Great Lakes Coastal Erosion

Review of Erosion Estimates, Mapping, and Public Policies and Outreach Across the

DRAFT 11/05/2019

1

This report was prepared for the ’s Coastal Program. This is a summary report for informational purposes only. For more in-depth information about coastal erosion, please contact the relevant agencies for each state in the .

Melanie Perello, NOAA Coastal Management Fellow Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Program 1568 Highway 2 Two Harbors, MN 55616 (Phone) 218-834-1404 [email protected] dnr.state.mn.us/waters/lakesuperior

Upon request, this material will be made available in an alternative format such as large print, Braille or audio recording. Printed on recycled paper.

2

Table of Contents

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion ...... 1

This report was prepared for the Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Program. This is a summary report for informational purposes only. For more in-depth information about coastal erosion, please contact the relevant agencies for each state in the Great Lakes region...... 2

Table of Contents ...... 3

Coastal Erosion in the Great Lakes ...... 5

Minnesota ...... 6

Minnesota’s Shoreline ...... 6

MN Policies on Coastal Erosion Hazards ...... 8

MN Erosion Hazard Designation and Mapping ...... 9

Wisconsin ...... 12

Wisconsin’s Shoreline ...... 12

WI Policies on Coastal Erosion Hazards ...... 13

WI Erosion Hazard Designation and Mapping ...... 15

Michigan ...... 17

Michigan’s Shoreline ...... 18

MI Policies on Coastal Erosion Hazards ...... 19

MI Erosion Hazard Designation and Mapping ...... 20

Illinois...... 22

Illinois’ Shoreline ...... 23

IL Policies on Coastal Erosion Hazards ...... 23

IL Erosion Hazard Designation and Mapping ...... 24

Indiana ...... 25

Indiana’s Shoreline ...... 25

IN Policies on Coastal Erosion Hazards ...... 26

3

IN Erosion Hazard Designation and Mapping ...... 27

Ohio ...... 27

Ohio’s Shoreline ...... 27

OH Policies on Coastal Erosion Hazards ...... 28

OH Erosion Hazard Designation and Mapping ...... 30

Pennsylvania ...... 31

Pennsylvania’s Great Lakes Shoreline ...... 32

PA Policies on Coastal Erosion Hazards ...... 32

PA Erosion Hazard Designation and Mapping ...... 34

New York ...... 37

New York’s Great Lakes Shoreline ...... 37

NY Policies on Coastal Erosion Hazards ...... 38

NY Erosion Hazard Designation and Mapping ...... 39

Recommendations for Coastal Erosion Designation and Mapping for Minnesota ...... 42

Recommendations for Designation of Erosion Hazard Areas & Mapping Features ...... 42

Recommendations for Policies on Outreach, Shoreline Permitting & Setbacks ...... 43

Table 1: Summary of Great Lakes Coastal Erosion Policies and Mapping Designations ...... 44

Appendix ...... 46

Appendix: Minnesota Coastal Erosion Mapping ...... 46

Appendix: Ohio Coastal Erosion Mapping ...... 48

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 4 Coastal Erosion in the Great Lakes

The Laurentian Great Lakes is the largest freshwater lake system in the world with its own unique environmental challenges and opportunities. The Great Lakes contains 22,000 km3 of water, spans an area of 244,000 km2, and are bordered by eight states and two nations along 16,000 km of shoreline1. The natural beauty and economic opportunities of the lakes have resulted in large and small communities that have developed along the lake shores and surrounding watersheds, with over 35 million Americans living on the Great Lakes2. The lakes are vital to the national and local economies, supporting industries such as fishing, manufacturing, shipping, recreation, and tourism with the contributing more than $4 trillion to the GDP3, which does not account for the value of ecosystem services provided4. The high human demands on the lakes have resulted in significant environmental degradation, but there is a widespread emphasis, in recent decades, on conservation and protection of these vital water bodies with billions invested in restoration5.

Much of the emphasis on protection of the Great Lakes has been related to the broad issues of water quality and invasive species6, but a pressing issue that has gained recent attention is the scale of coastal erosion. The interaction of vulnerable built development, fluctuating lake levels, and eroding shorelines threatens properties and the economic stability of many communities that are reliant on coastal development for property tax income and tourism and recreation industries. There is insufficient estimations of the cost of coastal erosion for the Great Lakes, but nationally the direct cost of damages exceeds $500 million annually7. Unlike marine coastal systems, the Great Lakes experiences rapid changes in lake level, with high and low water levels in the space of a few years8. With a limited ability to control lake outflows through locks and dams, the International Joint Commission (IJC) has jurisdiction over lake levels, but are unable to provide stability when faced with

1 Sterner, R.W. et al. 2017. Grand challenges for research in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Limnology and Oceanography 62: 2510-2523. 2 Niemi, G.J. et al. 2007. Environmental indicators for the coastal region of the North American Great Lakes: Introduction and prospectus. Journal of Great Lakes Research 33(3): 1-12. 3 Campbell, M. et al. 2015. The economy as a driver of change in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin. Journal of Great Lakes Research 41: 69-83. 4 Steinman, A.D. et al. 2017. Ecosystem Services in the Great Lakes. Journal of Great Lakes Research 43(3): 61-68. 5 Allan, J.D. et al. 2015. Using cultural ecosystem services to inform restoration priorities in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 13(8): 418-424. 6 Reavie, E.D. et al. 2018. Historical watershed stressors for the Laurentian Great Lakes. Geoscience Data Journal 5(1): 4-8. 7 Coastal Erosion. U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit. Accessed 10/30/2019. Available: https://toolkit.climate.gov/topics/coastal-flood-risk/coastal-erosion 8 Quinn, F.H. 2002. Secular changes in Great Lakes water level seasonal cycles. Journal of Great Lakes Research 28(3): 451-465.

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 5 large precipitation inputs to the Great Lakes watersheds9. Addressing coastal erosion in the Great Lakes is also complicated by ice cover and the freeze-thaw cycle that places additional stress on shoreline protection efforts10. The numerous jurisdictions over the Great Lakes in conjunction with the unique challenges of this highly variable and complex system have resulted in each state developing its own approach to coastal erosion policy and management. This report was written to provide a summary of those efforts for the purpose of determining the best strategy for assessing and communicating coastal erosion hazards along Minnesota’s Lake Superior shoreline.

Minnesota

With over 12,000 lakes, Minnesota prides itself on its abundant freshwater resources, with water protection a shared value for most Minnesotans11. The Minnesota coast on Lake Superior is one such resource, with almost 7 million visitors traveling to the lake each year and bringing in nearly a billion dollars in tourism and recreation to the regional economy12.With a high percent of the coastal counties in public lands, developable land on the shore is limited despite a high demand for housing13 and this pressure pushes for increased development in a region that is vulnerable to coastal flooding14.

Minnesota’s Shoreline

The Lake Superior shoreline in Northeastern Minnesota is rocky and covered with a shallow red clay soils, with high clay and bedrock bluffs along most of the coast. The Minnesota Point, also known as Park Point, a sand spit bar system is especially vulnerable to erosion and high water levels. A significant portion of the shoreline is in public land, including a national forest and six state parks, while

9 Gronewold, A.D. 2013. Coasts, water levels, and climate change: A Great Lakes perspective. Climatic Change 120: 697-711. 10 Mattheus, C.R. 2017. Hydrodynamic and sediment-accommodation controls on headland-beach geomorphology evaluated by statistical methods, southern coast. Journal of Great Lakes Research 43(2): 228-238. 11 Clean Water Fund. Minnesota Department of Health. Accessed 10/31/2019. Available: https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/water/cwf/index.html 12 Duluth Facts. Visit Duluth. Accessed 10/31.2019. Available: https://www.visitduluth.com/media/quick-facts- local-contacts/duluth-facts/ 13 City of Duluth 2017 Housing Indicator Report. 2018. Community Planning Division, City of Duluth. 14 Helping Minnesota residents understand local flooding issues and potential solutions. NOAA Digital Coast. Accessed 10/31/2019/ Available: https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/stories/duluth.html

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 6 the remaining shoreline is highly developed, with most properties built prior to the establishment of shoreline setbacks.

