choose to take over the next few
years to reduce damages, local government officials and coastal riparians
should find this report helpful in determing what actions can be taken
independent of state activities.

In summary, the possible actions growing out of the Coastal Management
Program's erosion planning effort have the potential to shift Wisconsin's
response from a reactive, remedial posture to a preventive, anticipatory
one. The policy decisions made by the Wisconsin Coastal Management Council,
state agencies, and local governments, along with the extent of public
support for these decisions, will largely determine whether this effort
has been "one more study'' or an important ingredient in improving coastal

management in Wisconsin.

-5-

Chapter II

OVERVIEW OF SHORE EROSION IN WISCONSIN

A. Shoreline Setting and Conditions

Nearly one-half of Wisconsin's Great Lakes shoreline is vulnerable

to shore erosion. The 1971 National Shoreline Study1 identified 290 miles
of Wisconsin's 620 mile mainland shoreline as having significant erosion
potential. Wisconsin's shoreline is highly vulnerable to shore erosion
largely because of the presence of unconsolidated glacial materials such
as gravels, lake-deposited clays, and tills* in coastal landforms. These
materials have little ability to withstand the persistent attack of shore
erosion agents, particularly storm-driven waves during high water periods.
The susceptibility of coastal landforms to shore erosion has been further
increased by land use activities and management practices along the shore-
line. Once coastal landforms such as bluffs, beaches, and dunes become
unstable or subject to wave attack, recession* generally continues until

an equilibrium is reached between lake levels, gravity, and ground water
conditions. Except where wetlands (marshes), bedrock outcrops, and
durable, long-term structural devices adjoin the shoreline, shore erosion

remains a real or potential threat from Carol Beach in Kenosha County to
Superior Harbor in Douglas County.

Wiscnsins Lake Michigan shoreline is generally vulnerable to shore
erosion from the Illinois state line to the Sturgeon Bay Canal--a distance
of 185 miles. From the Sturgeon Bay Canal around the northern tip of Door
County to Green Bay, shore erosion is largely limited to bays and clay
bank areas. Coastal flooding replaces shore erosion as the most serious
natural hazard from Green Bay to the Michigan state line. Erosion rates
are particularly high along sandplains and high bluffs composed of till.
Short term recession rate measurements2 of 3-15 feet per year have been
recorded along sandplains and 2-6 feet per year along high bluff lines.
Bluff height increases from less than five feet in southern Kenosha County
to 80-100 feet near Whitefish Bay. From southern Ozaukee County to the.

*Refer to glossary on page 119 for definition or explanation

-6-

Sturgeon Bay Canal, the bluff crest generally remains 40-80 feet above

the lake. Near Virmond Park in southern Ozaukee County, the bluff reaches

its highest elevation of 140 feet. Water movement or seepage in coastal

bluffs is common along the entire Lake Michigan shoreline. Much of the

Lake Michigan bluffline remains in a relatively unstable condition because

of toe erosion* during the 1972-1976 high water period, Exposed or unveg-

etated slopes are common along a significant portion of the shoreline.

Beach widths presently vary between 10-20 feet along high bluffs to

50-100 feet along sandplains and dunes.

Shore erosion presents a widespread and serious hazard along many of

Lake Michigan's coastal 'reaches*. Twenty-four percent (24%) of Wisconsin's

entire population lives in incorporated communities having erosion-prone

reaches along Lake Michigan (see Appendix K, Selected Land Use Information

on Incorporated and Unincorporated Coastal Areas). These communities

include Milwaukee, South Milwaukee, Racine, Kenosha, Sheboygan, Kewaunee

and Manitowoc-Two Rivers. Urban-related land uses (residential, commercial,
and industrial) account for 36% of total shoreline use from Kenosha County

to northern Door County. Table I provides an overview of land use and

ownership along this section of coast.

Table I: Shoreline Use and Ownership-Lake Michigan (Illinois State Line
to Northern End of Door County)

COMMERCIAL & ARICULTR&
INDUSTRIAL UNDEVELOPED
\2ESN-FEDERAL
PUBLIC
21%

RE S I D E N T IALPRIVATE
3 32%a/ RECREATION 79%

PUBLIC BUILDINGS

SHORELINE USE SHORELINE OWNERSHIP

Source: National Shoreline Study, Army Corps of Engineers, 1971.

-7-

A large number of public and semi-public facilities such as power
plants, water intakes, sewage treatment plants, marinas, state parks, and
countyllocal parks adjoin the shoreline. Approximately 80% of the shore-
line is held under private ownership aid 20% by state, county and local
governments. Shore protection structures are concentrated around public
facilities, recreational facilities, urban centers, and residential
developments. Over 800 structural devices were recently inventoried
between the Illinois state line and Manitowoc.3

Except for several bedrock and wetland areas in Ashland and Bayfield
Counties, Wisconsin's Lake Superior mainland shoreline is generally
vulnerable across its entire length--a distance of 212 miles. Although
sandstone bluffs and rocky beaches are found along many of the Apostle
Islands, locally, *erosion continues to pose significant problems along the
Madeline Island shoreline. Nearly one-half of the Lake Superior shoreline
consists of high clay bluffs. These clay bluffs are largely confined to
two major stretches of shoreline: from Iron County to the White River in
Ashland County and from Bark Point in Bayfield County to the base of
Wisconsin Point in Douglas County. The highest bluffs, some near 200 feet,

are found near Port Wing in Bayfield County. Because the silts and clays
which comprise coastal landforms are subject to flows* as well as slumps*
and slides*, bluff erosion is a continual problem along many reaches.

Recession rates of 2-5 feet per year are common along blufflines and rates
in excess of 10 feet per year have been recorded around bays, e.g.
Port Wing. Much of the bluffline remains in an unstable and unvegetated
condition. Beach widths presently vary from 10-20 feet along high bluff
areas to 50-100 feet near sand bays, sand points, and river mouths.

Shore erosion problems and hazards are more localized along the Lake
Superior shoreline than they are along Lake Michigan. Only 1% of the
state's entire population lives in the four incorporated communities of
Lake Superior--Ashland, Bayfield, Washburn, and Superior. Over 75% of the
shoreline is devoted to agricultural, recreational, or forest land uses.
Table II provides an overview of land use and ownership along the shore-
line. Forty-three percent (43%) of the shoreline is under public ownership,
federal and non-federal. Two Indian reservations, Bad River in Iron and

Table II: Shoreline Use and Ownership-Lake Superior

PUBLIC
BUILING -F RESIDENTIAL

RECREATION
2%

SHORELINE USE SHORELINE OWNERSHIP

Souce: National Shoreline Study, Army Corps of Engineers, 1971.

Ashland Counties and Red Cliff in Bayfield County, and the Apostle Islands

National Lakeshore account for virtually all federal ownership. Excluding

boat ramps and harbors, only a small number of public and semi-public

facilities are located along the shoreline. The relatively few shore
protection structures of the Lake Superior shoreline are concentrated

around recreational facilities and residential areas, both permanent and

seasonal.

Erosion hazards are critical, either continually or cyclically, along

a significant portion of Wisconsin's Great Lakes shoreline. Coastal Manage-
ment Program investigations of recession rates, slope stability conditions,

development patterns, and shore damages have revealed that between 125 and
150 miles of shoreline can be classified as critical at the present time.

Those areas of particular concern to coastal residents, local government

officials, and state agencies along the Lake Michigan shoreline include
the Carol Beach area; the shorelines between Kenosha and Racine, Windpoint

and the Oak Creek Power Plant, South Milwaukee and Cudahy, Shorewood and

Grafton; the shorelines adjoining Port Washington, Sheboygan, Manitowoc,

Kewaunee; and areas where highways run close to coastal bluffs, e.g. Sheboygan

County LS, State Highway 42 Manitowoc/Kewaunee County. Although the Lake
Superior shoreline has a smaller number of critical hazard reaches, damage
potential is still significant in several areas. Those areas of particular
concern include the Superior Harbor region; the shoreline between Washburn
and Bayfield; the southern and eastern sides of Madeline Island; the shore-
lines adjoining Ashland, Saxon Harbor, Cornucopia, Herbster, Port Wing; and
Highway 13 near Port Wing. Figure 2 on page 11 provides a map of actively
eroding areas along Wisconsin's Great Lakes shoreline.

Shore erosion rates and problems have generally been decreasing since

1976. This reduction canjlargely be attributed to the natural decline of
the Great Lakes water levels from their 1974 record highs.4 However,
coastal riparians, local government officials, and state agencies should
not be lulled into a false sense of security during the present lower
water period. Erosion will continue to "'gnaw away" at the second and

third tiers of development along many reaches thereby endangering once
distant homes, businesses, and public facilities. Then during the next
high water period--perhaps some twenty years from now--erosion damages may

dramatically increase, Effective and long-term damage reduction can only
come about when erosion hazard areas are managed on a sustained basis.

B. Causes and Processes

Traditionally, shore erosion has been viewed as a natural hazard only

caused by the action of storm-driven waves during high water periods. This
has led many coastal residents and public officials to assume that shore

erosion is only associated with high water periods. While the largest amount
of bluff and beach recession generally occurs during or immediately after
high water periods, many erosive forces and agents are at work on a year-

round basis. These agents and forces include gravity, water seepage, wind
action, and ice (frost) action. Wave action during high water periods
serves as a "trigger" to destabilize coastal landforms--sometimes for a
decade or more. Increasingly, ma's coastal land use activities, upland

management practices, and shore protection devices are also being seen as
erosion agents. This complex, natural weathering process cannot, and
should not, be generalized for on-site planning or engineering. Before

-10-

BeowLetACTIVELY ERODING AREASU

Below Right

Ir~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

,MICHIGAN
J
1WISCONSIN1 F

I S he~~yboyg an
SH EBOYGAN

P~~~~~~~~~~~~I -OZAI K EE

OCONTO~~~~~~~~~~~ LAKE

,~~~~~KE L ~ ~ ~ ENSA KEsh

WISCONIN__

inIEB ~~~~~~~~~~~~ILLINOIS

IG&NHS~~~~~~~~~~~~- 1978

initiating actions to reduce shore erosion hazards and damages, care

must be taken to insure that all causes and process have been accurately
identified.

A complete discussion of all forces, processes, and agents associated
with erosion of Wisconsin's Great Lakes shoreline can be found in two
previous reports of the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program: Great Lakes
Shore Erosion Protection - A General Review with Case Studies and Shore
Erosion Study Technical Report. For this abbreviated summary, the shore-
line has been divided into three zones: the beach and bluff toe area,
bluff area, and upland management area. Each of these zones or areas will
be briefly discussed below. The final paragraphs provide an overview of
two man-related factors: artificial lake regulation and shore protection

structures.

Beach and Bluff Toe Zone

The beach and toe zone provides the primary contact between the Great

Lakes and its coastal landforms. Two agents, waves and currents, are con-
stantly at work in this area. Beaches provide a natural cushion or buffer

for coastal bluffs by absorbing wave energy over their sand or gravel
surfaces. A generalized profile of wave-approach conditions along coastal
bluffs and beaches is found on Figure 3. Where beaches are absent or too

steep, waves can directly erode any unconsolidated materials in bluff toes
thereby destabilizing the entire bluff face. Generally speaking, the
gentler and wider the beach, the more effective it will be at absorbing
wave energy. In 1970, 48% of the Lake Superior and 68% of the Lake Michigan
shoreline had beach zones along Wisconsin's major erosion-prone reaches.5
Currents result from the net movement of wave energy along the nearshore

and offshore zones. Because they can transport soil and fine rock
particles along the shoreline (littoral drift*), longshore currents can be
particularly helpful in the build-up or accretion of beaches. But, they
can also remove particles (scouring) around shore protection structures,
rock outcrops, and any other fixed points thereby narrowing beaches or
damaging structures.

-1 2-

Figure 3: Beach Profile and Related Terms

COASTAL AREA

NEARSHORE ZONE
'(DEFINES AREA OF NEARSHORE CURRENTS )
COAST BEACH OR SHORE

BACKSHORE FORESHORE,� INSHORE ZONE ,k OFFSHORE
( EXTENDS THROUGH BREAKER ZONE)

BLUFF._
OR BERMS
ESCARPMENT
BREAKERS
BEACH M37 HIGH WATER B
SCAR _ LEVEL
CREST OF BERMa
LOW WATER LEVEL _
I | BAR
BEACH
PROFILE B A

PLUNGENT
BOTTO

Source: National Shoreline Study: Shore
Protection Guidelines. Army Corps
of Engineers, August 1971.

The ability of waves and currents to cause erosion around the beach

and toe zones is largely dependent upon lake levels, storm direction and

intensity, wind strength and duration, nearshore and offshore bottom

configuration, and ice pack depth and duration. Few factors are as critical

as lake level conditions. An increase in water levels generally decreases

beach width, increases nearshore erosion by currents, and permits waves to

expend their energy directly against unconsolidated glacial materials. A

great majority of all beach recession or retreat occurs during high water

periods.

-13-

The cyclic fluctuations in Great Lakes water levels are largely due
to the confined outlet conditions of the Great Lakes combined with varia-
tions in precipitation. Table III provides a summary of high water level
conditions from 1860 to 1976. Lake Michigan water levels have been above
579 feet (generally recognized as the threshold level for significant
damages) for nearly 60 years--one half of this period. Lake Superior
water levels have shown greater stability, partially due to artificial
lake regulation.

Table III: High Water Periods and Episodes Along Lakes Michigan and Superior:
1860-1976

Lake Michigan Lake Superior

Year(s) Above 579 Feet Elevation Year(s) Above 601.5 Feet Elevation
(2.2 feet above low water datum) (1.5 feet above low water datum)

1972-1976++ 1970-1973
1969-1971 1968
1951-1955++ 1952-1950++
1943-1948 1947
1929-1930 1943-1944
1916-1920 1938-1939
1890-1909 1928
1873-1889++ 1916
1872 1899-1900
1869-1871++ 1876
1866-1868
1860-1865++

+ Except where indicated by ++, threshold damage levels were only
reached on a seasonal basis, typically between May and September.

++ Periods of near constant levels above 579 feet and 601.5 feet.

Source: Monthly Bulletins of Great Lakes Water Levels and
Cumulative Records, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration

Regardless of water level conditions, a critical consideration in the
delivery and transfer of wave energy is wind direction and intensity. Wind
speed and direction largely determine the size of waves reaching the beach
zone. Storm-setup (the local rise in lake levels due to wind-driven waves)
often ranges between 10 and 18 inches along the Great Lakes shoreline.

-14-

Because extreme wind and wave attack conditions are directly associated
with major storm events, storm records and predictions are important tools
for coastal planners and engineers.

Bluff Zone

Nearly 80% of Wisconsin's erodible Great Lakes shoreline suffers from
bluff erosion and recession problems. Excluding the destabilizing action
of waves at the toe, a number of additional agents are at work in the
bluff zone. They include gravity, water seepage, ice (frost), and all
too often, man. Reducing the threat of wave attack by constructing shore
protection devices only serves as a partial solution. Regardless of the
cause(s), once a bluff becomes unstable, it will undergo profile change
through slope failures until a new stable slope angle is reached. The
most common forms of slope failure are slumps, slides, and flows. Figure 4
illustrates two bluff profile changes near Port Washington. Bluff volume
losses associated with slope failures along the Great Lakes shoreline have
been enormous. For example, south of the Oak Creek Power Plant in
Racine County, over 38 million cubic feet of material eroded into
Lake Michigan between 1968 and 1974 alone.6 However, it should be pointed
out that all wave-induced bluff recession does not occur during high water
periods. A three to four year time lag between high water periods and
interim bluff stabilization has been observed on the Great Lakes.7 In
general, Lake Michigan and Superior bluffs appear more stable when their
angles are less than 250. Where slope modifications are planned, a 2:1 to
3:1 (horizontal to vertical) grade is often recommended,8

Geologically, most coastal bluffs contain layers of unconsolidated
glacial materials, e.g. till-clay-till, sand-gravel-till. When acted upon
by erosive agents and forces, each layer tends to respond differently. Any
agents or forces which increase bluff weight, reduce internal soil strength,
or remove soil particles will tend to decrease slope stability. Water is,
perhaps, the most critical agent acting upon bluffs. Both ground and
surface water can greatly increase shore erosion hazards. Regardless of the
source, water entering the ground water system adds weight to the bluff,
removes soil particles upon discharge, and reduces internal soil strength.
Excessive surface water runoff can create gullies and destabilize bluff

-15-

Figure 4: Bluff Profile Changes Near Port Washington

TOE EROSION SHALLOW SLIDES. COMPOSITE
REMOVAL OF TOE SLOPE
MATERIAL

TOP RETREAT REMOVAL OF UNIFORM
TOE MATERIAL SLOPE

SOURCE: Shoreline Erosion and Landslides in the Great Lakes, Edil and Vallejo;
University of Wisconsin-Civil and Environmental Engineering Department.

faces by removing soil and vegetation. In some places, the amount of

material removed by surface erosion may exceed that amount removed by
slumps and slides.

Frost and ice action over the winter months (solification*) contribute
to a large amount of annual bluff erosion. Between one and two feet of
erosion has been attributed to this agent annually along the Kewaunee County
shoreline.9 Gravity is the universal and constant force acting upon all
coastal landforms. Once other agents have sufficiently destabilized a bluff,
gravity will pull all loosened materials down through slides, slumps, and

-16-

flows. Deep-seated failure planes* and large slump blocks*, such as the
types occurring in northern Milwaukee Countypose a special problem and
danger. They can cause sudden and large-scale damage over a long shore-
line expanse.

Upland Management Zone

A great number of land use activities and management practices adjacent
to the shoreline increase the susceptibility of bluffs to erosion. The
primary agent at work in this area is man. Generally, any land use or
management practice that adds weight to the bluff, increases or alters
ground and surface water movements, alters the shoreline geometry (,slopes)
and removes or alters the existing vegetation regime should be avoided
along coastal bluffs--or only be undertaken after a comprehensive site
analysis. Along high risk reaches, public officials and coastal riparians
should be particularly sensitive to the impacts of development upon
erosion processes.

Waste water and surface water management is critical along the entire
Great Lakes shoreline. Septic tank drainage fields, leaky storm sewers and
water mains, and highway drainage culverts have contributed to many failures
over the years. For example, near Bark Point in Bayfield Cojnty, a highway
culvert extended a gully back over 100 feet from the edge of the Lake Superior
shoreline.10 Leaky storm sewers in several Lake Michigan communities have
served to lubricate soil materials and increase ground water pressures
thereby increasing erosion potential. Land management practices such as
vegetation removal and earth grading can dramatically increase rates of
erosion. Plants, particularly trees and shrubs, reduce the amount of water
entering the soil, provide protection against surface erosion. strengthen
the soil mass through root penetration, and provide some protection against
excessive frost penetration. Building codes, zoning ordinances, and
special management ordinances, e.g., tree removal, sediment control, can
all assist in reducing man's impact within the upland management area.

-17-

Shore erosion rates are affected by many man-related factors. Two
factors which warrant consideration are artificial lake regulation and
shore protection devices. Considerable public debate has centered around
the further regulation of Great Lakes water levels to reduce erosion
hazards and damages over the past decade. While it is true that Great
Lakes water levels are affected by the operation of locks and dams,
diversions, and power gates, the net impact of these devices remains

difficult to accurately measure. In a 1976 reportl prepared for the
Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, a University of Wisconsin research

team concluded:

All the regulation plans ... can exercise only limited
control over fluctuations of water levels on the Great
Lakes. Natural factors such as climate and the config-
uration of connecting channels exert, by far, the major
influence.

Further, because the volumes of water are so enormous and the outlet con-
ditions so confined on the Great Lakes, a substantial time lag (measured
in months or years) exists between an action and any measurable change in
water levels. Even though artificial lake regulation does not generally
offer a viable alternative for reducing erosion damages, the State has gone
on record *as wanting to participate in all matters affecting lake level
modification. In a 1975 letter12 to the International Joint Commission
and Great Lakes Basin Commission, Governor Patrick Lucey noted that "any
management scheme must take into account the possibility of damage along
the Lake Michigan shoreline" and the "unique qualities of Lake Superior and
its environs".

Shore protection structures can have some localized and significant
impacts on erosion processes and rates. Three types of structures are
widely recognized: shore perpendicular structures, shore parallel struc-
tures, and offshore breakwaters. Each type, depending upon its design,
materials, and placement, can cause problems, both updrift and downdrift.
Their adverse impacts are more observable along reaches with intermittent
protection. Generally, shore perpendicular structures such as groins and
jetties tend to accelerate erosion through sand entrapment and downdrift
beach starvation., Shore parallel structures tend to accelerate erosion rates
through the deflection of wave energy. A more complete discussion of adverse

impacts is contained in Chapter IV,

C. Damages and Impacts

Over the past 100 years shore erosion has caused millions of dollars
in damages to residential lands and buildings, recreational lands and
facilities, agricultural lands, public facilities, and shore protection
structures. Comprehensive estimates of damage losses have only been taken
during high water periods. The 1952 Great Lakes Shoreline Damage Survey,
coordinated by the Army Corps of Engineers, remains the most complete
inventory of erosion-related losses. Between the springs of 1951 and 1952,
damage totaled $745,000 and $3,582,000 along the Lake Superior and Lake
Michigan shorelines, respectively.13 Up-dated to 1970 dollar values, the
costs are $1,482,000 and $7,793,000 for Lakes Superior and Michigan,
respectively.14 Presently, the Army Corps of Engineers is in the process
of completing a damage survey for the 1972 to 1976 high water period.
Preliminary findings have revealed that damages in excess of $16 million
occurred during this four-year period.15 Even after adjustments for
inflation, losses may be nearly double that of the previous period along
some reaches. Table IV provides a listing of recent losses by category
and lake.

Extensive erosion damages are not limited to high water periods alone,
Under favorable conditions, storm events during "normal" water level
periods can cause significant damage. For example, the Lake Superior
shoreline suffered an unusual amount of erosion during 1968 because of
storms and high seasonal water levels. Damage losses totaled $156,200.16
The year-round action of gravity, ice, wind, and water also contributes to
damage losses along the Great Lakes. Any attempts to generate comprehensive
annual damage figures should account for all possible erosion processes
and events.

Table IV: Preliminary Summary of Erosion-Related Damages: 1972-1976
(by category)

LAKE MICHIGAN LAKE SUPERIOR
SHORELINE SHORELINE

Residential $ 9,732,000 $619,000
Commercial/ 971,000 45,000
Industrial
Transportation 10,000 110,000
Agriculture/ 3,296,000--
Utilities
Other 1,124,000 30,000

Total $15,133,000 $804,500

Source: Great Lakes Damage Survey: Labor Day 1972-Labor Day 1976
(preliminary), North Central Division, Army Corps of Engineers,
September 1978.

Damage losses atributable to shore erosion will, in all probability,

substantially increase in the future. The International Great Lakes Levels
Board, in conjunction with the Army Corps of Engineers, has estimated that
annual damages between Milwaukee and Manitowoc alone could increase from
$4.3 million in 1980 to $16.4 million in 2020.17 Steadily increasing
property values (largely due to inflation) will account for much of this
jump. But, two additional factors, increasingly acute hazard conditions
and structural failures, could push projected losses even higher.

Along many reaches of Wisconsin's shoreline, the second and third tiers
of development are increasingly being exposed to erosion hazards. Since
building density and public facility investment are of ten higher along this
zone, damage losses may be significantly greater during future high water
periods. Evidence of this phenomena has recently been seen by the number
of highways requiring emergency protection/relocation. Even though
building losses have been minimal in recent years (estimated at under 50
since 1950), more can be anticipated in the future. To alleviate hazard
conditions, many property owners and local governments have turned to shore
protection structures. Ironically, in spite of their costs and design,
many will fail during high water periods as a result of improper maintenance,
indequate engineering, or conditions exceeding design capabilities.

-20-

Danmages resulting from the failure of structural devices will be quite

high in the future--both for the structure (replacement) and the land it
is protecting,

Aside from its devastating effects upon property and structures, shore
erosion has had other impacts upon the coastal region over the past 100
years. As a result of bluff and beach recession,, the State of Wisconsin
has lost between three and six square miles of land since 1900. Between
January 1973 and April 1974 alone, Bender Park in southern Milwaukee County,
lost 8,68 acres.18 During the same high water period, Douglas, Brown, and
Racine Counties lost 9.5 million square feet of beach (one-third of a
square mile).19 Such losses have economic and land use implications beyond
the affected property owners. Local and county governments lose a valuable
portion of their tax base, either outright or through changes in land use
because of hazard conditions, For example, the City of Oak Creek has
estimated that erosion in Bender Park cost taxpayers $34,666 (park land

was valued at $5,000 per acre)2 in 1974.

To reduce damages and losses, many communities have encouraged low
density and open space shoreline land uses. Nearly 40% of Milwaukee County's
shoreline is in park/recreational uses. Thus both public and private invest-
ment opportunities have been affected by shore erosion. Public access to,
and use off, the Great Lakes shoreline has also been seriously affected by
shore erosion. Along many reaches, high bluffs combined with unstable slopes
have virtually eliminated beach access. Finally, because shoreline
protection is essential around all key public facilities, e.g., power plants,
sewage treatment plants, the costs and risks associated with shore erosion
are shared by all residents of coastal regions.

Shore erosion has played, and is playing, an important role in
modifying Wisconsin's natural environment as well. The enormous volumes of
sand, silt, and clay moving out into deeper water alter fresh water
ecosystems, either temporarily or permanently. Conclusive evidence on the
impacts of coastal erosion within the offshore environment is not available
at this time. Many indications suggest that erosion may be playing an
important role in warming the nearshore zone, adding nutrients to the lake

system, providing more productive aquatic habitats, and in facilitating
species diversification. Shore erosion has significantly modified the

shape and configuration of Wisconsin's shoreline. These effects are
particularly noticeable near non-erodible headlands such as bedrock and
shore protection structures. Commonly, erosion-resistant areas maintain
their shoreline position while erodible areas around them retreat thereby
creating bays with peninsulas or points on either end. The shorelines of
Door and western Bayfield Counties offer excellent examples of this
phenomena. Before taking actions to stop or control erosion, the beneficial
aspects of shore erosion should be thoroughly understood. Some erosion
may, in fact, be necessary to insure the presence of sufficient quantities
of sand in the littoral drift for the natural accretion of beaches and

protection of coastal properties.

D. Traditional Approaches to Damage Reduction

A variety of structural and nonstructural techniques have been utilized
to reduce shore erosion damages along Wisconsin's Great Lakes shorelines
over the years. Generally, structural solutions such as groins, revetments,
breakwaters, and bulkheads have been intensively used around residential
and commercial properties, public facilities, harbors, and recreational
developments. Most structural devices either attempt to reduce wave attack
along beaches and bluffs or hold-back earthen materials at the base of
bluffs. Average cost ranges for intermediate to long-term forms of shore-
protection vary between $150 to $350 per linear foot. Nearly two-thirds
(563) of the 800 inventoried structures located between the Illinois state
line and Manitowoc are found in Kenosha, Racine and Milwaukee Counties.
Another 300 structures have been inventoried in Brown and Douglas Counties
by the Corps of Engineers.21

Nonstructural options such as building setbacks and hazard area zoning
have generally been seen as more viable options in developing and rural areas.
Rather than attempting to out-design or engin~eer erosion processes, these
options anticipate continual erosion thereby promoting the safer siting of
certain land uses. One nonstructural option, relocation, is starting to
receive greater consideration for developed areas. Increasingly, land and
water management practices are also being incorporated into preventive

-22-

approaches. In particular, bluff dewatering and vegetative stabilization
techniques have been used more frequently in recent years,

Historically, prior to the 1920's, shore property owners were somewhat
cautious in their encroachments upon the shoreline, particularly near high
bluffs and beaches. Because shore protection structures were generally
constructed of wood, stone, or sheet pile, long-lasting solutions could
not be ensured. Stone-filled cribs, timber seawalls, and stone riprap
revetments were common forms of protection. Some property owners sought
to further protect themselves by providing deeper building setbacks,
Beginning in the 1930's, concrete came into popular use for groins and
seawalls, With the availability of more permanent types of protection, the
shoreline could be more intensively used near urban areas. Throughout the
1940's and 1950's, the Beach Erosion Control Board and Corps of Engineers
provided the public with information on coastal processes and structural
solutions. A large percentage of Wisconsin's existing concrete structures
were built between 1930 and 1950. Table V provides an overview of structural
devices in Milwaukee, Racine, and Manitowoc Counties between 1900 and 1976.

During the 1951-1952 high water period, a large number of structures
were either damaged or destroyed. With this destruction came a greater
realization of the costs and difficulty associated with erosion control
strategies. Interest in shore erosion generally declined with lake levels
during the 1950's and 1960's. In 1965, the Wisconsin Legislature passed a
Water Resources Act encouraging coastal counties and communities to initiate
comprehensive nonstructural approaches through shoreland and floodplain
zoning. Although the administration and enforcement of the resultant
Shoreland Management Programs has varied over the years, all coastal counties
now have zoning ordinances in-place. The 1972-1976 high water period brought
a resurgence of interest in temporary and low-cost structural protection.
But, the subsequent decrease in water levels has once again brought about
widespread public indifference. In spite of the many structural devices
which have been developed over the past decade and the many nonstructural
options available to state and local governments, few communities and
riparians have experimented with new approaches for damage reduction, Today,
Wisconsin's shoreline has nearly the same amount of protection and safe-
guards which it had in the late 1960's.

-23-

Table V: Historical Use of Shore Protection Devices in Milwaukee,
Racine, and Manitowoc Counties

SEAWALLS REVETMENTS GROINS BREAKWATERS
m W m W
H- I- "_ -
1J 3 W -
_ H-O O 3 0 0 : - W -

1900 I

1910

1920 1 _

I �

1930

1940 I

1960

1970

1976
I ONE DEVICE BUILT

Source: Great Lakes Shore Erosion Protection:
A General Review with Case Studies.
Wisconsin Coastal Management Program,
1977.

The availability of sufficient lead-time and money for the planning
and implementation of damage reduction solutions has been a major problem
over the years. Typically, coastal residents, communities, and state
agencies have only begun to seriously consider hazard mitigation alterna-
tives as Great Lakes water levels rise. Few long-term solutions can be
planned and implemented during a six to eighteen-month period. To provide
some additional protection, low-cost and emergency structural solutions
have been heavily relied upon, e.g. concrete rubble revetments, stone
riprap revetments. Unfortunately these measures only temporarily postpone
damage. Where time and money have run too short, relocation, selling, or
abandonment have often become the solutions of last resort in Wisconsin,
As bluff and beach retreat continue to place more buildings in peril, these
options may be used more frequently in the future.

I-- Given the amount of damage which has occurred along Wisconsin's Great
Lakes shoreline over the past 25 years, it is clear that many traditional
approaches, particularly structurally-oriented ones, have not proved effec-
tive. Along many reaches, if shore protection devices last more than
fifteen years or through one high water period, they are considered a
success. Generally, there appears to have been an over dependence upon
structural solutions combined with a lack of understanding of erosion
processes. Shore erosion is not a hazard which is simply eliminated with
the expenditure of large sums of money on shore protection. Careful site
analysis and design must precede the placement of all structural devices-
and even then "success" is measured in terms of a few decades. Without
proper engineering and maintenance, structural failure can be expected at
an even earlier point. Virtually all emergency structures and many low-
cost structures (those under $100 per linear foot) do not last beyond ten
years.

Existing nonstructural solutions have not proved any more effective.
While all coastal counties and many coastal communities have adopted minmum
setback standards (75 feet from the ordinary high water mark), this single
measure does not insure adequate protection. Recession rates and slope
failure hazards are simply too great along many reaches. Also, since
erosion hazard disclosure is not officially required in Wisconsin, decisions

-25-

on coastal lands continue to be made without adequate advance information.
If traditional structural and nonstructural methods continue to be employed
on an individual-needs basis in Wisconsin, damage losses can be expected to
rise in the future.

-26-

Chapter III
ESTABLISHING A FRAMEWORK, FOR ACTION

Introduction

Traditionally, the mitigation of erosion damages has been the respon-
sibility of directly affected parties in Wisconsin--primarily coastal
riparians and local governments. Direct state-level involvement has been
limited and highly localized over the years. Factors contributing to this
state-level position include the cyclic nature of serious erosion problems,
the relatively small number of affected riparians, the relatively small
amount of damages caused by coastal erosion compared to other natural
hazards (especially riverine flooding) and the high costs of protection
versus the. low benefits. In short, in spite of historic damage losses,
shore erosion has not been perceived as a high priority statewide issue.
Thus, private property owners have been left with very limited public aid

and assistance. Public entities are in a much better position to cope with
erosion problems in that some financial and technical assistance is avail-
able through several federal and state agencies, e.g., Army Corps of
Engineers, Soil Conservation Service, Wisconsin Department of Transportation,
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

Over the past four years there has been a growing awareness that the
present framework does not adequately provide for long-term damage reduction.
Simply stated, it appears that Wisconsin's individualistic and piecemeal
approach toward erosion damage reduction has created a series of problems
and conflicts. First, shore protection devices have often
accelerated erosion rates on adjacent properties and, in many cases, have
provided only minimal levels of protection. Second, because many'land use
regulations are not sufficiently erosion sensitive, damage potential is
actually increasing along many coastal reaches in Wisconsin. Finally, within
the present institutional framework, coordinated and comprehensive reach
planning has been difficult to achieve. Consequently, those state and local
agencies with coastal management responsibilities are finding it more
difficult to meet broader environmental goals and objectives. In recognizing
these and other problems through Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
discussions, considerable attention has been focused on the possible roles

-27-

of state agencies. State agencies such as the Department of Natural
Resources, Department of Transportation, Department of Local Affairs and
Development, Board of Soil and Water Conservation Districts,, University
of Wisconsin-Extension and University of Wisconsin-Sea Grant Program all
affect coastal decision-making in a number of ways; from regulatory
requirements to financial assistance and technical assistance/education.
Thus, the real dilemma facing state agencies is to determine what, if any,
additional actions can be taken to facilitate the wise and environmentally,
sensitive reduction of shore erosion damages over the long term.

With the lowering of Great Lakes water levels from their recent record
highs, Wisconsin is once again in a position to systematically address coastal
erosion. Instead of dealing with erosion on a piecemeal, emergency pro-

tection basis, consideration can now be given to the full range of structural
and nonstructural alternatives. Accordingly, in the present decision-
making environment, damage reduction activities can be more objectively
"tailor fit" to the long-term coastal management objectives of local

governments and state agencies. In order to ensure the presence of suffi-
cient lead-time to permanently reduce damages, actions should be initiated
over the-next few years. The memories and events of the last high water
period are still on the minds of many local government officials and the
several thousand riparians presently living along the next zone of
endangerment. This opportunity for action should not be missed if
Wisconsin' s response to coastal erosion is to be based on foresight and not
hindsight.

A. Principles and Guidelines for Reducing Erosion Damages

Regardless of what specific options state agencies may consider over
the coming months and years, it has become increasingly evident that erosion
damages cannot be efficiently and effectively reduced without some compre-
hensive policy-level guidance. Given the physical variability of Wisconsin's

Great Lakes shoreline-, the wide ranging erosion concerns of local governments
and coastal riparians, and the number of structural and nonstructural shore-
line management options available to reduce damages, the opportunity for
conflicting, inappropriate, a nd/or inconsistent action remains high,~ The
present state policy framework provides minimal guidance since state laws-,

-28-

statutes, and administrative rules contain few direct references to shore

erosion hazards or management options. For example, in protecting the
state's interest in navigable waters, Chapter 30, Wisconsin Statutes, no
firm rules have been adopted by the Department of Natural Resources for shore
protection devices.22 Also, permit coordination/issuance has been further
complicated by the presence of legislatively-approved lake bed grants
(Chapter 30.05, Wisconsin Statutes) which-cede state authority to local
governments for selected public purposes. One of the most notable excep-
tions to the general lack of erosion policy specificity in Wisconsin is the

Shoreland and Floodplain Management Program. Pursuant to Chapter 59.97,
Wisconsin Statutes, a comprehensive land use management-oriented framework
was developed for unincorporated lands within 1000 feet of the Great Lakes
shoreline over the past decade. But, on erosion-related matters such as
hazard disclosure, acquisition of hazard areas, relocation of endangerd
buildings/facilities, encouraging/discouraging specific types of structural
solutions, and emergency assistance, the existing policy framework remains
largely silent.

The lack of comprehensive policy statements on shore erosion has
complicated the task of finding more enduring solutions to erosion hazards.
Of special significance is the implicit encouragement of structural
approaches to damage reduction. A careful historical review and analysis of
protective devices reveals an important fact. Except for those large, durable
devices, e.g., armor stone revetments, concrete seawalls, and groins,
constructed by federal public works agencies (principally the Works Progress
Administration and Army Corps of Engineers), public utilities, and
industries, most structural devices have failed within two decades of their
initial placement. Thus, coastal riparians have virtually "dumped" millions
of dollars into protective measures with only a limited return. The
historic tendency to view erosion hazard area management in terms of either
structural on nonstructural options has obscured the real choice: erosion
control versus damage reduction. As has been pointed out, erosion control
through the application of structural techniques has been heavily relied
upon over the years. However, this strategy is expensive, has had limited
success, and in many cases has even increased erosion hazards. Damage
reduction, on the other hand, implies a much broader approach to shoreline

-29-

and resource management. While structural techniques could be employed,
the emphasis is placed upon nonstructural or preventive approaches. This
general strategy recognizes the inevitability of shore erosion and the
resultant need to make man's coastal land use activities more erosion
sensitive; not erosion-proof. Damage reduction is attainable along the
Great Lakes shoreline; permanent erosilon control is not.

