Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Michigan's Coastal Erosion Management Program MARTIN R. JANNERETH Michigan Department of Natural Resources Michigan's Coastal Erosion Management Program really began in 1955 with the passage of the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act, Public Act 247, as amended. While Act 247 had a very narrow per- spective of erosion management (the regulation of shore protection on Great Lakes bottomlands), at the time shore protection was the almost exclusive approach to erosion problems. Even today, Act 247 has a strong impact on Michigan. What is permitted under Act 247 determines what structural approach to erosion control the prop- erty owner has at his or her disposal. What is approvable under the minor permit category and issued relatively quickly, is of even greater importance in the decision-making process when water levels are threatening. In 1986, a record 2,057 applications were received under Act 247. The late 1960s began a movement that was sufficient to pass the Shorelands Protection and Management Act, Public Act 245 of 1970. Act 245 made Michigan's coastal erosion management a broader-based program by including the "land side" issue of using building setbacks to reduce future erosion losses. Basically, Act 245 calls for studies to determine the rate of shoreland recession. Any area receding 1 ft or more per year is classified as a high-risk erosion area and requires, after formal property owner and local official notification, 30-year building setbacks. The shore protection expertise developed under the regulatory 135
136 GREAT LAKES WATER LEVELS authority of Act 247 and the recession rate data gathered under Act 245 naturally led Michigan to a technical assistance role for property owners. Today nearly all high-risk erosion areas in the state have been identified and designated. About 8 percent of the Great Lakes shore- line is under high-risk erosion area regulation. Just over 7,000 private parcels are under regulation. We receive 75 to 125 permit applica- tions each year for construction activities. Another 3 percent of the shoreland is also high risk but is in public ownership. Since construc- tion on public land is unlikely, detailed studies are not undertaken unless a specific development proposal is made. Seventeen years of administration of the high-risk erosion area program plus the recent experience of the record high water period have shown the need for several administrative rule changes. Conse- quently, the following changes are presently proposed to improve the regulatory program: 1. Clarify terminology. 2. Change wording to correctly reflect the scientific standards used in the measurement of long-term shoreland recession. 3. Require a greater setback for large buildings that cannot be relocated away from the erosion hazard. 4. Require all "small" structures to be movable to provide the property owner the option of relocation when the structure becomes threatened by bluff erosion. 5. Place a limit on the amount of setback the department can waive on a substandard lot. 6. Require the establishment of an escrow account for future shore protection for those large, nonmovable buildings, such as con- dominiums, which are permitted on substandard lots. Since the buyers of these buildings are going to experience early erosion prob- lems, we believe the developer should share the burden of future shore protection needs. Additional program changes have been identified that cannot be made by administrative rule. As a result, two legislative amendments have been introduced in the Michigan legislature to amend Act 245: 1. The first legislative amendment calls for disclosure of the high-risk erosion area designation to the buyer. The seller must provide notification on a separate instrument conveyed with the deed of the fact that the property is designated as a high-risk erosion area. If the deed is recorded, the separate instrument must also be
MICHIGAN'S COASTAL EROSION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 137 recorded. If notice is not provided, the sale may be voided at the buyers option. 2. The second legislative amendment would establish a min- imum setback along all of Michigan's nonbedrock coast, approxi- mately 85 percent of the shore. The minimum setback requirement would be 45 ft from the bluffline for all structures. In addition, large structures having a foundation size of over 3,500 sq ft or more than four individual living units would have a minimum setback require- ment of 90 ft. In 1985 the governor and legislature of Michigan, in response to high water levels, authorized the expenditure of up to $2 million for the relocation of homes in imminent danger of damage or destruc- tion from Great Lakes erosion. If the home could not be relocated, the funds could be used for approved shore protection. The funds were also available to elevate homes threatened or damaged by Great Lakes flooding. The funds were provided as a 3 percent interest rate subsidy on loans up to $25,000 for up to 30 years. During the first program in 1985-1986 we received 273 applications in erosion ar- eas, of which 199 were determined to be eligible for state assistance. Seventy-two persons took action and received interest subsidies to- taling approximately $267,000. The program was renewed in 1987. This time a lump sum payment of up to half the cost, not to exceed $3,500 in state funds, was provided as an alternative to the loan sub- sidy. We received 48 applications under the 1987 program, of which 25 were approved. Final payment figures will not be available until August 1988.