• Great Lake(s): Superior • Miles of shoreline: 18915 • Geology: 16 o Bedrock: Igneous rock, typically basalts . o Soils: Red clays o Shoreline Features: Mostly large cobble to boulder sized rock; rocky and some sandy beaches; clay and clay silt bluffs; sand spit bar (Minnesota Point/Park Point) • Major Tributaries: St. Louis River • Development: o Shoreline development: Highly developed o Shoreline modifications: Most shoreline is not modified. o Built infrastructure density: High density along the shore, concentrated in the City of Duluth. o Built structure(s) comply with existing setbacks: Most structures do not comply with many built pre-1950s. o Wastewater system(s): Most communities along the southern coast (i.e., City of Duluth, Two Harbors) have community wastewater treatment systems, but the northern coast is largely septic. o Public vs. Private land(s): Large portions of the coast are public land. Most private land is concentrated along the City of Duluth shoreline. • Human Population: 17 o Population (est.): 216,268 o Major Cities: Duluth o Ports: Duluth-Superior Twin Ports o Major industries: Manufacturing, Medical, Mining, Shipping, Tourism and Recreation

15 Minnesota Fast Facts. NOAA Office for Coastal Management. Accessed online 10/28/2019. Available: https://coast.noaa.gov/states/minnesota.html 16 Jirsa, M.A. et al. 2011. Geologic Map of Minnesota Bedrock Geology. Minnesota Geological Survey, University of Minnesota. 17 Minnesota Fast Facts. NOAA Office for Coastal Management. Accessed online 10/28/2019. Available: https://coast.noaa.gov/states/minnesota.html

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 7 MN Policies on Coastal Erosion Hazards

Management of Minnesota’s Lake Superior shoreline is a shared responsibility between federal, state, and local governments with a strong emphasis on local control and regulation. The state does not have a statute that deals specifically with coastal erosion, but instead relies on the state shoreland rules18, which were designed for inland water bodies and make no specific provisions for Lake Superior. Local ordinances determine development along the Superior shoreline, with much of the shoreline protection responsibility falling under the collaborative Management Board19.

• Coastal Management: o Shared jurisdiction of Great Lake(s): Wisconsin, Michigan, Canada (Superior) o Tribal reservations: Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Grand Portage Indian Reservation (Lake Superior Band of Chippewa) o NOAA Coastal Management Program: Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Program (MNDNR) o State agencies: MNDNR, MPCA • Coastal communities: o Counties with shoreline: 3 (Cook, Lake, St. Louis) o Coastal cities and townships: 13 • Coastal Erosion and Shoreland Management: o State statute(s) on Great Lakes coastal erosion: None o State designation for high-risk erosion area: None o State statute(s) on general shoreland protection: Minnesota Administrative Rules Chapter 6120 Shoreland and Floodplain Management MR 6120.2500 - 6120.3900 o State statute(s) on floodplains: Minnesota Administrative Rules Chapter 6120 Shoreland and Floodplain Management MR 6120.2500 - 6120.3900 o State statute(s) on (coastal) wetlands: Wetlands Conservation Act (WCA) of 1991 o Responsible state agency: MNDNR o Existing agencies that have a defined role in shoreline management: USACE, MNDNR, local governments • Structure Permitting in Erosion Hazard Areas: o Permitting Agencies: USACE, MNDNR, local governments o Planning and Zoning: City of Duluth, North Shore Management Board and its member communities (Lake County, City of Grand Marais, City of Beaver Bay, City of Two

18 Minnesota Administrative Rules Chapter 6120 Shoreland and Floodplain Management MR 6120.2500 - 6120.3900 19 Minnesota Administrative Rules 6120.2800

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 8 Harbors, City of Silver Bay, Cook County, Duluth Township, Lakewood Township, Lutsen Township, Schroeder Township, Tofte Township, Town of Silver Creek) o State EHA-specific ordinances: None o State EHA-specific Permits: None o Local EHA-specific ordinances: North Shore Management Plan; Cook County Ordinance #37, Article 8, Section 8.08; Lake County Ordinance 12, Article 7, Section 7.11. o Local EHA-specific Permits: None (Standard Permits Apply) o Local Shoreland ordinances: Cook County Ordinance #37, Article 7; Lake County Ordinance 12, Article 7; City of Duluth Unified Development Code 50-18.1.D. o Shoreline setback(s): The annual erosion rate times 50 plus 25 feet from the top edge of the eroding bluff or 125 feet where annual erosion rate is unknown (based on 1989 map) in North Shore Management Board Zone high risk erosion area. For non-erosion hazard areas: 75 feet from OHWL elevation. 50 ft from shoreland in City of Duluth (no specific guideline for Lake Superior versus other shoreland). o Point of sale disclosure: No • Erosion Hazard Public Education and Outreach Efforts: o Agencies that engage in public outreach: Insufficient outreach at this time. o Noticeable outreach efforts: None MN Erosion Hazard Designation and Mapping

Minnesota lacks a coherent and up-to-date map of coastal erosion hazards. There are no state statutes or rules that dictate the development and standards for coastal erosion designations or mapping. The only published coastal erosion susceptibility mapping efforts was developed in the late 1980s (Fig. 1), but focuses only on the North Shore Management Board area of responsibility and excludes the shoreline of the City of Duluth including the vulnerable Minnesota Point.

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 9

Figure 1. One of the coastal erosion hazard maps produced for the North Shore Management Board in Minnesota20. High and low erosion risk areas are designated with red and green respectively.

• Erosion Mapping Efforts o State statute(s) that define coastal erosion hazards and mapping: None o Local statute(s) that define coastal erosion mapping: None o Published coastal erosion hazards map(s): 1989 by Carol Johnston o High-risk designation: Recession rate ≥ 1 ft/yr is high erosion potential o Estimated high risk shoreline (miles): 69.3 o Mapping agency: Natural Resource Research Institute (NRRI), University of Minnesota Duluth

20 Johnston, C.A. 1994. Erosion Hazard of Minnesota’s Lake Superior Shoreline. Minnesota Sea Grant Research Bulletin 44.

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 10 o Dataset(s) used for mapping and designations: Aerial photos from 1939, 1975, 1988/89 o Map Development: . Mapping strategy: Determined erosion potential based on geology, with organic deposits, clay & silt, sand & gravel, and unsorted glacial deposits all being identified as high erosion potential. Identified a control line and control features on 1939 images and drew the bluff edge line (crest). Transferred that line to the 1975 image and measured the distance between the bluff edge and control line. For the 1975 to 1988/89 comparison, instead drew the line directly on the features in the 1988/89 image and then compared it to 1975 image21. Transect measurement lines every 250 m were made between the control line and the bluff crest, with recession calculated between the 1930s and 1975 images and then the 1975 versus 1988/89 images. See Appendix for additional details. . Field-work required: No . Geomorphology-based: Yes. Identified high risk erosion areas based on surficial geology, with high risk including organic deposits, clay & silt, sand & gravel, and unsorted glacial deposits. . Vegetation22-based: No . Transects: 250 m . Erosion Hazard Area Designation: High risk erosion areas were designated based on recession rates greater than or equal to 1ft/yr . Software: NA . Regression calculation: Distance between bluff edge and control line/time between images . Error: 1930s to 1975: 3.5 m; 1975-1988/89: 2.8 m . Severity determination: High (≥ 1 ft/yr), low (<1 ft/yr), and unknown erosion potential o Map Publication and Distribution . Map published and maintained by: NRRI. Has been digitized and is now available as GIS layer through Arrowhead Regional Development Committee (ARDC). . Format: Paper map. Has been digitized and is now available as GIS layer. . Map(s) available online: North Shore Erosion Mapping Tool . Public comment period required: No . Property Owner Appeal(s): No

21 Johnston, C.A. 1994. Erosion Hazard of Minnesota’s Lake Superior Shoreline. Minnesota Sea Grant Research Bulletin 44.

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 11 Wisconsin

The state of Wisconsin has coast along two of the largest Great Lakes: Superior and Michigan. Both are very different systems and as such, the coasts along them are distinct. Most of the coastal population in Wisconsin is concentrated in the southeastern part of the state along , which explains why the majority of erosion-related research and outreach have been focused on this part of the state. Wisconsin has a strong coastal erosion and shoreline management outreach component between the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program and the Wisconsin Sea Grant.