Through their police, general public welfare, and taxation powers,
state agencies and local governments are in an excellent position to
promote and implement damage reduction concepts, But, what of the several
thousand individual coastal riparians who may face imminent hazards some-time
within the next two decades? If individual structural actions are not seen
as widely desirable, what options are available to riparians seeking to
mitigate damages under the "common enemy" doctrine?23 Briefly, such options
as building relocation, land acquisition/exchanges, and "trading off"' public
access for shore protection all seem to hold promise under many circumstances,
These options and others will be discussed in subsequent chapters. To
summarize, with a sustained commitment to preventive-oriented approaches,
damage reduction remains attainable along Wisconsin's entire Great Lakes
shoreline.

In order to provide a comprehensive framework around which to build
damage reduction programs, a set of guidelines has been prepared for

state-level consideration. These guidelines are found on page 31. They

cover a wide range of erosion-related concerns, from reach planning to
hazard disclosure to structural implementation. These guidelines do not
provide specific answers to every conceivable problem. Rather, they provide
a common basis for decision-making, which can help ensure some decision-
making consistently and compatibility over time. State agencies along with
other public entities such as local governments, regional and county
planning agencies, and park commissions could consider endorsing these
guidelines, or making some appropriate modifications, as a first-step toward
the implementation of damage reduction programs. Where several
communities and/or agencies join forces to reduce erosion damages, a
commonly accepted set of guidelines may greatly expedite program planning,
design, and implementation.

-30-

Table VI: Guidelines for the Development of ~Shore Erosion Damage
Reduction Programs in Wisconsin

1. Shore erosion is a complex natural process which is difficult, if not
impossible, to totally arrest.

2. Even though Wisconsin's erodible coastal reaches possess many
development limitations, they also provide resource opportunities in
the form of natural areas, sand generation areas, aquatic/terrestrial
habitats, recreational settings, and aesthetics for coastal communities
and regions. These natural resource opportunities should be respected
and, where possible, incorporated into damage reduction projects,

3. The planning and implementation of long-term damage reduction solutions
must begin prior to the presence of high water and emergency periods.

4. Shore erosion problems can be more effectively reduced with cooperative
and comprehensive planning between coastal property owners, local
governments, and state agencies.

5. Land use management and other nonstructural approaches offer a viable
and effective means for reducing damages and hazards over a long period
of time. Priority must be given to these approaches in Wisconsin.

6. In some situations, structures can help mitigate damages. However,
structures must be cautiously promoted and sited since many are costly
and short-lived, and may create adverse impacts upon adjacent
properties and the environment.

7. Sound technical information is essential for erosion management. Before
initiating structural actions along the Great Lakes shoreline, the
causes of erosion must be accurately identified in the beach, bluff
toe, bluff, and upland management area zones. Erosion rates and slope
stability information should be used to guide the development and
implementation of nonstructural approaches.

8. In high hazard (risk) areas, new coastal development should be precluded
or limited only to those land uses for which there is no feasible
alternative location.

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

10. Where public funds are used to reduce damages or preserve coastal
resources on private property, the benefits to the public should be
commensurate with the costs.

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

-31-

B. Planning Process for Damage Reduction Programs

Shore erosion damage mitigation should not be seen as a unique.
and individual problem of state agencies, local governments, and coastal
riparians to be resolved in the absence of concern for other coastal
management issues. Virtually all structural and nonstructural options have
impacts upon public access, recreation, aesthetics, navigation, land use,
transportation, or environmental quality- For example, stone revetments and
riprap commonly hinder public access to beaches, limit recreational uses
of the beach zone, and adversely impact coastal aesthetics. These options
may be more feasible for privately-ownedt high bluff shorelines where public
access and recreational opportunities are typically more restricted than

along publically-owned beach/sand dune environments. Likewise, in considering
many nonstructural alternatives, special attention must often be given to
existing/future land use controls, future recreational and public facility
needs, transportation access, and wildlife/vegetational communities. Public
acquisition of a small, isolated parcel of land along a high, erodible
bluffline may not make for the most efficient use of public resources--if
done for damage reduction purposes alone. For maximum effectiveness and
impact, a close relationship must be cultivated between damage reduction
programs and all on-going coastal planning/management activities. The
multiple-use potentials of both structural and nonstructural options can,
and should, be taken advantage of by state agencies, local governments, and
coastal riparians.

Given the ever-expanding range of coastal issues, community/regional
needs, erosion protection concerns, and federal/state requirements which
public officials must consider, the development and implementation of
long-range damage reduction programs has often proved difficult and
controversial. While shorter term, *erosion control projects have been seen
as more expedient and feasible, the record has shown that this strategy
should not be heavily depended upon. But, the step between limited-purpose,
single riparian/community approaches and multi-faceted, reach approaches
is long. To narrow this gap, and assist in the planning and implementation
of long-term damage reduction programs in Wisconsin, a planning process has
been developed for state and local government consideration. Figure 5 on

page 34 contains a flow diagram of this process.

-32-

In short, the process recognizes the need to 'package" damage
reduction options through close coordination with existing coastal
planning/management activities. It is not anticipated that the output of
this process should be an identifiable plan or program in all cases.
Rather, that for many public entities, the output might simply be an up-
dating of existing recreational, water quality, land use, and/or public
access plans to reflect greater erosion hazard sensitivity and a series of
long-term damage reduction goals and objectives. Special damage reduction
projects may be identified and funded, as needed, through available
federal/state assistance programs. The recently completed Lake Michigan
Estuary and Direct Drainage Area Subwatersheds Planning Program Prospectus24

of the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission provides an
excellent example of the type of product which could emanate from this
process. State agencies, local governments, regional and county planning
agencies, park commissions, and other public entities should consider
using this process for evaluating, up-dating, and preparing damage reduc-
tion programs. When combined with the guidelines for damage reduction
programs, a solid framework exists for managing erosion hazard areas in
Wisconsin.

-33-

Figure 5: Generalized Planning Process for Damage Reduction Programs

* PROBLEM RECOGNITION: Need for Damage Reduction

* PROGRAM FORMULATION: Appraisal of Options and Strategies

_4
PROGRAM DESIGN: Comprehensive Evaluation of Alternatives

! -* PROGRAM ADOPTION: Final Selection of Options

� PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION: Instituting of Stuctural and
Nonstructural Solutions

........:: ........ PROGRAM EVALUATION: Shoreline Monitoring

-34-

Chapter TV

REMEDIAL APPROACHES TO DAMAGE REDUCTION;
STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES

Introduction

Not all conditions and circumstances along Wisconsin's Great Lakes
shoreline favor the increased use of preventive or land management-
oriented approaches. Most notably, where resources or facilities of
special public concern such as parks, historic sites, power plants, and
marinas adjoin the shoreline, erosion control strategies may prove to be
the only practical solutions. For coastal riparians, erosion control has
historically been seen as an option of first, not last, resort, Given
present rates of erosion and coastal development patterns, many privately-
owned coastal buildings (primarily permanent and seasonal homes) could be
endangered during, and immediately after, the next high water period. Thus,
the several thousand coastal residents presently living within 75 feet of the
bluff/beach edge will, in all probability, give erosion control high
priority over the next two decades. Also, it can be expected that the number
of erosion-related problems will continue to increase as erosion gets farther
into the second and third tiers of coastal development. Evidence of this
phenomenon is seen by the number of recent highway endangerments, e.g.,
Town of Fort Wing, Bayfield County. And, even in those areas presently

protected by intermediate to long-term devices, there is no assurance that
effective levels of protection will remain beyond the next two decades.

Thus, given the continuing amount of interest in, *and need for, structural
approaches to damage reduction, what additional role, if any, can the state
government play?

Over the past several years a number of questions have been raised by
coastal residents and local government officials about the costs and feasi-
bility of structurally protecting Wisconsin' s entire erodible shoreline. In

theory, such an undertaking might lead to an immediate, and long term,
reduction of erosion damages. Through a number of special studies, the
Wisconsin Coastal Management Program has taken a close look at this strategy
on a statewide and reach basis. Based on these investigations, it has been

estimated that $326 million would be needed to armor (long-term shore
protection devices such as revetments, bulkheads, and seawalls) 200 miles of

-35-

erodible shoreline, $170 million and $63 million would be needed to bring

the shoreline up to intermediate-life (devices capable of lasting from
5-25 years) and emergency protection (devices lasting from 2-5 years)
levels, respectively. Table V1I on page 37 provides a county-by-county
breakdown of these figures. Appendix B summarizes the methodology used to
generate these figures. Even on a more restricted basis, the costs of
structurally protecting the shoreline remains quite high. For example,
between $9 and $13 million would be required to structurally protect six
miles of high bluffline in Ozaukee County (reach 12). Appendix C contains
a listing of high/low long-term protection costs for thirty reaches along
the Lake Michigan shoreline. Annual and post-storm maintenance costs were
not included in the above analysis. Statewide, these costs could exceed
$10 to $15 million per year.

Even if adequate financial resources could be generated for statewide
or multi-reach erosion control strategies, a number of serious environmental,
implementation, and policy concerns would have to be addressed. For example,
the environmental impacts resulting from this strategy could adversely
affect fish and wildlife habitats and alter coastal processes such that
erosion rates would accelerate down the coast due to beach starvation,
scouring, and nearshore profile changes. For these and other reasons, it
could be expected that the Army Corps of Engineers and Wisconsin Deparment
of Natural Resources would likely strongly oppose such extensive protection
actions. However, this strategy raises an even more fundamental issue,
that of public assistance to the private sector. Since the number of
directly benefitting riparians would be relatively small, can substantial
public expenditures be justified? In short, while a state-level erosion
control program could be defended on several public interest principles,
e.g. to protect public health/safety, protect public facilities, increase
nearshore water quality, it does not appear that the net benefits of such
a program would be commensurate with the costs--even if damage losses were

considered.

-36-

Table VII: Structural Solutions Applied to Wisconsin's Erosion-Prone Shoreline: Initial Cost Estimate

Coastal Unprotected, Initial Cost of Structural Solution by Level of Protection
County Erosion-Prone
Shoreline Temporary Intermediate Long-Term

Kenosha 26,750 linear feet $1,605,000 $3,243,000 $6,069,000

Racine 27,600 1,656,000 5,222,000 9,214,000

Milwaukee 65,000 3,900,000 11,515,000 21,845,000

Ozaukee 100,750 6,045,000 21,250,000 32,604,000

Sheboygan 55,250 3,315,000 9,938,000 14,262,000

Manitowoc 114,850 6,891,000 20,691,000 37,766,000

Kewaunee 114,750 6,885,000 25,651,000 40,941,000
(to 21 00
Door Sturgeon 25,000 1,500,000 3,741,000 7,452,000
Bay)

Lake Michigan 529,950 31,797,000 101,251,000 170,153,000

Douglas 117,750 7,065,000 15,308,000 34,736,000

Bayfield 260,600 15,636,000 33,878,000 76,877,000

(with 33,736,000
Ashland Madeline 114,360 6,862,000 14,867,000 33,736,000
Island)

Iron 37,350 2,241,000 4,856,000 11,018,000

Lake Superior 530,060 31,804,000 68,909,000 156,367,000

Total 1,060,010 or $63,601,000 $170,160,000 $326,520,000
200.8 miles

Given that a state-funded, multi-reach erosion control strategy is
-not feasible or likely, other possible state-level responses need to be
assessed. Three types of state responses appear to offer a possibility of
further assisting in the management of erosion hazard areas along the
Great Lakes shoreline. They are (1) regulatory framework modification,
(2) expanded financial assistance programs, and (3) increased technical
assistance, A wide range of sub-options and strategies are available
under each one of the above responses. The remaining sections of this
chapter will take a close look at all of the above options and strategies
after reviewing the types and characteristics of structural devices.

A. Types and Characteristics

Shore erosion hazards and damages can be reduced through physical
alterations of the shoreline and coastal processes, These alterations
either promote beach accretion, armor the shoreline, intercept or attenuate
waves, or stabilize the backshore and bluff zones. A wide variety of
natural factors assist in determining which type(s) of solution is best for
a given shoreline setting. They include bluff height, soil/subsoil
conditions, onshore and offshore slopes, water level variations, wind and
wave conditions (normal and during storms), shoreline orientation, and
longshore current transport (littoral drift). Before entering the engineering
design phase, such factors as financial resource availability, desired level
of protection, future bluff/beach use and access, and lead-time assist in
narrowing the range of site alternatives. Two commonly overlooked factors
influencing decision-making are beach access and material availability. If
trucks and heavy equipment cannot be brought to a site quickly and effi-
ciently, project costs not only escalate dramatically, but many forms of
more permanent protection are largely precluded. Where traditionally low-
cost materials, e.g. sand, quarrystone, large timbers, are not available or
are too expensive to transport, more costly techniques and devices may be
required.

Hundreds of protection devices and techniques have been devised over
the years for different coastal settings and client needs. Each one affords
a different level of protection, depending upon its material durability and
design characteristics. Thus, structural devices and techniques can be

-38-

used as emergency or temporary solutions (less than five years), inter-

mediate-life solutions (from five to twenty-five years), and long-term
solutions (more than twenty-five years). Approximate cost ranges for
these classifications per linear foot of protected shoreline are $50 to
$10Q, $100 to $200, and above $200, respectively. Generally, the more
durable and permanent the structure, the higher the cost.

A complete discussion of the planning considerations and characteristics
associated with all structural solutions is beyond the scope of this report,
(see Great Lakes Shore Protection: A General Review with Case Studies and
Great Lakes Shore Protection: Structural Design Examples--two previous
reports of the Wisconsin Coastal Program--for more details.) To provide
some added information for damage reduction planning purposes, representa-
tive types of structural solutions are discussed in Appendix D. Subjects
addressed include definitions, general planning considerations, construction
materials, and costs.

Even though a large number of structural devices (presently estimated
at 1200) have been deployed along Wisconsin's shoreline, they reflect a
relatively narrow range of types, designs, and materials. Riprapping, the
loose-dumping of stone or large concrete blocks, has remained the most
popular form of shore protection for individual riparians over the years.
Often used in conjunction with filling, this technique is generally only
suitable for short-term protection and it may create a number of additional

problems, e,g. water pollution, aesthetics, public health/safety, The most
commonly deployed engineered devices are stonegroins and revetments,
concrete rubble revetments, concrete groins, steel and timber bulkheads,

and offshore breakwaters (near ports and harbors), Bluff regrading, vege-
tating, and dewatering have become more popular over the past decade. The
Kewaunee County Soil and Water Conservation District has been particularly
successful in demonstrating the value of these techniques,

One of the factors contributing to the narrow range of structural

approaches in Wisconsin has been the lack of in-state expertise and experience
with more innovative techniques. To reduce this knowledge and experience gap,

a number of special demonstration and monitoring projects have been undertaken
over the past few years. The Environmental Protection Agency, through the
Red Clay Project, is exploring the use of Longard tubes near Madigan Beach,

-39-

Ashland County. Near Port Wing in Bayfield County, the Army Corps of
Engineers installed a number of low to moderate-cost ($116 to $296 per

linear foot) revetments and bulkheads during late 1978. Devices installed
include concrete cobblestones, concrete control blocks, precast concrete
sheet piles, H-piles with railroad ties, and scrap tires. Funds for the
planning and construction of these devices were authorized under the
federal Shoreline Erosion Control Demonstration Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-251).

Also, for the past five years the State of Michigan has been examining and
monitoring a wide range of low-cost alternatives under a special demonstra-
tion program. Table VIII lists those structures which were initially
installed in 1974. Interim findings have revealed that many lower cost
devices can provide adequate protection with proper siting and construction,
This research should continue to be helpful in suggesting possible alternatives
for similar coastal settings in Wisconsin.

Shore and bluff protection devices should not be constructed
indiscriminately with little regard to adverse impacts upon adjacent

property owners and the environment. To this end, the permitting
requirements of federal, state, and local agencies need to be considered at
an early date for structurally-oriented damage reduction programs, In the
case of structures placed on or near the lake bed, the Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources and U.S. Army of Corps of Engineers- will often need to

formally review shore protection projects. To ensure the proper development
and execution of shore protection projects, coastal property owners and
managers are encouraged to seek the services of consulting and engineering
firms specializing in coastal processes. General assistance and advice can
often be solicited from universities, state and federal agencies, and
regional and county planning agencies (see Appendix E for a listing of
technical assistance sources).

B. Major Policy-Level Concerns

Structurally-oriented damage reduction programs need to be carefully
considered by public officials. The three policy concerns discussed in this
section, cost-effectiveness, adverse impacts, and shoreline management
implications, can all affect the nature and scope of future damage reduction
activities in Wisconsin.

-40-

Table VIII: Michigan Demonstration Project Summary: 1974

COST PER FOOT OF STRUCTURE CONCEPT HAS
(1973 DOLLARS) POSSIBILITY FOR POTENTIAL FOR
F SITE TTYPE OF 'DO IT YOURELF' PERMANENT MEANS
PROTECTION SITE STRUCTURE Actual Large Small CONSTRUCTIO N OF SHORE
(Test) Job Job PROTECTION

Revetments Michiana Rock-Mastic $71 $41 $56 No Yes
and
Seawalls Empire Longard Tube 28 28 32 No d

Brevort Longard Tube 57 42 47 No d
.................... ......... ........ ..............................................
Sand Bags 60 55 40 Yes No

Whitefish Township "Rubble" 45 43 48 a a

Tawas Point Rock 52 c c No a

Manistique Gabion 19 15 4 Yes Yes

Groins Lincoln Township Timber Pile 133 120 150 No Yes

Longard Tube 57 25 28 No d

Charles Mears
State Park Rock Gabion c 15 7 Yes Yes

Ludington State Park Sheet Piling b 128 150 No Yes

Sanilac Rock-Mastic 154 110 115 No Yes

Sand Bags 109 80 45 Yes No

Longard Tube 55 42 46 No d

Marquette Sheet Piling 34 128 150 No Yes

Breakwaters Pere Marquette
Township Pre-Cast Zig-Zag
66 c c No d

Lakeport State
Park Longard Tube 24 c c No d

Nourishment Tawas City Sand 19 15 19 a Yes

East Tawas Sand 16 15 16 a Yes

a) Depends on site conditions and area. c) Not determined at this time.
b) Project cost includes seawall construction and d) Cautiously recommended.
cannot be accurately separated for tabulation.

Source: Michigan's Demonstration Erosion
Control Program: Evaluation Report.
Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, November 1974.

Cost-Effectiveness

Structural approaches require a significant commitment of resources,
both over the short and long terms. Private property owner 'Investments in
excess of $10,000 and local government investments in excess of $100,000
are common along the Great Lakes shoreline. More extensive and complete
protection schemes are often prohibitively expensive. For example, the
Milwaukee County Park Commission estimated the cost of a complete shore and
bluff protection plan for the south lakefront area at $5 million in 1965.25
However, the mere expenditure of large sums of money on structural solutions
has not, and will not, necessarily guarantee a higher degree of protection.
Most shore protection devices have relatively short life expectancies. Even

the more durable devices fail--sometimes before their design lives are
reached. Reasons for failure include improper placement, inadequate main-
tenance, adverse impacts of adjacent structures, and storm or wave conditions
exceeding design capabilities. One often unrecognized factor is poor timing,

particularly along high blufflines. Since coastal bluffs typically undergo
several years of profile change upon destabilization, devices installed at
the wrong time and place will have a greater probability of failure. To
summarize, in spite of dollar investments, there will invariably be a
natural event or series of human errors which can lead to the partial or
complete failure of both shore and bluff structures.

In an attempt to solve the cost-effectiveness problem, many riparians
have turned to emergency and/or low-cost protection strategies (do-it-yourself

projects) over the past decade. While these strategies do not necessarily
lead to expensive, one-time projects, over time, the total amount of money
used to temporarily slow erosion rates may equal the costs of longer duration
projects. Subsequently, when more permanent devices are installed, project
costs frequently increase because of the presence of failed structures, e.g.
submerged stone and steel, dilapidated groins, exposed piling. No single

strategy can be identified to "save money" on shore or bluff protection
Strategies involving intermediate-life structures hold some promise of
minimizing costs and maximizing protection in selected cases, But, when
lower cost or shorter life structures are installed, the replacement cycle
simply begins at an earlier date. Ultimately coastal riparians and local
governments may simply have to decide how much risk they are willing to
live with, and accept, as a part of living along an erodible shoreline.

-42-

For state-level decision-making, this issue clerl pse smemao
public policy investment questions. If structural devices are destined to
fail or, at best, only-provide adequate protection for a relatively short
period of time, can, or should, significant public expenditures be risked
along the shoreline? At the very least, the cost-effectiveness issue
appears to suggest that state resources mus-t be invested judiciously and
cautiously. Both the short and long-term benefits and costs of structural
strategies need careful assessment, particularly where nonstructural options
exist. For example, in benefit/cost studies conducted by the Coastal Zone
Laboratory, University of M4ichigan, building relocation has often compared
favorably to, or better than, the costs of constructing durable shore
protective structures.26 Along light to moderately-developed coastal
reaches, nonstructural options may, in fact, be able to reduce damages more

effectively and permanently. But, there will continue to remain conditions
and circumstances which will favor the implementation of structural
approaches. The erosion control needs and priorities of these areas will
require close attention over the coming years,

Adverse Impacts

Any actions taken to structurally reduce erosion damages will create
some physical and environmental impacts. All too often, the adverse impacts
of structural devices have led to the acceleration of erosion rates down-
drift, or adjacent to, the protected area through beach starvation (sand
capture) and wave energy transfer/deflection. In a recent recession rate
analysis of the Illinois shoreline, high erosion rates were consistently,
and directly, linked to nearby protected areas.27 Depending upon their
placement, configuration, and materials, structural devices can affect
nearshore navigation, fish populations, aquatic habitat, and public safety/
access. In a number of cases, water quality problems have also resulted
from the use, or placement of, contaminated materials along the shoreline,
e.g. solid waste used as riprap/f ill, eroding fly esh spoil piles., While
the state-of-the-art is not such that all ne-ative impacts can be accurately,
predicted, most potential problems can be substantially minimized by
properly selecting and designing devices in concert with comprehensive
evaluations of site and reach geologic/coastal processes. Even common
coastal construction projects, e.g. jetties, coal unloading facilities,

-43-

marinas, can create some severe impacts when natural processes have not been
fully considered. For example, over time, many armored coastal facilities
have in effect become large groins as the shoreline recedes around them.
Ironically, the more effective and durable the device, the more it may tend
to generate adverse impacts.

Since structurally-oriented strategies will continue to be integral
components of many state and local damage reduction programs, what role can,
or should, the state play in further reducing the adverse impacts of
structural devices? In protecting the public interest along navigable

waterways, both state and local governments have been authorized to take
many regulatory actions, i.e. Chapters 30 and 31, Wisconsin Statutes;
Chapter 59.97, Wisconsin Statutes (unincorporated areas via shoreland zoning
ordinances, where required28). The administration and enforcement of these
statutes and ordinances has direct implications for reducing the adverse
impacts of structural devices. In granting/denying permits, local govern-
ments and the Department of Natural Resources can consider the impacts of
structural devices upon navigation, public safety, aquatic communities,
and adjacent riparians. But, a number of historic problems have tended to
limit the effectiveness of public oversight. For example, where local
authority supercedes state authority, i.e. along lake bed grant areas,
broader reach and environmental concerns tend to be looked at superfically--
if at all. Most structures placed above the ordinary high water mark
(the demarcation line for state authority) for shore protection/filling

purposes receive minimal review at the present time even though adverse
impacts can occur upon sliding or failure. Section C of this chapter will
review some possible refinements and improvements of Wisconsin's regulatory
framework.

Shoreline Management Implications

Structural devices alter the character and use-potential of-the shore-
line hence they can have impacts which go 1.�yond their immediate shore
protection goals. In the past, the shoreline management aspects of
structural devices have not always been considered due to emergency conditions,
limited time/money, the piecemeal implementation of plans, etc. One of the
side-effects of this approach has been the limiting or "locking-out"t of

-44-

future management options. For example, once an armor stone revetment is
constructed, the shoreline may lose much of its recreational value through
erosion of the fronting beach and public access impairment. Since public
use of, and access to, Wisconsin's Great Lakes shoreline is already
limited by high bluffs and land ownership patterns, every opportunity should
be taken by local and state governments to comprehensively manage coastal
environments.

Alternatively, there is yet another side to the shoreline management
problem, Shore erosion has traditionally been viewed as a natural hazard
which needs to be controlled.. However, a certain amount of erosion may, in
fact, be necessary for the lake system and downdrift, shore protection
devices. The indiscriminate placement of devices along sand generation
areas, e~g. southern Kenosha County, south central Sheboygan County, could
have serious sediment starvation repercussions.

Even though direct state-level management authority is largely limited
to publically-owned lands, e.g. state parks/forests, highway corridors, the
state influences many kinds of local/regional shoreline decisions through
financial and technical assistance programs and regulatory activities. Thus,
the state could play an important role in facilitating an even closer linkage
between shore/bluff protection and comprehensive, multi-faceted shoreline
management. At the very least, it appears that the multiple-use potentials
of structural devices can be more widely acknowledged and taken advantage
of in damage reduction planning efforts. For example, with proper planning
and coordination, shore protection devices can be used for bank/pier fishing
purposes, building-up recreational beaches, and/or increasing shoreline
access. Public Access: A Policy Study29, a previous report of the Wisconsin
Coastal Management Program, provided a significant step in this direction
by discussing several strategies available to state agencies and local
governments and the means to implement them. The preparation of long-term
shoreline management plans on a reach-by-reach basis in combination with
increased state-level technical assistance appears to offer a viable means
of helping to ensure the proper use and siting of protective devices.

-45--

C. Options and Strategies

State-Level Regulatory Responses

In Wisconsin, state and local governments are responsible for admin-
istering and enforcing a wide range of laws, statutes, and ordinances
designed to protect the public interest along navigable waterways within
1000 feet from the Great Lakes shoreline. Both shoreline and bluffline
erosion control projects may require some combination of state and local
permits. In addition, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issues permits for
shore protection activities below the high water mark along navigable
waterways. Taken in total, the regulatory requirements and actions of

federal, state, and local governments have a significant impact upon
encouraging/discouraging various structural approaches, minimizing the
adverse impacts of structural devices, ensuring early and continuous reach
coordination, and, in general, reducing erosion damages along the Great Lakes
shoreline. Of particular concern to this discussion is the role of the
state government in the regulatory framework. For this policy plan, the
question arises, is the existing policy framework and review process
governing the use of erosion control structures adequate, or should it be
modified legislatively or administratively? To answer this question, it is
necessary to review and analyze the process and substance of the existing
framework in some depth.

Existing Framework

Pursuant to Chapter 30, Wisconsin Statutes (Navigable Waters, Harbors,
and Navigation), the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has
developed an extensive review/permitting program for a wide range of coastal
activities. Table IX lists those Chapter 30 activities directly related to

shore protection/erosion control. Direct state-level regulatory authority
along the Great Lakes shoreline has been limited to submerged lands held in
trust by the state and activities initiated at, or below, the ordinary high
water mark (OHWM). With regard to submerged lands, where the Legislature
has ceded a portion of the lake bed to municipalities for designated public
purposes (Chapter 30.05 Wisconsin Statutes), Chapter 30 authorities are

generally exempt. Most cities along the Lake Michigan shoreline and
Milwaukee County have been granted partial, or complete, authority over their

-46-

Table IX: Shore Protection-Related Statutes Administered by the Bureau
of Water Regulation and Zoning, Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources

Chapter Regulation

30.11 Establishment of Bulkhead Lines
30.12 Structures and Deposits in Navigable Waters
Prohibited; Exceptions; Penalty
30.13 Regulation of Wharves and Piers; Establish-
ment of Pierhead Lines
30.19 Enlargement and Protection of Waterways
30.20 Removal of Material from Beds of Navigable
Waters
30.205 Zoning for Certain Lake Bed Removals

adjacent submerged lands (a comprehensive listing of lake bed grants is
found in Lake Bed Grants; Great Lakes; a Coastal Management Program
publication). However, where the shoreline has receded away from the offi-
cially demarcated lake bed grant area, the state has retained its direct
regulatory authority. Whether the lake bed is state or locally owned,
permits may be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for any
Great Lakes project pursuant to Federal Rivers and Harbors Acts and
Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (P.L. 92-500).

Since 1914, Wisconsin has defined the boundary separating lands held in
trust by the state from private lands as the ordinary high water mark (OHWM),
The ordinary high water mark, determined on a case-by-case basis by DNR
field staff, is
the point on the bank or shore up to which the presence and
action of the water is so continuous as to leave a distinct
mark either by erosion, destruction of terrestrial vegetation,
or other easily recognized characteristic .... 30
Most shore protection/erosion control projects initiated above the OHWM do
not require state permits (see endnote 37). However, since many riprap/
filling projects begin above the OHWM but invariably end-up in the Great
Lakes upon failure, the DNR is presently determining what authority exists
for the regulation of riprap materials (vis-a-vis solid waste provisions of
NR 151) and/or prohibiting certain riprap projects pursuant to Chapter 30.12.31

-47-

The Army Corps of Engineers has developed a system or using either biologic
indicators, when present, or stage-duration curves (water level elevations)
to identify the ordinary high water mark for federal regulatory purposes.

In lake bed grant areas, local governments are responsible for con-
ducting reviews of coastal projects and issuing any necessary permits--
frequently through the zoning administrator's office, But, even in non-
lake bed grant areas, counties can require special exception permits for
coastal projects so long as their shoreland zoning ordinances are in
compliance with Chapters 144.25 (Navigable Waters Protection Law) and
59.971 (Zoning of Shorelands on Navigable Waters), Wisconsin Statutes.32
The granting of a local permit does not, however, preclude the possible
denial of a state permit pursuant to Chapter 30 or the parallel federal
permit. In short, a federal, state, and local permit may be required to
install shore protection/erosion control devices along many reaches of the
Great Lakes shoreline. Owing to the number of public entities with
regulatory authority and the special conditions associated with jurisdiction,
e.g. above/below 0HWM4, lake bed grant area, shoreland zoning authority,
coastal riparians need to be aware of permit requirements before initiating
shore or bluff protection projects.

A detailed discussion of the entire permit application/notification/
review process for all public entities is beyond the scope of this report.
Since Chapter 30 is the focal point of the state's regulatory activities, an
overview of the present process is provided on Figure 6, page 49. Appendix F
provides a step-by-step description of the process. Much of the following
information is taken from "The Role of the Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources in the Protection of the Public Interest in Navigable Waters"; a
working paper prepared for the Coastal Management Program.

Over the past several years the Department of Natural Resources, through
the Bureau of Water Regulation and Zoning, has pursued a policy of
decentralizing permit review activities. Hence the three coastal District
Directors (Northwest, Lake Michigan, and Southeast) have been given more
responsibility, and flexibility, in granting/denying Chapter 30 permits.
The role of the central office (Madison) has been generally limited to the
handling of controversial or unique projects along with maintaining a,

-48-

Figure 6: Chapter 30 Permitl Process

I Aol lcant
request

I District Office i
cc. Bureau of Water Reaulation &
Zoning, Bureau of Environmental
Impact, County Zoning Administrator

Northwest Lake Michigan Southeast
Area Office . District Office]
i I

i Field Investication
Fish Manager
Wildlife Manager
Conservation Warden
Water Management Investigator
~! r~cc.
Field eoort I Bureau of water
Form 3500-23 3 I Renulation + Zoninqi
Technical Input

Area Suoervisor I
IReconmendations

I District Office !
JM.C. 3551.1 Evaluation

Environmental
Impact Coordinator
Preoares Form 1600-1,
jEnvironmental Impact Assessment

District Director I
jFinal Assessment

30.02 Applies: 30.02 Not Aoplicable:
30.12(a) 30.11
30.13 30.12(b),(c),(d)
30.19 30.20
30-day Notification I Permit Grant
Procedure or Denial I
30 DaysI Surveillance

I Objection on Basis J No Hearing
rof Written Facts IRequired
Water mtanaaement'Investigator I Water Management Investigator +
I Environmental Imoact Coordinator
Hearing Request
earRequest Recommendations
EIA + Files
I District. Director
Bureaus of Water Regulation +
Zoning and Legal Services Surveanenial
Objections I Obiections
Reasonable | Unreasonable
Hearing
Decision: Permit Granted or Denied
Central Office I
Surveillance -49-

professional staff with expertise In certain subject areas. Along with
District Directors, the role of Hearing Examiners has also substantially
expanded over the past few years, Much of this increase can be attributed
to the notification/hearing procedures used by the Department pursuant to
Chapters 30.02 (General Provision for Notice and Hearing), 30.19 (Enlargement
and Protection of Waterways), 31.06 (Hearing Requirements), and 165.07
(Assistant Attorney General - Public Intervenor), Wisconsin Statutes along
with a heightening of public and agency interest in navigable waterway-
related projects.

In brief, the Chapter 30 process operates as follows., Upon the receipt
of a permit application, the District Director initiates a field investiga-
tion of the project area through an area office. Once a complete field
report is on-file, the District Environmental Impact Coordinator prepares
an environmental impact assessment screening worksheet (NR. 150, Wisconsin
Administrative Code). On the basis of the field report and environmental
impact assessment, a final technical analysis of any probable impacts is
made. Where the proposed project is not subject to notice and hearing
(many small and/or noncontroversial projects are exempted), the District
Director will Make a final determination. For those projects requiring
notice and hearing, i.e. Chapter 30.12 and 30.19 applications, a 30-day
notification procedure is initiated. Copies of the notice are sent to all
directly affected state agencies, the Attorney General's Office, Army Corps
of Engineers, county and municipal clerks, local zoning administrators,
environmental groups, adjacent property owners, and the applicant. If no
objections are raised, the District Water Management Investigator and
Environmental Impact Coordinator submit final recommendations to the
District Director. Where reasonable objections (based upon fact) are
received in writing, a formal hearing is set up through the central office.
From this point on, the Hearing Examiner and central office assume responsi-
bility for reaching, and implementing, the final decision.

-50-

A critical aspect of the Chapter 30 regulatory process are the
standards used to grant/deny permits. At the present time, no administra.-
tive rules or regulations have been formally adopted by the Department for.
Chapter 30 activities. In their place, a flexible but comprehensive
assessment procedure, largely defined in an internal Manual Code has been/!
developed. Statutory language, relevant administrative code provisions,
court decisions, normal operating procedures/administrative practices, and
executive orders provide the basis for this code,33 Only those criteria
established by statute, administrative code, and the Supreme Court are
deemed mandatory, Generally speaking, three statutory standards are
recognized:34 effect on navigation, impact on stream capacity, and the
public interest test. The public interest test has been broadly interpreted
to mean any detrimental impact upon the waters in question, the rights of
other riparians, or the public trust. These parameters, in turin, have been
further refined to include the biological, physical, and social aspects of
coastal projects. Thus, the Departme nt routinely assesses the possible
impacts upon sport and commercial fisheries, aquatic/terrestrial habitat,
lake currents, adjacent properties, scientific areas and historic sites,
and the ipublic health/safety. In addition, the Department may consider
the effectiveness and life of a structure along with the financial capability
of the applicant. Compliance with other federal, county, and/or municipal

regulations and permits is also determined.

Analysis of Existing Framework

Chapter 30 provides the State of Wisconsin with the authority to
directly manage erosion control activities along the Great Lakes shoreline,
and, where necessary, provide the follow-up enforcement actions. But,
during the course of Coastal Management Program investigations, a number of
process and substantive problems were identified that could impair the
effectiveness and comprehensiveness of the regulatory framework. Briefly,
these concerns are related to the lack of officially adopted standards,
adequate conflict resolution procedures, controls for measures above the
ordinary high water mark, and intergovernmental/agency coordination, These
problems have had the net effect of (1) making it more difficult for

coastal riparians to understand the "ground rules" and receive timely,
systematic reviews of permit applications and (2) making it more difficult

-51-

for those agencies and governments with regulatory responsibilities to
collectively and consistently define and protect the public interest along
navigable waterways. Since the regulatory policies and actions of the
state are critical for the successful operation of the entire framework and
reduction of erosion damages, the above problems may need to be addressed.

Even though the Department of Natural Resources has developed a flexible,
comprehensive internal assessment procedtire in the Manual Code, the lack of
officially adopted rules and regulations tends to lead to the camouflaging
of standards and the variable, perhaps subjective, enforcement of state
policy. In making this statement, it should be pointed out that each DNR
district has perspectives', and procedures, differing from other districts as
well as the central office. All concerned and interested parties, from the
applicant (coastal riparian) to local government officials to the Army Corps
of Engineers, could benefit by knowing--to a reasonable degree--what
physical, environmental, economic, and social parameters are being used to
grant/deny permits. When known in advance, state-level criteria can be
used to assist in the design and siting of erosion control devices. More-
over, those local governments issuing permits pursuant to lake bed grant
authority or shoreland zoning could then, if they so desired, also use
state-level criteria to grant/deny permits. According to the Public
Intervenor, the present standardless approach runs the risk of violating
due process and equal protection rights guaranteed an applicant for a
Chapter 30 permit.35

In view of the generally flexible and cooperative atmosphere which
pervades the local/state/federal regulatory framework along navigable waters,
conflict resolution has not been perceived as a high priority issue. But,
because this framework remains fraught with many substantive (permit criteria),
jurisdictional, and overlapping administrative problems, adequate provision
for conflict resolution appears essential to its efficient operation. For
example, the lack of officially adopted state rules and regulations may, in
the case of conflict resolution, have an important side-effect.. Namely, that
the state can be left in a tenuous position with regard to the defense of
final permit actions, be they grants or denials. In 1976, out of a total of
63 permit applications, only one was denied (four were pending further
action).36 Without the formalization of conflict resolution procedures, it

-52-

would appear that coastal riparians could be "caught in the middle" of
interagency/government disputes over new technologies, technical questions,
or divergent permit disposition (one agency grants, the other denies), To
summarize, as concern over projects along navigable waterways increases in
Wisconsin, a much greater opportunity will exist for conflicts which will
need immediate resolution.