Coastal Erosion Management in Minnesota JEANETTE H. LEETE Hydrologist Minnesota Department of Natural Resources There is a common misconception that the North Shore of Lake Superior is a stark rock cliff, high, dry, and solid. In fact, the geology of Minnesota's North Shore is varied: it consists of red clay areas, cobble beaches, layered lava flows, and resistant igneous rock. Erosion will have a noticeable long-term impact on all these types of shoreline, even on the sheer rock outcrops. Erosion damage sustained during the recent high water levels included the loss of previously stable cobble beaches and the collapse of sea caves due to undermining of layered lavas. Damages are greatly accelerated when the level of Lake Superior exceeds 602.0 ft (IGLD, 1955), and the effects of seiche and wave run-up compound the problems. Assessment of the extent of recent damages began with a survey of shoreline residents. Answers to the questionnaire revealed that erosion problems on the North Shore are not new and that the lack of extensive shoreland development in the past has kept erosion damages low. One North Shore resident, whose cabin is only 10 ft from the bank, had moved his cabin away from the receding shoreline three times already. The public's perception is that erosion is currently occurring at faster than normal rates. Unfortunately, there has been very little quantitative information upon which to base the calculation of erosion rates, either current or long term. The University of 138
COASTAL EROSION MANAGEMENT IN MINNESOTA 139 Minnesota-Duluth's Natural Resources Research Institute has ob- tained funding from the national Sea Grant program to undertake a quantitative remote sensing analysis of the North Shore's erosion rates. This information will provide a basis for the classification of shoreline segments into different erosion hazard classes. Minnesota does not have a single program for the management of coastal erosion. At the state level, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources administers two programs, the flood plain man- agement program and the shoreland management program, which regulate land use and shoreland development and thus can control coastal erosion damages. The three North Shore counties, Cook, Lake, and St. Louis, participate in the national flood insurance pro- gram, but flood plain maps do not reflect the effect of storms on lake levels. The shoreland management program has been active since the 1970s but does not specifically address the unique issues of the North Shore. Management programs that originate at the state level and that are imposed upon the local units of government have caused resent- ment and lack of compliance in the past. Due to the adverse local reaction to a shoreland regulation program (which was not specifi- cally intended for the shore of Lake Superior but for the shores of our more than 15,000 inland lakes) and due to the critically high water levels, the local units of government along the North Shore have formed the North Shore Management Board. This novel lo- cal solution is likely to be accepted and to carry out its mandate successfully. The North Shore Management Board has received funding from Minnesota's legislature through the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for development of a management plan. By next fall a draft of the shoreland management plan is due to be completed. The Ar- rowhead Regional Development Commission is providing staff, and working groups, consisting of technical staff of several state and fed- eral agencies and of citizens, have formed to deal with specific issues. The DNR has signed a memorandum of understanding with the North Shore Management Board and is serving as a liaison and providing technical assistance. It is too early to speculate on the results of the planning process, but it is hoped that a comprehensive strategy for development of the North Shore will result. This could include planning for nodal development with defined lake access points, controlled by innovative zoning regulations (e.g., setbacks based on the life of the structure and the known erosion hazard).
140 GREAT LAKES WATER LEVELS There are still some missing pieces in this puzzleâfor example, the issue of implementation has yet to be dealt with. The counties may have to hire a "Coastal Cop" to implement and enforce their management plan. The formation of the North Shore Management Board upon local initiative is such a unique approach that we are optimistic about its success. Continuing funding from the Minnesota legislature is to be expected, and local support of the board's man- agement decisions is likely.