Wisconsin’s Shoreline

The Wisconsin shoreline is dominated by high sandy and clay bluffs along Lake Superior to the north and Lake Michigan to the southeast. The southeastern coast on Lake Michigan is a bustling center of activity, with a larger proportion of the state’s population. The northern coast on Lake Superior is less developed, with significant areas along the coast held in public lands.

• Great Lake(s): Superior and Michigan • Miles of shoreline: 82023 • Geology: o Bedrock: Mostly sedimentary rock including sandstone, limestone, shale, and dolomite. Vulnerable large sand spit (Wisconsin Point)24. 25 o Soils: Glacial tills, with red sandy, clayey and loamy soils . o Shoreline Features: Sandy (Michigan) and rocky beaches (Superior). Large sand spit bar (Wisconsin Point). Clay and loam bluffs. • Major Tributaries: St. Louis River, Brule River, Menominee River, Peshtigo River, Fox River, Milwaukee River, Bad River, Sheboygan River • Development: o Shoreline development: Shoreline development is concentrated in cities around including Superior, Green Bay, and Milwaukee.

23 NOAA Office for Coastal Management. Wisconsin Fast Facts. Accessed 10/28/2019. Available: https://coast.noaa.gov/states/wisconsin.html 24 Wisconsin DNR. 2011. Bedrock Geology. Ecological landscapes of Wisconsin handbook - 1805.1. 25 Wisconsin DNR. 2011. Soil Regions. Ecological landscapes of Wisconsin handbook - 1805.1.

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 12 o Shoreline modifications: Mostly natural shoreline o Built infrastructure density: Highly variable, but with most built infrastructure concentrated in southeastern WI. o Built structure(s) comply with existing setbacks: Most structures pre-date setbacks o Wastewater system(s): Most large communities have public wastewater systems. More abundant septic systems along the northern coast. o Public vs. Private land(s): Extensive public land next to Superior, but mostly private land on Michigan. • Human Population: 26 o Population (est.): 2,049,934 o Major Cities: Superior, Green Bay, Milwaukee, Kenosha, Racine o Ports: Ashland, Bayfield, Duluth-Superior Twin Ports, Green Bay, La Pointe, Manitowoc, Marinette, Milwaukee, Port Washington, Sheboygan, Sturgeon Bay, Washburn, Washington Island o Major industries: Agriculture, Manufacturing, Shipping, Tourism and Recreation WI Policies on Coastal Erosion Hazards

Like Minnesota, Wisconsin does not have a state statute or rule in regards to either shoreland protection or erosion specific to the Great Lakes. Despite the lack of legislative or rule-making solutions to this issue, there are numerous efforts at addressing the problem across the state, including support from the WI Coastal Management Program, WI Sea Grant, and local governments.

• Coastal Management: o Shared jurisdiction of Great Lake(s): Michigan, Minnesota, Canada (Superior); Michigan, Illinois, Indiana (Michigan) o NOAA Office of Coastal Management Programs: Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, WI Department of Administration (WIDOA); Lake Superior National Estuarine Research Reserve o State agencies: WI Department of Natural Resources (WI DNR), WIDOA o Tribal Reservations: Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Oneida Nation • Coastal communities: o Counties with shoreline: 15 o Coastal cities and townships: 90 • Coastal Erosion and Shoreland Management: o State statute(s) on Great Lakes coastal erosion: None

26 Wisconsin Fast Facts. NOAA Office for Coastal Management. Accessed online 10/28/2019. Available: https://coast.noaa.gov/states/wisconsin.html

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 13 o State statute(s) on general shoreland protection: Wisconsin Statute §59.69 Planning and zoning authority; Wisconsin Statute §59.692 Zoning of shorelands on navigable waters; Wisconsin Statute §281.31 Navigable waters protection law; Wisconsin Chapter NR 115 Wisconsin’s Shoreland Protection Program o State statute(s) on floodplains: Wisconsin Statute §59.69 Planning and zoning authority; Chapter NR 116 Wisconsin’s Floodplain Management Program o State statute(s) on (coastal) wetlands: Wisconsin Statute Chapter 30 Navigable Waters, Harbors and Navigation; Wisconsin Statute Chapter 31 Regulation of Dams and Bridges Affecting Navigable Waters; Wisconsin Statute §281.36 Permits for discharges into wetlands; mitigation; Wisconsin Chapter NR 299 Water Quality Certification; Wisconsin Statute §281.11; Wisconsin Chapter NR 103.05. Wisconsin Chapter NR 103 Water Quality Standards for Wetlands; Wisconsin Chapter NR 117 Wisconsin’s City and Village Shoreland-Wetland Protection Program (Wisconsin Statute §62.231 and §61.351) for city and village shoreland-wetland zoning ordinances. o Responsible state agency: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WIDNR) o Existing agencies that have a defined role in shoreline management: WIDNR, USACE • Structure Permitting in Erosion Hazard Areas: o Permitting Agencies: USACE, WIDNR, local governments o Planning and Zoning: Local government level; 2015 Wisconsin Act 55 within 75-foot shoreland setback within unincorporated townships and counties. o State EHA-specific ordinances: No o State EHA-specific Permits: No o Local EHA-specific ordinance(s): Yes. Effort in 2011 to strengthen shoreline setbacks in Bayfield County27 was not implemented, but is currently advisory. o Local EHA-specific Permits: No o Local shoreland ordinance(s): Most communities have local shoreland ordinances, the state set a standard 75-foot setback that local communities in 2015 Wisconsin Act 55 for unincorporated townships and counties. Local communities cannot be more restrictive through shoreland zoning, but are able to address local standards in regards to erosion. o Shoreline setback(s): 75 feet from OHWM (ordinary high water mark). o Point of sale disclosure: No • Erosion Hazard Public Education and Outreach Efforts: o Agencies that engage in public outreach: Wisconsin Sea Grant; Wisconsin Coastal Management Program (WIDOA); WIDNR; University of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering, Department of Geoscience; Wisconsin Emergency Management Program; Association of State Floodplain Managers

27 Kastrosky, K. 2011. Developing a legally defensible setback ordinance for Bayfield County, Wisconsin.

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 14 28 o Noticeable outreach efforts: Adapting to a Changing Coast , Southeast Wisconsin Coastal Resiliency29

WI Erosion Hazard Designation and Mapping

Recent mapping of coastal bluff conditions and recession was led by researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, supported by the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program. Recession rates for bluff crest, bluff toe, and shoreline have only been assessed across the four southernmost counties (Kenosha, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine)30 as part of this effort, but there have also been county-wide efforts in other parts of the state31. Although not all of the shoreline has been assessed for shoreline erosion and recession, most of the coast has been assessed for bluff condition and stability (Figure 2).

28 Adapting to a Changing Coast. Wisconsin Sea Grant. Available: https://publications.aqua.wisc.edu/product- category/coastal-communities/ 29 Southeastern Wisconsin Coastal Resilience. Accessed 11/1/2019. Available: https://sewicoastalresilience.org/ 30 Jordan, N. et al. 2019. Southwestern Wisconsin coastal recession between 1956 to 2015. Wisconsin Coastal Management Program. 31 Bayfield County, Wisconsin. Map Gallery. Accessed 10/31/2019. Available: https://www.bayfieldcounty.org/483/Map-Gallery

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 15

Figure 2: State-wide view of shoreline inventory and bluff condition analysis along the Wisconsin coast32.