Riprapping and earthen-fill projects account for more than half of
all shore protection activities along Wisconsin's Great Lakes shoreline
every year.. Even though these projects are typically initiated above the
ordinary high water mark (OHWM), quite often they enter the lake bed upon
failure or continuous bluff slumping. Since the state has limited regula-
tory jurisdiction above the OHWM for shore protection projects37, these
activities, in theory, are covered under the provisions of county and
municipal shoreland zoning ordinances. However, few local governments have
demonstrated a willingness to regulate activities which are seen as "rights"
of coastal riparians. Unfortunately, the lack of adequate controls. above the
OHWM has created many environmental, aesthetic, public access/use, and
damage reduction problems along the shoreline, For example, unsorted debris
and construction materials are commonly seen along the southern Lake Michigan
shoreline. While the solid waste provisions of N.R, 151 may provide the
state with a "handle" on this problem, a more direct state/local response
appears desirable.

The public trust interests of local/state/federal regulatory agencies
are generally quite similar along navigable waterways, e.g. protect adjacent
riparians, minimize adverse impacts, protect the public health/safety. Hence
the opportunity for uncoordinated, overlapping public responses remains high.
Through informal agreements and arrangements, the Department of Natural
Resources and Corps of Engineers have been able to cooperatively resolve most
jurisdictional and permit disposition problems over the years. These efforts
led to a largely unsuccessful attempt to officially streamline permitting
activities during the mid-1970's. The relationship between the state and
local regulatory bodies has remained far more confusing and uncertain,
State/local coordination, except on a community-by-community basis, has
been difficult to achieve. Even though a reasonable amount of coordination
does occur in the present framework, it appears that a more formalized and

-53-

centralized system is needed to ensure consistent administration and
protection of the public interest, With sufficient regulatory process
coordination., most delays or problems involving interagency/government
notification, due process, and permit disposition should be substantially
alleviated. Both public and private sector interests can benefit by
efforts designed to increase the efficiency of the regulatory process,

Although not a regulatory problem per se, the beach nourishment/dredge
spoil issue deserves some consideration within the context of the discussion.
One of the most effective, and natural, ways of protecting the shoreline is
through the build-up and maintenance of protective beaches. Structural
devices such as groins, inshore and offshore breakwaters, artificial head-
lands, and perched beaches can promote the build-up and maintenance of
protective beaches. In addition, many of these devices enhance the flex-
ibility of damage reduction programs by keeping the shoreline and nearshore
zone open for recreational and beach uses, particularly swimming and surf
fishing. Groins can also serve as fishing piers. But, to insure the presence
of sufficient quantities of sand-sized materials in the beach system
(including the littoral drift), beaches often need to be artificially
nourished on a periodic basis.

In Wisconsin, the addition of any materials to lake beds held in trust
by the state has been generally prohibited since the early 1970's. This
prohibition has had a si gnificant impact upon protective beach alternatives.
Many potential sources of sand are found along the Great Lakes shoreline,
e.g. harbors, river mouths, sandy bluffs/plains. These sources, while
affording economically viable options in many cases, cannot be used for
shore protection purposes. Further, the present state-level policy regarding
the on-land disposal of dredge spoils38 appears to be inconsistent with
natural shoreline stabilization processes, In view of the success and
experience of other states in artificially nourishing beaches, a reassessment
of Wicnsns policy on protective beach alternatives along the Great Lakes
shoreline may be needed at this time. This reassessment should be completed
in concert with other investigations related to dredge spoil disposal,
harbor and port development, water quality, and shore protection issues,

-54-

Alternative Options and Strategies

In answering the policy question raised at the beginning of this
section, it is clear that some modifications to Chapter 30 may be desirable.
However, given the interrelationships between federal/state/local regulatory
activities along the Great Lakes shoreline, there remains a potential that
any "fine-tuning" or streamlining of Chapter 30 activities could generate
many new problems. Consequently, any modifications of Chapter 30, whether
legislatively or administratively pursued, should be made on the basis of
comprehensive assessments of the entire regulatory framework. Direct
participation by the Corps of Engineers and local governments in future
policy-level discussions will help ensure a higher degree of coordination
and regulatory program efficiency. The following goals or targets can be
used to help establish priorities for Chapter 30 modifications over the
coming years. Wisconsin' s regulatory policies and procedures along the
Great Lakes shoreline should provide for the:

--dissemination of permit process/substance information
to coastal riparians in a timely, useable manner,
--non-duplication of permitting procedures between federal/
state/local governments,

--early and immediate notification of all concerned public
and private sector interests,

--consistent protection of the public interest along
navigable waterways, over time, vis-a-vis clearly
identified standards and/or guidelines,

--efficient and equitable resolution of all conflicts
between the various public and private sector
interests.

Before undertaking any Chapter 30 regulatory reforms, a fundamental
policy issue is whether to encourage or discourage structural approaches to
damage reduction along the Great Lakes shoreline. In spite of the contro-
versial nature of structural approaches, e.g. cost-effectiveness, adverse
impacts, shoreline management implications, the present state policy
framework does little to officially discourage structural approaches.
Rather, existing policy is oriented toward protecting the public interest
after coastal riparians have decided to install structural devices. The
California Coastal Commission takes an entirely different approach.
Structural approaches can only be considered after all other nonstructural

-55-

opti~ons have been examined, and there is evidence that structures will be

able to successfully mitigate coastal erosion, Table X contains a listing
of criteria used by the Commission to evaluate shore protection projects.

Appendix G contains a complete layout of California's recently prepared
shoreline erosion protection policy.

The question of whether to encourage or discourage struictural approaches,
and under what circumstances, is critical for the "fine-tuning" of
Wisconsin~s Chapter 30 regulatory framework. If, for example, the state
would choose to deviate from its present open-ended policy, any subsequent
revisions of Chapter 30 can, and should,, be made more compatible and
consistent with this position. Pursuit of a California-type approach to
state shore protection policy would also have the added advantage of pro-
viding a more substantive basis for permit approvals/denials. Aside from
its obvious regulatory framework benefits, a more clearly articulated state
erosion protection policy could aid in the deployment of state financial/

technical resources, ensure more consistent state and local government
management, and assist in the preparation of new laws and programs. The
guidelines for damage reduction programs contained in Chapter III of this
report provide a possible starting point for a comprehensive state policy.

Either through legislative or administrative rule-making processes, the
state can modify the Chapter 30 regulatory framework. The amount of
legislative/public interest in Chapter 30 activities, the immediacy of
modification needs, the perceived complexity/comprehensiveness of Chapter 30
reform needs, and the willingness of the Department of Natural Resources to
initiate/implement modifications can assist in determining which strategy,
if any, is to be taken. In evaluating these factors, it should be pointed

out that the DNR has been internally modifying Chapter 30 procedures on an
fla needed'' basis over the past several years . Thus , a complete appraisal
of in-force policies and procedures, along with the possible impacts of
planned modifications, could provide a clearer assessment of required actions.
For example, although in various stages of completion, the DNR has been

putting together a handbook (to accompany the Manual Code) for use by district
personnel in evaluating permits and for enforcement proceedings39. Hence
the adminsistrative modification of Chapter 30 appears attainable since the
Department has already demonstrated an interest in moving in this direction.

-56-

Table X: California Coastal Commission Shoreline Protection Project Policies

Shoreline protection projects are proposed by both private parties
and public agencies, It is the policy of the Resources Agency that the
following policies should be followed when evaluating project applications:

A. Nourishment of beaches to protect against erosion shall be encouraged
where the following conditions are met:

1. This does not conflict with significant living marine resources;

2. This will result in adverse effects elsewhere on the coast;

3. Measures are included in the project to maintain the affected
beaches in a nourished state.

B. Construction of seawalls, revetments, breakwaters, or other artificial
structures for coastal erosion control shall be discouraged unless each
of the following criteria is met;

1. No other non-structural alternative is practical or preferable;

2. The condition causing the problem is site specific and not
attributable to a general erosion trend,, or the project reduces
the need for a number of individual projects and solves a regional
erosion problem;

3. It can be shown that a structures) will successfully mitigate the
effects of shoreline erosion and will not adversely affect
adjacent or other sections of the shoreline;-

.4. There will be no reduction in public access, use, and enjoyment of
the natural shoreline environment, and construction of a structure
will preserve or provide access to related public recreational.
lands or facilities;

5. Any project-caused impacts on fish and wildlife resources will be
offset by adequate fish and wildlife preservation measures;

6. The project is to protect existing development, public beaches or
a coastal-dependent use.

-57-

In considering possible state-level actions to up-date Chapter 30,
a high priority could be given to the preparation of legally binding rules
and regulations. If pursued legislatively, enabling laws and statutes
could be simultaneously amended so as to clear-up any existing language/
interpretation problems, and reflect any new state policy concerns with
regard to the use of structural devices along the Great Lakes shoreline.
This legislative effort might, in effect, allow the comprehensive recodi-
fication of all related Great Lakes shoreline structural activities.
Michigan's Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act could provide a basis for this
revision. Administratively, state efforts might initially focus in on
a series of informal hearings to discuss and review the DNR Manual Code

and its related documents.

On the question of state jurisdiction above the ordinary high water
mark, even though the DNR is moving ahead administratively, some legis-

lative action might be needed to clear-up the intent of Chapter 144 (Water,
Ice, Sewage and Refuse), Wisconsin Statutes and shoreland zoning provi-
sions with regard to riprap/filling projects for shore protection pur-
poses. To address notification and conflict resolution problems, one
importan~t step appears to be the formal establishment of a "shared noti-
fication system" for all permit issuing agencies. This system might be
implemented through the signing of "memos of understanding" which describe
agency responsibilities and detail operating procedures and "turn-around"
time requirements. Legislatively, these modifications could be under-
taken pursuant to the hearing/permit review activities outlined in
Chapters 30.02, 30.19, 31.06, and 165.07, Wisconsin Statutes. Since
communities/counties with lake bed grants are generally exempt from state
administrative rule requirements, special legislative attention may be
required to ensure complete state/local regulatory cooperation and coor-
dination along the Great Lakes shoreline.

Although this section has focused on possible legislative and admin-
istrative adjustments to Chapter 30, the state has several other "tools"
at its disposal. Most notably, technical assistance delivery, educational
programs and activities, and direct program enhancement, e.g. additional
staff, resources. Of particular concern is the need to increase the

regulatory capabilities of local governments. State-sponsored work-

shops/training sessions appear to offer a viable means of up-grading
local permitting activities while facilitating better state/local coordi-
nation. Similarly, educational materials prepared for coastal riparians
and zoning administrators on such topics as structural design/siting
problems, the substance of federal and state permit reviews, and legal
issues have the potential of improving the overall efficiency of the
regulatory process. One 1974 leaflet, "Permits for Construction of Shore
Protection Works on Lake Michigan" (a UW-Sea Grant College Program
report) provides an example of the type of product which could be gener-
ated in a renewed informational effort. Regulatory program improvement
has been given a high priority by the Coastal Management Program over
the past two years. Additional staff capacity has been built-up at
both the central and district office levels within the DNR.

State-Level Financial Assistance Responses

Erosion control will, in all probability, continue to be the focal
point of many local government and coastal riparian responses to erosion
along Wisconsin's Great Lakes shoreline. Most of the several thousand
riparians living within 75 feet of the bluff/beach edge can be expected
to give structural approaches a high priority over the coming decade.
Thus, in addition to regulation, what role, if any, should state govern-
ment play where structural devices are sought to reduce erosion damages?
The most frequently heard demands relate to increased state-level finan-
cial assistance for the construction of structural devices on an individ-
ual, if not on a statewide or reach, basis. At present, local governments
are eligible for some federal or state aid under spec ial circumstances,
e.g. emergency protection of public facilities. But, all too often, the
amount of money available is either insufficient or not targeted for
"lower priority" purposes, e.g. protection of parks, scientific areas,
historical sites. Coastal riparians are in a much more difficult posi-
tion. Except for business properties, virtually no direct or indirect
(tax-related subsidies) assistance is available on a widespread basis.
In Wisconsin, coastal riparians normally bear the full costs for install-
ing and maintaining structural devices. Before examining some possible
state-level options and strategies, it is necessary to take a closer

-59-

look at the existing framework.

Existing Framework

Only a handful of federal and state financial assistance programs
have been exclusively designed for coastal hazards over the years. Except
for some programs sponsored by the Army, Corps of Engineers, Soil Conserva-
tion Service, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, and Wisconsin
Coastal Management Program, the presence of erosion hazards generally does
little to release monies for shore/bluff protection projects per se. In
the case of local governments, other reasons must often be identified for
funding, e~g. improved public access, recreational enhancement, increased
economic development potential. Historically, even the presence of

emergency conditions along the Great Lakes has done little to free-up
additional financial assistance for erosion hazards. For example, during
the 1972-1976 high water period, a special joint federal/state assistance
program, Operation Foresight, was established for coastal flooding/inundation.
Erosion damage mitigation activities were not covered. Recent efforts to
seek direct and indirect financial assistance for coastal riparians at the

federal level on the Great Lakes have met with no more success. In 1977,
a bill introduced by Congressman Phillip Ruppe of Michigan to amend the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 so as to provide construction monies
"died" due to insufficient support. Likewise, after lengthy study, the
Flood Insurance Administration appears to have abandoned efforts to have
Great Lakes shore erosion damages covered under the National Flood
Insurance Act. In summary, unlike riverine flooding erosion damages
typically occur on a continuing basis hence public interest in extensive
assistance has remained limited over the years.

Appendix E provides a comprehensive listing and summary of all
principal federal and state financial assistance programs., By way of

review, three Army Corps of Engineers programs serve as the "backbone" of
shore erosion assistance activities: Section 14 projects (Emergency
Protection of Public Facilities, Section 103 projects (-Small Beach
Erosion Control Projects), and Section III projects (Correction of Damages
Attributable to Federal Navigation Structures). Except where damages
accrue to private lands from navigational structures, all Corps of

-60-

Engineers programs are designed exclusively for public entities. The
Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture can offer

some highly limited financial assistance to local district cooperators
for reducing bluff erosion hazards under two programs: P.L. 566 Water-
shed projects and Resource Conservation and Development projects.
Pursuant to the state Highway Disaster Fund (Chapter 86.34, Wisconsin
Statutes), the Department of Transportation can assist in the restora-
tion and improvement of non-state trunk highways damaged by flood-
related erosion. Through Section 306, Coastal Zone Management Act
implementation activities, the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program can
offer planning and design assistance for structural devices to public
entities. Along portions of the Great Lakes shoreline where Section 208,
Federal Water Pollution Control Act water quality plans have been com-
pleted and approved, the newly enacted Wisconsin Fund may provide some
limited monies for erosion abatement near the mouth of navigable streams.

In passing, it should be pointed out that several other assistance
programs for the construction of structural devices or protection of
coastal buildings may be available on a highly restricted basis. For
example, where public entities are seeking to expand or improve recre-
ational opportunities along the Great Lakes shoreline, state ORAP-200
(Outdoor Recreation Assistance Program) or federal LAWCON (Land and Water
Conservation Fund) funds can be sought. One additional form of federal
assistance, low-cost loans, can be made available to coastal businesses
and riparians on a limited basis through the Small Business Administra-
tion and Farmers Home Administration. No low-cost loan programs are
sponsored by the state for erosion damage mitigation purposes.

Indirect financial assistance through the offering of tax-related
incentives or subsidies provides another state-level option for mitigating
the economic impacts of constructing protective devices or encouraging
structural approaches. In Wisconsin, only business property interests
are eligible for special property/income tax benefits. Utilities, cor-
porations, and businesses can receive full property tax exemptions pur-
suant to Chapters 70.11 (Property Exempted from Taxation) and 144 (Water,
lee, Sewage, and Refuse), Wisconsin Statutes, provided an "industrial,

-61-

waste" is being confined along the Great Lakes shoreline, Additionally,
two accelerated depreciation write-off options (deductions) are available
to businesses and corporations where devices are constructed for pollution
abatement purposes (Chapter 71.04-.05, Wisconsin Statutes). Since the
siltation/sedimentation of nearshore Great Lakes waters has not been
held to be "pollution"' in Wisconsin, no tax relief is generally offered
where water quality improvement is -not the intended purpose. Devices
constructed elsewhere along the shoreline can be considered "improvements"
and be subject to full property tax levees. Through the casualty loss
provisions of the Internal Revenue Service Code, both business and
nonbusiness property interests can also claim some income tax deductions
for structural device losses and repairs attributable to storm events.
Losses associated with gradual erosion or inundation are not eligible for
any federal tax benef its40 (high water periods have been held to be "~nor-
mal" events on the Great Lakes). Because federal and state income tax
laws are not completely parallel, coastal riparians and business property
interests need to carefully assess the applicability of all relevant
provisions/codes.

Alternative Options and Strategies

In view of the limited amount of public assistance presently avail-
able for the implementation of structural measures in Wisconsin, many
coastal riparians and local governments would welcome additional direct
and/or indirect aid. Before determining what precise role the state
might play, the broader implications of further state-level assistance
should be kept in mind. First, statewide, coastal erosion generally
remains a cyclic hazard which only directly affects a very small number
of Wisconsin residents. Compared to other natural hazard events, e.g.
riverine floods and tornadoes, the damage losses associated with coastal
erosion appear relatively modest. There remains, then, a policy-level
concern of how much attention should be directed to a natural problem
only affecting a handful of Wisconsin citizens. Second, given the high
costs of structural devices and their limited effectiveness, should the
state encourage, either tacitly or explicitly, structural approaches
even on a limited scale? The costs of structurally-oriented assistance
programs will likely outweigh the benefits in most cases. And third, in

-62-

the absence of comprehensive state policy guidelines on damage reduction,
including the role of nonstructural alternatives, financial aid programs
for structural approaches could well have an adverse impact upon shore-
line management. By facilitating the temporary, piecemeal reduction of
damages, the task of finding cooperative, permanent solutions on a
reach-by-reach basis will be made more difficult. To summarize, while
there may well be a financial assistance role for the state, it can only
be fully identified when the questions of "for whom" and "for what pur-
pose" are answered.

The existing financial assistance framework, largely a collection
of unrelated laws and programs, does not provide equal amounts of direct
and indirect aid to all affected riparians and public entities. Resi-
dential property owners, urban residential properties in particular, are
the groups most notably excluded at the present time. Virtually no
direct aid is available for urban residences while rural residences and
farms may be eligible for some limited aid, e.g. FmHA, SGS, ASCS. 'Hlow-
ever, it should be noted that while residential structural devices can
be taxed at full market value, there are indications that most appraisers
ignore bluff/shore protection projects. Business properties, on the
other hand, can receive a number of special indirect subsidies in Wis-
consin where devices are installed for pollution abatement purposes, e.g.
property tax exemptions, accelerated depreciation deductions. And, the
casualty loss provisions of the Internal Revenue Code are generally more
sensitive to business-related damages. Even though public entities are
generally in a more favorable position than riparians, aid for non-
emergency shoreline protection projects is limited and competitive. In
summary, consideration might be given to making residential property
owners and local governments the focus of any state-level financial
assistance efforts.

Public financial assistance, whether direct or indirect, can help to
offset the costs associated with the planning, design, construction, or
emergency replacement/repair of structural devices. Factors which should
be considered by the state in designing any new aid packages or modify-
ing the existing framework include the financial needs of riparians and

-63-

local governments, the adequacy/impacts of existing assistance programs,
the expected state financial commitment, the extent to which the existing
tax system can (should) be modified, and the desired amount of state
control over erosion control projects. Some possible targets or goals
of new state aid programs include the protection of public facilities
and development in high bluff areas, the improved maintenance of public
protective devices, the ensuring of local participation in federal pro-
jects through state-sponsored matches, and the promoting of bluff erosion
control projects in critical areas.

One special problem, erosion of park/open space lands in urban areas,
may deserve some close attention by the state. Along much of the southern
Lake Michigan shoreline, developed and undeveloped parklands serve as
erosion buffers for adjacent homes and businesses. Because direct aid for
erosion control projects is targeted toward the emergency protection of
public facilities, local governments and adjacent property owners are
often placed in the difficult position of waiting until erosion hazards
have reached crisis proportions before aid is released. In some cases,
the recreational value of these lands is lost by this time. Even when
communiltIes have been eligible for more extensive federally subsidized
erosion control projects, match money difficulties have delayed project
implementation. State-level assistance at an early date might serve to
keep more erosion control options open while maintaining viable open
space tracts along the Great Lakes shoreline.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that a public purpose must be
present before government actions can be legitimized (Hopper vs. City of
Madison; Wisconsin Development Authority vs. Dammon, 1938). If the state
seeks to provide further financial assistance for the implementation of
structural devices, the question remains, what public benefits should (can)
be received from, or guaranteed by, local governments and riparians?
Although the state's financial interest in structural devices has been
highly focused, i.e. public facilities, water quality, the use of incen-
tive-type approaches may leave the state in a better position to seek
broader public benefits. For example, as a condition of assistance, the
state could require that additional public access be provided, that

-64-

multiple'-use characteristics be incorporated into projects, or that a
high priority be given to protective beach solutions, One coastal
community, the City of Sheboygan, has already demonstrated how the public
and private sectors can benefit by incentive programs. Over the past
twenty years the city has acquired public access to virtually its entire
shoreline through the less-than-fee simple technique of quit claiming (a
land transfer technique in which property rights are assigned to another
party), in return, the city has constructed a continuous stone ri prap
revetment along its entire waterfront.41 This same principle can be incor-
porated into state-sponsored assistance programs. To summarize, so long
as state-level financial assistance efforts are targeted toward the resol-
ution of recognized erosion hazard problems and openly seek broader public

benefits, a strong legal basis exists for further financial action, Open-
ended, grant-in-aid programs appear more questionable--and perhaps less

desirable.

In responding to the financial assistance needs of coastal riparians
and local governments, the state can take one of three basic actions.
First, a "1no-action" or status quo position can be held, Acceptance of
this position would not necessarily signal a la ck of state interest in
structural devices or the needs of affected parties. Rather, that all
significant problems are being adequately addressed. Hlence any tampering
or modification of the framework might only serve to complicate the task
of effective shoreline management and burden the general public with
largely unnecessary shore protection costs. Second, the state could serve
as a facilitator of financial aid, not a provider. In this instance, the

role and strategy of the state would be to modify the existing legal,
institutional, and resource framework such that local governments and
riparians could more efficiently resolve their own shore protection needs.
This strategy has the added advantage of maintaining a closer relationship
between those paying and those benefitting. And, third, the state could
actually develop or modify financial aid programs. This strategy, while
generally being the most resource intensive, could prove to be the most
responsive and effective in addressing many of the problems described
earlier in this section. The following paragraphs will provide an over-
vie ofselected direct and indirect financial assistance options associated

-65-

with the above strategies.

Direct assistance programs to local governments and/or coastal
riparians could take several forms: full-funding, cost-sharing and
low-interest loans. In view of the high costs of shore protection devices,
often exceeding $200 per linear foot, full-funding construction programs
may not be economically and politically acceptable (a discussion of possi-
ble statewide and reach costs is found on page 36). No coastal state has
enacted a full-funding program for general shore protection purposes.
Full-funding programs may, however, be feasible for limited shore/bluff pro-
tection and demonstration projects. For example, where resources or
facilities of unique regional/state interest are endangered, e.g. histori-
cal sites, scientific areas, and no federal monies are anticipated, a
one-time, full-funding program could prove feasible. Similarly, this
same technique could be used where the state desires to up-grade the level
of protection around "lower priority" public facilities, e.g. parks,
marinas. So as to stimulate bluff protection activities along the shore-
line and/or experiment with innovative erosion control schemes, the state
might consider the possibility of a one-time, full-'funding program. The
Michigan Demonstration Erosion Control Program provides an example of the
kind of state-sponsored program potentially attainable in Wisconsin. Fund-
ing for one-time programs might be generated from bonds, special appropri-
ations, or reallocations of existing financial assistance monies.

Cost-sharing and low-interest loan programs offer two distinct advan-,
tages over full-funding alternatives. First, and most importantly, the
costs to the state can be significantly lessened hence program impact can
be expanded. In the case of low-interest loan programs, an opportunity
exists for the self-renewal of annual operating budgets. Second, the s-tate
,tends to serve in more of a facilitative capacity. Hence a greater local
commitment to erosion control and shoreline management is necess-ary,
Generally, most cost-sharing programs have been oriented toward public
entities while riparians are typically the target of low-interest loan
programs. The State of Maryland has developed a nearly self-sustaining,
interest-free Shore Erosion Control Revolving Loan Fund for both riparians
and local governments, Since 1971, the state has lent nearly $5 million

-66-

for the construction of 185 projects.42' Appendix H contains a brief
overview of the Maryland program. North Carolina, on the other hand,
has developed a cost-share program to ensure local participation in federal
projects. Eighty percent (80%) of the non-federal match requirement is
covered by the state. Appendix I contains North Carolina's Administrative
Code program requirements. The cost-sharing approach has also been applied
to emergency assistance situations. The Province of Ontario, for example,
made extensive use of cost-share programs ,during the last high water period,
principally for local municipalities,43 e.g. Special Emergency Assistance
Program, Ontario Disaster Relief Assistance Program.

To summarize, state-sponsored, cost-share and low-interest loan pro-
grams seem to hold an immediate possibility of resolving several problems
in Wisconsin, e.g. match money shortages, lack of sufficient construction
money, emergency responses to erosion, while not excessively utilizing
state revenues. And, adequate state supervision and control of shore/
bluff protection activities can be insured through the attaching of any
desired funding conditions. But, it should be pointed out that where these
types of programs have been developed, public interest in erosion control
has been' largely prompted by concern over coastal ec onomic activities,
e.g. fishing, tourism/recreation, and the potentially catastrophic impacts
of continuing erosion.

The existing tax system could be modified to provide more financial
relief to riparians and to increase local government participation in
erosion control projects. However, tax system modification to provide
further incentives and/or subsidies to private property interests through
income tax credits, deductions, or accelerated depreciation write-of fs
remains both controversial and questionable. Over the past several years
the state has developed or expanded tax benefits for such activities as
agricultural lands preservation, solar energy stimulation, and water quality
enhancement. It is not clear that legislative interest in further modifying
an already complex income tax system for a very small number of riparians
would be well received or justifiable. But, so as to provide a more equit-
able balance between that assistance offered to residential and business
property interests, several modifications. could be considered. First, the

-67-

value of shore/bluff protection projects along the Great Lakes shoreline
could be officially exempted from local property tax assessments. Several
states have made this property tax adjustment around the country. Appen-
dix J contains a copy of Michigan's exemption act. Second, although a
form of post-damage subsidy, the casualty loss provisions of state tax
law could be amended for coastal hazards. To implement this modification,
the state would have to develop criteria for the estimation of damage losses,
presumably for non-catastrophic circumstances, and then determine what the
deductible allowance would be, e.g. 100%, 50%, 25%. Except for some cata-
strophic events, property owners presently receive no form of direct or
indirect public aid--and erosion hazard insurance, as such, is basically
non-existent.

One final state-level action which could have significant financial
impacts upon both residential and business properties is the clarification
of state taxing policies on the water quality-related impacts and pur-
poses of shore protection projects. Specifically, pursuant to Chapters
59, 70, 71 and 144, Wisconsin Statutes, there remains a number of questions
as to whether property tax exemptions and state income tax deductions are
available where a "natural resource is being developed", in areas of
locally designated conservation areas, where significant siltation/sedi-
mentation is being prevented, and when solid waste materials adjoin the
shoreline. Opinions rendered by the Department of Revenue and/or Attorney
General's Office would serve to clarify state policy and possibly suggest
new reforms.

Local participation in, and funding of, erosion control projects in
Wisconsin could be increased through a number of statutory changes. First,
pursuant to Chapter 66.60 (Special Assessments and Charges), Wisconsin
Statutes, local governments could be authorized to levy and collect
special assessments for improvements to property attributable to publi-
cally constructed shore/bluff protection devices. A copy of Michigan's
act relating to public improvements for erosion control purposes is
found in Appendix J. To facilitate the official public ownership, construc-,
tion, and maintenance of protective devices, consideration could also be
given-to the creation of erosion control (coastal hazard) authorities or

districts in Wisconsin, The State of Maryland uses this concept in its
Revolving Loan Fund. Wisconsin's Inland Lakes Protection Law would appear
to provide a prototype for the creation of such districts along the Great
Lakes shoreline. Since both of these approaches tend to encourage broader
non-individualistic approaches to shoreline management, they may warrant
some close attention and analysis. Finally, to increase local participa-
tion and interest in loan programs, special aid formulas could be developed.
For example, the Province of Ontario developed a Shoreline Property Assist-
ance Program several years ago which allowed local municipalities to recap-
ture loans over a twenty-year period, at 8% interest, through property
taxes.44

In the role as a facilitator, the state could promote a number of
other actions. For example, to encourage more collective or joint
responses on shore/bluff protection projects, e.g. equipment, materials,
maintenance, "resource pooling" could be given a higher priority pursuant
to Chapter 66.30 (Intergovernmental Cooperation), Wisconsin Statutes.
So as to increase the use of federal resources for erosion damage mitiga-
tion, particularly Army Corps of Engineers Section III and 103 projects,
the state could more aggressively inform communities about their eligibil-
ity for federal aid pursuant to Chapter 66.45 (Federal Rivers and Harbors

Resources Projects), Wisconsin Statutes. And, to follow-up on this
effort, the state could serve in the capacity of a federal/local liaison
until all reconnaissance studies are completed. Finally, where erosion
control is a significant coastal management concern along publically-
owned lands, the state might seek to reprioritize and reallocate available

financial assistance resources for the Great Lakes shoreline, e.g. LAWCON,
ORAP-200, Wisconsin Fund.

State-Level Technical Assistance Responses

A significant amount of technical information and expertise is
necessary for the proper design, siting and construction of shore and
bluff protection devices. Traditionally, the state's role in providing
technical assistance to riparians and local governments has been largely
limited to Shoreland Management Program activities and general planning/
design information. Some special informational and educational materials

-69-

have also been prepared during high water periods, With the availability

of Wisconsin Coastal Management Program technical documents and the
increasing complexities of erosion hazard area decision-making, the state
may now be in a position to consider a more substantive and continuous
role, For this policy-level plan, the question is, should the state seek
to expand its technical assistance activities and, if so, what should be
the form and focus of this assistance? In initially assessing this
question, it should be noted that close relationships exist between the
regulatory, financial, and technical assistance frameworks. Hence state-
level efforts designed to modify the regulatory and/or financial assistance

frameworks may have significant impacts upon the accessibility, quality,
and distribution of technical assistance in Wisconsin,

Existing Technical Assistance Framework

Federal, state, and regional/county agencies all participate in the
delivery of technical assistance to local governments and riparians in
Wisconsin. This information and assistance takes a wide variety of forms,
from on-site inspections to generalized structural planning/design advice
to educational materials for specific-user groups. However, the cyclic
nature of acute erosion hazards, and the resulting cyclic needs of various
user-groups, have had significant impacts upon technical assistance deliv-
ery and agency commitments to it. In spite of continuing coastal erosion

along the Great Lakes shoreline, technical assistance activities have
traditionally only received priority during high water periods, emergency
protection situations, or when local governments and state agency field
offices have been faced with unusual/controversial situations, i.e. sudden
bluff failure endangering a highway, major problem installing a new
protective device. The role of the public sector in erosion control
projects has been further diminished by the greater use of geotechnical and
coastal engineering consultants over the past decade. Also, it should be
recalled that riprap/filling projects are the most frequently deployed
forms of shore protection in Wisconsin, These devices have been perceived
by many riparians and public officials as requiring little design or
engineering assistance. In shore, public agencies with technical assist-
ance capabilities and interests have generally not seen a need to sustain
continual activities in view of cyclic demands and the availability of

-70-

private sector assistance.

Appendix E contains an overview of major federal and state technical
assistance programs. In brief, two federal agencies play important roles
in Wisconsin: the Army Corps of Engineers and the Soil Conservation Ser-
vice. Through its erosion-related financial assistance programs, the
Army Corps of Engineers provides technical assistance to public bodies
for the planning, design, and construction of structural devices. In
addition, both general and detailed technical assistance is available
for a wide range of purposes through a separate program: Section 55.
Even though most Corps of Engineers programs are designed for public
entities, the Corps has shown an interest in the shore protection needs of
riparians, i.e. "Help Yourself" brochure, consultation on projects. The
Soil Conservation Service has provided engineering design information to
public and private district cooperators for the installation of upland/
bluff top erosion control devices along the Great Lakes shoreline. More
detailed planning and technical assistance information has been made avail-
able to riparians and local governments through several county soil and
water conservation districts. The technical assistance and educational
activities in the Racine, Kewaunee, and Red Clay Project (Lake Superior)
Soil and Water Conservation Districts have been particularly unique along
the Great Lakes shoreline.

At the state-level, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), University of Wisconsin - Sea Grant College Program, and Wisconsin
Coastal Management Program (CliP) have played varied, but significant roles
over the past several years. Although its technical assistance capabilities
are limited, the DNR often provides advice and information to public
officials and riparians through the Shorelands Management Program and, on
a more limited basis, through Chapter 30 regulatory activities. In many
cases, district field offices have served as referral points. Public
information preparation and dissemination for structural approaches has
not, however, received a high priority due, in part, to limited staff
resources. Erosion hazard area research and general marine public educa-
tion are two continuing objectives of the U`W-Sea Grant Program. Although
their direct technical assistance projects and activities for erosion

-71-

control have been somewhat limited to date, Sea Grant has served in a
supportive capacity for other state agencies and their advisory services
agents function as important local contact points. State-level technical
assistance capabilities for erosion hazard area management have been
substantially expanded by the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program over
the past four years. Although the Geological and Natural History Survey
(GNHS) is now serving as the lead assistance agency for the Program, many
other agencies have contributed to, and have benefitted by, its coastal
erosion projects and activities, e.g. DNR, Sea Grant, 13W-Geology and Civil
Engineering Departments. A wide variety of planning, economic, and engi-
neering data is now available for structural approaches through the Pro-
gram. This data base has provided Wisconsin with an excellent opportunity
to prepare educational materials for specific target groups.

Several other public agencies are also frequently called upon to
provide technical assistance for erosion control problems and projects
In Wisconsin. They include the University of Wisconsin-Extension System
(UWEX), regional county planning commissions, county planning offices,
and University of Wisconsin System departments of geology and civil engi-
neering. Quite commonly, county planning and Extension offices serve as
a "first-stop"t for public officials and riparians on general questions
related to erosion control. Since internal expertise is generally limited,
on-file publications are heavily relied upon along with information on
other sources of assistance. Where permits for structures along navigable
waterways are issued at the local level, additional technical expertise
is sometimes available. Several 11W-System departments in Superior, Green
Bay, Parkside, Milwaukee, and Madison have been instrumental in conducting
research on bluff erosion processes and in responding to technical questions
raised by public officials and riparians over the past decade.

Alternative Options and Strategies

A wide variety of actions could be taken by the state to increase or
redirect public technical assistance activities in Wisconsin, In view of
the high costs, lead-time requirements, and controversial nature. of many
regulatory and financial assistance alternatives, technical assistance

-72-

options may be particularly appropriate and feasible. Moreover, because
most technical assistance services/activities would presumably be avail-

able on a "no-charge" or limited-fee basis, riparians and public off i-
cials may welcome additional help, particularly for on-site work. But,
in considering what options, if any, the state should pursue, the magni-
tude of erosion hazard problems, the extent to which the state should pro-
mote structural approaches, and the effectiveness/responsiveness of the
existing framework must be kept in mind. Given the range of possible
assistance forms, e.g. project-specific engineering, dissemination of
existing data, workshops, and the number of possible target groups, e.g.
zoning administrators, consultants, contractors, residential property
owners, technical assistance options and strategies must be carefully
selected if they are to efficiently respond to user-needs and problems. In
summary, the state's goals and objectives in either resolving existing
framework problems and/or increasing public participation in structural
protection activities need to be articulated. The need for this assess-

ment is heightened by the possibility of conflicts with the private
sector on the public's responsibility in providing project-specific
(on-site) assistance to riparians.

In addressing the questions-of "for whom" and "for what purpose", an
analysis of the existing technical assistance framework can provide some
insights and direction. A number of problems have affected the quality,
accessibility, and distribution of technical assistance in Wisconsin.
First, there has generally been no sustained, state-level coordination of
technical assistance activities and services. Consequently, public re-
sponses have often been scattered, incomplete, and, in some cases, dup-
licative. Complicating this problem, there appears to have been "break-
downs of communication" between the users and suppliers of technical
assistance. Hence assistance has not always been delivered in the most
desirable and understandable form. Second, several of the most influential
decision-making groups, consultants, contractors, and zoning admi-nistra-
tors, have been given minimal erosion control guidance in Wisconsin. In
view of the fact that these groups directly, and daily (regardless of
lake level condition), influence the quality and effectiveness of damage
reduction efforts, this omission seems particularly crucial. Side-effects
of this gap may include inadequate state and local permit reviews, excessive

-73-

dependence upon a small number of structural designs, and excessive de-
pendence upon some public agencies for general/routine problems. Finally,
largely due to institutional and program biases, assistance is not uniform-
ly and consistently made available to all interested coastal groups. For
example public entities are often eligible for federal engineering-level
shore protection assistance (COE), but bluff erosion control assistance
through the SCS is frequently more generalized. Riparians, on the other
hand, typically receive generalized shore protection assistance and more
detailed bluff protection assistance (primarily in rural areas). Pro-
blems like these have made it more difficult for single agencies or pro-
gramns to resolve all user-needs.