Summary of California Coastal Commission Shoreline Erosion Policy RICHARD J. MCCARTHY California Coastal Commission INTRODUCTION The constant erosion of California's 1,100-mile coastline has re- ceived widespread media attention since the end of World War II. The winter of 1982-1983 brought to light the coastal problems that exist not only in California but throughout the entire coastal United States. Media coverage during that winter centered on the impacts of large storm-induced waves and extreme run-up heights. Unfortu- nately, milder winter storms and continued sea level rise will also have a dramatic impact on the thousands of single family dwellings, public structures, and oil facilities located along California's shoreline. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION POLICY ON SHORELINE EROSION The storms of January and March of 1983 caused over $100 mil- lion in damage to structures and utilities located along the California coastline. Most of the structures damaged were constructed before the passage of the California Coastal Act of 1976. In order to mini- mize or prevent damage from storms such as those that battered the state in 1983, the California Coastal Commission has attempted to regulate the design of structures in potentially hazardous areas such 141
142 GREAT LAKES WATER LEVELS as coastal bluffs. The Statewide Interpretive Coastal Act Guidelines contain a section that defines coastal bluff top areas that will require detailed geologic and/or engineering studies before a development permit can be issued by the commission. Section 30253 of the Coastal Act states that "New development shall: (1) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high ge- ologic, flood and fire hazard; (2) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs." As required by Coastal Commission guidelines, geotechnical studies are required within the "area of demonstration." The "area of demonstration" includes the base, face, and top of all bluffs and cliffs. The extent of the bluff top consideration should include that area between the face of the bluff and a line described on the bluff top by the intersection of a plane inclined at a 20-degree angle from the horizontal passing through the toe of the bluff or cliff, or 50 ft inland from the edge of the cliff or bluff, whichever is greater. In areas of known geologic stability or instability (as determined by adequate geologic evaluation and historic evidence) the commission may designate a lesser or greater "area of demonstration." All geotechnical reports for structures proposed to be located within the "area of demonstration" must consider, describe, and analyze the following: 1. Cliff geometry and site topography; 2. Historic, current, and foreseeable cliff erosion, including in- vestigation of recorded land surveys and tax assessment records in addition to the use of historic maps and photographs available and possible changes in shore configuration and sand transport; 3. Geologic conditions, including soil, sediment and rock types and structural features such as bedding attitudes, faults, and joints; 4. Evidence of past or potential landslide conditions, the im- plications of such conditions for the proposed development, and the potential effects of the development on landslide activity; 5. Impact of construction activity on the stability of the site and adjacent areas; 6. Ground surface water conditions and variations, including hydrologic changes caused by the development (i.e., introduction of sewage effluent and irrigation water to the groundwater system);
CALIFORNIA SHORELINE EROSION POLICY 143 7. Potential erodibility of the site and mitigating measures to be used to ensure minimized erosion problems during and after construction; 8. Effects of marine erosion on sea cliffs; 9. Potential effects of seismic forces resulting from a maximum probable earthquake; and 10. Any other factors that might affect slope stability or littoral transport. SHORELINE PROTECTIVE WORKS Because of the adverse impacts so commonly associated with large coastal protective devices (groins, breakwaters, etc.), the com- mission has favored the use of beach nourishment to reduce shoreline recession rates. However, the commission has decided that in some instances, large coastal structures are the only viable alternative to solving a severe shoreline erosion problem. For example, in May of 1983, Chevron Oil Company applied for a permit before the commis- sion to install a 900-ft-long, semipermeable rock and concrete groin at the southern boundary of its waterfront refinery in El Segundo, California. Chevron preferred this structure over other options for two reasons. First, a groin with accompanying fill would help pro- vide assurance that pipelines to offshore tanker berths would remain buried during the winter storm months. Erosion had been severe at the site since 1960, and Chevron believed that a filler of 500,000 cu- bic yards of sand (from an offshore borrow site) placed immediately upcoast of the groin would best protect the pipelines from scour and prevent future storms waves from damaging the upland facilities. To minimize downdrift impacts, 75,000 cubic yards of sand would help nourish adjacent beaches. And second, groins had been previously selected as an acceptable means to mitigate coastal erosion within the Santa Monica Littoral Cell. Leaders of California coastal cities are aware of the potential downdrift erosion caused by such structures. As a result, Coastal Commission permits for large coastal protective devices typically have had conditions that attempt to satisfy the concerns of parties located immediately down drift of the proposed structure. In the Chevron case, the following permit conditions were required by the commission and accepted by Chevron: ⢠State Lands Commission approval; ⢠Utilization of aerial photographs to monitor project impacts;