• State statute(s) that define coastal erosion hazards and mapping: None • Local statute(s) that define coastal erosion mapping: None • Published coastal erosion hazards map(s): Yes (for southeastern WI) • Current map: 2015 • High-risk designation: NA. Gave recession rate instead. • Mapping agency: University of Wisconsin-Madison • Dataset(s) used for mapping and designations: Aerial images from 1956, 1995, 2015 (ortho- rectified and aimed for 1:20,000 resolution)

32 Wisconsin Shoreline Inventory & Oblique Viewer. Accessed 10/28/2019. Available: http://floodatlas.org/asfpm/oblique_viewer/

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 16 • Map Development: o Mapping strategy: Traced feature lines on the bluff crest and toe or where no bluff present on the shoreline where water meets land. These lines were digitized and then recession was measured using USGS Digital Shoreline Analysis Software (DSAS)33. o Field-work required: No, but bluff conditions were assessed by one individual based on imagery. o Geomorphology-based: Yes, based on bluff features o Vegetation-based: No o Transects: Digital transects handled in USGS DSAS at 10 m increment with recession averaged over 100 m. o Erosion Hazard Area Designation: NA o Software: USGS DSAS o Recession calculation: Shoreline distance moved/Years between images o Error: ±4 ft recession distance; ±0.07 ft/yr recession rate (long-term) o Severity determination: NA. Provide recession distance and rate only • Map Publication and Distribution o Map published and maintained by: Association of State Floodplain Managers o Format: Digital GIS layer o Map(s) available online: Wisconsin Shoreline Inventory & Oblique Viewer o Public comment period required: No o Property Owner Appeal(s): No

Michigan

With the largest freshwater coast in the United States, the State of Michigan has a vested interest in protecting its coastline along Lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron, and Erie. The state has undergone significant effort in protecting the shoreline with its High Risk Erosion Areas program that was started in 199434. High lake levels across the Great Lakes is exacerbating current erosion issues across the state, which has an estimated 250 miles of high risk erosion area, a larger shoreline than all but two of the other Great Lakes states.

33 Jordan, N. et al. 2019. Southwestern Wisconsin coastal recession between 1956 to 2015. Wisconsin Coastal Management Program. 34 EGLE High Risk Erosion Areas: Program and Maps. Accessed 10/28/2019. Available: https://www.michigan.gov/egle/0,9429,7-135-3313_3677_3700-344443--,00.html

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 17 Michigan’s Shoreline

Lake Michigan’s shoreline is extensive and as such, its shoreline is a diverse system, but contains mostly sandy bluffs and beaches. Development is much higher on Lake Michigan and around the smaller Lake St. Claire (which is part of the Great Lakes hydrological system). The Upper Peninsula of the state is the least developed and populated region, but is a very popular area for tourism and recreation.

• Great Lake(s): Superior, Huron, Michigan, Erie, (Lake St. Claire) • Miles of shoreline: 3,22435 • Geology: o Bedrock: Coastal Michigan has diverse bedrock geology and is primarily metamorphic rock, including shale, sandstone, but also has sedimentary rock including limestone36. o Soils: The soils along the coasts are primarily sands, loams, and sandy loams. The soils along the Lake Erie coast are silt clay, silty clay loams37. o Shoreline features: Sandy bluffs, shallow sand beaches • Major Tributaries: Menominee River, St. Joseph River, Black River, Kalamazoo River, Macatawa River, Grand River, Manistee River, Betsie River, Cheboygan River, River, Saginaw River, St. Claire River, Tahquamenon River, • Development: o Shoreline development: Highly developed around the major cities, but only moderate development for most of the shoreline. The Upper Peninsula has the lowest development. o Shoreline modifications: Most of the shoreline is not modified. o Built infrastructure density: Very dense along the southern coast of Lake Michigan. Less dense along the other lakes, particularly Lake Superior. o Built structure(s) comply with existing setbacks: Most were built before setbacks.

35 Michigan Fast Facts. NOAA Office for Coastal Management. Accessed 10/28/2019. Available: https://coast.noaa.gov/states/michigan.html 36 Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. GeoWebFace. Bedrock Geology. Accessed 11/1/2019. Available: https://www.deq.state.mi.us/GeoWebFace/ 37 Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. GeoWebFace. Soils SSURGO 10 Meter Grid. Accessed 11/1/2019. Available: https://www.deq.state.mi.us/GeoWebFace/

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 18 o Wastewater system(s): Most of the large cities and surrounding areas have community wastewater treatment plants. More rural areas, including parts of the Upper Peninsula, have septic systems. o Public vs. Private land(s): Most of the Upper Peninsula coast is public land as is most of the upper half of Michigan. The southern coasts have more private land. • Human Population: 38 o Population (est.): 4,680,503 o Major Cities: Detroit (Lake St. Claire), Traverse City, Port Huron, Holland, Muskegon o Ports: Detroit (Lake St. Claire), Port of Port Huron, Muskegon Harbor, Sault Ste. Marie () o Major industries: Shipping, Manufacturing, Recreation and Tourism MI Policies on Coastal Erosion Hazards

The Great Lakes are a critical resource to Michigan and as such the state has a designated department that tackles Great Lakes issues, the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE). EGLE is responsible for assessing and mapping coastal erosion hazards and permits development in these areas.

• Coastal Management: o Shared jurisdiction of Great Lake(s): Wisconsin, Minnesota, Canada (Superior); Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana (Michigan); Canada (Huron); Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Canada (Erie) o NOAA Coastal Management Program: Michigan Coastal Zone Management Program (EGLE) o State agencies: MI EGLE o Tribal Reservations: Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (Lake Superior Band of Chippewa), Hannahville Indian Community (Potawatomi), Bay Mills Indian Community (Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians), Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Potawatomi (Gun Lake Tribe) • Coastal communities: o Counties with shoreline: 41 coastal counties o Coastal cities and townships: 122 • Coastal Erosion and Shoreland Management:

38 Michigan Fast Facts. NOAA Office for Coastal Management. Accessed 10/28/2019. Available: https://coast.noaa.gov/states/michigan.html

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 19 o State statute(s) on Great Lakes coastal erosion: Part 323 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451 as amended o State designation for high-risk erosion area: High risk erosion area (HREA) o State statute(s) on general shoreland protection: Part 323, Shorelands Protection and Management, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 Public Act 451 o State statute(s) on floodplains: Part 324, Water Resources Protection, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451 as amended o State statute(s) on (coastal) wetlands: Part 303, Wetlands Protection, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451 as amended (formerly Geomare-Anderson Wetlands Protection Act, 1979 PA 203) and Part 323, Shorelands Protection and Management, the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451 o Primary state agency: EGLE o Existing agencies that have a defined role in shoreline management: EGLE, USACE • Structure Permitting in Erosion Hazard Areas: o Permitting Agencies: EGLE, USACE, 2 local governments o Planning and Zoning: Local zoning ordinances, but requires a state permit for development in HREA o State EHA-specific ordinances: Yes o State EHA-specific Permits: Yes, EGLE Permit o Local EHA-specific ordinances: Yes, currently 2 communities have local ordinances o Local EHA-specific Permits: Yes, currently 2 communities issue permits in HREAs o Shoreline setback(s): Determined by 30 (readily moveable structure) or 60 (non-readily moveable structure) year projected recession lines. Calculated as the recession rate ft/yr * 30 or 60 (depending on structure type) plus 15 ft. o Point of sale disclosure: No • Erosion Hazard Public Education and Outreach Efforts: o Agencies that engage in public outreach: EGLE o Noticeable outreach efforts: EGLE handouts on what an HREA is MI Erosion Hazard Designation and Mapping

Since its inception in 1994, the High Risk Erosion Areas program has been studying and mapping Michigan’s shoreline. Due to the extensive coastline, maps are updated on a county and township level and are a coordinated effort between EGLE and the county (Figure 3). The program has detailed methodology for both map analysis and field verification. The state statute mandates that the erosion hazard line (EHL) be measured in reference to vegetation, which can be complicated due to various disturbances and fails to take the geomorphology of the site in account.

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 20

Figure 3: Example of a recent erosion hazard area map produced by the EGLE for Burt Township, Michigan39.