If the state chooses to increase or redirect technical assistance
activities in Wisconsin, a wide range of options are available. Possible
options include the development of a state-sponsored, on-site assistance
program; the accelerated funding of research on structural devices/erosion
processes; initiating of a comprehensive training/educational series for
selected user-groups; and/or the increasing of public sector technical
expertise. In view of past technical assistance problems, a critical
feature of any new effort would appear to be the amount of decentrali-
zation. *That is, to what extent would technical assistance capabilities,
resources, and expertise be focused at the local government and state

agency field levels? The following guidelines could be used to provide
some direction for state-level decision-making over the coming months.
Wisconsin's technical assistance framework should, to the greatest
possible extent, provide for:
--the development of capabilities, resources, and expertise,
at the local level for all general and routine structural
protection concerns, particularly where local shore pro-
tection regulations are in-force,
--the development of state-level capabilities, resources,
and expertise on the more complex and technical aspects
of structural protection concerns not covered or empha-
sized by federal agencies in Wisconsin,
--the continuing education of all parties affected by coastal
erosion, and those potential user-groups making daily or
routine decisions on erosion control devices, and
--the continual coordination of public technical assistance
activities and programs through the designation or recog-
nition of lead-agencies familiar with user-supplier pro-
blems and needs.

-74-

Pursuant to the above guidelines, some possible state-level assist-
ance options under two alternative strategies will be outlined below.
Depending upon resource availability and user-demands (needs), these op-
tions could be interchanged and "packaged" in a variety of ways.

Low-Level State Assistance Effort (minimal costs)

Coordination: Primarily through the UW-Extension System and the CMI'
General Assistance: Largely handled by regional and county planning
agencies and the field offices of state agencies. Existing
CMI' data and other relevant information transferred to local
"clearinghouses". User's manuals and some limited training
made available to local/field technical personnel. Erosion
publications made available at local level.
On-Site (Detailed) Assistance: Done on an informal, "as resources
available" basis by the GNHS, DNR, Sea Grant, and 13W System
departments. Continual reliance upon COE and SCS for
engineering-level assistance.
Educational Activities: Existing, CMP technical data base would be
refined for several selected publications. Some occasional
regional workshops/training sessions for local user-groups,
possibly sponsored by UWEX, DNR, Sea Grant, and CMP'.
Support Activities: Very limited research on structural devices/
coastal erosion processes. COE, SCS, Sea Grant, and 13W
System departments heavily relied upon for further data
acquisition. Limited monitoring of coastal environments
and the effectiveness/impacts of structural devices.

High-Level State Assistance Effort (moderate to high costs)

Coordination: Primarily through UW-Extension System and the CMIP,
but a more formalized and permanent coordinating body would
be convened.
General Assistance: Emphasis still placed at local and field
office levels, but state participation in activities much
higher. Technical personnel would receive more substantive
and lengthy training. More area-specific information made
available to "clearinghouses". And, "clearinghouses'? would
be provided with a modest budget to generate their own local
publications.
On-Site (Detailed) Assistance: State-level technical assistance
''teams'' made available to solve local problems on an "'as
needed" basis. Additional coastal engineering and geo-
technical expertise made available for on-site problem
solving.
Educational Activities: A comprehensive publication series would
be initiated for major user-groups. Annual workshops and

-75-

training sessions for specific target audiences on a.
regional and county basis. Existing CMP' technical infor-
mation would be turned into maps, bulletins, and manuals
for specific audiences.
Support Activities: A modest budget made available for the further
research and investigation of selected structural concerns,
e.g. impacts, effectiveness, alternative techniques, benefits/
costs. CNP data base expanded, where needed, to supplement
federal data collection efforts. Some monitoring or demon-
stration sites established along shoreline.

-76-

Chapter V

PREVENTIVE APPROACHES TO DAMAGE REDUCTION:
NONSTRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES

Introduction

Erosion damages and hazards can be significantly reduced along the
Great Lakes shoreline through the application of both regulatory and non-
regulatory preventive measures. For undeveloped portions of the shore-
line, the benefits can be substantial. Since development can be conditioned
upon the taking of special precautions through ordinances and codes,
e.g. setbacks, land development standards, damage potential may be elimi-
nated for an indefinite period of time. Both regulatory and nonregulatory
techniques can also serve to increase public access and recreational oppor-
tunities, and assist in protecting environmental attributes and open space
areas along the Great Lakes shoreline. In developed areas, the opportunities
for the use of preventive approaches are more limited--and often dependent
upon the success of erosion control efforts. Building relocation, either

on the same parcel or a more distant one, is often the only viable alterna-
tive available for riparians once hazards become imminent. By recognizing
the inevitability of shore erosion hazards and theneed to make coastal
land use activities more sensitive to erosion hazards, damages can be

greatly reduced along many reaches in Wisconsin.

At the national level, nonstructural approaches to damage reduction
are receiving greater support and attention. The Office of Coastal Zone
Management, Federal Insurance Administration, Army Corps of Engineers,
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Great Lakes Basin Com-
mission have all taken actions to increase the use of preventive approaches
in hazard areas. For example, in a recent report45 prepared for the
Federal Insurance Administration, the Erosion/Hazard Subcommittee of the
Great Lakes Basin Commission recommended that a high priority should be
given to nonstructural techniques within state erosion plans. In Wisconsin,
two recent federal and state acquisition/relocation projects in flood-
prone areas, Prairie du Chien and Soldiers Grove, are now serving to demon-
strate the viability of preventive approaches in developed areas, The
success and impact of Wisconsin's ten-year old Shoreland Management Pro-
gram has also served to further illustrate the feasibility of preventive

-77-

approaches along the Great Lakes shoreline. In view of the general
failure of past erosion control strategies and the "guaranteed nature"
of nonstructural approaches, the principal question for this policy plan
is, what role, if any, should the state play in further promoting and
increasing the use of preventive strategies in Wisconsin?

State government is in a unique position to influence the development
of nonstructurally-oriented damage reduction programs in Wisconsin. The
legal basis for implementing many preventive measures is derived from
state laws, statutes, and administrative codes. And, for a great number
of resource/land use related concerns, the state works closely with local

governments in Wisconsin, e.g. floodplains, building codes, on-site waste
disposal. By increasing the erosion hazard sensitivity of the existing
framework, the potential exists for the timely and efficient reduction
of erosion damages. Where significant gaps and problems are found in-
this framework, the state could choose to promote the development of new
statewide programs over the next few years. But, these possible reforms
and adjustments are largely contingent upon the recognition of damage
reduction as a coastal management problem which needs greater foresight
and less hindsight. Failure to use foresight will not only encourage the
repetition of past land use siting mistakes, but will also "lock" riparians
and local governments into generally less efficient erosion control
strategies.

A. Existing Nonstructural Framework

Background

A wide number of preventive options and strategies can assist in the
reduction of erosion damages and hazards in Wisconsin. They range from
zoning with conditional/prohibited use provisions to hazard disclosures
through educational or regulatory activities to building relocation. In
implementing these alternatives, state and local governments can call
upon a number of other related techniques and powers. They include land
acquisition in fee or less-than-fee simple e.g. easements, quit claiming,
land donations, subdivision regulations, building code provisions, per-
formance standards, and condemnation (power of eminent domain). Most of

-78-

these possible preventive actions have already been enabled through
various planning, zoning, resource, and municipal government laws. Table
XI on page 80 provides a listing of statutory citations for selected
land use and resource laws in Wisconsin. The development status of coastal
lands (developed/undeveloped), the "value" of endangered buildings and
lands, the amount of lead-time, the effectiveness of existing damage re-
duction actions, and community/public official preferences toward preven-
tive approaches will influence which preventive actions, if any, are to be
pursued.

In considering further state-level actions, the characteristics of
effective, nonstructurally-oriented damage reduction programs may pro-
vide some guidance and direction. First, the early recognition of coastal
hazards and mans impact upon shore/bluff erosional processes is critical
for program success. Zoning ordinances, building codes, hazard disclosures,

etc. cannot provide emergency protection for riparians and local govern-
ments. They must be in-place during the months and years preceeding the
cyclic changes in Great Lakes water levels and erosion rates. Second,
even though some preventive options can be implemented on a voluntary
basis, e.g. emergency building relocation, voluntary setbacks and storm

water management controls, some form of collective, public oversight is
often necessary and desirable. Without coordination, conflicts between
adjacent property owners and local governments could limit the effective-
ness of preventive programs. Finally, nonstructurally-oriented damage
reduction programs need continual monitoring and up-dating. Major changes
in bluff/shore stability, judicial opinions, new development pressures,
and shifts in public shoreline access/recreational needs could singly, or
collectively, serve to reduce the effectiveness of preventive approaches.

Alternatives

Only four preventive techniques will be discussed in-depth: zoning
and land use regulation, acquisition, relocation, and hazard disclosure.
One alternative of continual interest to riparians is insurance, i.e.
compensation. At the instigation of the Wisconsin and Michigan Coastal
Management Programs, the Great Lakes Basin Commission undertook a major

study of insurance as a vehicle to minimize erosion damages (Erosion

-79-

Table XI: Local Land Use Planning and Land Use Regulation Powers in Wisconsin

Cities, Regional Planning
Villages Counties Towns Agencies Special Districts

A. Broad land use A. Broad land use A. Broad planning A. Broad planning Soil Conservation District
planning powers planning powers powers powers
62.23 59.97 62.23 (9) a 66.945 A. Plan for watershed
protection
B. Regulation B. Regulation when acting 92.08
with city powers
1. Zoning 1. Zoning 60.18 (12) B. Adopt land management
61.35 59.97 regulations
62.23 (7) B. Regulation 92.09

2. Flood plain 2. Flood plain 1. Zoning
zoning zoning 60.74
87.30 87.30 59.57
62.231 (7) Flood Control Boards
3. Shoreland 3. Shoreland
0 zoning zoning 2. Subdivision A. Plan for drainage and
144.26 59.971 regulations flood control works
236.45 Ch. 87
4. Subdivision 4. Subdivision
ordinances ordinances 3. Building codes
236.45 236.45 62.23 (9)
66.058
5. Building codes 5. Building codes
61.35 59.07 (51) 4. Official map
62.23 (9) 62.23 (6)
with acting
6. Official map 6. Sanitary codes with city powers
62.23 (6) 140.09, 59.07 (51)

7. Official map (weak)
80.64
236.46

Source: Rural Land Resource Management
in Wisconsin Coastal Zone
Counties. Mueller and Van Berker,
Institute of Governmental Affairs,
January, 19,76.

Insurance Study). The principal conclusion of this study (concurred with
by the Federal Flood Insurance Administration) was that insurance does
not offer a viable mechanism46 to reduce damages pursuant to the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968. Hence this nonregulatory technique has not
been included for consideration within the Erosion Plan. Insurance and
other compensatory options are discussed more fully in "Feasibility of
Compensation for Man-Induced Erosion: Summary Report"~; a working paper
of the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program.

Each of the four alternatives will be discussed below, Two previous
Coastal Management Program reports, Some Nonstructural Alternatives for the
Reduction of Shore Damages and Nonregulatory Techniques for Urban Growth
Management, provide the basis for much of the following information.
Appendix P contains a listing of additional nonstructural references.

Regulatory Techniques

Zoning and Land Use Regulation

Wisconsin's planning and zoning laws have enabled counties, cities,
villages, and towns to take many types of "ipolice power"t actions along
the Great Lakes shoreline. Historically, while most communities have
recognized the unique hazards associated with coastal development, efforts

to systematically reduce damages were slow in coming until the late 1960's.
Reasons for this inaction included the cyclic nature of erosion hazards,
low land use planning priorities, inadequate data base, and fear of liti-
gation. In 1966, the Legislature substantially changed this pattern with
the passage of the Water Resources Act. This Act, and the resultant
Shorelands Management Program prepared by the Department of Natural Re-
sources and administered by counties, required counties to adopt47 minimum
zoning standards for all unincorporated areas lying within 1000 feet of
the Great Lakes shoreline. Minimum standards were established for build-
ing setbacks (75 feet from the ordinary high water mark), lot sizes, tree
removal, sanitary regulations, subdivision regulations, and land alteration
activities within shoreland areas. By December 1971 all affected coastal
counties had adopted ordinances which complied with the Act. A number of
county ordinances now have standards which exceed the minimum standards

originally required to comply with the Act,48 e.g. setbacks in Racine and
Sheboygan Counties; lot sizes in Kewaunee, Door, Brown, Ashland, Bayfield,
and Douglas Counties.

The Water Resources Act has provided a very limited test of zoning
for the purpose of reducing erosion hazards and damages along the Great
Lakes shoreline. Several limitations can be cited in this regard. First,
only unincorporated areas are covered by the Act. Unincorporated areas
account for only 20% of the state's population in coastal counties, but
77% of the land area. While incorporated communities have been encouraged
to adopt similar standards and ordinances for shoreland zones, only a
handful have done so to date. Appendix K contains some zoning, land owner-
ship, and land use characteristics of incorporated and unincorporated areas.
Second, the Water Resources Act does not specifically establish standards
for relating erosion hazards to land use controls. Because erosion hazards

vary dramatically along the shoreline, general minimum standards tend to
create a "false sense of security" (Appendix L contains the administrative
rules for the Shorelands Program, N.R. 115). Third, the Act and the
Shorelands Management Program were initially viewed as "one-time" obliga-
tions or requirements. Changes *in development patterns, erosion rates,
and community priorities along with variable enforcement practices are
serving to limit the effectiveness of many ordinances.

In spite of these limitations, Wisconsin's Shoreland Management Pro-
gram has provided state and county governments with a solid and compre-
hensive framework around which to address coastal hazard problems in unin-
corporated areas. Incorporated areas (cities and villages), on the other
hand, have found it necessary to respond in a more piecemeal fashion over
the years. Although their interest in preventive techniques has remained
somewhat low due to existing development patterns, many regulatory options
remain available to cities and villages. Taken collectively, these options
offer an equally comprehensive and solid framework for erosion hazard area
management. For example, pursuant to Chapter 236 (Platting Lands and Re-
cording and Vacating Plats), Wisconsin Statutes, erosion hazards can be
officially acknowledged and identified during the subdividing of lands,
Existing city and village zoning ordinances can also be legally modified

-82-

to reflect greater erosion hazard sensitivity.

Other regulatory devices which have the potential of being modified
to reflect greater erosion hazard sensitivity are zoning maps, building
codes, and land management ordinances (see Table XI for a listing of
statutory references). One of the benefits of delineating hazard areas
on zoning-related maps is the facilitating of hazard disclosure where
such maps are publically-posted or widely distributed. Similarly, the.
official recognition of erosion hazards during land platting activities
creates an opportunity for the recording of hazard conditions at the
county level pursuant to Chapter 706.01 (Conveyances of Real Property;
Recording; Titles), Wisconsin Statutes. With regard to building codes,
communities can seek to reduce damages by increasing the moveability of
buildings through local variances to Wisconsin's newly adopted Uniform
State Dwelling Code. Ordinances for such purposes as storm water manage-
ment, sediment control, and vegetation removal/land disturbance can
readily be applied to erosion hazard areas. The City of Fort Washington's
sediment and erosion control ordinance demonstrates a regulatory action
which can yield substantial environmental benefits along the Great Lakes
shore line.

Even though few state and local government regulatory activities 'have
been aimed at damage reduction and hazard preventive per se, a strong
legal basis for action has been established in Wisconsin. Specifically,

Chapters 59.97 and 59.971 (counties), 62.23 (cities and villages), and
60.74 (towns), Wisconsin Statutes, give local governments the authority
to relate zoning restrictions to conditions which could endanger the
"health and well-being" of the public, i.e. natural hazard areas. In
State vs. Deetz (66 Wisconsin 2d 1, 1974), a case involving surface erosion
from a bluff top development along the Wisconsin River, the Wisconsin
Supreme Court held that "erosion control should be exercised by zoning and
subdivision and land use regulations." At the state level, the Water
Resources Act has given state agencies the authority to directly partici-
pate in the management of shoreline lands which may contain both flood
and erosion hazards. These powers were affirmed by the Wisconsin Supreme
Court in the landmark case Just vs. Marinette County (201 NW 2d, 1972).

-83-

In addition, the Governor's Executive Order powers have already been used
on hazard-related issues. Executive Order 67 of 1973 directed state agen-

cies to consider the special needs of flood and erosion hazard areas in
land use planning, public facility siting, and real estate licensing acti-
vities. Appendix M contains a copy of this 1973 directive.

Although zoning and land use controls can serve as the "anchor" of
nonstructurally-oriented damage reduction programs, to be successful, many
of the historic concerns associated with regulatory actions, e.g. due pro-

cess, the "taking" issue, still need to be addressed. Specifically, a
carefully prepared "intent" or "purpose" section in laws, ordinances, and

codes will help alleviate interpretation problems. Wisconsin's Shoreland
and Floodplain Management Program provides a comprehensive listing of
possible public purposes. Second, in some cases, the "factual basis"

for taking further regulatory actions may need to be well-documented.

Data on recession rates, slope failure areas, past damages, and the pos-
sible impacts of improper development should prove particularly valuable
for regulatory justification. Finally, given the variability of erosion
hazard conditions and the technical aspects of zoning administration,
special Administrative procedures may have to be employed at the local
and state levels, e.g. technical advisory committees, adjunct planning
bodies. The uniform and sustained enforcement of state and local coastal
regulations can play an important role in reducing future damage potential.

Nonregulatory

Acquisition

Several state agencies and virtually all local governmental units,
including school districts, have been authorized by the Legislature to
purchase lands for various public purposes, e.g. state forests, state and
local parks, watershed protection areas, public facilities. Basic author-
ity for land acquisition is contained within Chapters 60.18 (towns), 62.22
(cities), 61.34 (villages), 59.07 (counties), 23.09 (DNR), and 84.09 (DOT),
Wisconsin Statutes. Public land transactions are subject to federal and

state laws which protect the interests of the seller, often requiring
basic relocation assistance, i.e. Federal Uniform Relocation and Real

-84-

Property Acquisition Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646) and Wisconsin Relocation

Law (Chapter 32.185, Wisconsin Statutes). Adjustments are made in local
aid formulas once private land is removed from tax rolls. Eminent domain
(condemnation) powers have also been granted to many governmental units
to carry forth public projects under adverse circumstances. Land purchases,
whether full fee simple or less-than-f ee simple, are typically costly under-
takings. Both the federal and state governments have developed a number
of assistance programs over the past two decades. Two programs which have
been instrumental in the acquisition of lands for coastal recreational
purposes are LAWCON (Federal Land and Water Conservation Act) and ORAP
100/200 (Wisconsin's Outdoor Recreation Act Program). Several other sources
of funding may also be available to local governments, e.g. Community
Development Act, Rural Development Act, Farmers Home Administration.
Most newly enacted programs require a 20-50% match from the applicant.

Public acquisition for the sole purpose of reducing erosion damages

has not been used along Wisconsin's Great Lakes shoreline. Virtually all
public acquisition projects have either been designed to increase public
access/recreational opportunities or to facilitate'the construction of
public facilities. Even the Milwaukee County Park Commission's system of

coastal parks were not designed with damage reduction as the primary goal.
Simply stated, the costs (and benefits) of public acquisition along the
shoreline combined with the perceived private sector nature of damage
reduction activities have served to keep public interest low over the
years. Often, land values on unimproved parcels near urbanizing areas
will range between $10,000 and $20,000 per acre. Less-than-fee simple
acquisition, e.g. easements, quit claiming, hold some potential for re-

ducing costs, but these techniques remain largely untested along the shore-
line. In view of the general lack of federal and state aid monies for
preventive measures, other purposes must still be found to acquire lands
in erosion hazard areas. To summarize, while coastal property owners have
often used selling or abandoning as a way of remedying their erosion pro-
blems, the public sector has generally not been willing, or able, to
purchase eroding lands.

Acquisition may provide state and local governments with a unique

opportunity to reduce damages under special circumstances. Namely, when
combined with building relocation efforts or when needed to ensure a
direct public shore/bluff management capability, e.g. along sand gener-
ation areas, areas adjacent to navigational structures. Under these cir-
cumstances, once erosion-prone areas are under public ownership, further
development can be prohibited. And, that development which is needed for
public purposes can be designed with a maximum degree of erosion sensiti-
vity. To totally eliminate damage potential, any remaining buildings or
facilities can be relocated away from hazard zones or dismantled for sal-
vage. Public ownership of selected areas along the Great Lakes shoreline
would also help ensure that reaches can be managed as "natural units" there-
by increasing the effectiveness of erosion control devices and decreasing
adverse impacts upon the environment. Such direct management capability
could prove particularly helpful in either limiting the deployment of
structural devices or making structural modifications when adverse impacts
become acute.

In view of the general failure of erosion control strategies, the
future of public acquisition, particularly when combined with relocation,
appears somewhat optimistic. The present amount of federal interest in
acquisition/relocation projects in flood-prone areas suggests that pre-
ventive approaches to hazard area management are being looked at more
seriously. If Wisconsin's two projects in flood-prone areas, Prairie du
Chien and Soldiers Grove, prove both economically and socially success-
ful, some dollars could be made available for Great Lakes projects where
erosion control has not, or will not, prove viable. In other instances,
where state and local governments can identify their future coastal land
needs, priorities could be given to the purchase of erosion hazard lands
where they coincide with these needs. Accordingly, a greater probability
now exists that federal and state assistance programs will give multi-
targeted projects along the shoreline a 'higher priority largely due to
the impacts of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Even in
the absence of further aid, both state and local governments may be able
to gain some control of, or access to, the shoreline through other less
costly means, e.g. public/private sector tradeoffs. Following the City
of Sheboygan example, public access to the shoreline (or other limited

rights-in-land) could be granted in exchange for some shore protection, a
guaranteed future land purchase (based upon present market value), or
housing relocation. In conclusion, while the extensive, statewide pur-
chase of erosion-prone lands may not be feasible or acceptable, acqui-
sition offer long-term benefits when combined with other public purposes.

Relocation
Erosion hazards and damages can be reduced through the physical re-
location of endangered buildings and facilities. Relocation can take
place on the same property or on an entirely different parcel some dis-
tance from a hazard zone. A number of factors directly affect the cost
of this nonstructural option. They include lot depth, the availability
of new building sites, ease of site access, building configuration and
size, amount of subfloor access, number of public facility disconnections,
and the availability of experienced movers. Because relocation is typi-
cally only considered during emergency periods, the amount of land lake-
ward of a building is a critical factor. Between 15 to 20 feet of clear-
ance is normally required for the safe operation of equipment. Moving
costs for a small cabin or cottage, medium size ranch style house, and
large mansion can be expected to range between $3000-$4000, $7000-$9000,
and $30,0O0-$40,0O0O4 respectively. These costs do not include site
preparation costs at the new location. Moving distance has very little
impact on total project costs. Most small and moderate-sized buildings
can be relocated within one to three weeks. Persons displaced for public
projects are entitled to special services and assistance under the pro-
visions of Wisconsin's Relocation Law and the Federal Uniform Relocation
Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646).

Relocation has been viewed as an alternative better suited to the
needs of residential property and commercial business owners. More often
than not, it has served as a solution of last resort when all attempts
to structurally protect a building have failed. Only relatively small
number of homes and businesses, perhaps no more than 40, have been relo-
cated over the past 30 years along Wisconsin' s Great Lakes shoreline.
Aside from the direct benefits which accrue to relocated individuals and
businesses, a number of broader public benefits are associated with relo-
cation. First, valuable, and often irreplaceable, housing and business

resources are not lost to shore erosion. In effect, coastal buildings
can be "recycled" or redistributed with minimal interruptions, Second,
additional shoreline land may be made available for public access and
use. The public acquisition of erosion-prone land becomes more viable
when combined with relocation. Third, irreplaceable coastal resources
of significant regional importance such as historic sites and unique
architectural styles can be preserved with the use of relocation. Finally,
post-storm or high water period public expenditures for clean-up are also
substantially reduced when endangered buildings can be removed in advance

of failure.

Whether implemented on an emergency basis or well in advance of ha-
zards, relocation can offer state agencies and local governments a cost-
effective alternative for the Great Lakes shoreline. After analyzing the
benefits and costs associated with a number of damage reduction techniques,
the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, through the University of
Michigan Coastal Zone Laboratory, concluded that "the costs of moving a
home are competitive with a well-constructed shoreline structure".50
Since relocation eliminates damage potential over a much longer period,

its long-term benefits tend to far outweigh its short-term costs. Also,
it should be noted that relocation, when carefully planned and imple-
mented, does not necessarily have an adverse impact upon the tax base.
Property values may even increase when relocation occurs on a different
parcel or when shoreland land is exchanged for public lands.

The availability of financial assistance will often serve as the
limiting factor of publically-sponsored relocation programs. Owing to
the high costs of shoreline lands and the costs of moving each endangered
building, few communities or state agencies are in a position to fund
large-scale relocation projects alone. Since no state or federal fund-
ing programs have been exclusively designed for erosion hazard area

evacuation, other public purposes must serve as the focal points of
public projects. Possible purposes include the preservation of historic
housing, protection of low-income housing, or increased public access and
recreational opportunities. In view of the concern over "public assistance
to the private sector", public acquisition (ownership) appears to be an

-88-

essential ingredient of relocation programs, Assistance programs avail-
able through such state and federal agencies as the Department of Natural
Resources, Department of Local Affairs and Development, Army Corps of
Engineers, Federal Disaster Assistance Administration, and Department of
Housing and Urban Development all offer some funding potential under
limited circumstances. Except in rural areas, no relocation assistance
monies or tax subsidies are directly available to residential property
owners at the present time. Commercial or business property owners may
be able to obtain some assistance, largely in the form of low-interest
loans, through the Small Business Administration or Farmers Home
Administration.

Hazard Disclosure

Erosion hazards can be disclosed to the general public, riparians,
and prospective land purchasers through both formal and informal means in
Wisconsin. Disclosures or notifications of hazard conditions can occur
during real estate transactions, land platting/land use siting, and general
public education activities. When hazard disclosure occurs in a timely
and efficient manner, both existing and future riparians along with other
interested parties, e.g. real estate agents, bankers, can base management-
level decisions upon the best available data. And, where necessary, other
preventive and remedial actions can be taken to reduce damage potential
before emergency conditions are present.

The Legislature has given both state and local governments a con-
siderable degree of latitude in taking actions necessary for the disclosure
of hazard conditions. At the state level, pursuant to Chapter 452, Wiscon-
sin Statutes, the Real Estate Examining and Licensing Board has established
guidelines and principles of conduct for real estate brokers on disclosure-
related concerns, e.g. "duty not to misrepresent", "silence as misrepre-
sentation". An in-depth summary of these concerns is contained in Wiscon-
sin Real Estate Law (1976 edition). Interstate sales of land are covered,
in part, through the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act of 1968
(.this Act only applies to developments of 50 or more lots which are being
sold "unimproved" as part of a common promotional plan). At the local
level, subdivision platting, zoning, and land registration activities offer

-89-

alternative vehicles to disclose hazards. Licensed real estate agents
are expected to be aware of any public site restrictions which have been
officially recognized through planning, zoning, or platting activities.
Finally, through their general educational responsibilities, both state
and local governments can initiate many actions to inform the public of
erosion hazards. Possible activities include the distribution of inform-
ational brochures, posting of hazard conditions in public olaces, and the
sponsoring of special seminars/workshops for bankers, real estate agents,
or the general public. To-date, few educational efforts have been aimed

at hazard disclosure.

Even though erosion hazard disclosure is not required in Wisconsin,
this preventive technique can still significantly reduce damage potential
along the entire Great Lakes shoreline. Upon initial analysis, disclosure
might appear better suited for undeveloped portions of Wisconsin's Great
Lakes shoreline, i.e. to "head-off" development. However, it can play
an equally important role around developed areas by ensuring that pro-
spective business/residential property buyers are aware of any site
limitations in advance of land transactions. Citizens unfamiliar with
coastal environments and out-state land purchasers are particularly
susceptible to being mislead or uninformed. Direct land sales or
exchanges between property owners (no real estate agents) receive no
public regulation at the present time. Consequently, even lending insti-
tutions and insurance companies may have a role to play in hazard
disclosure. To summarize, hazard disclosure offers public officials a
direct means of reducing damages along undeveloped and developed portions
of the Great Lakes shoreline. When linked to regulatory mechanisms, their
impact and effectiveness can dramatically increase.

In considering what role hazard disclosure should (could) play in
damage reduction programs, a review of basic characteristics may provide
some insights. First, a significant amount of state/local cooperation
and coordination is needed to insure their effectiveness. If, for
example, there is a breakdown of communication or follow-thru in the field,
e.g. disclosure rules ignored, hazards not officially posted, the notification
system will not remain effective. Second, erosion hazard awareness must be

-90-

given a high sustained priority in coastal counties regardless of water
level conditions. Any temporary lulls in attentiveness or enforcement
can dramatically increase hazards at some point in the future. Third,
hazard warnings are most effective when notice is given before final sales
or exchanges. Disclosures of vulnerability after-the-fact may leave

property owners in a "no win" situation. And fourth, hazard disclosures
are generally low-cost, administratively standardized responses which
can yield a high return when properly implemented. All concerned parties

should have an equal opportunity to receive, and benefit by, the timely
transfer of hazard-related information.

B. Options and Strategies

Through Wisconsin's Shore Erosion Study Plan, the Coastal Management
Program has made a detailed examination of both traditional and innovative

tools and techniques for the prevention of erosion damages. Much of this
effort focused on their potential applicability and effeetiveness,
either singularly or in combination, along developed and undeveloped
reaches of the Great Lakes shoreline. Of particular concern to this
policy plan is the conclusion that many relatively simple modifications
or adjustments can yield substantial long-term benefits with minimal
costs. For undeveloped portions of the shoreline, the options and
strategies generally seem much clearer and potentially more effective.
In order to prevent the same locational mistakes from being made again,
land use regulation and hazard disclosure can be made the "foundation" of

preventive programs. Incentives for the nondevelopment of erosion hazard
areas such as accelerated income tax deductions for land donations, use-
value (circuit breaker) taxation, and property tax exemptions hold little
promise of cost-efficiently achieving damage prevention. Further, in
view of the limited number of benefitting riparians, even a modest
reform of the tax system for damage reduction may not be warranted at

this time.

For developed areas, the options and strategies appear best tar-
geted toward reducing the adverse impacts of coastal land management
practices. And, in some cases, finding incentives or public funds to
promote the use of building relocation and/or public acquisition.

-91-

Sustained hazard disclosure efforts can complement both of these activities.
In short, preventive strategies for developed areas may tend to be more
complex and costly when regulatory options are not available.

The success of any state-level efforts to increase the use of
preventive techniques, particularly regulatory-oriented ones, appears to
be largely dependent upon the accurate identification of erosion hazard
areas. The areal distribution and magnitude of hazards helps establish
the factual basis for taking preventive actions. If, for example, land
management regulations are to be the focus of state and/or local pre-
ventive efforts, the area where these regulations are to be in-force
will need to be located or identified. In short, erosion hazard areas need
to be mapped in such a way that ordinances, regulations, or damage reduction
programs can be efficiently and consistently administered. There remains,
however, a close relationship between the technical aspects of hazard area
delineation and the intended management actions.52 In general, the more
restrictive or geographically extensive the intended management actions,
e.g. mandatory controls, deep setbacks, two-tier districts, the more

technically accurate and comprehensive delineation procedures may have
to be. Finally, although principally designed for regulatory-oriented
preventive programs, erosion hazard area delineation may also assist in

the prioritizing of acquisition monies, inventorying of endangered
buildings, and facilitating of hazard disclosure.

Applying special district regulations to the Great Lakes shoreline
is not a new concept. Several coastal communities have already created
special zoning, use-districts, e.g. Lake Shore or Lake Estate districts
in Mequon, Whitefish Bay, and Shorewood; Public and Semi-Public districts
in Washburn, Park Land district in Cudahy.53 However, the delineation of
erosion hazards presents a more difficult technical challenge. In order
to generate accurate maps of, or setback lines for, erosion hazard areas,
bluff failure and shoreline recession processes may need to be carefully
analyzed and represented through formulas. Depending upon the intended
management actions and type of available technical data, a wide range of
parameters can be investigated. They include historic/recent recession
rates,, bluff height/slope, stable slope angles, the effects of adjacent

-92-

protective structures, groundwater conditions, and vegetative cover.
Perhaps the most important, and subjective, element remains that of risk
assessment. That is, how far into the future should erosion hazards
(processes) be projected: 25, 50, or 100 years? For most quantitative
approaches, the risk assessment period has a direct impact upon the
landward extent of hazard areas, i.e. recession rate (measured in feet
per year) multiplied by the risk period. Finally, as a dynamic natural
process, erosion poses one unique problem for mapping. Public officials
must decide whether to pursue a "tone-time" delineation or pursue options
which may require continuous shoreline monitoring.

A great number of schemes have been developed to delineate erosion
hazard areas. For the purposes of this policy plan, only three options
will be briefly overviewed: site specific, area approach, and
setback approach. "Erosion Hazard Area: An Alternative for Shore
Management", a recently prepared Geological and Natural History Survey
and Sea Grant Program working paper, provides a more complete discussion
of delineation options and uses. In addition, it should be pointed out
that the erosion-related investigations, reports, and maps of the Wis-
consin Coastal Management Program provide a comprehensive data base for

the implementation of many options.

Site Specific

Rather than placing boundaries around hazard areas through the

application of formulas or through interpretations of existing data, this
approach calls for the on-site analysis of coastal environments to physi-
cally identify hazard area characteristics, boundaries and, where desired,
building setback distances. On-site investigations can be conducted
as a prerequisite of land development by the developer, or in some in-
stances by government. When conducted as a prerequisite of development,
this approach is particularly suited to performance standard-oriented
ordinances. The California Coastal Commission has adopted performance
standard-type guidelines for bluff top development.

The site specific approach allows regulatory actions to be "tailor-
f it" to real world conditions hence it remains technically and legally

-93-

very defensible. But, a publically-.sponsored shoreline analysis program
does not appear very probable in view of the high costs and amount of
coastal land with relatively low development pressures. Even when
undertaken by the landowner or developer, a governmental technical
review and/or certification function appears essential. In short, despite
its accuracy and defensibility, the administrative costs and requirements
of this approach may limit its applicability in Wisconsin.

Area Approach

This approach calls for the use of generalized formulas which contain
a limited number of quantifiable erosion parameters, e.g. recession rates,
bluff heights, projected stable slope angle, risk assessment factor (in
years), to identify a stable bluff zone (immediate hazard area) and/or
the landward boundary of a future hazard zone. Figure 7 below provides
a sketch of how this approach can be applied to a high bluff setting.

Figure 7: Erosion Hazard Delineation: Area Approach

FFuture Hazard Zonle.. Immediate Hazard Zone-.

Depth of Hazard Zone-z

(RxY) + (Hx [FunctionA])

Legend I S

R= Recession Rate in Ft./Yr. 7
Y= Risk Factor (in years) 7
H= Bluff Height (in feet)
6=Stable Slope Angle

Area delineation approaches can be made more accurate by relating for-
mulas to several hazard classes, e.g. high bluff/unstable slope, low
bluff/stable slope. Setbacks and other land management controls could be
related to the depth and configuration of the immediate and future hazard

-94-

zones. The State of Illinois 'and Province of Ontario have used modified
area delineation procedures to identify 100-year risk zones.

The area delineation approach provides a compromise between site-
specific'and simple, recession rate formula approaches. So long as suf-
ficient data is available, a relatively hiigh degree of accuracy can be
achieved with a minimum of cost and administrative problems. For state-
wide applications, each formula parameter and/or hazard class must be
carefully selected, particularly the risk factors. To follow-up on
hazard area conditions or changes, this approach may require a public
sector commitment to shoreline monitoring and assessment.

Setback Approach

To avoid the technical and administrative problems created by "Moving"
boundaries, this approach focuses on the identifying of safe building

setbacks. Formulas, similar to those used under area delineation options,
could be used to establish a stable bluff zone (immediate hazard area).
But, no attempt would be made to identify the complete depth of a hazard
area. Instead, an additional distance, measured from either the present
bluff edge or stable angle profile, would be determined from an analysis
of recession rates and hazard conditions. Figure 8 on page 96 provides
a sketch of these two options. The State of Michigan used a modified
version of this approach in its Shoreland Protections and Management Act
of 1970. Areas with an average annual recession rate of one foot per

year or greater were required to have a setback equal to the rate of
erosion, times a 30-year risk factor (measured from the existing bluff

edge). Appendix 0 contains an amended draft of the Michigan Department
of Natural Resources' administrative rules for this Act.

By offering a more limited response to public delineation needs,
this approach generally appears more administratively flexible and prac-
tical than other options. In only focusing on building setbacks, this
option also appears more transferable to the existing regulatory frame-
work. But, for those public officials desiring a firm basis for taking
regulatory actions, i.e. clear-cut, permanent boundaries or lines,

Figure 8: Erosion Hazard Delineation: Setback Approach

..-Setback Immedia te Setback
Hazard Zone

, [

Setback= RxY or some other Setback: Based on an established
established minimum setback minimum standard, or the site
(as measured from the immediate hazard class,e.g. high bluff/
hazard zone) unstable angle

this approach may not prove satisfactory. If variable setback distance
formulas were developed, their concerns may even heighten. Finally,
by not officially establishing a land management zone beyond the setback

line, both local and state governments could find it more difficult to
adopt, and enforce, more extensive bluff top land management regulations.

Given the range of delineation options, what actions or modifications,
if any, should the state seek to implement? An analysis of the setback
provisions within Wisconsin's Shoreland Management Program may provide
some guidance. Presently, a 75-foot setback from the ordinary high water
mark (OHWM) is required in unincorporated areas. Along many reaches of
the Great Lakes shoreline, this setback distance has not proved adequate.
Long-term erosion rates in excess of five feet per year are common along
highly erodible environments, and short-term rates can even be higher.
For example, near Port Washington, one bluff retreated 25 feet in 1978.54

Several administrative problems have served to further limit program
effectiveness. First, the 75-foot setback is measured from the OHWM; not

-96-

the present (existing) bluff edge. Along high blufflines, the slope
angle can account for 20 to 30 feet of the horizontally measured distance
(see Figure 9 below). Second, no criteria have been recognized in the
statutes to relate erosion hazards to possible setback distances, i.e.