144 GREAT LAKES WATER LEVELS ⢠Beach profile readings at designated locations during specific times of the year; ⢠Sand tracer studies; ⢠Downdrift nourishment; ⢠Commitment to mitigate any adverse impacts to surfing con- ditions in the project vicinity; ⢠A planned maintenance program; ⢠A monitoring program to determine if fill material had mi- grated back to the offshore borrow site; ⢠Review of data by unbiased third party; ⢠An assumption of risk to indemnify and hold harmless the California Coastal Commission against any and all claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses, or liability arising out of acquisition, de- sign, construction operation, maintenance, existence, or failure of the permitted groin project; and ⢠The above mentioned conditions dealing with sand supply monitoring will exist for a period of 10 years. PLANNING FOB SEA LEVEL RISE The state of California has not adopted an overall plan or policy on how to deal with the long-term impacts of sea level rise over the next century. Reinhard Flick of the California Department of Boating and Waterways has conducted studies that have focused on the impacts of past El Nino events combined with the secular increase in relative sea level at San Diego. Studies such as these that center on the processes and forces that contribute to extreme sea levels will not only help engineers in the design of shoreline protection works but can also guide local and state governments in producing development guidelines that will minimize storm surge losses to future generations. On January 18 and 19, 1988, during a +7.1 tide, large waves caused massive damage to structures situated along portions of the sourthern California coastline. These waves, in combination with extreme sea levels due to meteorological forcing, are a reminder that severe winter storms and extreme sea levels are already having a dramatic impact on California's developed shoreline areas.
Addressing Coastal Erosion in North Carolina DAVID W. OWENS North Carolina Division of Coastal Management SETTING North Carolina has 320 miles of ocean shoreline. While 50 per- cent of this shoreline is in public ownership, primarily in two na- tional seashores, the remaining half of the coastline faces substantial pressure for increasing levels of development. While no areas of the coast contain the concentration of high-density development of Miami Beach, few beach areas in the state retain the low-density, scattered cottage atmosphere of the Nags Head of the 1940s. Over the past 50 years, over half of the state's ocean coast has experienced average annual erosion rates of 2 ft/yr or greater, with 20 percent exceeding 6 ft/yr. Additional short-term fluctuations of the shoreline due to storms is also common. MANAGEMENT PROGRAM These two factorsâincreasing development and a dynamic shore- lineâled the state over the past 10 years to develop a coordinated shorefront development program that uses regulations to manage new development; restrictions on shoreline erosion control practices; planning for redevelopment and relocation of damaged and threat- ened structures; and nonregulatory tax, land acquisition, and public 145
146 GREAT LAKES WATER LEVELS education programs to carefully manage use and development of this critical area. The first step in the development of this management program was setting clear goals for the program. After considerable public de- bate and discussion about the physical, economic, and social factors affecting oceanfront development, the Coastal Resources Commis- sion (the 15-member citizen policy making for the program) adopted these three goals for the management program: 1. Minimize loss of life and property resulting from storms and long-term erosion; 2. Prevent encroachment of permanent structures on public beach areas; and 3. Reduce the public costs of inappropriately sited develop- ment. NEW DEVELOPMENT North Carolina adopted a statewide minimum oceanfront set- back for all new development in 1979. After several refinements in the early 1980s, the minimum setback in place at this time requires all new development to be located behind the furthest landward of these four points: 1. The erosion rate setback (30 times the annual erosion rate, measured from the vegetation line, for small structures, 60 times the erosion rate for structures with more than 4 units or more than 5,000 square feet total floor area); 2. The landward toe of the frontal dune; 3. The crest of the primary dune (the first dune with an eleva- tion equal to the 100-year storm flood level plus 6 ft); or 4. A 60-ft (120 ft for larger structures) minimum, measured from the vegetation line. Limited uses that do not involve permanent substantial struc- tures (such as clay parking areas, tennis courts, and campgrounds) are allowed between the vegetation line and setback line, but no development is allowed seaward of the vegetation line. Other regulatory provisions limit the intensity of development near inlets, set minimum construction standards, limit the construc- tion of growth-inducing infrastructure in hazard areas, and restrict dune alteration.