• State statute(s) that define coastal erosion hazards and mapping: Yes (Part 323 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451 as amended) • Local statute(s) that define coastal erosion mapping: Yes • Published coastal erosion hazards map(s): Yes, 1995, 2012, 2018 • High-risk designation: 1 ft/yr over minimum of 15 years

39 High Risk Erosion Areas: Programs and Maps. Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy. Accessed 10/28/2019. Available at: https://www.michigan.gov/egle/0,9429,7-135-3311_4114-344443--,00.html

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 21 • Estimated high risk shoreline (miles): 25040 • Mapping agency: EGLE • Dataset(s) used for mapping and designations: 2012 USACE Great Lakes Oblique Imagery, aerial and shoreline photos, site visits • Map Development: o Mapping strategy: Locate the EHL, based on existing erosion and/or lack of vegetation (or high water line set by law), and compare with historic EHL. Measures recession on transects 150 ft apart. o Field-work required: Yes. Detailed methods for determining EHL, bluff heights and angles, and calculating setbacks. o Geomorphology-based: No o Vegetation-based: Yes (required by law) o Transects: Every 150 ft (county-wide) o Erosion Hazard Area Designation: High Risk Erosion Area (HREA) with at least 3 transects that meet 1 ft/yr over minimum of 15 years. Rates for individual transects are averaged together for the overall rate for that area. o Software: USGS DSAS o Recession calculation: Shoreline distance based on EHLs/Time between images o Error: Calculated separately for each map o Severity determination: 30 and 60 yr recession rates • Map Publication and Distribution o Map published and maintained by: EGLE o Format: PDF maps by city or township and a larger state-wide map o Map(s) available online: EGLE High Risk Erosion Areas: Program and Maps o Public comment period required: Yes o Property Owner Appeal(s): No

Illinois

The State of Illinois has a short, but very densely populated and developed coastline along the southwestern tip of Lake Michigan. Although it has only 63 miles of shoreline, Lake Michigan is a critical resource for the state as much of its history and current economy is connected to the port infrastructure there.

40 High Risk Erosion Areas: Programs and Maps. Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy. Accessed 10/28/2019. Available at: https://www.michigan.gov/egle/0,9429,7-135-3311_4114-344443--,00.html

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 22 Illinois’ Shoreline

Centered around the Chicago metropolitan area, the shoreline has been extensively modified and the only remaining natural shoreline is the Illinois Beach State Park.

• Great Lake(s): Michigan • Miles of shoreline: 6341 • Geology: 42 o Bedrock: Silurian limestone 43 o Soils: Organic rich, clay soils (alfisols) o Shoreline features: sandy beaches, dunes • Major Tributaries: Chicago River, Calumet River • Development: o Shoreline development: Extremely developed o Shoreline modifications: Extremely modified o Built infrastructure density: Very dense infrastructure o Built structure(s) comply with existing setbacks: Most built before setbacks o Wastewater system(s): All properties on a municipal wastewater treatment system. o Public vs. Private land(s): Majority private land, with the exception of several city and state parks. • Human Population: 44 o Population (est.): 5,898,137 o Major Cities: Chicago o Ports: Port of Chicago o Major industries: Manufacturing, Shipping, Tourism and Recreation IL Policies on Coastal Erosion Hazards

Despite the armaments around the shoreline, there has been extensive erosion on Illinois’ coast which is partly due to high lake levels. There are no current state statutes or rules that specifically address coastal erosion for Lake Michigan. However, there are efforts under way by the Illinois Coastal

41 Illinois Fast Facts. NOAA Office for Coastal Management. Accessed 10/28/2019. Available: https://coast.noaa.gov/states/illinois.html 42 Illinois State Geological Survey. 2005. Bedrock Geology of Illinois. Illinois Map 14. 43 Natural Resource Conservation Service Illinois. Illinois Suite of Maps. Accessed 11/1/2019. Available: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/il/soils/surveys/?cid=nrcs141p2_030697 44 Illinois Fast Facts. NOAA Office for Coastal Management. Accessed 10/28/2019. Available: https://coast.noaa.gov/states/illinois.html

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 23 Management Program, the Illinois State Geological Survey, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to determine the extent and possible solutions to erosion.

• Coastal Management: o Shared jurisdiction of Great Lake(s): Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana (Michigan) o NOAA Coastal Management Program: Illinois Coastal Management Program, Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) o State agencies: IDNR, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) o Tribal Reservations: NA • Coastal communities: o Counties with shoreline: 2 o Coastal cities and townships: 15 • Coastal Erosion and Shoreland Management: o State statute(s) on Great Lakes coastal erosion: None o State statute(s) on general shoreland protection: River, Lakes and Streams Act of 1911 (615 ILCS 5) and Regulation of Public Waters (IDNR OWR Part 3704) o State statute(s) on floodplains: Public Act 096-1395 o State statute(s) on (coastal) wetlands: Interagency Wetlands Policy Act of 1989 (IWPA) o Responsible state agency: IDNR OWR (Office of Water Resources), IEPA o Existing agencies that have a defined role in shoreline management: USACE, IDNR, IEPA, • Structure Permitting in Erosion Hazard Areas: o Permitting Agencies: USACE, IDNR, IEPA o Planning and Zoning: Local governments o State EHA-specific ordinances: No o State EHA-specific Permits: No o Local EHA-specific ordinances: No o Local EHA-specific Permits: No o Shoreline setback(s): Varies. Depends on local government ordinances. o Point of sale disclosure: No • Erosion Hazard Public Education and Outreach Efforts: o Agencies that engage in public outreach: Illinois Natural History Survey, Illinois State Geological Survey including the Great Lakes Coastal Geology Research Group, Illinois Coastal Management Program, Illinois Sand Management Working Group o Noticeable outreach efforts: See above, also the Community Science Shoreline Monitoring Project (COASTS) and Where is the beach going? Project.

IL Erosion Hazard Designation and Mapping

Illinois does not currently have an established coastal erosion hazard designation or mapping system. There is ongoing work through the US Army Corps of Engineers to assess the Illinois Beach

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 24 State Park natural shoreline, the last in the state, for ongoing beach loss. There are also efforts supported by the Illinois Geological Survey to map the depth and extent of beach sand along the Lake Michigan coast45.

• State statute(s) that define coastal erosion hazards and mapping: NA • Local statute(s) that define coastal erosion mapping: NA • Published coastal erosion hazards map(s): No

Indiana

With the smallest coastline of the Great Lakes states, Indiana utilizes all of its coastline with the only undeveloped areas in public parks and recreation areas. The highlight of the Indiana shoreline is the Indiana Dunes National Park, formerly a state park, that is a pristine area of sand dunes and beaches. The area has long been a recreation destination, particularly for residents from the Chicago metropolitan area.

Indiana’s Shoreline

The Indiana shoreline is packed with industrial and port activity, primarily around East Chicago and Gary, but natural shoreline is abundant further to the west, centered around the Indiana Dunes. Most of the shoreline remains unmodified.

• Great Lake(s): Michigan • Miles of shoreline: 4546 • Geology: 47 o Bedrock: Sedimentary rock including shale, siltstone, and limestone 48 o Soils: Eolian deposited sands and loams o Shoreline Features: Sandy bluffs, dunes, and beaches • Major Tributaries: East Arm Calumet River, Trail Creek • Development:

45Illinois Coastal Management Program. Sand Management. Accessed 10/31/2019. Available: https://www.dnr.illinois.gov/cmp/Pages/sandmanagement.aspx 46 Indiana Fast Facts. NOAA Office for Coastal Management. Accessed online 10/28/2019. Available: https://coast.noaa.gov/states/indiana.html 47 Indiana University. Indiana Geological & Water Survey. Bedrock Geology of Indiana. Accessed 11/1/2019. Available online: https://igws.indiana.edu/Bedrock 48 Franzmeier, D.P. et al. Indiana Soil and Landscape Evaluation Manual. Version 1.0. Purdue University.

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 25 o Shoreline development: Moderate development o Shoreline modifications: Mostly natural o Built infrastructure density: High density around City of Gary and the Port of Indiana- Burns Harbor; lower density around the national park o Built structure(s) comply with existing setbacks: Most built prior to modern setbacks and zoning ordinances o Wastewater system(s): Most communities are on public wastewater treatment systems o Public vs. Private land(s): Mostly private land with the exception of the Indiana Dunes National Park. • Human Population: 49 o Population (est.): 1,432,512 o Major Cities: Gary, East Chicago, Michigan City o Ports: Port of Indiana-Burns Harbor, East Chicago o Major industries: Manufacturing, Shipping, Tourism and Recreation IN Policies on Coastal Erosion Hazards

Like many Great Lakes states, Indiana lacks a cohesive and coherent state-wide policy on shoreline protection and management specific to the Lake Michigan coastline.