Figure 9: Setback Measurement from the OHWM Along Coastal Bluffs

75-Foot Setback_
from OHWM

75-Foot Setback
from Bluff Edge

Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM)

Michigan multiplies the annual recession rate by 30 in high risks areas.
Counties are left free to develop their own standards for actions taken
beyond the 75-foot zone in Wisconsin. Finally, the Program does not
offer strong guidance for land management actions taken beyond the setback
zone. Even though the entire 1000-foot shoreland management zone is
regulated, no specific actions or activities are mandated or recommended
beyond the setback line.

Regulatory Strategies for Undeveloped Areas

For the approximately 150 miles of erodible, undeveloped shoreline
in Wisconsin, the implementation of erosion hazard zoning can lead to the
efficient and effective prevention of damages. Provisions contained
within ordinances for delineated hazard areas could include siting

-97-

requirements, e.g. minimum lot sizes and building setbacks; building
requirements, e.g. assurances of proper construction, relocatability; land
management requirements, e.g. land disturbance standards, ground/surface
water controls; and hazard disclosure requirements, e.g. zoning maps,
public notification. These provisions could all be combined within
model ordinances for the precluding/conditioning of coastal development.
Or, they could be promoted as possible independent actions of the state
and local governments. Therefore, in lands that are yet undeveloped,
what specific actions, if any, should the state pursue to implement
hazard zoning, and at what level of government should they be aimed? The
options include: (a) direct state regulation as in Chapters 30 and 31,
Wisconsin Statutes, (b state minimum standards and guidelines with local
administration, perhaps in conjunction with the state Shoreland and
Floodplain Management Program, and (c) local government hazard area
management encouraged, but not required by the state (possibly with some
state funding to local governments or state-provided technical assistance).
Failure to pursue one of these strategies suggests that the existing
framework, i.e. status quo, provides an acceptable public response to

erosion in undeveloped areas.

The direct state regulation of erosion hazard areas would require
new legislative authority. Wisconsin's present political climate combined
with the questionable viability of direct state-level zoning for a rela-
tively modest statewide problem argues against this approach at the
present time. On the other hand, since the status quo has not led to

extensive erosion hazard zoning along the Great Lakes shoreline
damage potential has not been significantly reduced along many largely
undeveloped reaches in both incorporated and unincorporated areas. While
the failure to act can often be related to the lack of sufficient tech-
nical data and expertise, it nonetheless has demonstrated a willingness
to wait until emergency periods for further public responses, thereby
implicitly encouraging erosion control strategies. To summarize, if
the state chooses to promote erosion hazard zoning, the two remaining
strategies could provide the basis for action.

The first strategy, state minimum standards and guidelines with local

administration, largely builds on the existing state Shoreland and Flood-
plain Management Program. Most significantly, this strategy deals with
erosion hazard area management not as a single isolated issue, but in the
context of a comprehensive public response to shoreline management needs
and problems. This approach has the advantage of allowing for the utili-
zation of existing program staff and experience as opposed to starting-up
an entirely new program from the "ground-level". Comprehensive legal
review55 by the Coastal Management Program and subsequent analysis by
the Department of Natural Resources indicates that there is adequate
statutory authority in the Shorelnad Management Program (N.R, 115), but
probably not in the Floodplain Program (.N.R. 116) to seek immediate imple-
mentation of hazard area zoning. Thus, it appears that the administrative
rules for the Shoreland Program could be modified to provide that "in
delineated hazard areas, the local zoning ordinance shall.. .". While
such a modification would only apply to unincorporated areas, municipal-
ities could be encouraged to adopt appropriate compatible regulations.
This single administrative change has the potential for significantly

reducing damages along an extensive portion of Wisconsin's undeveloped,
erodible shoreline. State minimum standards and state-prepared model
ordinances combined with increased technical assistance would assure
some degree of uniformity and consistency along the shoreline. Legisla-
tively, erosion hazard zoning could also be implemented through direct

amendment of shoreland/floodplain management and land subdivision
(Chapter 236) statutes.