ADDRESSING COASTAL EROSION IN NORTH CAROLINA 147 EROSION CONTROL Even though the above standards provide some degree of safety for new development, North Carolina has thousands of older struc- tures increasingly threatened by coastal erosion and storms. Also, even new development will eventually face similar threats with the passage of time. Since the ocean beaches are a vital economic resource (being the foundation of a tourism economy) and a key publicly owned recre- ational resource, the state has adopted a strong policy of protecting its beaches. Effective January 1985, no erosion control devices designed to harden or stabilize the ocean beach's location are allowed in North Carolina. Bulkheads, seawalls, groins, jetties, and rip rap are pro- hibited. Temporary sandbags are allowed, as is beach nourishment. REDEVELOPMENT AND RELOCATION The state has also attempted to fashion an effective strategy for dealing with existing development that is damaged or becomes endangered. Effective in 1983, all coastal local governments have been re- quired to include a poststorm element in their mandatory land use plans. These elements are to include measures for prestorm mi- gration, evacuation and recovery plans, and poststorm rebuilding policies. The latter are to give particular attention to relocation to safer locations of damaged roads, water and sewer lines, and other public investments. The state began urging in 1983 that the flood insurance program be used to facilitate preloss mitigation by covering the relocation of imminently endangered structures as a loss payment. This was seen to be a cost-effective and environmentally sensitive measure, as it would reduce payments for future total loss payments and avoid repetitive claims, thereby reducing both rates for flood insurance premiums and the likelihood of future public tax subsidies. It would also meet a pressing need in the state, given over 800 structures expected to become endangered in North Carolina alone over the next 10 years. Congress enacted this proposal as part of the 1987 Housing Act signed by the President in February 1988. It is therefore expected that relocation of endangered structures will become an important part of the state's overall management program.
148 GREAT LAKES WATER LEVELS OTHER NONREGULATORY MEASURES In addition to the above, the state uses a variety of additional nonregulatory measures to promote efficient long-term use and de- velopment of the ocean shoreline. The state's beach access program gives an explicit statutory priority to the acquisition of those lands that are unsuitable for permanent structures but that could be useful for beach access and use. Natural areas containing undeveloped beaches have also been acquired. A state income tax credit was adopted to encourage the donation of beach access and natural areas. Finally, public education has been a major priority, ranging from providing mandatory hazard notices and information to each permit applicant to broad community education on issues such as sea level rise, barrier island dynamics, dune and beach functions, and the like. FOR MORE DETAILED INFORMATION ON THE NORTH CAROLINA PROGRAM Benton, S. B. 1983. Average Annual Long Term Erosion Rate Uodate: Methods Report. Raleigh: Division of Coastal Management, Department of Natural Resources and Community Development. Brower, D. J., T. Beatley and D. J. L. Blatt. 1987. Reducing Hurricane and Coastal Storm Hazards Through Growth Management: A Guidebook for North Carolina Coastal Localities. Chapel Hill: Center for Urban and Regional Studies, University of North Carolina. Coastal Resources Commission. 1984. Outer Banks Erosion Task Force Report Raleigh: Division of Coastal Management, Department of Natural Re- sources and Community Development. Division of Coastal Management. 1985. A Handbook for Development in North Car- olina's Coastal Area. Raleigh: Division of Coastal Management, Department of Natural Resources and Community Development. Liner, C. D. 1980. The Impact of State Regulation of Coastal Land In North Carolina. Chapel Hill: Institute of Government. McElyea, W. D., D. J. Brower and D. R. Godschalk. 1982. Before the Storm: Managing Development to Reduce Hurricane Damage. Chapel Hill: Center for Urban and Regional Studies, University of North Carolina. Owens, D. W. 1981. The Management of Oceanfront Development in North Carolina. In Achievements of the 1970's and Prospects for the 1980's. Bethesda, Maryland: The Coastal Society. Owens, D. W. 1983. Land Acquisition and Coastal Resource Management. William and Mary Law Review 625:24. Owens, D. W. 1984. Erosion Rates and Hazard Mapping in Coastal Resource Management. In Managing High Risk Flood Areas. Portland, Maine: Associa- tion of State Flood Plain Managers. Owens, D. W. 1985. Coastal Management in North Carolina. Journal of American Planning Association 322:51.
Appendixes