• Coastal Management: o Shared jurisdiction of Great Lake(s): Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin o NOAA Coastal Management Program: Indiana Lake Michigan Coastal Program, Indiana Department of Natural Resources (INDNR) o State agencies: INDNR o Tribal Reservations: NA • Coastal communities: o Counties with shoreline: 3 o Coastal cities and townships: 12 • Coastal Erosion and Shoreland Management: o State statute(s) on Great Lakes coastal erosion: None o State statute(s) on general shoreland protection: Found in Indiana Code chapter 14 including the Lakes Preservation Act (IC 14-26-2) o State statute(s) on floodplains: Flood Plain Management Act (IC 14-28-3) o State statute(s) on (coastal) wetlands: State Isolated Wetland law (IC 13-18-22-6) o Responsible state agency: INDNR o Existing agencies that have a defined role in shoreline management:

49 Indiana Fast Facts. NOAA Office for Coastal Management. Accessed 10/28/2019. Available: https://coast.noaa.gov/states/indiana.html

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 26 • Structure Permitting in Erosion Hazard Areas: o Permitting Agencies: INDNR o Planning and Zoning: Local government ordinances o State EHA-specific ordinances: None o State EHA-specific Permits: None o Local EHA-specific ordinances: None o Local EHA-specific Permits: None o Shoreline setback(s): Depends on local government o Point of sale disclosure: No • Erosion Hazard Public Education and Outreach Efforts: o Agencies that engage in public outreach: Indiana Lake Michigan Coastal Program o Noticeable outreach efforts: Insufficient outreach efforts at this time IN Erosion Hazard Designation and Mapping

Indiana does not currently have any programs specific to erosion hazard related research or mapping.

• State statute(s) that define coastal erosion hazards and mapping: NA • Local statute(s) that define coastal erosion mapping: NA • Published coastal erosion hazards map(s): No

Ohio

The State of Ohio has the largest shoreline on Lake Erie, the smallest and shallowest of the Great Lakes, and is home to millions of Ohioans. Historically, Lake Erie has been a hub of industrial activity, including steel mills, power plants, and other manufacturing and mining along its shore. Today, while there remains significant industrial activity, centered in northeastern Ohio, much of the Lake Erie coast is now focused on tourism and recreation activities.

Ohio’s Shoreline

The Ohio shoreline is mostly shallow, with sandy beaches or silt clay bluffs. Due to the high population density, concentrated in the greater Cleveland, Toledo, and Sandusky metropolitan areas, much of the shoreline is developed and modified. The shoreline also includes the Bass Islands and Kelly’s Islands in western Lake Erie.

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 27 • Great Lake(s): Erie • Miles of shoreline: 31250 • Geology: o Bedrock: Silurian to Devonian sedimentary rock, including shale, siltstone, dolomite, and limestone51 o Soils: High clay/silt composition with organic deposits and unconsolidated glacial material52 o Shoreline Features: Shallow sandy beaches, silt clay bluffs (eastern shoreline) • Major Tributaries: Maumee River, Portage River, Sandusky River, Mud Brook, Old Woman Creek, Vermilion River, Black River, Rocky River, Cuyahoga River, Chagrin River, Grand River, Ashtabula River, West Branch Conneaut • Development: o Shoreline development: Very developed o Shoreline modifications: Very modified o Built infrastructure density: Very dense development o Built structure(s) comply with existing setbacks: No existing setbacks required o Wastewater system(s): Most communities have established wastewater treatment systems. o Public vs. Private land(s): Mostly private land. • Human Population: 53 o Population (est.): 2,534,282 o Major Cities: Cleveland, Toledo, Sandusky, Ashtabula o Major industries: Fishing, Manufacturing, Mining, Shipping, Tourism and Recreation OH Policies on Coastal Erosion Hazards

The State of Ohio has been monitoring erosion hazards along Lake Erie since 1998 as part of the Coastal Erosion Area program which is run by the ODNR Office of Coastal Management. The Ohio erosion program emphasizes the need for identifying areas of higher erosion risks and ensuring that adequate shoreline protections are implemented in those areas. Ohio is the only state that requires a point of sale disclosure from property owners to prospective buyers that a home or other structure is

50 Ohio Fast Facts. NOAA Office for Coastal Management. Accessed online 10/28/2019. Available: https://coast.noaa.gov/states/ohio.html 51 Ohio Division of Geological Survey. 2006. Bedrock geologic map of Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 52 Natural Resources Conservation Service Ohio. N.d. Soil Regions of Ohio. Ohio Department of Agriculture’s Division of Soil and Water Conservation. 53 Ohio Fast Facts. NOAA Office for Coastal Management. Accessed online 10/28/2019. Available: https://coast.noaa.gov/states/ohio.html

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 28 in an Lake Erie Coastal Erosion Hazard Area54. The Office of Coastal Management is also currently undertaking an effort to develop a Lake Erie Shore Erosion Management Plan (LESEMP) for the entire coastline55.

• Coastal Management: o Shared jurisdiction of Great Lake(s): Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, Canada o NOAA Office for Coastal Management Programs: Ohio Coastal Management Program, Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR); Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve o State agencies: ODNR o Tribal Reservations: NA • Coastal communities: o Counties with shoreline: 8 o Coastal cities and townships: 58 • Coastal Erosion and Shoreland Management: o State statute(s) on Great Lakes coastal erosion: Ohio Coastal Management Law 1998 (Ohio Revised Code §1506 and Ohio Administrative Code §1501-6) o State statute(s) on general shoreland protection: Ohio Revised Code Chapter 1506: Coastal Management (Ohio Revised Code §1506) o State statute(s) on floodplains: Ohio Revised Code Chapter 1521: Division of Water Resources §1521.12 Floodplain Management Activities o State statute(s) on (coastal) wetlands: Ohio Revised Code Chapter 6111: Water Pollution Control, §6111.31 o Responsible state agency: ODNR o Existing agencies that have a defined role in shoreline management: ODNR, USACE • Structure Permitting in Erosion Hazard Areas: o Permitting Agencies: ODNR o Planning and Zoning: Local governments o State EHA-specific ordinances: Yes o State EHA-specific Permits: Yes o Local EHA-specific ordinances: No o Local EHA-specific Permits: No o Shoreline setback(s): Site specific determination, but there are no minimum setbacks if the shoreline modification shows adequate shoreline protection. o Point of sale disclosure: Yes

54 ODNR Office of Coastal Management. Coastal Erosion Area permits. Coastal Guidance Sheet No. 6. 55 ODNR Office of Coastal Management. Lake Erie Shore Erosion Management Plan. Accessed 11/1/2019. Available: http://coastal.ohiodnr.gov/erosion

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 29 • Erosion Hazard Public Education and Outreach Efforts: o Agencies that engage in public outreach: Office of Coastal Management o Noticeable outreach efforts: Significant outreach and resources relating to the planning and construction of structures along the shore, including a design manual.

OH Erosion Hazard Designation and Mapping

The State of Ohio has a rigorous mapping program that requires periodic updates, typically every 10 years, to assess changes to the Lake Erie shoreline56. The mapping for Ohio, as determined by state law, involves intensive data collection and analysis. Once mapping is complete, the public has the right to view the map and make comments for a year before its final publication.

Figure 4. Identified areas of coastal erosion across Ohio’s Lake Erie shoreline57.