The second strategy, erosion hazard area management encouraged but
not required, identifies damage reduction/prevention as primarily a local
concern. Hence the state role would largely be to assist local govern-
* ~~~ments in taking various preventive actions. Possible state-level
activities include the distribution of Coastal Management Program technical
data, preparation of appropriate model ordinances, and providing of
general administration assistance. Direct state assistance for the
delineation of erosion hazard areas could prove particularly critical
for locally initiated and administered efforts. To ensure a
sustained level of assistance over time, a technical assistance capacity

might be built into the Coastal Management Program, University

-99-

of Wisconsin-Extension System, and/or Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources. Alternatively, state funding might be legislatively sought
for local governments so that they could largely undertake all necessary
background and implementation activities. Given the number of hazard
affected communities and the technical complexities of erosion hazard
area management, a state-funded assistance program might prove costly
and lead to a significant amount of duplication.

Regulatory Strategies for Developed Areas

Along developed portions of Wisconsin's erodible Great Lakes shore-
line, the implementation of new regulatory measures would have minimal,
immediate impacts upon damage reduction. One of the exceptions to this
being in cases when reparians need to seek new building/zoning permits due
to natural or personal disasters, e.g. fires, tornadoes. Or, in situations
when changes in land use building style are desired, e.g. building expan-
sions, single family to multi-family. And, even in developed areas,
significant amounts of developable land often remain between adjacent
property owners particularly in suburban coastal environs. In these
instances, a complete "package" of erosion hazard zoning tools and pro-
visions could have significant, localized impacts upon damage reduction.
The options and strategies noted in the previous discussion can, therefore,
be directly applied to developed areas. But, regulatory strategies
oriented toward the control of land management activities and practices
may prove more desirable and applicable. The need for effective land
management practice control along the shoreline is heightened by the
potential impact of development upon coastal bluffs. Although pre-
development control is preferable, post-development action can often
increase upper bluff stability thereby delaying building endangerment.
Some recommended practices include additional vegetation plantsing, mini-
mal land disturbance, subsurface dewatering, and surface water diversions.

In identified erosion hazard areas, the state could advocate, and
facilitate, the use of land management practices which reduce damage
potential through a number of regulatory options. The basic strategies
identified for undeveloped areas could provide the basis for further

action. But, the two that seem to hold the most promise are Shoreland
Management Program modification and state encouragement through
technical assistance activities. Educational materials and suggested land
management practice guidelines/standards might prove particularly important
for a state-level technical assistance role. Model ordinance provisions
which emphasize upper bluff control/stability might also be prepared for
developed (incorporated) areas. The City of Highland Park, Illinois's
performance standard-oriented "Bluff and Ravine Steep Slope Ordinance"
might serve as a prototype for ordinance development in Wisconsin.
Appendix N contains selected provisions of this recently adopted ordinance.
Finally, by improving the administration of existing shoreland regulations,
communities can realize a substantial reduction in damage potential without

new legislation. One county which has been successful in accomplishing
this task is Racine. Before issuing permits, on-site investigations are
undertaken for all new construction by the Soil Conservation Service
under a special "cooperator"~ arrangement with the County Planning and

Zoning office.

Nonregulatory Strategies

State and local government regulatory responses to coastal erosion
will, in some cases, need to be supplement ed with nonregulatory options.
Such options as acquisition, relocation, and hazard disclosure can be
particularly helpful in developed areas. However, it appears unlikely
that these options could serve as the "anchor" of damage reduction
programs in Wisconsin due to high costs, lead-time requirements, site
specific effectiveness, et cetera. In general, if these approaches are
linked to broader statewide hazard area management concerns, e.g. flood-
plain development, steep slope areas, their potential as individual
management strategies would appear to substantially increase. Nonetheless,
the state can take a number of actions to increase their use in delineated

hazard areas at this time.

Acquisition

Public acquisition, whether in full or less-than-fee simple, in
erosion hazard areas for the sole purpose of damage reduction appears
unlikely. But, in situations where other public benefits can be identified,

-101-

e.g. recreation, public access, environmental corridor protection, acqui-
sition may offer a viable nonregulatory option. Two situations which
appear to offer a more direct application potential for damage reduction
are in cases when acquisition can be combined with building relocation
and when direct shore/bluff management is needed to reduce damages, e.g.
for'protecting public lands/facilities, to limit the deployment of struc-
tural devices along sand generation areas. Acquisition/relocation will
be discussed in the next subsection.

If the state chooses to promote the use of acquisition in Wisconsin,

several short-term (immediate) adjustments can be made and some long-term
funding strategies could be developed. In general, short-term adjustments
are aimed at improving the acquisition capabilities of local governments.
Since a number of federal and state recreation-oriented acquisition pro-
grams are already in-place, e.g. LAWCON, ORAP-200, the state could seek
to increase the priority of land purchases along erosion-prone reaches.
Similarly, to help alleviate local government cost-share problems, existing
formulas might be modified for state-controlled acquisition programs/
monies. Through state-sponsored educational/ informational activities,
e.g. brochures, workshops, flyers, the use of more innovative land
acquisition options in Wisconsin might also be increased, e.g. land
exchanges (surplus public land for coastal land); public/private sector
"tradeoffs" (similar to City of Sheboygan approach); land banking for
future capital projects; less-than-fee simple techniques- and land

donations/dedications (pursuant to Chapter 236, Wisconsin Statutes).
Finally, some consideration might be given to modifying existing tax
laws for acquisition projects in hazardous area, e.g. special assessments,
special tax incentives.

In view of the potential costs of acquisition programs and the amount
of coastal land already in public ownership (approximately 25%), direct
incentive options which channel more dollars into coastal acquisition
need to be carefully considered. Nonetheless, as a longer term strategy,
the state might seek to develop a "one-time" acquisition program--if other
statewide acquisition needs could also be identified. The State of
Michigan has recently initiated a study to investigate possible coastal
land acquisition priorities and needs. The State of California, through

-102-

its Coastal Conservancy (a "sister" agency of the Coastal Commission),
has gone one-step further. With an initial $10 million bond appropriation
in 1976, the Conservancy has recently begun to restore coastal marshes/
wetlands, enhance subdivisions, and "package" viable, undeveloped tracts
for agricultural development. Closer to Wisconsin, over the past 10 years
the State of Illinois purchased 1400 acres of coastal land (1200 parcels)
with LAWCON and special bond monies to develop the Illinois Beach State
Park.. If Wisconsin wished to move in these directions, the principal
funding options include direct state purchase and state/local cost-sharing.
However, in view of increasing LAWCON support, any future state efforts
to develop acquisition programs should be closely coordinated with federal
activities. As an alternative strategy, the state could consider further
advocacy efforts aimed at releasing more federal money for acquistion,
e.g. Coastal Zone Management Act acquisition monies.

Relocation

In developed areas, the relocation of buildings from erosion hazard

areas can offer a direct means of reducing damages, particularly when
implemented before hazards become imminent. One of the principal problems
limiting its application at the public sector level has been cost. Since

acquisition is generally necessary to insure a longer term public benefit,
e.g. access, recreation, environmental corridor protection, relocation
has been made less attractive--unless coastal buildings happen to be

contained within future park/waterfront development project areas. Only
a small number of riparians, perhaps no more than 40, have used relocation
as a damage reduction option over the past 30 years. If no changes are
made within the current framework, i.e. the status quo maintained, reloca-
tion will only be occasionally used in spite of its long-term damage
reduction potential.

Two broad strategies could be pursued by the state to increase the
use of relocation in Wisconsin: immediate framework adjustments and long-
term funding programs. In general, most framework adjustments are aimed at
increasing the non-public application of relocation. First, through
educational/informational activities sponsored by the state, public
officials and riparians could be informed of relocation benefits, require-
ments, and costs (this could be undertaken in parallel with acquistion
educational/informational activities). Second, since no public tax

incentives or subsidies are provided to non-business property owners, some

consi~deration could be given to allowing residental property owners to
deduct relocation costs against their state income tax. Deductions might
only be allowed in delineated hazard areas for emergency and non-emergency
relocation. Third, to improve the feasibility of relocation, and to
partially reduce its costs, actions could be taken to increase the
relocatability (moveability) of coastal buildings through zoning ordinances
and building codes. One possible statewide application of this concept
could be initiated under the "~unique soil and geologic conditions'" provi-
sion of the State's Uniform Dwelling Code. Finally, it should be noted
that the feasibility of relocation may increase when innovative acquisition
techniques are used at the local level, e.g. land exchanges with lease
backs, public/private sector "tradeoffs", land banking.

Relocation costs will continue to be a major obstacle limiting imple-
mentation--even if many of the above adjustments are made. Therefore, should
the state provide financial assistance to local governments for acquisition
and/or relocation of development in erosion hazard areas where such action is
consistent with a public purpose? If such financial incentives are
desirable, any number of funding "packages" could be developed: full state
funding, state/local cost-sharing, etc. At this time, the state-of-the-art
is not such that the workability and practicality of such programs for
erosion hazard areas is clear. Most early federal funding efforts have

focused on flood hazard areas, i.e. Soldiers Grove, Prairie du Chien.
Based upon these initial efforts, it is clear that acquisition/relocation
projects require a significant amount of lead-time, planning, and inter-
agency/intergovernment coordination. Hence they appear to have little
practical value as emergency responses to erosion hazards. If a more
responsive relocation-oriented program was desired, consideration could be
given to the development of low-interest loan programs for riparians
(perhaps similar to the Maryland Erosion Control Program). To summarize,
all indications suggest that public acquisition/relocation projects could
significantly reduce damage potential. But, given the limited number of
coastal settings where other public benefits would immediately compliment
the need for damage reduction, other statewide natural hazard problems
would probably have to serve as the focus of a state-sponsored program.

Hazard Disclosure

Except during emergency periods, the magnitude of Great Lakes erosion
hazards are not necessarily observable to, and fully appreciated by,
citizens unfamiliar with coastal processes. Hence real estate transactions
and decisions on land development can be made in the absence of adequate
information. Land use regulation alone does not, in all cases, provide for
the timely and effective delivery of hazard-related information. The public
disclosure of erosion hazards in subdivision plats, offers to purchase,
listing contracts, and zoning maps in combination with educational/informa-
tional activities, e.g. posting of special notices, brochures, media
articles, can substantially mitigate any problems associated with inadequate
advance notification. Such warnings can be accomplished through the
voluntary actions or riparians public officials, and real estate professionals
or mandated (required) through state/local laws and ordinances. Although
Wisconsin has in-place a number of disclosure-related mechanisms, they have
not been consistently and uniformly applied to erosion hazard areas.
Therefore, should the state seek mandatory disclosures of erosion hazards?
Or, should disclosure activities largely remain voluntary, i.e. "let the
buyer beware"?

In assessing disclosure options, it should be pointed out that all
options may not offer an equal chance of success, In particular, disclosures

through land recording (titles and deeds) and platting activities appear less
able to significantly reduce future damage potential. Deeds and/or titles do
not have to be officially recorded at the local or state levels in Wisconsin.
Once a land transaction has been finalized, all that is required is a "tax
transfer slip" (Chapter 706.05, Wisconsin Statutes, For-Mal Requisite for
Record). With regard to platting, land subdividing can occur through
mechanisms other than those described in Chapter 236. Certified land
surveys and metes and bounds descriptions can be used in cases when less
than five parcels are created, each having a size greater than Ili acres.
A study of land subdividing activities in Dane County56 revealed that
Chapter 236 land platting only accounted for approximately 50% of all land
divisions over a four-year period (statewide, Chapter 236 platting may only
account for less than one-third of all land subdividing). Significant
legislative action appears necessary to even enable the consideration of
these two vehicles as possible statewide hazard disclosure options.

-105-

At the present time, disclosures through real estate transactions and
general educational activities appear to have the greatest chance of
significantly reducing future damage potential. A state status quo response
would have the net effect of keeping these disclosure activities largely
voluntary in Wisconsin, except where individual communities and real estate
associations chose to establish more formal procedures. The state-enforced,
mandatory disclosure of erosion hazards could take two basic directions;
either the enforcement of existing law (largely an administrative response)
or the legislative resolution of existing problems through the enactment of
a comprehensive "truth-in-sales" act for hazard area land transactions
(probably for all major statewide hazards). Legislation dealing with disclo-
sure might detail the substance of forms and listing contracts along with the
procedures for complete advance notification. Administratively, through
renewed state-level efforts, such agencies as the University of Wisconsin-
Extension, Real Estate Examining and Licensing Board, and the Banking
Commission might be encouraged to prepare special procedures and adopt a
series of model forms. With the aid of supplemental monies, special
educational/informational activities could also be targeted to key audiences
on a sustained basis, e.g. real estate brokers, planning officials,
riparians. One relatively modest adjustment which could bring about further
disclosure is the providing of hazard area maps to real estate agents and

lending institutions. This information along with additional technical
assistance might serve as the basis for largely voluntary disclosure systems
if no additional state action was taken at this time.

-106-

Chapter VI

SETTING THE COURSE: SOME FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

Introduction

The State of Wisconsin is now in an excellent position to move ahead
with the task of further mitigating erosion damages along the Great Lakes
shoreline. A coastal policy-making body, the Wisconsin Coastal Management
Council, has been established by the Governor, and has given impoved hazard
area management a high priority. Subsequently, the Wisconsin Council
Management Program has prepared a comprehensive array of technical and
management-oriented information for public decision-making, In the "wake"
of the 1972-1976 high water period, momentum has been established for
further public action. The need for such decisive action is based upon
the historical observation that coastal erosion, by its very nature and
cyclic impacts, does not encourage sustained public actions or resource
commitments. Even the relatively small number of affected property owners
appear willing--or resolved--to seeing erosion hazards only in terms of
high water period events or emergency conditions. If the damage reduction
program concept, as outlined in Chapter III, is to be implemented in
Wisconsin, actions should be initiated over the next few years before public
interest in, and memory of, high water period damages fades even further.
This opportunity for action should not be missed if Wisconsin's response
to coastal erosion is to be based on foresight and not hindsight.

Regardless of what directions or actions, if any, the state pursues
over the next few years, a sustained commitment to long-term damage
reduction is essential. Without this sustained state-level leadership and
guidance, there exists a strong possibility that significant reductions of
damage potential will not be realized along the Great Lakes shoreline.
Such direct involvement appears essential if Wisconsin decides to promote
preventive approaches since local damage reduction activities can readily
"lapse-back" to individualized remedial approaches (the present status quo).
A recent Great Lakes Basin Commission and Federal Regional Council effort57
illustrates the limited value of planning in the absence of a sustained
commitment. As a response to damage losses during the early 1970's these
two agencies sought to layout a comprehensive framework for damage reduction.
Seven major types of options were analyzed (by state), some early and
sustained actions were identified, and a five-year timetable was established,

-107-

Several principles or "knowns" were even identified to help facilitate

decision-making. The "knowns", which bear a close resemblance to many of

the ideas contained with the Erosion Plan, are found on Table XII below.

Although this effort was only intended to serve as a "focal point" for action

and discussion, as of this date, the longer term findings and recommenda-

tions have gone unimplemented (several short-term adjustments were made).

Table XII: Factors Influencing the Development and Implementation of
Damage Reduction Strategies

--No single alternative will bring about a major reduction in
losses from erosion and flooding, but the potential exists to
bring about a major reduction over time through a strategy
which combines all available alternatives.

--It appears that Federal, State, and local agencies have
authority and programs to assist in planning and implementing
many of the alternatives.

--Extensive public funding support is not available for protection
of privately owned property.

--Future losses should be controlled by nonstructural land use
controls whenever possible and structural means should be
employed only as supplemental management efforts when needed
to adequately protect vulnerable lands from excessive erosion
and flooding.

--In most instances, permanent structural control measures
cannot be justified economically for protection of extensive
reaches of shoreline, especially as short-term solutions.

The Wisconsin Coastal Management Program has, through its Shore

Erosion Study Plan, attempted to provide a complete range of information for

decision-making. However, given the complexities of damage reduction

planning and the ever-changing nature of Wisconsin' s coastal environment,

at best, this effort can only provide a limited feeling for those state-

level policy considerations which need to be assessed in Wisconsin. Changes

in technology, land use trends, public attitudes and laws along with court

decisions may have significant impacts upon the nature of future damage

reduction efforts. All of the answers are not in, Ultimately state and

local officials may simply have to base their decisions upon the best

p~~18

available data. With this in mind, two aspects of damage reduction planning
which merit some separate attention are monitoring/research needs and inter-
state coordination/cooperation.

A. Monitoring and Research Needs

To improve the efficiency of public responses to coastal erosion and
to provide for accurate evaluations of damage reduction program impacts,
consideration should be given to the coordination of data collection activities
along the Great Lakes shoreline. All too often, past data collection efforts
have only been targeted to specific reaches for relatively short periods of
time. Such approaches may be suitable for single-purpose research investi-

gations but they are not suitable for multi-faceted damage reduction
programs. Thus, there remains a need to systematically and continuously
monitor erosion hazards and land use activities along the shoreline. By
improving shoreline monitoring/data collection activities, a physical
hazards warning system could be developed; existing recession rate data

could be expanded; a statewide network of sampling stations could be
established for continuous damage assessments and erosional process research;
and accurate inventories of coastal buildings, shore protection structures,
and land use activities could be made available to federal, state, and local
agencies in a timely manner. With careful planning and a comprehensive
analysis of supplier/user problems, development costs for an upgraded
monitoring/data collection system can be kept to a minimum,

To follow-up on Shore Erosion Study Plan findings, a number of special
research investigations could be initiated to aid in damage reduction
program planning. In particular, research is needed to identify those areas
where protective devices could pose long-term, reachwide problems. The

inventorying of Wisconsin's sand generation areas and isolating of major
nearshore littoral cells (areas under the continuous influence of longshore
currents) would substantially aid in this effort. This information could
provide a strong technical basis for either allowing or discouraging various
structural measures along coastal reaches. A parallel analysis of in-place
shore protection devices might also serve to identify those coastal settings
and construction techniques more suitable for longer term protection efforts
in Wisconsin. Reducing erosion damages and hazards along medium to high
blufflines has proved extremely difficult and expensive, Well over half of

-109-

Wisconsints erodible shoreline falls into this category, To-date, limited
experimentation has been done with innovative and/or moderate-cost techniques
in these areas. A one-time demonstration project program might prove
valuable in documenting the relative effectiveness, costs, and practicality
of various alternatives, e.g. stepped, slope cutbacks with dewatering and
vegetating; dewatering wells and surface water diversions; exotic/indigenous
plant experimentation. Finally, to aid public officials in assessing the
shore and long-term impacts of implementating various structural and

nonstructural options, consideration could be given to refining decision-

making tools and techniques for damage reduction planning purposes.
Particular attention might be given to benefit/cost analyses, coastal

process modeling or simulation, and simple formulas for on-site (in-field)
use.

B. Interstate Coordination and Cooperation

In order to achieve damage reduction in the most efficient manner,
interstate coordination may have to be given some added attention over the
next few years. From a natural process standpoint, the need for such
coordination is clear. Since shore protective actions affect littoral
processes and erosion rates irrespective of political boundaries, adjoining
Great Lakes states need to closely scrutinize, and monitor, major shoreline
projects. Evidence of the potential political and regulatory problems which
can be generated by coastal projects is still being seen from the construc-
tion of the Trident Marina at the Wisconsin/Illinois State Line.58 General
awareness of the need for interstate coordination appears to be on the rise.
In a recently completed plan for the Illinois Beach State Park,59 it was
noted that close coordination with Wisconsin will be needed to help ensure
the effectiveness of protective actions in Illinois. Although complete
interstate coordination and cooperation has been difficult to attain, at the
minimum, it would appear that a potential now exists to make regulatory
processes more sensitive to interstate impacts. One regulatory process
adjustment which could yield substantial benefits would be the signing of
"memos of understanding" on the standards to be applied to coastal. projects
in proximity to state lines.

Interstate coordination and cooperation can yield several other benefits
as well. One of the most significant contributions could be made in the
area of data collection and shoreline monitoring. Traditionally, both state

-110-

and federal agencies have had difficulty sustaining data collection/shoreline
monitoring activities because of limited coastal access, equipment needs,
seasonal weather problems, and high costs. Moreover, the information
generated through these efforts has often had limited reachwide value
because of acquisition techniques, timing, and final information display.
A multi-state, Great Lakes Data Collection Program could provide a viable
means of providing better management information for coastal decision-making.
Articulation of interstate data collection/shoreline monitoring concerns
through the Great Lakes Basin Commission might have the added benefit of
encouraging a higher degree of federal involvement and action.

Finally, the ability of Wisconsin and other Great Lakes states to

reduce future damage potential may be partially dependent upon the joint
articulation of assistance needs at the federal level. Those states
participating in the national Coastal Zone Management Program may be in a
more favorable position to initiate such actions over the coming years.
Pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act amendments of 1976, all
participating states were to have established a "planning process" for
mitigating the effects of coastal erosion (Federal Register, March 1, 1978;
15 CFR 923.25) by October 1, 1978. Wisconsin's compliance with the
amendments was documented in Wisconsin Coastal Management Program Amend-
ments 1978.60 If Wisconsin and other Great Lakes states formally decide,
either independently or collectively, to pursue courses of action which
necessitate some federal financial and technical assistance, e.g.
relocation/acquisition projects in developed areas, added shore protection
around public facilities, collective inquiries and pressures should prove
more effective and persuasive in releasing assistance monies. Agencies
such as the Great Lakes Basin Commission and Federal Regional Council
might be able to play important roles in initially "spearheading" basin-
wide responses.

*WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

This report ha~s presented a set of possible alternative actions to
reduce shore erosion damages in Wisconsin. The actions can be grouped in
three broad policy issue areas:

1. improving the state/local framework for regulating
protective structures;
2. adopting a state policy regarding structural
measures and defining the state assistance role,- and
3. determining what nonstructural strategies to pursue.

In order to take action on any of the alternatives outlined in this report,
certain basic policy questions must be answered. As noted in the Introduction
to this report, the answers to many of these questions are based more on
personal values and perceptions than on purely technical factors. The
questions below are intended to suggest some key considerations in choosing
among the varied policy options presented herein, Whether the answers to
such questions are "yes" or "1no" will determine what specific alternatives
should be selected from this report.

1. Improving the regulatory framework. Is there a need to specify or
modify the basis on which permitting decisions are made? Is there a need
to improve the quality and consistency of the review itself (by improving

the technical capacity f or reviewing permit applications via training, by
improved information dissemination and use, etc.)? Does the process by which
these decisions are made need clarification? Can the efficiency of the
regulatory process be increased (by improved and more systematic coordination
among involved agencies at all levels, by streamlining the permit application
review process, by standardizing forms, etc.)?

2. State structural policy and role. Assuming that the conditions and
criteria under which erosion protection structures are authorized are accept-
able, and that interest in structural approaches will continue in the
future, in addition to regulation, what role (if any) should government
play? Should there be any form of state financial assistance for structural
measures? If so, what should be the nature of state funding? full funding?
cost-sharing? low-interest loans? And what activities should be eligible
(construction, engineering feasibility studies)? Or, should the state
simply maintain a capability to provide non-financial assistance to those

interested in structural erosion protection (by providing information and
sources of data and assistance, disseminating Coastal Program technical
data and new research findings, etc.)?

3. Nonstructural strategies. As noted in Chapter V, a wide number of
regulatory and nonregulatory preventive options are available to reduce
erosion damages. In erosion-prone areas, which of these should be pursued,
if any, and by whom? For example, in largely undeveloped areas, which of
the nonstructural strategies presented herein should be implemented? What
should the respective roles of state and local government be in any such
undertaking? In developed areas, what role should regulatory options such
as land management play in reducing damages? And how can acquisition and
relocation strategies be encouraged, where appropriate, in coastal decision-
making?

Alternately, the focus of nonstructural efforts to reduce erosion
damages could be on disclosure. -Should there be mandatory disclosure or
hazard warnings tied to real estate transactions? Or, should disclosure
efforts be voluntary, such as educational efforts targeted at financial
institutions, realtors, and prospective buyers?

Finally, should state agencies and local governments be encouraged to
adopt the guidelines for damage reduction programs presented on page 31
(or some modification thereof)? This might provide the means for improving
coordination among the many governmental actors involved with shoreline
management. The specific recommendations emanating from the answers to the
questions posed above will provide the-basis for an erosion damage reduction
policy framework for Wisconsin. This plan is the starting point. Subsequent
actions by policy-making bodies--and the commitment to follow through on
implementation--will determine if we can capitalize on this opportunity.

*The Wisconsin Coastal Management Council responded to many of these
policy questions in March of 1979. A listing of council actions is
contained in the PREFACE.

-113-

ENDNOTES

Chapter II

1. Army Corps of Engineers, North Central Division, National Shoreline
Study - Great Lakes Region Inventory Report, August 1971, page 29.

2. Short term recession rate measurements were taken along the Lake Michigan
shoreline by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources during 1976
under a Coastal Management Program grant. Aerial photographs from the
mid-1960's to mid-1970's were used to calculate these figures. A similar
investigation was conducted along the Lake Superior shoreline during 1978
for a longer time span (1938-1975) by the Geological and Natural History
Survey.

3. This figure was taken from the Department of Natural Resources' comput-
erized inventory of shore protection devices; a product of the Coastal
Management Program's Shore Erosion Study Plan.

4. In August of 1978, the water levels of Lakes Michigan and Superior were
2 ands8 feet below their recent highs, respectively. Source: Monthly
Bulletin of Great Lakes Levels - August 1978, Army Corps of Engineers,
Detroit District.

5. Corps of Engineers, National Shoreline Study, page 29.

6. Phil Keillor and Bob DeGroot, Recent Recession of Lake Michigan Shorelines
in Racine County, Wisconsin. Wisconsin Sea Grant College Program, August
1978, page 14.

7. Richard Berg and Charles Collinson, Bluff Erosion Recession Rates and
Volumetric Losses on the Lake Michigan Shore in Illinois. Illinois
State Geological Survey, "Environmental Geology Notes", July 1976, page 7.

8. Illinois Coastal Zone Management Program, "Harmony with the Lake: Guide to
Bluff Stabilization", April 1978.

9. Louis Vallejo, Mechanics of the Stability and Development of the Great
Lakes Coastal Bluffs. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Dec. 1977, p. 199.

10. Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, field observation, June
1977.

11. Water Resources Management Workshop and Lake Superior Project, An Analysis
of the International Great Lakes Levels Board Report on Regulation of
Great Lakes Water Levels: Summary Report. Uisconsin Coastal Management
Program, September 1976, pages 6-8.

12. Letter from Governor Patrick Lucey to International Joint Commission and
Great Lakes Basin Commission through Governor William Milliken (State of
Michigan), October 15, 1975.

13. Army Corps of Engineers, Great Lakes Division, Preliminary Examination
Report on Property Damage on the Great Lakes Resulting from Changes in
Lake Levels: Main Report. June 1952, pages 62-71.

14. Army Corps of Engineers, National Shoreline Study: Great Lakes Region
Inventory Report, pages 34, 42, 45, and 53.

15. Army Corps of Engineers, North Central Division, Great Lakes Damage
Survey: Labor Day 1972-Labor Day 1976 (Preliminary). September 1978.

16. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, Field Investigations of High
Water Damages and Flood Potential on the Lake Superior Shoreline-1968.

17. International Great Lakes Levels Board, Regulation of Great Lakes Water
Levels: Appendix C. Shore Property. International Joint Commission,
December 1973, page C-83.

18. City of Oak Creek, Bender Park Boat Marina Justification. April 1975,
page 3.

19. Army Corps of Engineers, North Central Division, Summary Report of the
Pilot Study Program: Great Lakes Shoreland Damage Study. May 1976.

20. City of Oak Creek, Bender Park Justification, pages 2 and 3.

21. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and Center for Great Lakes
Studies (UW-Milwaukee), Great Lakes Shoreline Damage Survey; Brown,
Douglas, and Racine Counties, Wisconsin 7 Appendix II. Army Corps of
Engineers, North Central Division, May 1976, pages 20 and 78.

Chapter III

22. Ann Prezyna and Robert Taylor, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
"The Role of the Department of Natural Resources in the Protection of
the Public Interest in Navigable Waters". Wis. Coastal Management
Program working paper, April 1978, page 19.

23. Defined as the common law right of riparians along navigable waterways
to extend possession beyond (the present bank), or otherwise intrude
within the natural shore of a navigable water because of the natural
wearing away and overtopping of the banks (Diedrich v. Northwest Union
Railway Company, 1877). Protective actions taken under this doctrine
are seen as essential to the self-preservation of the riparian estate.

24. Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, Lake Michigan
Estuary and Direct Drainage Area Subwatersheds Planning Program
Prospectus. Waukesha, Wisconsin, September 1978.

Chapter IV

25. Milwaukee County Park Commission, meeting transcript, Feb. 4, 1965.

26. Great Lakes Basin Commission, Relocation and Public Acquisition Alter-
natives for the Reduction of Shoreland Damages: A Benefit/Cost Study.
Ann Arbor, Michigan, February 1976, page 14.

-115-

27. Tetra Tech, Final Report: Beach Erosion Analysis and Protection Plans
for Illinois Beach State Park. Illinois Department of Conservation
and Illinois Coastal Zone Management Program, December 1978, page 58.

28. In attempting to clear-up some questions regarding the right of counties
to issue permits for structures and activities below the Ordinary High
Water Mark (OHWM), the DNR recently requested, and received, an internal
legal opinion (78-25, November 1978). This opinion noted that counties
can issue special exception permits below the OHWM providing their shore-
land ordinances are in compliance with Chapters 144.25 and 59.971,
Wisconsin Statutes. However, the granting of such a permit does not
over-ride the denial of a state permit pursuant to Chapters 30 or 31.

29. Department of Natural Resources, Public Access: A Policy Study.
Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, May 1976

30. Diana Shooting Club v. Husting, 156 Wisconsin 272 (1914).

31. An internal legal opinion was requested on these matters in December
1978 by the Bureau of Water Regulation and Zoning, Dept. of Natural
Resources.

32. Confirmed by internal DNR legal opinion dated November 1978,

33, Prezyna and Taylor, "Role of the Department of Natural Resources in the
Protection of the Public Interest Along Navigable Waterways", page 11,

34. Ibid, page 13.

35. Ibid, page 19.

36. Ibid, page 10.

37. State permits for riprap-type projects are not required so long as the
material is confined above the OHWM and involves a project area less than
10,000 square feet. Any shore protection/filling projects which include
actions below the OHWM require a state permit -- regardless of those
actions taken above it.

38. Diane Kurtz and Elizabeth David, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
"Disposal of Dredged Materials from Wisconsin's Great Lakes Harbors"
working paper, Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, April 1978, page 6.

39. Prezyna and Taylor, "Role of the Department of Natural Resources....",
page 20.

40. David Thomas, "Federal Tax Deductions for Flooding and Erosion Losses on
the Great Lakes". Lake Superior Project, Center for Geographic Analysis-
Institute for Environmental Studies, UW-Madison, May 1975, page 1.

41. Discussion with Frank Poquette, City of Sheboygan Planning and Zoning
Office, July 1978.

42. Discussion with Tom Morris, Assistant Administrator, Maryland Erosion
Control Program, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, September 1978.

43. J.C. Day, JA. Fraser, and R.D. Kreutzwiser, "Assessment of Flood and
Erosion Assistance Programs Rondeau Coastal Zone Experience, Lake Erie",
Journal of Great Lakes Research. October 1977, pages 39 and 40.

44. Ibid, page 40.

Chapter V

45. Great Lakes Basin Commission, Standing Committee on Coastal Zone Manage-
ment, Erosion Hazard Insurance Study. June 1978.

46. In taking the position that insurance does not offer a viable mechanism,
the subcommittee recommended that "the erosion hazard insurance provisions
should be repealed to eliminate the insurmountable technical and
administrative problems that have resulted since 1973 from attempts to
implement an insurance program for coastal erosion." The principal reason
being that shoreline erosion and its associated damages are not insurable--
they occur continually, not catastrophically,

47. In 1976, the Attorney General issued an opinion (OAG 38-76) which concluded
that towns which have adopted village powers according to Chapter 60.47,
Wisconsin Statutes, can zone shoreland areas concurrently with the county,
provided that the town ordinance is in conformance with, or more restrictive
than, the county shoreland ordinance.

48. Richard Lehmann, Paul Mueller, and Paul Van Berkel, Institute of
Governmental Affairs, Capabilities of County Land Regulation Programs
in the Wisconsin Coastal Area. Wisconsin Coastal Management Program,
December 1976, page 42.

49. Phone conversations with building movers Del L'Anglois, Menominee Falls
and E.R. Kessler, Janesville, February 1978.

50. Coastal Zone Laboratory, University of Michigan. Engineering/Economic
Analysis of Shore Protective Systems (Appendix VI Great Lakes Shoreland
Damage Survey - Pilot Study). Army Corps of ENgineers, May 1976, page 29.

51. Although hazard disclosure is not officially required, in a 1974
Attorney General's Opinion (OAG 65-74) involving the Real Estate
Licensing and Examinings Board implementation of Executive Order 67,
it was noted that "There is an implicit suggestion that a broker has
a duty to inquire as to the status of each property he is attempting
to sell with respect to inclusion in floodplain ordinances ....." And,
that Board efforts to have brokers contact the Department of Natural
Resources on the hazard status of coastal lands constituted a reason-
able precaution on the part of the broker when the status is in
question.

52. Carol Schultz, "Erosion Hazard Areas: An Alternative for Shore
Management (draft)". Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey
and University of Wisconsin Sea Grant College Program, October 1978,
page 23.

-117-

53. David Owens and Michelle Rothenburg, Office of State Planning and
Energy, Land Use and Coastal Management in Wisconsin Coastal
Municipalities. Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, January 1978,
page 29.

54. This bluff failure was documented by Bob Sterrett, Ph.D. candidate,
UW-Madison Department of Geology and Geophysics while monitoring eight
shoreline sites along Lakes Michigan and Superior during 1978.

55. Rich Cohen, Office State Planning and Energy, "Bluff Erosion Control
Under Wisconsin Shoreland Zoning Provisions", working paper Wisconsin
Coastal Management Program, August 1977.

Dave Thomas, Dave Owens, and Michelle Rothenburg, Office of State
Planning and Energy, "Addressing Coastal Erosion Through Flood Plain
Zoning--Is it Feasible in Wisconsin?" working paper Wisconsin Coastal
Management Program, September 1977.

Memo: Larry Larson and Joe King, Department of Natural Resources to
Roger Springman, Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey,
October 26, 1977.

Memo: Jim Kurtz, Department of Natural Resources to Roger Springman,
Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, October 28, 1977.

56. Fred C. Welz, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of
Wisconsin-Madison, "Parcel Creation Activity in Unincorporated Dane
County" (Independent Study Paper) 1974.

Chapter VI

57. Federal Regional Council and Great Lakes Basin Commission Task Force
for Great Lakes Shorelands Damage Reduction, A Strategy for Great Lakes
Shoreland Damage Reduction. Federal Regional Council, Region V, Chicago,
March 1974, pages 29-34.

58. For the past ten years, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
and Kenosha County have had a series of regulatory problems with the
Trident Marina--some of which remain unresolved. Several of these
problems were due, in part, to the location of dragline operations
(for maintenance dredging), public boat launching facilities (for
Illinois Beach State Park), and the Marina turning basin in Illinois.
Through negotiations with the Illinois Coastal Zone Management Pro-
gram, the maintenance dredging problem (placement of Wisconsin sand on
Illinois shoreline) was largely resolved. Other differences of
philosophy regarding shoreline protection and management between
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and Illinois Department of
Transportation have also surfaced during discussions on Trident Marina.

59. Tetra Tech, Final Report: Beach Erosion Analysis and Protection Plans
for Illinois Beach State Park. Page 171.

60. "Shore Erosion/Mitigation Planning in Wisconsin", Wisconsin Coastal
Management Program Amendments 1978 (Draft). July 1978.

-118-

GlossarX

Accretion - The natural or artificial build-up of sediment on coastal beaches,
Natural accretion can occur as a result of both the waterborne and air-
borne deposition of soil materials. Structural devices such as groins,
breakwaters, and jetties along with beach-fill projects can all promote
the accretion of coastal beaches.

Artificial Nourishment (also called beach nourishment) - The process of
replenishing a beach with material (usually sand) obtained from another
location.

Beach Starvation - The loss of beach-building materials (principally sand-
like particles) along coastal environments often due to the downdrift
impacts of shore protection devices. Continued beach starvation can
serve to locally increase beach and bluff erosion rates.

Failure Plane - The general term used to define the immediately stable and
unstable portions of coastal bluffs, i.e. lakeward of the failure
surface a greater probability exists for bluff failure (erosion).
Where they are not directly observable, the location of potential
failure surfaces can be predicted through examinations of groundwater
conditions, slope geometry, and the engineering properties of bluff
soils.

Flanking - Erosion at, and around, the outward ends of land-connected shore
protection projects or other "hardened" portions of the shoreline.
When not stopped or controlled, flanking can result in the failure of
shore protection devices.

Flows - A type of downslope movement where the soil mass. saturated with
water, moves like a viscous liquid under the influence of gravity.

Littoral drift (also called longshore drift) - The movement of sediment
(usually sand) along beaches and in the nearshore zone by the
prevailing currents and oblique waves.

Nearshore Zone - An indefinite area or zone extending lakeward from the
shoreline to beyond the line of breaking waves.

Offshore Zone - The general term used to define that area lying beyond the
nearshore zone where wave action and motion is not significantly
affected by water depths.

Reach - A length of shoreline normally possessing fairly uniform physical
and developmental characteristics. Often, those areas under the
influence of specific littoral cells and currents can be defined as
reaches. Resistant points or places tend to divide reaches defined
on the basis of nearshore processes.

Recession - The net landward movement or retreat of coastal bluffs and
beaches over time due to erosional processes, When recession is
linked directly to a given time interval, a short-term and/or long-
term rate can be measured and projected into the future.

Slides - A type of downslope movement which takes place along a definable,
relatively flat surface of failure (failure plane). Usually the
sliding mass is not deformed as it is in a flat.

Slumps - A type of slide where failure takes place along a curved failure
surface and the moving mass rotates backwards in the upslope direction.
This very common form of failure along the Great Lakes shoreline leaves
a scalloped bluff top affect.

Slump Blocks - The mass of material which moves down-slope as a result of
slumping. Large slump blocks, some as wide as fifty feet and several
hundred feet long, have been reported along the Lake Michigan shoreline.

Solifluction - The process of slow flowage from higher to lower ground of
masses of soil materials saturated with water. Frost penetration and
subsequent freezing/thawing cycles along coastal bluffs is a significant
cause of solifluction, and related flowage actions.

Till - Poorly sorted, poorly stratified material deposited directly by
glacial ice.

Toe Erosion - That erosion which occurs at the toe of bluffs (see diagram
below) largely as a result of the continuous removal of earthen mate-
rials by waves or flows.

TOP RETREAT

POP
DEEP SLIPS TOP SOLIFLUCTION
SHEETWASH
/SEEPAGE
WEATHERING
SHALLOW FAILURES FACE
AND
FACE DEGRADATION
BY
WAVE
T OE
TOE |TOE
ACCUMULATION

Source: Mechanics of Coastal Landslides and the Influence of Slope
Parameters, Edil and Vallejo; UW-Madison, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering.

-120-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berg, Richard and Collinson, Charles, Bluff Erosion Recession Rates and
Volumetric Losses on the Lake Michigan Shore in Illinois, Number 76,
Environmental Geology Notes, Illinois State Geological Survey, Urbana,
July 1976.

City of Oak Creek, Bender Park Boat Marina Justification. April 1975.

Coastal Zone Laboratory, University of Michigan, Engineering/Economic Analysis
of Shore Protective Systems, Appendix VI Great Lakes Shoreland Damage
Survey - Pilot Study, North Central Division, Army Corps of Engineers,
Chicago, May 1976.

Cohen, Rich., Office of State Planning and Energy, "Bluff Erosion Control
Under Wisconsin Shoreland Zoning Provisions", working paper Wisconsin
Coastal Management Program, Madison, August 1977.

Day, J.C., Fraser, J.A., and Kreutzwiser, R.D., "Assessment of Flood and
Erosion Assistance Programs Rondeau Coastal Zone Experience, Lake Erie",
Journal of Great Lakes Research, October 1977, No. 3(1-2).

Diana Shooting Club v. Husting, 156 Wisconsin 272(1914).

Discussion: Building movers Del L'Anglois, Menominee Falls and E.R. Kessler,
Janesville, February 1978.

Discussion: Tom Morris, Assistant Administrator, Maryland Erosion Control
Program, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, September 1978.

Discussion: Frank Poquette, City of Sheboygan Planning and Zoning Office.
July 1978.

Federal Regional Council and Great Lakes Basin Commission. Task Force on
Shorelands Damage Reduction, A Strategy for Great Lakes Shoreland Damage
Reduction, March 1974.

Great Lakes Basin Commission, Standing Committee on Coastal Zone Management,
Erosion Hazard Insurance Study; prepared for Federal Insurance Admin-
istration, Ann Arbor, June 1978.

Great Lakes Basin Commission, Relocation and Public Acquistion Alternatives
for the Reduction of Shoreland Damages: A Benefit/Cost Study, Ann Arbor.

Illinois Coastal Zone Management Program, "Harmony with the Lake: Guide to
Bluff Stabilization", Chicago, April 1978.

International Great Lakes Levels Board, International Joint Commission,
Regulation of Great Lakes Water Levels: Appendix C - Shore Property,
December 1973.

Keillor, Phil and DeGroot, Robert, Recent Recession of Lake Michigan Shore-
lines in Racine County, Wisconsin, Wisconsin Sea Grant College Program,
Madison, August 1978.

-121-

Kurtz, Diane and David, Elizabeth, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
"Disposal of Dredged Materials from Great Lakes 'Harbors" , working paper
Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, Madison, April 1978.

Letter: Governor Patrick Lucey to International Joint Commission and Great
Lakes Basin Commission through Governor William Milliken, State of
Michigan, October 15, 1975.

Lehmann, Richard; Mueller, Paul; and Van Berkel, Paul; Institute of
Governmental Affairs, UW-Madison, Capabilities of County Land
Regulation Programs in the Wisconsin Coastal Area, Wisconsin Coastal
Management Program, Madison, December 1976.

Memo: Jim Kurtz, Department of Natural Resources to Roger Springman,
Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, October 28, 1977.

Memo: Larry Larson and Joe King, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
to Roger Springman, Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey,
October 26, 1977.

Milwaukee County Park Commission, meeting transcript, February 4, 1965.

Owens, David and Rothenburg, Michelle. Office of State Planning and Energy,
Land Use and Coas-tal Management in Wisconsin Coastal Municipalities,
Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, Madison, January 1978.

Prezyna, Ann and Taylor, Robert, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
"The Role of the Department of Natural Resources in the Protection of
the Public Interest in Navigable Waters", working paper Wisconsin
Coastal Management Program, Madison, April 1978.

Schultz, Carol, "Erosion Hazard Areas: An Alternative for Shore Management",
(draft), working paper Wisconsin Sea Grant College Program and Wisconsin
Geological and Natural History Survey, October 1978.

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, Lake Michigan Estuary
and Direct Drainage Area Subwatersheds Planning Program Prospectus,
Waukesha, Wisconsin, September 1978.

Tetra Tech, Final Report: Beach Erosion Analysis and Protective Plans for
Illinois Beach State Park, Illinois Department of Conservation and
Illinois Coastal Zone Management Program, Chicago, December 1978.

Thomas, David, "Federal Tax Deductions for Flooding and Erosion Losses on
the Great Lakes", Lake Superior Project, Center for Geographic
Analysis, Institute for Environmental Studies, UW-Madison, May 1975.

Thomas, David; Owens, David; and Rothenburg, Michelle, Office of State
Planning and Energy, "Addressing Coastal Erosion Through Flood Plain
Zoning -- Is is Feasible in Wisconsin?", working paper Wisconsin
Coastal Management Program, Madison, September 1977.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Great Lakes Division, Preliminary
Examination Report on Property Damage on the Great Lakes Resulting
from Changes in Lake Levels: Main Report, Chicago, June 1952.

-122-

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District; Monthly
Bulletins of Great Lakes Levels.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, North Central Division, Great
Lakes Damage Survey: Labor Day 1972 - Labor Day 1976 (prelim-
inary), Chicago, September 1978.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, North Central Division, National
Shoreline Study - Great Lakes Region Inventory Report, Chicago,
August 1971.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, North Central Division, Summary
Report of the Pilot Study Program: Great Lakes Shoreland Damage
Study, Chicago, May 1976.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, Field Investi-
gation of High Water Damages and Flood Potential on the Lake Superior
Shoreline - 1968.

Vallejo, Louis, Mechanics of the Stability and Development of the Great
Lakes Coastal Bluffs, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil & Environmental
Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, December 1977.

Water Resources Management Workshop and Lake Superior Project, An Analysis
of the International Great Lakes Levels Board Report on Regulation of
Great Lakes Water Levels: Summary Report, Wisconsin Coastal Manage-
ment Program, Madison, September 1976,

Welz, Fred C., "Parcel Creation Activity in Unincorporated Dane County".
(Independent Study Paper), Department of Agricultural Economics,
University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1974.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Public Access: A Policy Study,
Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, Madison, May 1976.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and Center for Great Lakes
Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Great Lakes Shoreline
Damage Survey: Brown, Douglas, and Racine Counties (Appendix II),
Army Corps of Engineers, North Central Division, Chicago, May, 1976.

-123-

APPENDICES

-125-

APPENDIX A

EROSION-RELATED REPORTS AND PUBLICATIONS OF THE
WISCONSIN COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Shore Erosion - A Study Plan, 1976.
Provides an overview of the Coastal Program's initial process for studying,
examining, and selecting alternative damage reduction plans for Wisconsin.

"Shore Erosion/Mitigation Planning in Wisconsin", Wisconsin Coastal Management
Program Amendments, July 1978.
Documents Wisconsin's compliance with Section 305(b)(9), Coastal Act
Management amendments of 1976.

Shore Erosion - A Bibliography, 1976.
Inventories available geologic, hydrologic, soils, and climatological
information on coastal erosion processes in Wisconsin.

Shore Erosion Study Technical Report, 1977.
Examines the geotechnical causes of erosion along Wisconsin's critical
reaches, and provides additional data on recession rates, shore protection
devices, and shoreline stability. Technical Appendices are available for
Kenosha, Racine, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Sheboygan, and part of Manitowoc
Counties. A special Lake Superior Appendix is in preparation.

Wisconsin Coastal Atlas, 1977.
Contains multi-county strip maps on land use/ownership, zoning, natural
areas and historic sites, wildlife habitats, and erosion hazards for
Wisconsin's Great Lakes shoreline.

An Analysis of the International Great Lakes Board Report on Regulation of
Great Lakes Water Levels, 1976.
Reviews the possible economic and environmental impacts of implementing
several lake level regulation schemes. Shore Property and Recreation
takes an in-depth look at coastal damages.

Ordinary High Watermark, 1976.
Analyzes the legal aspects of high watermark determination, examines the
alternative methods for delineating high watermarks, and provides several
recommendations for improving the present framework.

Lake Bed Grants: Great Lakes, 1976.
Provides a complete inventory and description of coastal lake bed grants.
Maps of all grant areas are included.

Public Access: A Policy Study, 1976.
Provides an overview of boating/non-boating needs, identifies public access
problems, and provides some policy options.

Feasibility of Compensation for Man-Induced Shore Erosion, 1978.
Reviews legal and administrative options for compensating aggrieved
property owners, and analyzes the technical feasibility of providing