• State statute(s) that define coastal erosion hazards and mapping: Yes • Local statute(s) that define coastal erosion mapping: No • Published coastal erosion hazards map(s): Yes, 1998, 2010, 2018 • High-risk designation: Coastal Erosion Area (CEA) based on threshold (described below) • Estimated high risk shoreline (miles): ~300 • Mapping agency: ODNR Division of Geological Survey

56 ODNR Office of Coastal Management. Coastal Erosion Area Maps. Accessed 11/1/2019. Available: http://coastal.ohiodnr.gov/ceamaps 57 ODNR Office of Coastal Management. Coastal Erosion Area Maps. Accessed 11/1/2019. Available: http://coastal.ohiodnr.gov/ceamaps

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 30 • Dataset(s) used for mapping and designations: Aerial imagery (1973, 1990, 2004, 2015) • Map Development: o Mapping strategy: Transect lines are imposed on aerial imagery based on distance. Two images are superimposed on top of each other, identify fixed feature (geological) to use as control point between images (i.e., bluff crest, dune). Recession rate measurements are made based on these lines. See appendix for more details. o Field-work required: No, but mappers have a good knowledge of the geological features and ensure that shoreline recession measurements match with the knowledge of the area o Geomorphology-based: Yes, fixed features for superimposing transect lines are typically related to the geomorphology, such as bluff crest or dune o Vegetation-based: No o Transects: Every 100 ft., totaling over 14,000 transect lines across shoreline o Erosion Hazard Area Designation: Coastal Erosion Area (CEA) o Software: None o Recession calculation: Distance of land movement along transect divided by time between imagery o Error: 5 foot fixed error based on 1973 – 1990 aerial images o Severity determination: Coastal Erosion Area based on threshold calculation. Calculation is 5 ft standard error divided by years between images and multiplied by 30 (to estimate 30 years of recession). Measured recession rates times 30 that are greater than this value is a CEA. Anything below this threshold receives no designation. • Map Publication and Distribution o Map published and maintained by: ODNR Office of Coastal Management o Map(s) available online: Coastal Erosion Area Maps o Public comment period required: Yes o Property Owner Appeal(s): No

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania has both a small freshwater coast on Lake Erie and a marine coast along the Delaware estuary. The small coast along Lake Erie can be forgotten in comparison to the larger development and marine activities on the Atlantic, but access to Lake Erie is vital for shipping goods throughout the Great Lakes.

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 31 Pennsylvania’s Great Lakes Shoreline

The Lake Erie shoreline is dominated by clay silt high bluffs and the low-lying Presque Isle peninsula, a popular state park and recreation attraction outside of the City of Erie. Situated on just one county, Pennsylvania’s shoreline is densely populated, but with very little modification of the shoreline.

• Great Lake(s): Erie • Miles of shoreline: 7758 • Geology: 59 o Bedrock: Sedimentary rock including sandstone, shale, limestone and chert 60 o Soils: Fluvial sand, silt, and gravel o Shoreline Features: Clay silt bluffs, sandy beaches (Presque Isle) • Major Tributaries: Crooked Creek, Elk Creek, Walnut Creek, Twentymile Creek, • Development: o Shoreline development: Very developed o Shoreline modifications: Little to no modification o Built infrastructure density: Very dense development, especially around City of Erie o Built structure(s) comply with existing setbacks: Most were built prior to setbacks o Wastewater system(s): Predominately municipal wastewater treatment systems o Public vs. Private land(s): Mostly private land, except for Presque Isle State Park • Human Population: 61 o Population (est.): 272,061 o Major Cities: Erie o Ports: Erie o Major industries: Shipping, Recreation and Tourism PA Policies on Coastal Erosion Hazards

Pennsylvania has a long-standing policy of monitoring bluff erosion hazards along Lake Erie, but does not have state-wide ordinances or permitting for development. That the Lake Erie coastline is

58 Foyle, A.M. 2018. The Lake Erie bluff coast of Pennsylvania: A state of knowledge report on coastal change patterns, processes, and management. Pennsylvania Sea Grant and Pennsylvania State University. 59 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Topographic and Geological Survey. Geologic Map of Pennsylvania Map 7. 60 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1981. General soil map, Pennsylvania. 61 United States Census. QuickFacts Erie County, Pennsylvania. Accessed 11/1/2019. Available: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/eriecountypennsylvania

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 32 only in one county with 11 municipalities may be a significant factor. The most noticeable impact is the highly variable shoreline setbacks, which range from 25 to 200 feet for bluff erosion hazard areas.

• Coastal Management: o Shared jurisdiction of Great Lake(s): Michigan, Ohio, New York, Canada o NOAA Coastal Management Program: Pennsylvania Coastal Resources Management Program, Pennsylvania Department of the Environment (DEP) o State agencies: DEP o Tribal Reservations: NA • Coastal communities (only Great Lakes coast): o Counties with shoreline: 1 o Coastal cities and townships: 9 • Coastal Erosion and Shoreland Management: o State statute(s) on Great Lakes coastal erosion: Bluff Recession and Setback Act, Act 48 of 1980, P.L. 122 o State statute(s) on general shoreland protection: NA o State statute(s) on floodplains: The Pennsylvania Flood Plain Management Act 166 of 1978 o State statute(s) on (coastal) wetlands: Chapter 105 of Title 25 of the PA Code – Waterway Engineering and Wetlands Management o Responsible state agency: DEP o Existing agencies that have a defined role in shoreline management: USACE, DEP • Structure Permitting in Erosion Hazard Areas: o Permitting Agencies: USACE, DEP, local governments o Planning and Zoning: Local governments o State EHA-specific ordinances: No o State EHA-specific Permits: No o Local EHA-specific ordinances: Yes, under Chapter 85 each local municipality is required to establish ordinances in reference to shoreline setbacks (§85.31-37) o Local EHA-specific permits: Yes, through building and zoning permits (§85.24) o Shoreline setback(s): Minimum setback of 25 feet. Specific setbacks are determined by local municipalities; varying between 25 – 200 ft within the Bluff Recession Hazard Area (BRHA). Different setbacks in regards to the expected life span of the structure (residential = 50 yrs, commercial = 75 yrs, industrial = 100 yrs)62. o Point of sale disclosure: No

62 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Guidance for the Implementation of the Chapter 85 Bluff Recession and Setback Regulations 394-2000-001. Municipal reference document.

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 33 • Erosion Hazard Public Education and Outreach Efforts: o Agencies that engage in public outreach: Pennsylvania Sea Grant o Noticeable outreach efforts: Insufficient outreach at this time. PA Erosion Hazard Designation and Mapping

Pennsylvania began its erosion hazard monitoring program in 1975 by establishing control points and measuring the distance from that point to the top of the shoreline bluffs (crest)63. This program is field intensive, but is possible for shorter shoreline and has the added benefit of a very hands-on approach that can expand outreach and community engagement opportunities. Since then there have also been other coastal erosion monitoring efforts, including a more formal identification of recession rates along the shoreline in 200164, the use of LiDAR datasets to track possible erosion (not a published product), and an ongoing effort with Pennsylvania State University and the Pennsylvania Sea Grant program to identify indicators of erosion hazards65,66.

• State statute(s) that define coastal erosion hazards and mapping: Bluff Recession and Setback Act, Act 48 of 1980, P.L. 122; Bluff Recession and Setback Regulations 25 Pa. Code § 85.1-8561 (Chapter 85 Bluff Recession and Setback Regulations 394-2000-001) • Local statute(s) that define coastal erosion mapping: NA • Published coastal erosion hazards map(s): Yes, 2001, 2013, 2018 • High-risk designation: Bluff Recession Hazard Area (BRHA) • Estimated high risk shoreline (miles): Unknown • Mapping agency: Pennsylvania Coastal Resources Management Program • Dataset(s) used for mapping and designations: Measurements from control point to bluff crests, started in 1975. Most control points were established in the 1980s.

63 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Lake Erie Bluff Recession Control Point Monitoring. Accessed 11/1/2019. Available: https://www.dep.pa.gov/Business/Water/Compacts%20and%20Commissions/Coastal%20Resources%20Manag ement%20Program/Pages/Lake-Erie-Bluff-Recession-Control-Point-Monitoring.aspx 64 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Bluff Recession Hazard Area Designations. Accessed 11/1/2019. Available: https://www.dep.pa.gov/Business/Water/Compacts%20and%20Commissions/Coastal%20Resources%20Manag ement%20Program/Pages/Bluff-Recession-Hazard-Area-Designations.aspx 65 Pennsylvania Sea Grant. A Bayesian statistical network model of bluff retreat and a littoral sediment budget model for the western Erie County littoral cell, Lake Erie. Accessed 11/1/2019. Available: https://seagrant.psu.edu/topics/pa-coastal-ecosystems/research/bayesian-statistical-network-model-bluff- retreat-and-littoral 66 Foyle, A.M. 2018. The Lake Erie bluff coast of Pennsylvania: A state of knowledge report on coastal change patterns, processes, and management. Pennsylvania Sea Grant and Pennsylvania State University.

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 34

Figure 5. The eastern shoreline of Lake Erie, Pennsylvania with control points identified and colored in reference to recession rate (ft/yr) ranges67. Inset graph shoes the average recession rates across 9 coastal municipalities.