such compensation.

-126-

Some Nonstructural Alternatives for the Reduction of Shore Damages, 1977.
Provides a general discussion on the possible use(s) of hazard disclosures,
zoning, insurance, relocation, and acquisition along Wisconsin' s Great
Lakes shoreline.

"Addressing Coastal Erosion Through Floodplain Zoning", 1977.
A working paper that analyzes the problems associated with using N.R. 116
(Floodplain zoning) for erosion damage production.

"Bluff Erosion Control Under Wisconsin Shoreland Zoning Provisions", 1977.
A working paper that analyzes the possible ways of increasing the
erosion hazard sensitivity of N.R. 115 (Shoreland Zoning).

Nonregulatory Techniques for Urban Growth Management in Wisconsin, 1978.
Examines and analyzes such techniques as public land acquisition, public
investment planning, preferential taxation, and transferable development
rights for better coastal land use management.

"The Role of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources in the Protection
of the Public Interest in Navigable Waters", April 1978.
Examines the basic permitting authority of the Department, reviews permit
actions taken under Chapter 30, Wisconsin Statutes; and provides some
recommendations for improving the existing regulatory process. The
appendix contains a wide range of procedural and organizational material.

Great Lakes Shore Erosion Protection: A General Review with Case Studies, 1977.
Reviews the planning and technical apcsof shore protection device
construction, and analyzes structural failures and successes at nine
sites in Wisconsin.

Great Lakes Shore Erosion Protection: Structural Design Examples, 1978.
Provid~es__ adetailed cost and engineering layout for long term, intermedi-
ate life, and emergency structural devices based upon nine design site
locations along Lake Michigan.

Inventory of Shore Protection Devices, 1977.
A computerized listing of over 800 shore protection devices along the
Lake Michigan shoreline.

-127-

APPENDIX B

METHODOLOGY FOR SHORELINE INVENTORY AND
COST - LAYOUT

The procedures used to inventory unprotected coastal reaches and arrive
at structural protection costs for Lakes Michigan and Superior varied
slightly due to a lack of data along Lake Superior. Specifically, a set of
oblique aerial photographs was not available, work on a Geotechnical Appendix
was not completed, and reliable cost figures for temporary and long-term
devices were not available. To facilitate a clear comparison of the assessment
procedures used along each Great Lake, section A will review shoreline inventory
procedures and section B will review cost - layout procedures.

Lake Michigan

Section A.

With the aid of an oblique set of aerial photographs (May 1976-Illinois
State Line to Sturgeon Bay; flown by the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources and funded by the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program), shoreline
base and reach maps, National Shoreline Study strip maps, U.S.G.S. 7+ and 15
minute topographic maps, and the Coastal Management Program Shore Erosion Study
Technical Report series , each of the following was determined:_

1. The unprotected portions of each section in each reach through
Sturgeon Bay, and their bluff and beach characteristics. Bedrock areas and
lands having durable, well-maintained devices were determined to be adequately
protected. Marshes and wetlands were excluded from consideration.

2. Totals of unprotected and eroding, or potentially eroding, coast
(in linear feet) by county and reach. Well-vegetated slopes and unendangered
parks were not included in totals.

3. Categories of unprotected shoreline:

a. Sandy plain or lowe bluff (less than 20 feet high) -- little indi-
cation of erosive conditions.

b. Stable bluff (20 feet or higher) -- little indication of erosive
conditions.

c. Unstable bluff (20 feet and higher) -- evidence of seepage,
sliding, slumping, or other erosive processes.

Section B.

Using the above classification scheme and figures as a base, a cost-
layout was then conducted along the Lake Michigan shoreline with information
provided by Owen Ayres and Associates; a consulting firm engaged in work on
another Coastal Management Program project entitled Great Lakes Shore Erosion
Protection: Structural Design Examples. Average co~sts per~ linear-foot for
temporary, intermediate, and long-term protection were then determined. Inter-
mediate and long-term costs were found to vary according to bluff character-
istics, i~e. whether or not a bluff stabilization technique was needed. The

-128-

base figures listed below were used to generate cost figures for the Lake
Michigan shoreline.

Average
Level of Protection Bluff Characteristic Cost Per Linear Foot

Temporary $ 60
Intermediate Sandy Plain or Low Bluff $120
Stable Bluff $ 95
Unstable Bluff $255
Long Term Sandy Plain or Low Bluff $165
Stable Bluff $295
Unstable Bluff $375

Table Vil on page 37 contains a county-by-county breakdown of all cost
figures and erodible, linear footage for Lake Michigan.

Lake Superior

Section A.

With the aid of U.S.G.S. 71 and 15 minute topographic maps, National Shore-
line Study strip maps, Coastal Management Program shoreline base and reach maps,
and Wisconsin's Lake Superior Shoreline (a physical inventory of the shoreline
by Zube and Dega Associates), each of the following was determined:

1. The unprotected portions of each section in each reach, and their
general bluff and beach characteristics. Bedrock areas and lands having
durable devices were determined to be adequately protected. Marshes and
wetlands were excluded from consideration.

2. Totals of unprotected and eroding, or probably eroding, coast (in
linear feet) by county and reach. The lakeward side of Wisconsin Point was
totaled, but other sand points or spits were not. The eastern and southern
sides of Madeline Island were examined and inventoried.

Section B.

Using the above figures and shoreline analysis as a base, a general cost-
layout was then conducted. Costs for temporary protective devices were averaged
from Lake Michigan as per Owen Ayres research since figures for temporary devices
along the Lake Superior shoreline were not available. The intermediate life
figures were derived from three Lake Superior projects: Port Wing, Madeline
Island, and Madigan Beach. The long-term protective device figures were derived
from Owen Ayres research and Lake Superior project costs (Lake Park, Port Wing,
and Madeline Island). Costs per linear foot along Lake Superior were found
to average as follows:

-129-

Level of Protection Cost Per Linear Foot

Temporary $ 60
Intermediate $130
Long-Term $295

Table VII on page 37 contains a county-by-county breakdown of all
cost figures and erodible, linear footage for Lake Superior.

-130-

APPENDIX C

PRE-ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION OF LAKE MICHIGAN SHORELINE (KENOSRA THROUGH MANITOWOC COUNTY)

FOOTAGE SUBJECT PREDOMINANT SHORELINE POSSIBLE STRUCTURAL LONG TERM STRUCTURAL PROTECTION
REACH COUNTY TO EROSION(19761 SETTING SOLUTIONS COSTs PER REACH
HIGH LOW
Stone HeretneHts
1 Renesho 8000 Sond Plai. St oe Groins 1,600,000 1,064,000
LHW BHuff Concrete Revetments

Stss RHevet.ents
2 .eno.hh 500 Loi BlHff Stone Groins 100,000 66,000
Sheet Stee. BSokheadn

Henosho Stone Seveinents
3 Roomy. 5000 Med. Bloff Sheet Steel Holkhe-ds 0,325,000 925,000
Concrete Ge.et.ents
Honor Aces Sheet Steel Holkheads
4 oei-ne 250 Med. BlHff Deinage 66,250 46,250
Concrete Senoclls
Stone Reet.een-
5 Rocine 3000 Red. BlHif Concrete HoIkh.ed 760,000 555,000

Rucine Med. Rioff Stose Rereteents
6 Hlwoehee 1 7,000 High HICff Segrading & Drainage 6,131,000 4,042,000
Concrete Beolkhude

Regrdtdiog
7 Milksaces 11,500 High BlSff Sheet Steel Gel.ke-ds 4,715,000 3,047,000
Concrete Seawelle

Stone Reteteonts
8 Rilsoee 24,000 H igh Bloff Concrete Revetments 9,840,000 6,360,000
Rogmaditg

9 Milosohee S H-rbo Are- U 0

Ste Revetn..ta
10 Milc-elsee 1 4,000 High GBofS Sheet Steel Holkheeds 5,740,000 3,710,000

Mil.askee Concrete Seseslls
01 G.nashes 13,000 H igh BlHff Sheet Steel Btilkhhcds 5,330,000 3,445,000

Concrete Haihhead
12 oo...ee 3 4,000 High Bloff nograding sod Drainage 13,040,000 9,010,000
Stone Gene.e.nts

Sheet Steel Bulkheads
13 G...kee 27,000 H igh BISff Concrete Genetnen 11,070,005 7,155,000

14 Oceahee S Harbor Area 0 0

Degroding aed Drai.oge
15 G.asoee 18,010 High HIofS St-oe Denetneint 7,380,000 4,770,000

Med. R31eff Sheet Steel Rolkhead
16 Ocoohee 4,000 Lee Sloff Stince seet.e.s. 995,000 688,000

L., Blolt Concrete RoeItoon
17 Ono.hee 4,000 Good 'lots Stone eee ..entn 800,000 532,000

Sand Plots Stone Crests
18 Shehoygon 40,000 los BloOff St6- Retet.esIn 9,300,000 6,300,000
Sheet Steel 5,,lkhendn

Lee bOff Concrete Gnlhheadn
09 Ohehoygon 2,500 God. sloff Since Hnetoentt 581,000 397,000

Concrete Geasolis
20 Gieteygon 3,000 ted. Slo.f Stoor Renetnenin 795,000 555,000

Sheet Steel el0,kends
01 Shehoygan 12,000 ed. Sifff Ifegrding 3.186,000 2,220,000
Gocee te t me eon

Sheet Steel ntlkh-ed
22 Shehoygon 12,000 Sied. Blncf egr.ding 3,160,000 2.220,000
St..e Henotneots

Sheheyg.n St.o. ..eetnent.
23 Sanitoese 20,000 lecd. iltff Cosorete Onlihe-d 5,300,000 3,700,000

Stone .reins
24 Maitnot.oc 05,000 Med. Bloff Coecrete Rerotnentn 3,975,000 2,770,000
Sheet Steel altaheads
Med. GlCff Stone teret.ents
25 U-nite..oc 31,000 High HInES Concrete Galkheodn 9,33S,000 6,354,000

Righ Gteff Concrete Seneallo
26 Manitonee 7,000 Med. nlGoC Concrete Senet-eots 2,109,000 1 .434,000

Stone Reost e..n
27 tnoito.o- 250 Med. Bluff Sheet Steel Gulkhe-ds 66,230 46,250

Lo_ Blaff Stone Groins
28 Honitecc 29,000 Sand Plain Stone Revetee.ts 5,600,005 3,857,000
Concrete Oclhhe-dn

Lon BsSff Sheet SteeG Bolkhbeds
29 Mee1tneoc 12,144 M.d. flIoS Stone Dereoneet_ 2,823,000 1 ,930,000
Concrete Gea.olls

Degrading
30 -anitenec 24,288 Hod. BlotS Concrete Revet-eots 6,436,320 4,493,000
Oheet SteeG BSlkhe-ds

Areesge costs Eros the Structural Design Ueeple Heport se..ed .s the bonie fcr thin i-oestigeties. Loi
blhes/ ne.d plains, nedine blhffs, and high blhsC uteroged 4165, 5220, and $330, respectitely. The
high ond ins costs on thin table represent o 20. deinties Eros these aceragee. Only initial conntrsetion

costs are presented is thin thble; -uistosesce cents end soy -peciei niting co... ore eecluded, This table
ohoeld sot he tshss a.so endorsement eS norectorol solutions for the entire shereoin- of Lahe Siehigas by
the C.ostal Son gesest Prgras.

-131

APPENDIX D

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS FOR SHORE/BLUFF PROTECTION DEVICES

Wave Interception and Attenuation Methods

1,Offshore Breakwaters

Definition: An offshore structure., normally oriented parallel to the
shoreline, which prevents waves from reaching the beach and
reduces waves energy in the nearshore zone.

Planning Considerations: offshore breakwaters must be located far
enough offshore to allow ample flow of longshore currents between
the structure and shore. Since they tend to trap beach materials
in this calmer water environment, downdrift beach material
starvation and erosion will occur.

offshore breakwaters are generally more difficult and expensive
to construct than other shore protection devices in the Great
Lakes due to water level fluctuations. In order to efficiently
absorb or reflect wave energy, they must be large and durable.
Repair and maintenance is difficult and expensive.

However, breakwaters leave the shoreline open for recreational
uses and they do not seriously affect shoreline aesthetics. Also,
they could provide some shelter for small boats during storms.

Construction Materials:
Quarrystone; placed in a rubble mound.
Precast and poured concrete armor units.
Cantilevered steel sheet pile walls or cellular units.
Rock-filled timber cribs and gabions; used in shallow water and
low-energy environments.

Costs: (initial construction per linear foot)
General cost range -- $500 - $1000
Massive, rubble mound -- $1,500 - $1,900

Beach Accretion Methods

2. inshore Breakwaters

Definition: A structure or series of structures constructed parallel
to the shore in the shallow inshore area to reduce wave energy
and promote beach accretion.

Planning Considerations: Inshore breakwaters are normally only used
in shallow waters (two to four feet), on low slope beaches, and
within 100 to 200 feet of the shore. The area between the struc-
ture and shore is subject to accretion. in the event of complete
beach accretion, the structure may function as a perched beach.

-132-

inshore breakwaters tend to be low to moderate-cost devices which
can be deployed fairly easily, e.g. rubber tire mats, precast
concrete z-wall, small rubble mounds. Also, because some are
relatively simple in design and construction, they can be deployed
in a timely manner. While beach use and aesthetics may not be
severely affected by these structures, swimming and fishing is
often precluded.

inshore breakwaters are often short-lived devices since they can
readily be destroyed or grounded during heavy storms and high
water periods. Excessive beach accretion can bury them. Without
an abundant supply of suitable beach materials, inshore devices
may fail to accrete a beach. They can also pose navigational
obstacles, and may prove difficult to remove. inshore break-
waters should not be used with groins unless a thorough beach and
wave analysis has been conducted. Periodic to continual main-
tenance is often needed to keep them properly aligned and
effective.

Construction Materials:
Precast concrete; often placed in zig-zag fashion.
Rubber tires; linked together to form floating mats.
Quarrystone; placed in small mounds.
Longard tubes.

Costs: (initial construction per linear foot)
General cost range -- $70 - $170
Precast z-walls --$80 - $140
Rubber tire mats --$75 - $110
Longard tubes -- $70 - $160

3,Groins

Definition: A structure, either permeable or impermeable, normally
constructed perpendicular to the shore to trap littoral drift
and reduce wave energy. Beaches tend to accrete on the updrift
side thereby starving the downdrift side.

Planning Considerations: Groins are most effective when extended into
the breaker zone, and need not be placed into water deeper than
three to five feet or 100 feet lakeward of the shoreline. They
can be deployed as a single long unit or as a series of units,
spaced approximately two to three times their length apart.
Groins should extend well back into the beach to prevent
flanking and undermining. The outer end has to withstand the
full impact of waves and their associated scour. Since the
presence of suitable beach materials in longshore currents is
critical, all coastal environments are not suited to groins.

Groins have been extensively used along Wisconsin's shoreline.
A wide variety of materials can be used to construct groins,
e~g. nylon bags and tubes, timber cribs, quarrystone, steel
sheet pile. Thus, they can serve as temporary as well as

-133-

permanent type solutions. Permanent construction generally calls
f or specialized equipment and expertise. Groins offer viable
options near recreational beaches and resort areas since they
may not interfere with swimming and fishing.

Groins must be carefully designed, placed, constructed, and
maintained to provide maximum levels of protection. Proper
design elevation and construction is essential since storms and
high water periods can render them ineffective or inoperable.
Groins should be tied-back into the bluff or beach to prevent
flanking. Since groins have a tendency to accelerate downdrift
erosion, all potential adverse impacts should be assessed in
advance. Maintenance costs can be high due to settling, flanking,
scouring, and storm damage. Artificial nourishment is often
recommended to maintain maximum effectiveness -- and reduce
downdrift impacts. Groins may pose navigational hazards and
obstacles, particularly if the lakeward end settles.

Construction Materials:
Quarrystone; placed in mounds.
Nylon bags; used as temporary protection.
Longard tubes.
Steel sheet piles.
Precast concrete members and piles; permeable and impermeable.

Costs: (initial construction per linear foot)
General cost range -- $70 - $250
Longard tubes -- $90 - $160
Steel sheet pile -- $120 - $190
Nylon bags filled with sand -- $60 - $90
Steel sheet pile with sand fill -- $520

4, Beach Nourishment

Definition: Artificial addition of sand or coarse particles to the
beach regime so as to build-up, and maintain, protective beaches.

Planning Considerations: Beach nourishment can best be used as a
protective measure along gently sloped beaches with low erosion
rates. Also, it may be used to enhance the effectiveness of
groin systems where the littoral drift supply is insufficient.
The materials to be added should have the same grain size
properties as the existing beach materials. Placement of
cleaned sand or gravel materials can be done by spreading or
by dumping piles along the updrift end. Factors which assist
in determining the applicability of this technique include
longshore current orientation and rates, foreshore slope, erosion
rates, and littoral drift rate.

Where appropriate, beach nourishment could offer a viable,2 low-
cost form of protection. The location, quality, a:-id quantity
of suitable beach materials largely determines its economic
feasibility. Dredged material from river mouths and harbors

-134-

can provide a viable source. Permanent sources of material should
be identified before initiating this alternative. Beach nourishment
has minimal effects upon shoreline use and aesthetics. This tech-
nique is particularly valuable around recreational facilities and
resorts where a natural environment and solution is sought.

During periods of accelerated erosion, the maintenance costs of
continual beach nourishment can~ be high. Also, some supplemental
shoreline armoring may be desirable near high value properties
and facilities. Because trucks and other heavy equipment are
generally needed to implement this technique, beach access and
movement should be carefully planned and timed. Winter and early
spring dumping can be effective in remote beach areas.

Construction Materials:
Sand, clean., no fine content.
Gravel, clean, no fine content,

Costs: (sand supplement and maintenance per linear foot)*
General cost range -- $40 - $110
*Where it is necessary to re-establish or restore beaches before
nourishing begins, costs can be substantially higher. Perhaps
as high as $200 to $400 per foot.

Shore Armament Techniques

5. Revetments

Definition: A sloped layer or facing of erosion resistant material
placed along the backshore edge or bluff toe to resist wave
attack and erosion.

Planning Considerations: Revetments, like other forms of shore
armoring, are used when erosion must be stopped along a specific
zone or line. Revetments are frequently used to provide toe
protection along bluffs. They can be constructed of individual
armor units or of interlocking ones. Any number of materials
and techniques can reduce the erosive forces of waves, e~g.
concrete, rock, grouted tires, nylon bags and tubes.

However, the most effective ones are designed to withstand specific
storm and lake level conditions. A bedding layer of stones, gravel,
and filter cloth is essential for all intermediate and permanent
life revetments to prevent scouring during wave attack and wave
run-up. Tie-backs are often needed to prevent flanking at the ends.

Revetments are the most common form of shore protection along
Wiscnsi's Great Lakes shoreline. Their popularity can be largely
attributed to material availability, ease of deployment, and their
low to moderate cost. The installation of small revetment units
can be done on a "do-it-yourself" basis. Also, because they can
be deployed very quickly, they can be used as temporary solutions

-135-

during emergency conditions, e.g. stone or rock riprap. Erosion
rates and hazards can often be reduced on a spot-by-spot basis
with revetment techniques.

When used as temporary or emergency devices, revetments are subject
to extensive, and sometimes immediate, failure due to flanking,
overtopping, and scouring. Such failures may add to the costs of
constructing more permanent solutions. Revetments do not protect
the foreshore beach and they can accelerate erosion rates on
adjacent properties. Aesthetically, revetments may seriously
alter the shoreline setting, particularly when loose dumping is
used. Beach access and use can be seriously hampered by revetments.
Upon failure, many materials can prove to be long-term hazards
for swimmers and beach users. Maintenance costs for temporary and
intermediate life structures are likely to be high and continuous.

Construction Materials:
Sorted quarrystone, used for intermediate and long life solutions.
Unsorted stone and rock (riprap); not recommended except under
emergency conditions).
Nylon bags; either filled with grout or sand.
Longard tubes; one single or several stacked.
Tires; grouted and anchored.
Precast concrete; interlocking blocks or cobblestones, nami rings.

Costs: (initial construction per linear foot)
General cost range -- $60 - $250
Stone or rock (riprap) -- $60 - $100
Stone or rock (long life) -- $125 - $180
Sand-filled nylon bags -- $60 - $90
Anchored rubber tires with sand -- $110 - $150

6. Seawalls and Bulkheads

Definition: Vertical structures, often designed as walls, constructed
along the backshore zone or bluff toe to resist wave attack and,
in the case of bulkheads, to hold back earthen materials.

Planning Considerations: Although closely linked, seawalls and bulk-
heads have differing primary purposes. Seawalls are generally
more massive in character and are designed to withstand full wave
attack. Bulkheads are normally designed to retain and support
earthen materials with the secondary function of resisting wave
attack. To serve in these capacities for any length of time,
both techniques require highly durable materials which are
specifically designed for site geologic and wave setting
conditions, Seawalls are particularly viable options near steep
offshore zones. Both techniques are used in conjunction with
upper bluff stabilization. Curved or irregular surfaces can be
built into these devices to better dissipate wave energy. Bulk-
heads require strong and flexible anchoring and connecting
techniques, e.g. deadmen, timber whalers, cables. Adequate
protection against scouring, washout, and flanking is essential
for both techniques.

-136-

As long as they are properly placed, designed, and constructed,
seawalls and bulkheads provide reliable, long-term protection for
the shoreline. Also, they greatly enhance the viability and
durability of upper bluff stabilization activities. With careful
design, seawalls, and bulkheads may not seriously affect shore-
line aesthetics. Beach use and access can be facilitated through
the construction of stepped walls, access corridors, and ladder
systems. Maintenance costs are normally relatively low, assuming
proper design and construction. Major storms can cause some
settling, scour, and displacement.

Seawalls and bulkheads have not been widely used in Wisconsin
except around marinas, harbors, and public facilities. Not only
are they more expensive than other armoring techniques, generally
over $150 per foot, but they are not universally applicable to
the entire shoreline. Generally, they are not suited to "do-it-
yourself" projects. Low.-cost versions of these devices should be
carefully analyzed prior to implementation. Accelerated erosion
of the immediate fronting (foreshore) beach and unprotected
flank area are common effects of seawall and/or bulkhead projects.
These structures may limit some recreational and natural shoreline
uses.

Construction Materials: (Seawalls)
Nylon bags; grout filled and anchored.
Longard tubes; single or stacked.
Steel sheet pile; often reinforced.
Concrete; poured-in-place or precast blocks.

Costs: (initial construction per linear foot - seawalls)
General cost range -- $120 - $500
Grout-filled nylon bags -- $100 - $150
Massive, concrete wall -- $500 - $650
Longard tubes -- $150 - $350

Construction Materials: (Bulkheads)
Steel sheet pile.
Timber piles.
Concrete; piles and poured-in-place.

Costs: (initial construction per linear foot - bulkheads)
General cost range -- $90 - $300
Timber piles -- $30 - $150
Sheet steel piles -- $175 - $300
Concrete piles -- $120 - $250

7. Bluff Stabilization Methods

Definition: Any technique or management activity which increases the
overall stability of soil and subsoil horizons in bluffs by reducing
or removing those factors creating instability, e.g. groundwater
seepage, steep slopes, hydrostatic pressures, surface water runoff.

-137-

planning Consideraticn~s: Where bluffs in excess of ten feet adjoin the
shoreline, the geotechnical and hydrogeologic aspects of shoreline
erosion should be investigated. Aside from the undercutting action
of waves at the bluff toe, a number of factors can contribute to
bluff recession. They include a steep angle of repose, ground-
water movements which cause sapping and sloughing, exposed bluff
faces, sand or silt lenses, surface water runoff, and upland manage-
ment practices. Thus, armament of the bluff toe does not ensure
the permanent cessation of erosion processes.

A wide range of techniques have been devised to increase the
stability of coastal bluffs. Generally, they either attempt to
remove soil and excess groundwater, prevent or reduce surface
water movement and infiltration in the bluff area, or armor and
protect the bluff face. Techniques which accomplish these objectives
include terracing, retaining walls, regrading, granular backfills,
dewatering wells, horizontal drains, catch basins with outlet pipes,
epoxy soil binders, and vegetating. In determining which technique
is best suited to a given bluff setting, specialized geologic and
hydrologic equipment and expertise is often needed. Along high
bluffs with seepage problems, several techniques may have to be
implemented. Regrading and terracing may be impractical where
upland buildings are close to the bluff edge.

By including bluff stabilization in erosion control programs, bluff
recession can be reduced more quickly and shore armament devices
will normally perform better -- and last longer. Some stabilization
techniques which are land management oriented can be implemented on
a "do-it-yourself" basis. Access to the bluff is normally not limited
by water level conditions, except when oversteepened slopes are pre-
sent. Once completed, maintenance requirements are normally moderate
but continual for most techniques, e.g. reseeding, pipe cleaning,
addition of granular material. Bluff stabilization and management
does not normally adversely affect aesthetics and shoreline use.

Generally, bluff stabilization requires careful planning and design
prior to implementation. In many cases, bluff stability can be
increased through improved upland management techniques. Consulta-
tions with soil scientists, geologists, hydrogeologists, and engineers
may be necessary to develop a total site plan. Costs for high bluffs
with complex geotechnical/hydrologic problems can be very high.
When the costs of toe/beach protection are added to those costs
associated with bluff stability, many coastal property owners and
managers may find it difficult to readily finance large projects.

Construction Materials:
Pipes and tiles; metal, plastic, and clay,
Pumps.
Granular fill and soil binders.
Plastic sheets and liners.
Grasses, schrubs, and trees.
Steel or timber retaining walls.

-138-

Costs: (initial construction)
6-foot deep trench with drain pipe -- $1.50 - $3.00 per foot.
15-foot deep trench with drain pipe -- $12.00 - $15.00 per foot.
Surface water drop-outlet -- $3000 - $4000 per project.
12-inch well discharge pump and pipe -- $35.00 per foot plus
$500 for pump.
Reinforced earth methods (concrete) -- $17.00 - $20.00 per
square foot of wall.

-139-

APPENDIX E: PRINCIPAL SOURCES OF FINANCIAL AND
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE RELATED TO

EROSION HAZARDS IN WISCONSIN

APPENDIX PRINCIPAL* FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

RELATED TO EROSION HAZARDS IN WISCONSIN

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

PROGRAM SPONSORING ITYPE OF ASSISTANCE PROGRAM CONTACT
AGENCY SCOPE CONDITIONS OF ASSISTANCE

Emergency U.S. Army Corps Construction of remedial works under Only public entities are Lake Michigan:
Protection of of Engineers (COE) emergency conditions for essential public eligible. Emergency Chicago District,
public facilities facilities, e.g. highways, bridges, conditions must be documented COE
(Section 14 X X intakes, Not to exceed $250,000 per and a reconnaissance study Lake Superior:
projects) project. must be conducted. St. Paul District,
COE

S-all beach erosion Design and construction of remedial works, Only public entities are
control projects and restoration of shorelines. For non- eligible. Applicant must
(Section 103 i f federal lands a 50% match is required; a participate in project. A
projects) X X 30% match may be required for parks/ reconnaissance investigationf
conservation areas. Federal funds limited must be conducted before
to $1 million per project. approval.

Correction of Study impacts of navigation projects and Both public entities and
federal navigation correct (lessen) damages to the maximum private sector interests are
project erosion -- reasonable extent, Federal government eligible. Damages must be
(Section 111 A X will cover all costs up to $1 million per attributable to a federal
projects) project. Projects above $1 million must structure.
be approved by Congress.

Technical and Services provided can include site Limited to non-federal
engineering inspections, consultations, technical public entities. Services
A assistance for X aid, design reviews, and construction must be officially requested.
public entities inspections. Projects are handled This program is intended
I (Section 55 promptly within the limits of avail- for open and/or unprotected
projects) able resources. shores.
Resource conser- U.S. Department Permits multi-county land management/ Upland erosion control must be County (District)
vation and of Agriculture; pollution control projects. Would be most a lesignated objective. Local Soil and Water
development Soil Conservation X X helpful for upper bluff management. Only governments or non-profit Conservation Office
projects Service (SCS) two R.C.&D, areas are approved: Py-Ru-Tau agencies must initiate
and lumberjack along Lake Superior. (sponsor) a project,

Conservation Technical assistance provided for site Cooperator status increases
assistance evaluations, upland device designs and request priority. Coastal
(operations) vegetation plantings to property owners priorities are established
and public entities upon request. Assist- by local soil and water
ance rendered based on resource avail- conservation district.
ability and coastal priorities.

Small watershed Could provide land management assistance Area must be officially
projects in direct drainage watersheds along shore- delineated and a plan is
(P.L. 566 line. Maximum funding without congres- required. Local governments
projects) X X sional approval is $1 million. Cost-sharing or non-profit agencies must
is worked out with individual land owners initiate (sponsor) a project.
in project area.

Rural credit U.S. Department Competitive loans for many conservation/ A farm improvement plan is FmHA; County office
program; soil of Agriculture; land management purposes to working farms. needed along with documen- or state office
and water loans Farmers Home X Maximum loan principal is $100,000 per tation of financing (Stevens Point)
Administration project. SCS often provides technical difficulties.
(FmHA) advice on projects.

Single-family loan Competitive loans for building, improving, Financing difficulty must be
program (Section '%f ~~~~~or relocating homes in rural areas (less well documented.
program (Section x0in.Mxmmla
502 projects) than 10,000 population), Maximum loan
limit is $50,000.

Community develop- U.S. Department Could provide monies for housing-related Cities under 50,000 are the Wisconsin Department
ment grants; small of Ho-uing and prujects along the shoreline. Possible progra- focus. A housing of Local Affairs ans!
cities program Urban DevelupmuhnL ctivities include elocation assistance, component for low and Development (DLAD)
(HUD) Xsewer/water/curb improvements, and limited moderate income families is
shore protection. A point system selects required. A project plan
projects for funding, must be available.

Federal disaster Can provide loans and direct payments of Federal disaster declaration DLAD; Division of
relief up to $5,000 for private individuals and status is essential, Special Emergency Government
If1~ xfamilies. HUD can cost-share up to 75% appeals may be needed for
with state. coastal hazards.

Disaster loan Small Business Can provide money for the replacement of Federal disaster declaration Small Business
assistance Administration damaged structural devices. Also, low- status is essential. Special Administration Re-
(SBA) cost loans may be released to property appeals may be needed for gional office,
owners and businesses ranging between coastal hazards. Chicago
1% and 6%.

Land and Water U.S. Department Funds to acquire lands and/or to develop Only available to public Wisconsin Department
Conservation Fund of Interior (DOI) projects for recreational/public access entities. A public need of Natural Resources;
(LAWCON) X purposes. Up to 50% local/state cost- (purpose) must he identified District office
sharing may be required. Coastal projects in a recreation plan. Recreational Aids
have a high priority. Specialist

Outdoor Recreation Wisconsin Depart- Funds to acquire lands and/or develop Only available to public
Action Program ment of Natural projects for recreational, public access, entities. Projects need to
(ORAP-200) Resources (WDNR) or pollution abatement purposes. ORAP be fit closely with program
X funds can be combined with federal monies objectives. Bonding author-
to reduce local match to 25% - 45%. ization ends in 1981.
Coastal projects have a high priority.

Wisconsin Fund Could provide some funds to reduce pollu- Area adjacent to stream must WDNR; Office of
tion from non-point sources within one be recognized in Section 208 Intergovernmental
mile of a navigable stream mouth along the plans. Shoreline and stream programs
*~f X shoreline. Local cost-share amounts will must be designated by a
range between 30% - 50%. managing agency. Funding
_I~ ~~ _ _ _ criteria are being finalized.

Shoreland-Floodplain Provides technical assistance on non- Requests be received as early WDNR; District Office
Zoning Program* structural alternatives, prima rily land as possible. Water Management
use control measures, and land management Investigator
X techniques. Assistance rendered as State Office
resources allow, Bureau of Wat er
Regulation
and Zoning

Wisconsin nigowaywsoM. l Ci aienoparLmwLn rluvicu= isL ie 5-uln .... _; , ._ Dstrict Wighway
Disaster Fund of Transportation improving of non-state highways after petition for assistance Office, DOT
(DOT) X X disaster events. DOT will pay full costs within 60 days of a disaster
to pre-disaster status, and 1 of costs to event.
l | |improve. Some shore protection costs may
be covered. l

Marine Advisory University of Can provide limited o-site and research Requests be received as early Sea Grant Program;
services program Wisconsin; Sea | asista-nce to individuals, businesses, and as possible. PRcgional Advisory
Grant College public entities for coastal engineering, Services Office
Program X problem analysis, and environmental moni-
l j | |toring assistance rendered as resources
i ~I I allow.

.isconsin toais.. iconsii Cuasta lb -o at and -si ...l ...hnical Aitanc:
Management~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Irugram dna j.....
Managemue, program |vianageletL Cu.n.ci. Iailatuc, Fioaoil.. as. itanco provided aitac ;t h� ^ bl Wisconsin Geolcgicnl
(CMP) o I ur paningannd _feibil e ity d lva direct manage- h and Natural History
| IIApplicaL must provide a 20-% ,ath; no mea"t aothoity, A special Survey
X |- sC d |ie ingle projec a eA o p .. GAC I,...... . ...aial Assitac
budget. required. Office of State
I | | | | ~~~ planning and
Energy

* Under special circumstances, a great number of additional programs may be available to residential property osners, businesses, local governments, and
state agencies when erosion concerns can be combined with other broader community objectives, e.g. economic development, community facility improvement,
water pollution abatement, housing relocation, Those agencies and programs of special interest include the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service; Economic Development Administration; Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission; Community Facility and Business/Industrial Loan Programs, Farmers
Home Administration; Section 208 Water Quality Planning, Environmental Protection Agency; and Department of Housing and Urban Development.

APPENDIX F

ISSUANCE OF WATER REGULATORY PERMITS
UNDER CHAPTER 30,
WISCONSIN STATUTES

The generalized procedure for Chapter 30 permits is set out in Manual
Code 3506.1 (Figure 1). Under this process the applicant submits a permit
request to the district director. In the Northwest and Lake Michigan dis-
tricts, the district office fields the application out to the appropriate
area office for investigation (Figure 2). In the Southeast district, which
has no area offices, the field investigation is conducted by the district
office. Copies of the application are also sent by the district office to
the central office (Bureaus of Water Regulation and Zoning and Environmental
Impact) and to the .county zoning administrator.

Field review is conducted by the area fish manager, the area wildlife
manager, the area conservation warden, and the area water management investi-
gator in the Northwest and Lake Michigan districts and by their functionial
counterparts in the Southeast district office. The field report is primarily
environmental (Form 3500-23). It examines impacts on fish, considering the
value of the species, its class and abundance; impacts on productivity, espe-
cially the effect on nursery and spawning areas; habitat, including bottom
type and vegetation; wildlife (considering their value and abundance); the
stability of the shoreline; flood plain and shoreland zoning considerations
(zoning classification; present land use within 300 feet of the shoreline;
conflicts with NR 115 or 116, Wis. Adm. Code; and the existence of other
required regulatory authority - village or city, town, county, and federal
(Corps of Engineers); special environmental considerations (aesthetic values,
for example); and the overall impact on the environment, considering the
ecological diversity of the area and its contribution to the stability of
the lake. In addition to these environmental considerations, the water regu-
lation investigation also looks at present public use of the project site
(for navigation, hunting, fishing, trapping, swimming, etc.); the presence
of areas of historic, scientific, or archeological value; and the impact on
adjacent property owners. Copies of the field report are sent to the central
office for review. In addition, the central office will be consulted where
technical input beyond that available at the district level is required.

The area supervisor will return the completed field report to the district
office with the area off ice's recommendations: no objection or objection on
the basis of written facts. Manual Code 3551.1 requires the district's evalu-
ation to reflect standards for flood plain management (under Sec. 87.30, Wis.
Stats, and NR 116, Wis. Adm. Code), shoreland standards (under See. 144.26,
Wis. Stats, and NR 115, Wis. Adm. Code) and erosion hazards (under Executive
Order 67, dated 11/26/73).

Once the field report is deemed sufficient, the application is forwarded
to the district's environmental impact coordinator for assessment pursuant to
NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code. The impact coordinator will prepare Form 1600-1, the
environmental impact assessment screening worksheet. The EIA considers the
existing environment, the purpose of and need for the project, all beneficial
and adverse impacts (physical, biological, economic and social), the probability
of adverse impacts that cannot be avoided, any irreversible or irretrievable
commitments of resources, and the possibility of implementing reasonable alter-
natives. On this basis, the impact coordinator will evaluate any perceived

-142-

secondary effects, new environmental effects, the effects on geographically
scarce resources, energy impacts, economic impacts and social impacts. In
the course of this evaluation , the following questions will be answered:
will the action be precedent-setting? Do reasonable alternatives exist?
How controversial is the project? Will it be consistent with long-range
policies and plans? Are there foreseeable cumulative impacts which are major
or significant? What is the impact on historic, scientific or archeological
sites? Will future options be foreclosed?

On the basis of the field report and the environmental impact assessment
worksheet, a final assessment, consisting of both a technical analysis and
professional opinion, will be made of the probable environmental impact of
the proposed project. If the permit request is not subject to notice and
hearing under Sections 30,02 and 31.06, Wis. Stats0, the district director
will proceed to grant or deny the request at this point. Summary action
can be taken on applications for bulkhead lines under Section 30,11, Wis.
Stats. (although adoption of a municipal ordinance does require notice
and hearing); sand blankets, fish cribs and riprap under Section 30.12,
Wis. Stats.; and dredging under Section 30.20, Wis. Stats. All are processed
almost entirely at the district level, although informal interaction with
the central office is maintained regarding questions which cannot be locally
answered.

The reasons for exempting certain types of permit actions from the require-
ments of notice and hearing is based on the legislative judgment that most pro-
jects of these types are of relatively minor public impact and generally are
noncontroversial in nature. That is, past experience indicates a lack of
public concern for the great majority of these projects. Of course, an addi-
tional consideration is expediting the process vis-a-vis the applicant,
making it easier both in terms of the expense and the time involved (Meyer
1978).

In particular, riprap permits are excluded because the right to protect
property against the action of water by building works along the banks is
a basic riparian right at common law. installing riprap is also important
to erosion control. Therefore, it was thought desirable to make the process
short and simple. Similarly, the desirability of fish cribs for fish manage-
ment purposes encouraged simplification of the permit review process (Meyer
1978),

All other types of permit requests, namely applications for structures
under Section 30.12, Wis. Stats, and waterway enlargements under Section 30.19,
Wis. Stats., are subject to notice and hearing. In lieu of once-mandatory
hearing requirements, however, permits of this type are now subject to the
so-called 30-day notification procedure (Chapter 90, Laws of 1973).

Section 31.06, Wis. Stats. provides that upon receipt of an application
for a permit, the department may order a hearing of its own accord, or it
may waive the hearing requirement absent a specific request for one being
submitted within 30 days. The district office will send copies of the notice
to DNR personnel (the Bureau of Legal Services, the Bureau of Water Quality,
the Bureau of Environmental Impact, the Bureau of Water Regulation and Zoning
and the Office of Coastal Zone Management), the Scientific Areas Preservation

-143-

Council, the Department of Health and Social Services, the State Board of
Soil and Water Conservation Districts, the attorney general's office, various
environmental groups, the applicant, the local zoning administrator, county
and municipal clerks, adjacent property owners and the Corps of Engineers.
In addition, the central office sends notification to the local newspaper for
informational purposes. The applicant is required to publish notice as well
in each county in which affected riparian lands are located (Lawry 1978).

After publication of notice, the district must wait 30 days before con-
tinuing the permit review process. If no objections are received, the water
management investigator consults with the environmental impact coordinator
and submits recommendations to the district director. The district director
will then approve or deny the permit. Copies of the district's order are
sent to the Bureaus of Water Regulation and Zoning, Legal Services and Environ-
mental Impact and to the county zoning administrator.

If there are written objections to a particular project, the water manage-
ment investigator will draft a memo to Madison requesting a hearing and trans-
ferring the environmental assessment and other files to the Bureaus of Water
Regulation and Zoning, and Legal Services. Objections may be initiated from
within the department itself or from without. If the objections are made on
the basis of written fact and are deemed to be reasonable, a hearing will be
held. At the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing examiner will determine
whether a permit will be issued. From that point on, the process is in the
hands of the central office (Manual Code 3505.1).

Source: "The Role of the Department of Natural
Resources in the Protection of the Public
Interest Along Navigable Waters,"
Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
Working Paper, April 1978.

-144-

APPENDIX G

CALIFORNIA SHORELINE EROSION PROTECT ION POLICY

I.General

Development of the lands adjacent ot large bodies of water carries with it
an element of danger from wave action, which can threaten the safety of
public and private property and recreational values.

It is the policy of the Resources Agency that the use of these lands avoid
hazardous and costly situations caused by erosion and minimize or resolve
existing problems. Only in those situations where structures or areas of
public use are threatened should the State resort to funding or approving
remedial projects. When necessary, projects should restore natural pro-
cesses, retain shoreline characteristics, and provide recreational bene-
fits to the extent possible.

I.Planning and Regulation

A. In planning for the use of land adjacent to the shoreline, State
agencies shall assure the following:

1. Effective land use plans and regulations to prevent existing and
future developments from being endangered by erosion of sand
beaches or the base of bluffs;

2. Measures to reduce surface runoff, groundwater effects, and other
activities that create bluff stability problems;

3. Measures for the orderly demolition or relocation of damaged or
threatened structures and facilities and for the disposition of
parcels of land that cannot be safely developed.

B. Projects constructed within the coastal watersheds can increase the
natural shoreline erosion rates by blocking the flow of sediment to
the shoreline. It is therefore the policy of the Resources Agency
that developments planned, developed, or authorized by State agencies
shall meet al least one of the following conditions:

1. The development, together with other adjacent developments
allowed under local land use regulations, will not reduce the
natural sediment beyond that needed to adequately supply the
shoreline;

2. Mitigation measures to include providing an adequate sediment
sup~ply are included as a part of the project; or

3. A regional plan exists that would provide an adequate supply of
sand to protect the shoreline, even if the development is
permitted.

-145-

C. Beach and dune sand, and similar sediment lying in river beds,
estuaries or in harbor channels is a valuable resource that should
be used for shoreline protection. It is, therefore, the policy
of the Resources Agency that all such dredge or excavation material
removed within the coastal zone or near-shore waters, which is suit-
able in quantity, size, distribution, and chemical constituency, be
discharged as follows:

1. Directly onto a natural beach in an appropriate manner for
effective beach nourishment and in a manner to protect signi-
ficant natural resources and the public use of such resources
at those locations; or

2. When beach nourishment is not needed or appropriate at the time
of dredging, the sand should be deposited at locations for
eventual use for beach nourishment, provided that suitable
locations are available and steps are taken to protect both
significant natural resources and the public use of such resources
at those locations; or

3. In those instances where quantity, distribution, or chemical
constituency of dredge or excavation material limit its use as
described in paragraphs one and two, the material should be used
to optimize its mineral values or its utility as construction
material;

D. Under California law, artificially induced shoreline accretions do
not affect property boundaries. To preserve evidence of the position
of reconstruction boundaries, it shall be the policy of the Resources
Agency that before approving any shoreline erosion control measure, a
Record of Survey map shall be filed with the State Lands Commission
to preserve and protect public and private boundaries showing at
least the following:

1. An accurate positioning of the present, preconstruction,
high-water line;

2. Sufficient ties to at least two existing record monuments, which
will not be disturbed by proposed construction;

3. The accurate position of any monument shown on a map filed in an
office of public record, and which will be disturbed by the
proposed construction, together with a plan to replace the
monument in its original position or to nearby record monuments.

E. The plahning and improvement of parks and beaches should be done in a
way consistent with protection against the potential erosion of the
affected segment of the coastline, and any structures located in areas
subject to erosion damage should be expendable or moveable.

-146-

III. Shoreline Protection Projects

Shoreline protection projects are proposed by both private parties and
public agencies. It is the policy of the Resources Agency that the
following policies should be followed when evaluating project applications:

A. Nourishment of beaches to protect against erosion shall be encouraged
where the following conditions are met:

1. This does not conflict with significant living marine resources;

2. This will not result in adverse effects elsewhere on the coast;
and

3. Measures are included in the project to maintain the affected
beaches in a nourished state.

B. Construction of seawalls, revetments, breakwaters, or other artificial
structures for coastal erosion control shall be discouraged unless
each of the following criteria is met:

1. No other non-structural alternative is practical or preferable;

2. The condition causing the problem is site specific and not
attributable to a general erosion trend, or the project reduces
the need for a number of individual projects and solves a regional
erosion problem;

3. It can be shown that a structure(s) will successfully mitigate
the effects of shoreline erosion and will not adversely affect
adjacent or other sections of the shoreline;

4. There will be no reduction in public access, use, and enjoyment
of the natural shoreline environment, and construction of a
structure will preserve or provide access to related public
recreational lands or facilities;

5, Any project-caused impacts on fish and wildlife resources will be
offset by adequate fish and wildlife preservation measures; and

6. The project is to protect existing development, public beaches or
a coastal-dependent use.

C. No project shall be approved that will cause loss or destruction of
State mineral resources, or that will subject State mineral rights to
trespasq. All royalty considerations shall be determined by the
State Lands Commission and implemented pursuant to the terms of a
permit or lease granted by the Commission.

IV. Project Financing

A. It shall be the policy of the Resources Agency to recommend State
financial participation in shoreline erosion protection projects only

-147-

when all of the following conditions are met:

1. The protection project considers the long term effects of erosion
on all adjacent coastline sections subjected to similar or related
erosional mechanisms and takes into consideration the needs of the
entire region;

2. Any project-caused impacts on fish and wildlife will be offset
by adequate fish and wildlife preservation measures;

3. The public benefits including the long term environmental, social,
and economic effect of the project are found to be greater than
the public costs. The coastal section to be protected should
contain substantial and valuable public-owned lands or facilities
of greater value than the cost of the proposed project, or the
protection scheme should provide, maintain, or improve the public
use and enjoyment of the beach or shoreline;

4. The project plan should use non-structural solutions such as
beach nourishment as the recommended alternative or as a part
of the recommended alternative, unless it is not feasible;

5. Public access is provided to the shoreline area where the pro-
tection project is to be carried out unless the area is unsafe.

B. In an emergency situation when erosion is threatening structures,
State agencies should respond immediately by offering technical
assistance for temporary protective actions. Assistance should first
be directed to emergency situations involving public assets.

Source: California Coastal Commission,
September, 1978.

-148-

APPENDIX H

MARYLAND LOAN FUND FOR EROSION CONTROL PROJECTS

Section 8-1002. Powers and duties of Department.

The Department shall:

(1) Develop and implement a program to educate the public on every
phase of shore and bank erosion, its causes and effects, the
locations where erosion is a problem, and steps to be taken to
control it;

(2) Review petitions for formation of shore erosion control districts
presented to any county and report to the county as provided in
Article 25, 5 167B of the code;

(3) Provide technical assistance to individual property owners, muni-
cipalities, and counties having specific shore and bank erosion
problems;

(4) Design, or cause to be designed, shore erosion control structures,
including vegetative cover, in shore erosion control districts;

(5) Enter into agreements with any person to construct shore erosion
control structures;

(6) Administer the fund to provide loans to any person in support of
construction of shore erosion control structures;

(7) Supervise or provide supervision of design and erection of any
shore protective device the fund finances in whole or part;

(8) Prepare requests for appropriation of funds necessary to maintain
the fund;

(9) Cooperate with the following units: The State Highway Administra-
tion for shore erosion control where essential to protect municipal,
county or state roads; the United States Army Corps of Engineers
to conduct shore erosion studies; and the Soil Conservation Service
of the United States Department of Agriculture to evaluate and
apply vegetative measures for shore erosion control;

(10) Design, construct, and maintain shore erosion control works on state-
owned lands if these projects are included in the Budget for the Fund;

(11) Actively seek to obtain available funds from the Federal Government
for shore erosion control projects; and

(12) Promulgate rules and regulations to implement this subtitle.

-149-

Section 8-1003. Shore Erosion Control Projects.

(A) Application for assistance in project. The owner of any property
abutting on any body of water in the State may file a written appli-
cation with the Department requesting State assistance in the design,
construction, and financing of a shore erosion control project for
the property. The application shall be in a form and contain inf or-
mation the Department prescribes. Each application form shall contain
a notice warning that the applicant is responsible for maintenance of
any project after it is constructed.

(B) Location of project. A project may not be approved unless it lies within
a physiographic unit established by the Department; is within a shore
erosion control district established under Article 25, SS 161 - 167E,
inclusive, of the code, or is of a nature that its inclusion within a
physiographic unit or shore erosion control district is neither necessary
nor feasible in the Department's judgment.

(C) Participation of every property owner required for approval of physio-
graphic unit project. A physiographic unit project may not be approved
unless every property owner within the physiographic unit participates
in planning, construction, and financing of the project. However, the
Department may exclude any property owner within the physiographic unit
if this exclusion does not affect materially the remainder of the project.

(D) Schedule of priorities for projects. The Department shall establish a
schedule of priorities for shore erosion control projects, and upon
approval of an application, assign the project to a priority list number.
The schedule shall take into consideration the rate of erosion, amount
of silt being deposited in the waters involved, date of Department's
approval, nature and amount of public benefits provided by the project,
and any other factors set forth in rules and regulations the Department
promulgates. If at any time the cost of an approved project at the top
of the priority list exceeds the unobligated balance of the fund, the
Department may proceed with construction of a lower priority project.

(E) Property owner's cash contribution placed in escrow. The property owner's
cash contribution shall be placed in escrow immediately after a construc-
tion contract is awarded but before construction begins.

Section 8-1004. General Fund appropriation to be included in operating
Budget of the Department.

The operating budget of the Department shall contain a general fund appro-
priation sufficient to provide engineering, technical, and administrative
services required to implement SS 8-1002 and 8-1003 or this subtitle, including
but not limited to, review and evaluation of requests for assistance in shore
erosion control; design of shore erosion control structures and projects;
supervision over construction of approved projects; and inspection of completed
projects to insure adequate maintenance. Costs of the services enumerated in
this section are not considered part of the construction cost of the project
and shall be borne solely by the State.

-150-

Section 8-1005. Shore Erosion Control Construction Loan Fund; Construction
of project; payment of contractor; levy of tax; maintenance
of completed projects; funds for State-owned properties.

(A) The "Shore Erosion Control Construction Loan Fund" is created and con-
tinued. The Department shall administer the fund solely to provide
interest-free loans to persons, municipalities, or counties for con-
struction of shore erosion structures. The fund shall be maintained by:

(1) Repayments of principal on loans made from the fund, with the repay-
ments made through a special real estate tax the State levies on
privately owned property benefited by shore erosion control projects.
The tax shall compensate the State for net project construction
cost. The tax may be levied at a uniform rate over a period not
exceeding 25 years, as the State and the property owner agree; and

(2) Annual appropriation of general funds to restore the fund to a level
sufficient to carry out an effective shore erosion control construc-
tion loan program during the succeeding year.

A property owner whose project is approved is eligible to receive an
interest-free loan covering 100 percent of the first $40,000 of project con-
struction cost, 50 percent of the next $20,000 of project construction cost,
25 percent of the next $20,000 of project construction cost, and ten percent
of the part of construction cost exceeding $80,000. However, where two or
more property owners are included within a shore erosion control project, and
project construction costs exceed $80,000, the land of each property owner is
considered a separate shore erosion project for the purpose of computing net
project construction cost under this formula.

(1B) During the first month of each fiscal year, the Department shall submit
to the Department of Budget and Fiscal Planning as estimate of the
amount of revenues the fund expects to receive from repayment of out-
standing loans, and the amount of general funds required to reestablish
an adequate balance in the fund to make loans during the next fiscal
year.

(C) When the Department approves a shore erosion control project and signs
an appropriate agreement with the owner of the benefited property,
stipulating how the State will be reimbursed for net project construction
cost, the Department shall proceed, within budgetary limitation, to
construct the project. On satisfactory completion of construction, any
property owner's cash contribution shall be indorsed to the credit of
the contractor. The fund shall pay the balance of the payment due the
contractor. Within 30 days thereafter, the Department shall certify
to the Board of Public Works payment of the construction costs and trans-
mit a copy of the agreement specifying how the State will be reimbursed
for the net project construction cost. The Board of Public Works shall
levy a special tax, beginning in the next fiscal year, on the benefited
property in conformity with this agreement.

(D) Costs to maintain shore erosion control projects are the sole responsi-
bility of the benefited property owner. The Department periodically

-151-

shall inspect these projects to recommend to the property owner any
measures required to maintain the project.

(E) Any county or any municipal corporation may borrow interest-free funds
from the fund for any approved project without the project construction
cost limitation stated in this section. The county, or municipal corpo-
ration shall repay the funds at a uniform rate over a period not exceed-
ing 25 years as stated by agreement between the State and county or
municipal corporation.

(F) Funds for shore erosion protection for state-owned properties. The
Department shall include in its budget a request for funds necessary
to provide and maintain shore erosion protection for state-owned
properties.

Source: Annotated Code of Maryland,
Natural Resources, Sections
8-1001 thru 8-1005

-152-

APPENDIX I

NORTH CAROLINA COST-SHARE PROGRAM
FOR CIVIL WORKS PROJECTS

.0101 Preamble

Pursuant to Chapter 684 of the 1963 Session Laws, an amount of one
million dollars ($1,000,000) was appropriated to the Department of Water
* ~Resources for the purposes of building sand dunes and other civil works
projects. Pursuant further to the order of the July 11, 1963 meeting of the
Advisory Budget Commission as to this appropriation and by authority of G.S.
143-354 and G.S. 143-355, the North Carolina Environmental Management Commis-
sion do enact the following rules and regulations contained in this Section.

.0102 Cost Sharing on Federally Programmed and Funded Projects

Certain portions of funds appropriated to the Department of Water
Resources by Chapter 684, Session Laws of 1963, may be used for the purpose
of permitting state participation in the costs of planning, construction,
operation and maintenance of civil works projects selected by the North
Carolina Environmental Management Commission, which shall have been approved
by or pursuant to the laws enacted by the United States Congress as a part
of its program for the planning, construction, operation and maintenance of
civil works projects within the State of North Carolina; provided, however,
that 80 percent of the total non-federal costs of any particular civil works
project, as hereinafter defined, as calculated during any particular fiscal
year, shall be expended from the said appropriation by the Department of
Natural and Economic Resources, and that the remaining 20 percent of the total
non-federal costs of said particular project shall be appropriated by the
local political subdivision or unit of government.

.0103 Cost Sharing on Projects not Federally Programmed

Certain portions of the appropriation, as referred to in the Preamble,
Regulation .0101 of this Section, may be used for the purpose of defraying
the costs of planning, construction or operation of any civil works project,
as hereinafter defined, for which there may be no federal funds available
for any of these purposes, or if, in the opinion of the Environmental Man-
agement Commission, the federal funds available are insufficient; provided
that 80 percent of the total costs of any particular civil works project,
as calculated during any particular fiscal year shall be expended from the
said appropriation by the Department of Natural and Economic Resources, and
the remaining 20 percent shall be appropriated by the local political sub-
division or unit of government,

.0104 Projects Eligible for 100 Percent State Funding

In a case where no local political subdivision or unit of government would
have a legal obligation in a civil works project in that the State of North
Carolina owns or is in legal possession and control of the area adjacent to
the location of the proposed civil works project, as hereinafter defined, and
that in the opinion of the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission
the particular civil works project would be beneficial to the State of North

-153-

Carolina, the said commission may appropriate up to 100 percent of the total
costs of planning, construction, or operation of said civil works project if
no federal funds or funds from other sources in the opinion of the said com-
mission are available, or, if federal funds are available, up to 100 percent
of the total non-federal cost, if no funds from other sources are available,
for the planning, construction or operation of said civil works project.

.0105 20 Percent Local Funding Requirement

Expenditures from the appropriation of funds referred to in Regulations
.0102 and .0103 of this Section shall not be allocated or made until it shall
appear to the satisfaction of the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission that local governmental units or other political subdivisions of
the State of North Carolina interested in any particular civil works project
have provided or will provide the remaining 20 percent of the total non-
federal costs of any particular civil works project under Regulation .0102
of this Section, or the remaining 20 percent of the costs as to any particular
civil works project in which the state may participate under the terms and
provisions of Regulation .0103 of this Section. Donations or grants of funds
on account of or for the planning, construction, operation or maintenance of
any civil works project by non-governmental interests, private enterprise or
from any other source to the local governing body or to the North Carolina
Environmental Management Commission shall be authorized for acceptance by
the governing board of any local governmental unit and by the North Carolina
Department of Natural and Economic Resources and the North Carolina Environ-
mental Management Commission and when paid or approved to be paid to the sat-
isfaction of the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission shall be
calculated as part of the local participation in the cost of any civil works
project under Regulations .0102 and .0103 of the Section.

.0112 Special Project Requirements

The following requirements are applicable to any beach erosion control
or hurricane protection project in which the state participates by action of
the commission:

(1) Before the start of project construction, the department will estab-
lish a project protection line in accordance with the provisions of
Section 104B-11, North Carolina General Statutes. Enforcement of
this project protection line will be a responsibility of the spon-
soring local governments).

(2) Before the start of project construction, the sponsoring local govern-
ment(s), will establish land-use controls to conserve protective
dunes and to insure that the damage potential is not significantly
increased by further development. Such land-use controls must be
acceptable to the Secretary, Department of Natural and Economic
Resources.

(3) The sponsoring local governments) must provide adequate public access
to the project area.

Source: North Carolina Administrative
Code; Ner-Environmental
Management (Subchapter 2G-Water
Resources Programs).

-154-

Section .0200 - State Standards for
Non-Federal Projects

.0201 Purpose

The desired project, to be recommended by the Department of Natural
and Economic Resources for approval by the Environmental Management Com-
mission must be one which is not eligible for execution under one of the
federal water resources programs, or other state or local programs. The
objective of a program of non-federal projects in the state will be to fill
the gaps between federal programs, and not to set up a large state program,
nor one which duplicates or conflicts with federal programs.

.0202 Economic Justification Required

It shall be economically justified. It is not intended that the program
shall simply make possible projects which the federal government has found
unworthy.

.0203 Formal Approval Required

It must have the formal approval of the governing bodies of all affected
counties or municipalities.

.0204 Sound Engineering Required

The project must be soundly engineered by the local government making
the request prior to submission to the commission for approval.

.0205 Compatibility with North Carolina Water Plan

It must be compatible with the North Carolina water plan, as the
development of the plan proceeds.

.0206 Approval of All Affected State Agencies

It should have the approval of all affected state agencies, normally
those administering the fish and wildlife, state lands, ports, highways,
recreation and health.

.0207 Assumption of Responsibility by Local Governments

Local (below the state level) interests shall formally assume the
responsibility for the following, and have clearly the power to provide them
(such as the power of eminent demain, which not all counties in the state
presently have):
(1) Provision of lands, easements, and rights-of-way to provide adequate
public lands for the project;
(2) Maintenance and operation after the completion of construction;

(3) Cost-Sharing. The state will normally provide 80 percent of costs
attributable to public benefits, not including costs of lands, ease-
ments, and rights-of-way;
(4) Hold and save the state free from damages due to the project.

-155-

APPENDIX J

MICHIGAN TAX LEGISLATION FOR
SHORE PROTECTION PROJECTS

A. Property Tax Exemption (Public Act Number 187, 1973)

Enrolled Senate Bill No. 515

An act to amend Act No. 206 of the Public Acts of 1893, entitled as
amended "An act to provide for the assessment of property and the levy and
collection of taxes thereon, and for the collection of taxes heretofore and
hereafter levied; making such taxes a lien on the lands taxed, establishing
and continuing such lien, providing for the sale and conveyance of lands
delinquent for taxes and for the inspection and disposition of lands bid off
to the state and not redeemed or purchased; to define and limit the juris-
diction of the courts in proceedings in connection therewith; to limit the
time within which actions may be brought; to prescribe certain limitations
with respect to rates of taxation; to provide penalties for the violation of
this act; and to repeal all acts and parts of acts in anywise contravening
any of the provisions of this act," as amended, being sections 211.1 to 211.
157 of the Compiled Laws of 1970, by adding section 7g.

The People of the State of Michigan enact:

Section 1. Act No. 206 of the Public Acts of 1893, as amended, being sections
211.1 to 211.157 of the Compiled Laws of 1970, is amended by adding
section 7g to read as follows:

Section 7g. The value of a seawall, jetty, or groin or other structure whose
primary purpose is to prevent or control erosion on property
affected by waters or levels of the great lakes of their con-
necting waters is exempt from taxation. The department of
natural resources shall, when requested by the owner or the
assessor, determine if such seawall, jetty, groin, or other
structure has as its primary purpose the prevention or control
of erosion.

This act is ordered to take immediate effect.

B. Special Assessments Allowed (Public Act Number 143, 1976)

Enrolled House Bill No. 4432

An act to amend sections 2 and 3 of Act No. 188 of the Public Acts of
1954, entitled as amended "An act to provide for the making of certain public
improvements by townships; to provide for paying for the same by the issuance
of bonds; to provide for the levying of taxes; to provide for assessing the
whole or a part of the cost of public improvements against property benefited;
and to provide for the issuance of bonds in anticipation of the collection of
such special assessments, and for the obligation of the township thereon,"
section 2 as amended by Act No. 143 of the Public Acts of 1974, being sections
41.722 and 41.723 of the Compiled Laws of 1970; and to add section 9a.

-156-

The People of the State of Michigan enact:

Section 1. Sections 2 and 3 of Act No. 188 of the Public Acts of 1954, section
2 as amended by Act No. 143 of the Public Acts of 1974, being
sections 41.722 and 41.723 of the Compiled Laws of 1970, are
amended and section 9a is added to read as follows:

Section 2. (1) The following improvements may be made under this act:

(a) The construction arid maintenance of storm or sanitary sewers or com-
bined storm and sanitary sewers.

(b) The construction of water mains.

(c) The improvements of public highways by grading, graveling, paving,
curbing, or draining the same or constructing driveway approaches
or sidewalks thereon.

(d) The maintenance and improvement of parks or the trimming and spraying
of trees.

(e) The installation of elevated structures for foot travel over highways
in the township.

(f) The collection of garbage and rubbish.

(g) The construction, maintenance, or improvement of bicycle paths parallel
to public highways.
(h) The construction, maintenance, repair, or improvement of erosion con-
trol structures or dikes.

Section 3. An improvement shall not be made hereunder unless a petition shall
be filed with the township board, signed as follows: (a) In case
of highway improvements, by the record owners of lands whose
frontage constitutes at least 65% of the total frontage upon the
highway improvements; and (b) in case of water mains or sewers,
or erosion control structures or dikes, by record owners of lands
constituting at least 51% of the total land area in the special
assessment district as finally thereafter established by the
township board. In a township with a population in excess of
5,000, after notification by mail to the owners of lands whose
names appear on the latest tax roll, a petition shall not be
required for water mains or sewers or erosion control structures
or dikes and the township board may exercise the powers granted
by this act on its own initiative in accordance with this act,
except as they relate to a petition or action with reference
thereto, but an improvement shall not be made without petition
if the record owners of land constituting more than 20% of the
total land area in the special assessment district file their
written objections thereto with the township board at or before
the hearing described in section 4 of this act. Record owners
shall be determined as of the records in the register of deeds'
office on the day of the filing of the petition, or in case
written objections are filed as above provided, then on the day

-157-

of the hearing. In determining the sufficiency of the petition,
lands not subject to special assessment and lands within public
highway and alleys shall not be included in computing frontage
or assessment district area. Any filed petition may be supple-
mented as to signatures by the filing of an additional signed
copy or copies thereof, and in that case the validity of the
signatures thereon shall be determined by the records on the day
of filing the supplemental petition.

Section 9a. (1) An owner of property who by reason of hardship is unable to
contribute to the cost of an assessment for an improvement
authorized in section 2(1) (a),(b),(c),(g), or (h) may have the
assessment deferred by application to the assessing officer.
Upon receipt of evidence of hardship, the township may defer
partial or total payment of the assessment.
(2) The township board of trustees may enact an ordinance to
define hardship and to permit deferred or partial payment of
an assessment pursuant to this section. As a condition of
granting the deferred or partial payment of an assessment, the
township board shall require that any deferred assessment will
constitute a recorded lien against the property.

This act is ordered to take immediate effect.

APPENDIX K SELECTED LAND USE INFORMATION ON
INCORPORATED AND UNINCORPORATED
COASTAL AREAS

INFORMATION ON COASTAL UNINCORPORATED AREAS

General Zoninq

Shoreland Floodplain Subdivision Sanitary # of Coastal Towns # adopting # adopting # w/o Gen.
Counties Zoning Zoning Ordinance Code w/shore Frontage Co. Gen. Zoning Town Zoning Zoning

Douglas yes no yes yes 3 3 0

Bayfield yes no yes yes 9 9 0 0

Ashland yes no yes yes 2 1 1 0

Iron yes no yes yes 1 1 0 0

Door yes yes yes yes 12 4 0 8

Marinette yes no no no 1 N/A 1 0

Oconto yes yes yes yes 4 2 1 1

Kewaunee yes yes no yes 5 N/A 0 5

Brown yes yes yes yes 3 N/A 2 1

Manitowoc yes yes yes yes 5 3 1 1

Sheboygan yes yes yes yes 4 N/A 4 0

Ozaukee yes yes yes yes 3 N/A 3 0

Racine yes yes yes yes 2 1 1 0

Kenosha yes yes yes yes 2 2 0 0

Milwaukee N/A N/A N/A N/A No Civil Towns .. N/A N/A N/A

5 no 2 no 1 no

SOURCE: WISCONSIN OFFICE OF STATE PLANNING AND ENERGY, 1976.

INFORMATION OF COASTAL INCORPORATED AREAS

Miles of Population Legal Zoning
NAME: Shore Frontage (1974 Estimates) Classification Ordinance Ordinance
!Estimated_) Ordinance

SOUTHEAST

1. Bayside 2.08 4,690 Village Yes Yes
2. Cudahy 2.58 22,120 3rd Class Yes Yes
3. Fox Point 2.77 8,039 Village Yes Yes
4. Kenosha -T-T 82,839 2nd Class Yes Yes
5. Mequon 6.06 14,271 4th Class Yes Yes
6. Milwaukee 8.33 683,146 .t Clasi Yes Yes
7. S. Milwaukee 3.13 23,881 4th Class Yes Yes
8. North Bay .34 253 Village Yes No
9. Oak Creek 4.45 15,672 4th ClassYe Yes
10. Port Washington 27 - 9,538 4th Class Yes Yes
11. Racine 5.02 94,905 2nd Class Yes Yes
12. Shorewood 1.23 14.874 VillmP Yes Yes
13. St. Francis 1.89 9,995 7th Class Yes Yes
14. Whitefish Bay 2.77 16,699 Village Yes No
15. 'lind Point 2.56 1,320 Village Yes Yes

BAY-LAKE

Q 1. Algorma 2.63 3,951 4th Class Yes Yes
2. Cleveland 1.14 934 Village Yes Yes
3. Eg9_Harbor 5.32 204 Village No
4. Ephrainm 448W 242 Village Yes No
5. Green Bay 10.10 85,541 2nd Class Yes Yes
6. Howard 4.22' 6,042 Village Yes Yes
7. Kewaunee 2.33 2,935 4th Class Yes No
6. Manitowoc 5.18 33,063 3rd Class Yes
9. Marinette 3.33 12,272 3rd �lass Yes Yes
10. Ocorto 3.00 5,000 4th Class Yes No
11. Sheboygan 5.54 49.246 2nd Class Yes
12. Sister Bay 2.66 535 village Yes Yes
13. Sturgeon Bay 8.66 7,212 4th Class Yes
14. Two Rivers 3.26 13,400 3rd Class Yes Yes

NORTHWEST

1. Ashland 8.48 9,255 3rd Class Yes No
2. Bayfield 1.36 841 4th Class Yes
3. Superior 11.89 31,183 2nd Class Yes No
4. Washburn 3.75 2,009 4th Class Yes Yes

No
TOTALS

33 Incorporated 137.75 1,239,107 22 Cities
areas on the 11 Villages
Great Lakes 22% of Coastline 64% of Coastal Counties' Population 32 of 33

27% of State Population

APPENDIX L

CHAPTER NR 115, WISCONSIN'S ADMINISTRATIVE
CODE: SHORELAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

NR 115.01 Introduction. (1) The water resources act (chapter 614, laws of
1965) requires counties to enact regulations for the protection of all shore-
lands in unincorporated areas by January 1, 1968. Shorelands as defined by
the law are lands within 1,000 feet of a navigable lake, pond or flowage and
lands within 300 feet of a river or navigable stream or to the landward side
of the floodplain, whichever distance is greater.

(2) The statute defines the purposes of regulations enacted for shoreland
protection: "to further the maintenance of safe and healthful conditions;
prevent and control water pollution; protect spawning grounds, fish and aquatic
life; control building sites, placement of structures and land uses and reserve
shore cover and natural beauty."

NR 115.02 Nature of the program. (1) The water resources act creates section
59.971, Wis. Stats., which requires the zoning of shorelands in the unincorpo-
rated areas of each county. Such zoning shall not require the approval of
the town boards. To assure that such zoning will be accomplished, section
59.971 (6), Wis. Stats., states that if any county does not adopt an ordinance
by January 1, 1968, or if the department, after notice and hearing, determines
that a county had adopted an ordinance which fails to meet reasonable minimum
standards in accomplishing the shoreland protection objectives, the department
shall adopt such an ordinance.

(2) To comply with the water resources act, it is necessary for a county
to enact shoreland regulations, including zoning provisions, land division
controls, sanitary regulations and administrative provisions ensuring enforce-
ment of the regulations.

(3) It is the policy of the department, in the discharge of its responsi-
bility under section 144.26, to require adherence to certain specific standards
and criteria. The standards and criteria are intended to define the objectives
of the regulations.

NR 115.03 Shoreland regulation standards and criteria. (1) ESTABLISHMENT OF
APPROPRIATE ZONING DISTRICTS. Shoreland area development can usually be con-
trolled by regulations appropriate to wetlands (conservancy district), recreation-
residential districts and general purpose districts. Where detailed land use
planning has been accomplished, other types of districts may also be desirable.

(2) ESTABLISHMENT OF LAND USE ZONING REGULATIONS. The zoning provisions
adopted must provide sufficient control of the use of shorelands to afford
the protection of water quality as specified in Wis. Adm. Code chapters NR 102
and 103. The provisions shall include the following:

(a) Minimum lot sizes. All future lots in the shoreland area shall
afford protection against danger to health and hazard of pollution
of the adjacent body of water.

-161-

1. Lots served by public sewer shall have a minimum width of 65
feet and a minimum area of 10,000 square feet.

2. Lots not served by public sewer shall have a minimum average
width of 100 feet and a minimum area of 20,000 square feet.

(b) Building setbacks. The permitted location of buildings and
structures shall conform to health requirements, preserve natural
beauty and reduce flood hazards.

1. Unless an existing development pattern exists, a setback of 75
feet from the normal high waterline shall be required.
2. No building shall be erected in the floodway of a stream (see
chapter NR 116, definitions).

3. Boathouses or similar structures which require a waterfront
location shall not be used for habitation nor extend toward
the water beyond the ordinary high waterline.

4. Buildings and structures shall be subject to any applicable
floodplain zoning regulations.

(c) Trees and shrubbery. The cutting of trees and shrubbery shall
be regulated to protect scenic beauty, control erosion and reduce
the flow of effluents and nutrients from the shoreland. In the
strip 35 feet inland from the normal high waterline, no more
than 30 feet in any 100 feet shall be clear cut. In other areas,
trees and shrub cutting shall be governed by consideration of the
effect on water quality and should be in accord with accepted
management practices.

(d) Filling, grading, lagooning, dredging. Filling, grading, lagoon-
ing and dredging may be permitted only in accord with state law
and where protection against erosion, sedimentation and impairment
of fish and aquatic life has been assured.

(3) ESTABLISHMENT OF SANITARY REGULATIONS. The protection of health and the
preservation and enhancement of water quality require sanitary regulations to
be adopted by the county.

(a) Where public water supply systems are not available, private well
construction shall conform to Wis. ,Adm. Code chapter NR 112.

(b) Where a public waste collection and treatment system is not available,
design and construction of private sewage disposal systems shall
fully comply with Wis. Adm. Code section H62.20.

(4) ADOPTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS. Each ordinance
required by these regulations shall provide for:

(a) The appointment of an administrator and such additional staff as
the work load may require.

(b) A planning agency (planning and zoning committee) and a board of
adjustment as required by law.

-162-

(c) A system of permits for all new construction, reconstruction,
structural alteration or moving of buildings and structures,
including sanitary waste disposal and water supply facilities.
A copy of all applications shall be filed in the office of the
county administrator.

(d) Regular inspection of permitted work in progress to insure con-
formity of the finished structures with the terms of the ordinance.

(e) A variance procedure relating to the use, change of use or alter-
ation of nonconforming lands and structures, and a special ex-
ception procedure for uses presenting special problems of pollution
or flood hazard. The county shall keep a complete record of all
proceedings before the board of adjustment and planning agency.

(f) Timely notice to the floodplain-shoreland management section of
the department of natural resources of hearings on proposed
variances, special exceptions and amendments and delivery to that
section of copies of decisions on such variances, special excep-
tions and such amendments, when adopted.

(g) Mapped zoning districts and the recording, on an official copy
of such map, of all district boundary changes.

(h) The prosecution of all violations of shoreland zoning ordinances.

(5) ESTABLISHMENT OF LAND SUITABILITY REVIE~W. The county shall review all
land divisions which create 3 or more parcels or building sites of 5 acres
each or less within a 5-year period. In such review the following factors
should be considered:

(a) Hazards to the health, safety or welfare of future residents.

(b) Proper relationship to adjoining areas.

(d) Adequate storm drainage facilities.

(e) Conformity to state law and administrative code procisions.

NR 115.04 Role of the Department of Natural Reslources. (1) Role. The
department of natural resources is directed by the legislature to assist the
counties in carrying out their responsibilities under the law and to review
and evaluate the administration of the regulations. If necessary, the depart-
ment may recommend to the natural resources board the adoption of an ordinance
for a county, if the county failed to meet these standards and criteria.

(2) COMPLIANCE DETERMINED BY EVALUATING COUNTY REGULATIONS WITH SECTION
NR 115.03. (a) Compliance with the requirements of section 59,971 will be
determined by comparing the county shoreland regulations with the state
minimum standards for shoreland protection as contained in section NR 115.03.
Counties that have enacted regulations that meet the minimum standards for
shoreland protection will be considered as complying with section 59.971, Wis.
Stats.

-163-

(b) Compliance status shall also be maintained by the county during
subsequent reevaluation of the regulations to ascertain their
effectiveness in maintaining the quality of Wisconsin water.
A county shall keep its regulations current, effective and work-
able to retain its status of compliance. Failure to do so shall
be deemed noncompliance.

(c) Compliance with chapter NRl 115 shall not affect a county's respon-
sibility to comply with chapter Nfl 116, floodplain management
standards.

(d) The department shall issue a certificate of compliance when a
county has, in the opinion of the department, complied with section
59.971, Wis. Stats.

(3) NONCOMPLIANCE. (a) Counties that have regulations that do not meet
the minimum rules as contained in section Nfl 115.03 shall be considered as
not complying with the requirements of the water resources act pertaining to
shoreland regulations. For these counties to achieve compliance status,
they shall modify their regulations to meet the minimum standards within a
time limit established by the department.

(b) Counties that have not drafted shoreland regulations shall be
deemed noncomplying counties. They shall state to the department
of natural resources their reasons, if any, for failure to comply
with the water resources act. The department shall then require
the county:

1. To proceed with regulation formation within a given time
period, or;

2. a. To have the staff of the department of natural resources
draft the regulations, or;
b. Contract with a consultant to draft the regulations. All
costs for such actions by the department of natural resources
shall be borne by the noncomplying county.

Nfl 115.05 Assistance to counties. To the full extent of its resources, the
department of natural resources will provide advice and assistance to the
counties, seeking the highest practicable degree of uniformity consistent with
the objectives of the shoreland regulation provisions of the water resources
act.

-164-

APPENDIX M

EXECUTIVE ORDER #67, 1973

Participation by State Agencies in Flood Hazard Evaluation
and Wetland Protection - and Coordination with a Comprehen-
sive Flood Plain-Shoreland Management Program

The heads of all State agencies shall provide leadership to encourage
a broad and unified effort to prevent the uneconomic use and development of
the flood plains and wetlands of the State and, in particular, to lessen
the risk of flood losses as related to State-owned lands and installations
and State-insured or approved or supported improvements and, to ensure
consistency of activities with rules and regulations regarding land use and
flood plain and shoreland development and management as promulgated by the
Department of Natural Resources under provision of Chapter 614, Laws of
1965. Specifically:

1. All State agencies directly responsible for the new construction of
State buildings, structures, roads or other facilities shall evaluate
existing or potential flood hazards associated with the construction
and shall assist and cooperate with the Department of Natural Resources,
under provisions of the Water Resources Act, and applicable rules pro-
mulgated pursuant to the Act.

2. All State agencies responsible for the administration of State grants,
loans, mortgage insurance or other State-approved financing programs
involving the construction of buildings, structures, roads or other facil-
ities shall, together with the assistance and cooperation of the Depart-
ment of Natural Resources, evaluate flood hazards in connection with
such facilities and in order to minimize the exposure of facilities to
potential flood damage and the need for future expenditures for flood
protection and flood disaster relief, shall, as far as practicable,
preclude the uneconomic , hazardous or unnecessary use of flood plains
in such connection.

3. All State agencies responsible for review and approval of applications
for subdivision plats, buildings, structures, roads, sanitary or other
facilities, shall evaluate existing or potential flood hazards associated
with such activities and shall as may be permitted by law, prevent actions
which will expose citizens to unnecessary hazards or cause future public
expenditures for flood disaster relief.

4. The Real Estate Examining Board, in order to preclude purchasers of pro-
perty from unknowingly exposing life and property to flood and erosion
hazards, should in license review, suspension and revocation proceedings
pursuant to section 452.10(2) of Wisconsin Statutes consider the failure
by a real estate broker, salesman or agent to properly inform a potential
purchaser that property under consideration lies within an area subject
to a flood or lakeshore erosion hazard recognized by the Department of
Natural Resources (as determined from Department, regional planning
commission, local ordinance, United States Department of Housing and
Urban Development, United States Geological Survey, or Army Corps of
Engineer's maps, reports or other decuments) to constitute a "substantial

-165-

misrepresentation", a "false promise of character" or a "demonstrated
untrustworthiness or incompetence to act as a broker... or... salesman
in such a manner as to safeguard the interests of the public."

5. All State agencies responsible for programs which entail land use plan-
ning shall reflect flood and erosion hazards when evaluating and prepar-
ing plans and shall encourage land uses appropriate to the degree of
hazard involved.

6. The Department of Natural Resources shall compile and distribute to all
concerned State agencies a report listing where flood hazard boundary
maps compiled from federal, state, regional, local and private sources
are available. In consideration of specific projects in areas of known
flood hazard where no flood documentation is available, the concerned
agency should ask the Department of Natural Resources to make a flood
evaluation of the particular case in question. In undertaking these
evaluations the Department may require the affected agency to furnish
stream cross sectional survey information and base maps in the vicinity
of the project site.

7. The Department of Natural Resources and each of the affected State agen-
cies through mutual cooperation, shall as soon as possible, prepare and
put into operation administrative guidelines implementing the provisions
of this Order. The guidelines should be written to reflect time restraints,
manpower, fiscal requirements and other factors relevant to each agency.

8. As may be permitted by law, each agency shall issue appropriate rules and
regulations to govern the carrying out of the provisions of this Order.

At the end of seven months a report assessing the implementation of this
Order by State agencies shall be prepared by the Department of Natural
Resources and forwarded to the Governor.

As used in this Order, the term "State agency" includes any office,
department, commission, committee, board, authority or other organizational
entity of State government, listed in Chapter 20 of the Wisconsin Statutes,
with the exception of "judicial" and "legislative"I bodies.

-166-

APPENDIX N

CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS
BLUFF AND RAVINE STEEP SLOPE ORDINANCE

Section 155.001. Statement of Purpose.

A. Development Policies. The ravine and coastal steep slopes are an inherent
natural resource which imparts a unique and substantial character to the
City of Highland Park. It is vital to understand that these steep sloped
areas are interdependent throughout their reaches. Erosion, slope fail-
ures, and loss of vegetation along one portion of a slope can have a
* ~~profound impact upon adjacent and subservient sloped areas. Because these
areas may be abused to create hazardous building conditions which lead
to the jeopardy of life and property and the destruction of the delicate
natural ecosystem, appropriate controls are necessary to ensure that con-
struction in these fragile environments enhances rather than detracts from,
or ignores, the natural topography, vegetation, and visual quality. Thus,
it is the intent of this ordinance to ensure that all development controlled
by this ordinance:

1. Strives for maximum preservation of natural features and qualities
of steep sloped sites.

2. Encourages innovative and imaginative building techniques within the
criteria stipulated in this ordinance for steep sloped bluff and ravine
properties.

3. Ensures that the land will support new structures for a minimum life
span of fifty (50) years, and that construction will not contribute
to erosion or slope stabilization problems.

4. Provides for stable ecological relationships and prevents environmental
degradation of the land and Lake Michigan.

5. Protects people and property from potentially hazardous geological
and hydrological conditions peculiar to ravine and bluff areas.

6. Requires retention of trees and other vegetation which stabilizes
slopes, prevents erosion, and enhances the natural beauty.

7. Facilitates adequate conditions for police, fire, and other emergency
service.

8. Demonstrates a concern for the view of as well as from the bluff and
ravine areas.

B. Sophisticated Technical Standards. All construction proposals shall take
into account and be judged by the application of current understanding of
landscape planning, soil mechanics, engineering, hydrology, geology, envi-
ronmental design and architecture. Such current understanding includes
but is not limited to:

1. Planning of development to fit the topography, soils, geology, hydrology
and other existing conditions on the proposed sites.

-167-

2. Orienting development so that grading, excavation, landscaping,
terracing and other site preparation is kept to an absolute minimum.

3. Preserving and enhancing the landscape through minimized disruption
of natural terrain, and existing plant formations.

4. Minimizing disruption or alteration of natural drainageways.

5. Developing so as to minimize the time in which areas are bare and
exposed.

6. Landscaping areas around structures to blend into the natural landscape.

Section 155.010. Application of Ordinance.

A. Property Regulated. The procedures, standards and requirements contained
in this ordinance shall apply to all properties that are within one hun-
dred (100) lineal feet of the top edge of a steep slope.

B. Mandatory Steep Slope Setbacks. Except as permitted elsewhere within this
section the following mandatory development setbacks are established:

1, No construction or earth moving activity which disturbs the natural
grade or removes existing vegetation may occur closer to the ravine
bottom than a setback line established twenty (20) lineal feet across
the tableland from the top edge of a steep ravine slope. Structures
may be cantilevered over this twenty (20) foot setback for a maximum
horizontal distance of ten (10) feet beginning at a minimum of nine
(9) feet above the natural adjacent tableland grade.

2. No construction or earth moving activity which disturbs the natural
grade or removes existing vegetation may occur closer to the bottom
of the bluff than a setback line established fifty (50) lineal feet
across the tableland from the top edge of a steep bluff slope.
Structures may be cantilevered over this fifty (50) foot setback
for a maximum horizontal distance of ten (10) feet beginning at a
minimum of nine (9) feet above the natural adjacent tableland grade.

C. Administrative Setback Exceptions. The following steep slope setback
exceptions are permitted as a matter of administrative review by the
Director of Community Development:

1. Accessory Structures. Stair structures, mechanical or electrical
lifts, bridges, fences which do not obstruct the flow of light and
water, utility service lines, patios on grade extending a maximum
of ten (10) feet toward the steep slope from the mandatory setback
line, all may be permitted within the mandatory ravine and bluff
setbacks and elsewhere on steep slopes as long as they comply with
the other conditions of this ordinance and related codes and ordinances.

-168-

2. Construction Excavation. This ordinance shall not be interpreted to
prohibit excavation within the mandatory setback area, but no closer
than ten (10) feet from the top edge of a steep slope, for the pur-
poses of construction otherwise permitted by this ordinance. However,
all excavated material must be removed from the mandatory setback area
and no material storage, even temporary, may occur within that area.

D. Discretionary Setback Exceptions. Certain steep slope setback exceptions
may be permitted by the City Council upon recommendation of the Plan
Commission after formal public hearing. The requirements for such excep-
tions shall be as follows:

1. Permitted Exceptions.

a. Conservation Activities. Work to shore-up, stablize, fill, or
regrade slopes, bluffs, and ravine bottoms when required for
purposes of restoration and conservation.

b. Unique Situations. Any construction or earth moving activity
where the proposed site contains unique features, which are
demonstrably different from the general characteristics of
other bluff and ravine lots, and which contribute to the stabil-
ity of the proposed activity. Such unique features may be inter-
preted to include extra-ordinary engineering efforts far in
excess of the minimums required by this ordinance.
2. Application Fee. Before any action is taken upon any application as
provided in this section either by the Plan Commission or the City
Council, the applicant shall deposit with the City Clerk the sum of
one hundred and fifty dollars ($150.00), no part of which shall be
refundable, to cover the approximate cost of the procedure and the
clerk shall then cause the deposit of this amount to the credit of
the General Corporate Fund of the City of Highland Park.

3. Public Hearing Requirements.

a. Published Notice. Notice shall be given of the subject time,
and place of the hearing not more than thirty (30), nor less
than fifteen (15), days before the hearing by publishing a notice
thereof at least once in one or more newspapers published in or
with a general circulation within the City of Highland Park.

b. Personal Notice. Not more than thirty (30), nor less than fifteen
(15), days before the hearing the 'applicant, his agent or attorney,
must notify, either in person or by certified mail, the owners
of all properties within two hundred and fifty (250) feet of the
legal boundaries of the hearing subject site. Such notification
shall include a written record of the subject, time, and place
of the hearing. Proof of such notification must be presented
at the hearing.

c. Hearing Procedure. The procedure and administrative require-
ments of the hearing shall be the same as those adopted by the
Plan Commission for all of their public hearings.

-169-

4. Burden of Applicant. Applicants for a discretionary setback exception
shall bear the burden of establishing conclusively that their proposed
project will meet the following criteria:

a. Public Welfare. The proposed project must be so designed, located,
constructed, and maintained that the public health, safety, and
welfare will not be endangered or detrimentally affected.

b. Welfare of Nearby Property. The proposed project must not sub-
stantially lessen or impede the suitability for permitted use
and development of, or be injurious to the use and enjoyment of,
or substantially diminish or impair the value of, or be incom-
patible with, other property in the immediate vicinity.

c. Conformance with Development Policies. The proposed project must
conform closely with the development policies specified in Section
155.001(A) of this ordinance.

d. Conformance with Technical Standards. The proposed project must
meet or exceed the technical standards specified in Section 155.001
and Section 155.020 of this ordinance.

5. Additional Regulations. In order to assure that a proposed project
will comply with the criteria found in paragraph 4 above, the City
Council may require such additional protective regulations as they
deem necessary.

-170-

APPENDIX 0

ADMINISTRATIVE RULES* MICHIGAN'S SHORELAND
PROTECT ION AND MANAGEMENT ACT

R 281.22. High risk erosion areas.

Rule 2. (1) Prior to designation of a high risk erosion area, the
department shall mail pre-designation letters to the affected landowners
of record as shown in the last assessment rolls. The letter shall explain
that the property is being considered for designation as a high risk erosion
area and shall invite comments from the affected landowners.

(2) The department shall designate a high risk erosion area upon its
finding that bluff line recession has been occurring at an average annual
rate of 1.0 foot or greater per year, based on a minimum period of 15 years.
The designation shall contain the minimum required setback from the bluff line
for any future permanent structure. The setback shall be based on a 30-year
period of bluffline recession.

(3) In designating a high risk erosion area, the department shall notify
the landowner of record and the local governmental agency affected thereby.
The notice of designation shall be delivered personally or sent by certified
mail to the landowner of record at the address given in the last assessment
roll.

(4) The notice of designation to affected landowners and local governmental
agencies shall include all of the following information:

(a) The authority and reasons for designation of high risk erosion areas.

(b) A description, graphic or otherwise, of the limits of the high risk
erosion area.

(c) An explanation of any regulatory measures which may be required in
the high risk erosion area and the regulatory role of the local
governmental agency.

(d) The procedure by which the designation may be appealed.

(5) The department shall consider additional high risk erosion areas as
may be proposed by local governmental agencies,, citizens or interested groups.

(6) A regulation may be modified upon presentation of engineering studies
acceptable to the department documenting annual recession rates at variance
with department recession rate data. Upon department acceptance of the data
as accurate and compatible with the objectives of the act, a structure setback
from the bluff line shall be calculated and implemented based on the new reces-
sion rate information.

(7) In the absence of an approved local ordinance enacted pursuant to
sections 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the act, any person or local governmental agency
proposing to erect, install, or move a permanent structure on a parcel, any
portion of which is a designated high risk erosion area, shall submit to the

*Modified and Amended August,
1978

department f or its approval a permit application. The permit application
shall contain all of the following information:

(a) A legal description of the property.

(b) A description of the proposed permanent structure.

(c) A sketch of the proposed site, showing the location of the proposed
permanent structure in relation to the location of the bluff line.

(d) The signature and address of the applicant.

(8) A permit application in a designated high risk erosion area shall be
approved if the proposed permanent structure meets or exceeds the minimum
setback requirements established by the department.

(9) If a parcel which has been established prior to the high risk erosion
area designation does not have adequate depth to provide the minimum required
setback from the bluff line for a permanent structure, a permanent structure,
which can be moved prior to damage from erosion, may be allowed by a special
exception. A special exception shall be granted only if criteria (a) and (b)
and either Cc) or (d) of this subrule are met:

(a) If a sanitary sewer is not used, the septic system shall be located
on the landward side of the permanent structure.

(b) The permanent structure shall be located as far landward of the
bluff line as local zoning restrictions allow:

(c) The perma nent structure is d esigned and constructed to be moveable
and in all instances, except a mobile home, shall meet the following
minimum standards:

(i) The permanent structure, excluding the septic system, shall be
erected on a full basement foundation constructed of concrete
blocks.

(ii) The permanent structure, excluding the septic system, shall be
square or rectangular with no wall to wall length in excess of
60 feet.

(iii) The permanent structure, excluding the septic system, shall not
exceed a wall to wall width of 26 feet.

(iv) The permanent structure shall not exceed a height of 24 feet from
bottom of floor joist to peak of roof or top of chimney, whichever
is higher.

(v) Floor joists shall be one size larger than the local standard
code requirement.

(vi) The bottom of the floor joists shall be a minimum of 16 inches
above the grade of the terrain.

(vii) All chimney and fireplace construction shall have a concrete
block foundation.

-17 2-

(viii) Ingress and egress to the permanent structure shall be of suffi-
cient width and acceptable grade to allow the moving of the
permanent structure from the parcel.

(d) A department approved erosion control device is constructed and
maintained by a state, county, municipal or township government.

(10) Not more than 60 days after receipt of a permit application, the
department shall send by certified mail to the applicant a notice of its
approval or disapproval. In case of disapproval, the reasons therefore shall
be stated.

(11) Approval of a permit does not exempt the applicant from complying with
other statutes, ordinances and regulations.

(12) Any aggrieved party that contests the designation of a high risk erosion
area or the disapproval of a permit application shall be granted a hearing if
a petition is filed with the department not more than 60 days after the designa-
tion letter or the notice of disapproval is sent. The hearing shall be conducted
in accordance with the provisions for contested cases in Act No. 306 of the
Public Acts of 1969,, as amended, being 24.271 et seq. of the Michigan Compiled
Laws and R299.3071 to R299.3081 of the Michigan Administrative Code.

(13) The landowner of record and the local governmental agency shall be
sent a notice by certified mail if the high risk erosion area designation
is removed.

(14) All high risk erosion area designations in existence at the effective
date of these rules shall remain in full force and effect.

R 281.25. Zoning ordinances.

Rule 5. (1) After the date on which the department designates a high risk
erosion area, environmental area, or flood risk area, a local governmental
agency may enact, and thereafter enforce, a zoning ordinance approved by the
department, pursuant to sections 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the act.

(2) Not more than 30 days after a zoning ordinance or amendment thereto
has been submitted by a local governmental agency pursuant to section 10 of
the act, the department shall notify the local governmental agency in writing
of its approval or disapproval. The zoning ordinance or amendment shall be
approved by the department if it adequately enforces the provisions of the act
and it shall take effect upon receipt by the local governmental agency of the
department approval. At that time the existing state permit requirements as
specified in subrules 2(7), 3(9), and 4(4) of these rules shall be discontinued.

(3) All amendments to approved local ordinances affecting high risk erosion
areas, flood risk areas, and environmental areas shall be submitted to the
department for review and approval in the same manner and subject to the same
requirements as specified for original ordinances regulating shoreland areas
in this rule.

-173-

(4) All variances relating to high risk erosion areas, flood risk areas,
and environmental areas shall be submitted to the department.

(5) Any aggrieved party that contests the disapproval of a zoning ordi-
nance or amendment to an ordinance by the department, shall be granted a
hearing if a petition is filed with the department within 60 days after the
notice of disapproval is received. The hearing shall be conducted in accord-
ance with the provisions for contested cases in Act No. 306 of the Public Acts
of 1969, as amended, and in R299.3071 to R299.3081 of the Michigan Adminis-
trative Code.

(6) Failure of a local governmental agency to properly administer an
approved ordinance in a manner consistent with Act No. 245 of the Public
Acts of 1970, as amended, shall result in the rescinding of approval of
the ordinance by the department, and the reinstatement of the state permit
requirements as specified in subrules 2(7), 3(9), and 4(4) of these rules.

-174-

SELECTED,-REFERENCES:
GENERAL, NONSTRUCTURAL, AND STRUCTURAL

General

Federal Regional Council and Great Lakes Basin Commission Task Force on Shore-
lands Damage Reduction; A Strategy for Great Lakes Shoreland Damage
Reduction, March 1974.

Great Lakes Basin Commission; Great Lakes Basin Framework Study, Appendix
12 - Shore Use and Erosion, Ann Arbor, 1975.

Great Lakes Basin Commission and U. S. Soil Conservation Service; Great
Lakes Vegetation Workshop Proceedings, Ann Arbor, 1977.

Great Lakes Basin Commission; Recession Rate Workshop Proceedings, Ann Arbor,
1974.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources; A Plan for Michigan's Shorelands,
Lansing, August 1973.

Ministry of Natural Resources, Province of Ontario and Environment Canada;
A Guide for the Use of Canada/Ontario Great Lakes Flood and Erosion
Prone Area Mapping, Burlington, Ontario, March 1978.

Mitchell, James K.; Community Response to Coastal Erosion, University of
Chicago, Department of Geography Research Paper No. 156, 1974.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U. S. Department of Commerce;
Natural Hazard Management in Coastal Areas, Washington, D.C., November 1976.

Sorenson, John H. and Mitchell, James K.; Coastal Erosion Hazard in the United
States: A Research Assessment, Monograph NSF-RA-E-75-014, Institute of
Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, 1975.

United States Geological Survey, Department of the Interior and National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Coastal Mapping Handbook,
Washington, D.C., 1978.

Tovill, Walter; "Not Ours to Control: Living with Changing Lake Levels",
Rotunda (magazine of the Royal Ontario Museum), Volume 10, Number 3,
Fall 1977.

General Wisconsin

Edil, Tuncer B. and Vallejo, Luis E.; Shoreline Erosion and Landslides in
the Great Lakes, Wisconsin Sea Grant Program Report No. 15, University
of Wisconsin, Madison, 1976.

Red Clay Project; Impact of Nonpoint Pollution Control on Western Lake
Superior (Summary Report), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Chicago, Illinois, 1979.

Striegl, A. R.; Shoreland and Flood Plain Zoning Along the Wisconsin Shore of
Lake Michigan, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1968.

-175-

University of Wisconsin Sea Grant College Program; High Water and Erosion on
the Great Lakes Shores"(reprint of a Lake Michigan Federation Bulletin),
1973.

University of Wisconsin Sea Grant College Program; Our Great Lakes, Report No.
114, September 1973.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources; Shoreland Use in Wisconsin, Madison,
1977.

Zube and Dega Associates; Wisconsin's Lake Superior Shoreline, submitted to
Wisconsin Department of Resource Development, September 1964.

Nonstructural

Baker, Earl J. and McPhee, Joe Gordon; Land Use Management and Regulation in
Hazardous Areas: A Research Assessment, Monograph NSF-RA-E-75-008,
Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, 1975.

Department of Governmental Affairs, 1W-Madison; Reviewing, Recommending, and
Regulating: A Beginner's Guide Plan Commissions and Zoning Committees,
Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, 1978.

Department of Governmental Affairs, UW-Madison; Zoning Boards of Adjustment/
Appeals: A Guide for the Newly Appointed Board Member, Wisconsin
Coastal Management Program, 1978.

Peroff, Kathleen; A Comparative Study of Shoreland Management Policy: Wiscon-
sin, Minnesota, Michigan, and Ontario, Lake Superior Project, Institute
for Environmental Studies, UW-Madison, July 1974.

State of Michigan, Public Act 245 of 1970: Shoreland Protection and Manage-
ment Act (Revised Draft, January 1978), Lansing.

Taussig, Wexler and Shaw, Ltd.; The Legal Framework: Toward a Management
Program Second Year Work Product, Illinois Coastal Zone Management
Program, Chicago, June 1976.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District; Flood Damage
Reduction: Mississippi River at Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, Design
Memorandum No. 1, General Phase I Plan Formulation, St. Paul, February
1977.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources; Shoreland Regulation Administration
Manual, Madison, October 1975.

-176-

Structural

Collier, Courtland, University of Florida-Gainesville; Seawall and Revetment
Effectiveness, Cost and Construction, COM-75-11175, National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, May 1975.

Illinois Coastal Zone Management Program; "Harmony with the Lake: Guide to
Bluff Stabilization", Chicago, April 1978.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center;
Shore Protection Manuals: Volumes I-III, Washington, D.C., 1977.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District; Shore Stability
and Beach and Bluff Protection Methods for the Illinois Shore of Lake
Michigan, Illinois Coastal Zone Management Program, Chicago, July 1976.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, North Central Division; "Help Yourself",
Chicago.

University of Michigan Coastal Zone Laboratory; The Michigan Demonstration
Erosion Control Program in 1976, Technical Report No. 55, Michigan Sea
Grant Program, Lansing, February 1977.

300-3C05001-79

-177-