• Map Development: o Mapping strategy: Monitoring of bluff recession at approximately 130 control points along the Lake Erie shoreline. Each control point is a fixed object, such as a utility pole or a pin, that was established as a site for long-term monitoring. Technicians undertake

67 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Lake Erie Bluff Recession Control Point Monitoring. Accessed 11/1/2019. Available: https://www.dep.pa.gov/Business/Water/Compacts%20and%20Commissions/Coastal%20Resources%20Manag ement%20Program/Pages/Lake-Erie-Bluff-Recession-Control-Point-Monitoring.aspx

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 35 direct measurements from the control point to the bluff crest every 4-5 years and record the coordinates of each feature. Recession measurements are made based on changes in the distance between the control point and the bluff crest68. There was also a contracted study of recession rates across the entire shoreline in 2001 which was based on aerial photography of the shoreline69. o Field-work required: Yes. Technicians must locate the control point and the corresponding top of the crest and take GPS measurements at each location. o Geomorphology-based: Yes. Measurements are based on bluff crest o Vegetation-based: No. o Transects: Varies, based on control point locations, but are generally about 0.5 km o Erosion Hazard Area Designation: Bluff Recession Hazard Areas (BRHAs) o Software: NA o Recession calculation: Distance between control point and bluff crest divided by years between measurements. o Error: NA o Severity determination: BRHAs are identified by analysis of recession rates, a review of existing or potential damage to property or structures, and an examination of the causes of erosion at the site. Before designation of a BRHA there is a public comment period and notification to the local municipality. • Map Publication and Distribution o Map published and maintained by: Pennsylvania Coastal Resources Management Program o Map(s) available online: Lake Erie Bluff Recession Control Point Monitoring o Public comment period required: Yes (on BRHA designations) o Property Owner Appeal(s): No

68 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Guidance for the Implementation of the Chapter 85 Bluff Recession and Setback Regulations 394-2000-001. Municipal reference document. 69 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Bluff Recession Hazard Area Designations. Accessed 11/1/2019. Available: https://www.dep.pa.gov/Business/Water/Compacts%20and%20Commissions/Coastal%20Resources%20Manag ement%20Program/Pages/Bluff-Recession-Hazard-Area-Designations.aspx

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 36 New York

The State of New York has coasts along two Great Lakes, Erie and Ontario, that are important resources for the environment and the local communities. Although neither coast is as populated as the state’s saltwater coast, both are regions of significant industrial and tourism and recreation activity.

New York’s Great Lakes Shoreline

The New York shoreline is highly populated and developed, but is mostly unmodified and has several pristine natural areas.

• Great Lake(s): Erie, Ontario • Miles of shoreline: 41870,71 • Geology: 72 o Bedrock: Sedimentary rock including limestone, shales, sandstones, and dolostones 73 o Soils: Glacial till and clay silts (marine and lacustrine sediments) o Shoreline Features: Sandy beaches, silt clay bluffs • Major Tributaries: Chautauqua Creek, Canadaway Creek, Cattaraugus Creek, Eighteenmile Creek, Smoke Creek, Buffalo River, , Twelvemile Creek, Golden Hill Creek, Johnson Creek, Oak Orchard Creek, Sandy Creek, Salmon Creek, Genesee River, Oswego River, Black River • Development: o Shoreline development: Most private land has been developed o Shoreline modifications: Mostly unmodified shoreline o Built infrastructure density: Varies, densities are greatest near metropolitan areas o Built structure(s) comply with existing setbacks: Most properties were built prior to setbacks.

70 New York Department of Environmental Conservation. Niagara River/Lake Erie Watershed. Accessed 10/28/2019. Available: https://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/48024.html 71 New York Department of Environmental Conservation. and Minor Tributaries Watershed. Accessed 10/28/2019. Available: https://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/48368.html 72 New York State Museum, State Geological Survey. Bedrock Geologic Map of New York. Map & Chart #15. 73 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1976. General Soil Map of New York State.

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 37 o Wastewater system(s): Most communities are on a municipal wastewater treatment system. o Public vs. Private land(s): Mostly private land • Human Population: 74 o Population (est.): 2,546,086 o Major Cities: Buffalo, Rochester o Ports: Buffalo, Rochester o Major industries: Manufacturing, Shipping, Tourism & Recreation NY Policies on Coastal Erosion Hazards

New York has a longstanding policy around protecting its shoreline, stretching back to the passage of the 1945 Projects to Protect Shore Erosion law75. Afterwards, The Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Law created a more formalized plan for identifying and designating coastal areas that are susceptible to erosion. Unlike the approach in other Great Lakes states, New York has two distinct classes of erosion hazard areas: natural protective feature areas (NPFA) and structural hazard areas (SHA). NPFA refer to those adjacent shoreline features, such as dunes, beaches, and bluffs, which are

• Coastal Management: o Shared jurisdiction of Great Lake(s): Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Canada (Erie); Canada (Ontario) o NOAA Coastal Management Program: New York Coastal Management Program o State agencies: New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC) o Tribal Reservations: Seneca Nation of Indians Cattaraugus Territory, Tuscarora Nation, Tonawanda Seneca Nation • Coastal communities (only Great Lakes coast): o Counties with shoreline: 10 o Coastal cities and townships: 86 • Coastal Erosion and Shoreland Management: o State statute(s) on Great Lakes coastal erosion: Title 4, Chapter 7 of the Unconsolidated Laws of New York, “Projects to Prevent Shore Erosion” (1945); The Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Law (Environmental Conservation Article 34), 6 NYCRR Part 505 o State statute(s) on general shoreland protection: Article 15, Environmental Conservation Law, Implementing Regulations 6NYCRR Part 608 o State statute(s) on floodplains: NA

74 Estimate based off the county populations from US Census Bureau QuickFacts.

75 New York Department of Environmental Conservation. How are coastal areas regulated by the CEHA program? Accessed 11/1/2019. Available: https://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/86541.html

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 38 o State statute(s) on (coastal) wetlands: The Freshwater Wetlands Act of 1975, Environmental Conservation Law Article 24 Freshwater Wetlands o Responsible state agency: NY DEC o Existing agencies that have a defined role in shoreline management: NY DEC • Structure Permitting in Erosion Hazard Areas: o Permitting Agencies: NYDEC, local governments o Planning and Zoning: Local government o State EHA-specific ordinances: No o State EHA-specific Permits: Yes, Coastal Erosion Hazard Management Permit Program o Local EHA-specific ordinances: Yes, 42 communities have their own CEHA program, remaining 42 communities rely on state ordinances o Local EHA-specific Permits: Yes, 42 communities have their own CEHA program, remaining 42 communities rely on state permits o Shoreline setback(s): Immediately adjacent to the shoreline is the landward extent of the natural resource protective feature area (NFPA) which sets a minimum setback from which development must occur. The setback varies by feature: including 25 feet from the landward toe of a dune, 25 feet from landward the peak of a bluff, and 100 feet landward from the line of permanent vegetation. In addition, there may also be an added structural hazard areas (SHA) on the landward side of the NFPA. Setbacks within the SHA are calculated by taking the long-term average recession rate, rounded to the closest half foot and multiplying by 40. o Point of sale disclosure: No • Erosion Hazard Public Education and Outreach Efforts: o Agencies that engage in public outreach: NY Sea Grant, NY DEC o Noticeable outreach efforts: Workshops for private landowners with NY Sea Grant, USACE, NYDEC. Publications on tackling coastal erosion by NY Sea Grant (Roy Widrig).

NY Erosion Hazard Designation and Mapping

The designation of coastal erosion hazard areas in New York began in 1945, making this the oldest program in the Great Lakes76. The last published maps are from the 1980s and the state is currently undertaking a new mapping program, as of November 2019. The information in this section is in reference to the ongoing map revision process.

76 New York Department of Environmental Conservation. How are coastal areas regulated by the CEHA program? Accessed 11/1/2019. Available: https://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/86541.html

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 39

Figure 6. Section of the proposed CEHA mapping product from the NYDEC revision efforts77. The image shows the specific features of the natural protective feature areas (NPFA) and structural hazard areas (SHA) as well as superimposed recession rates.

• State statute(s) that define coastal erosion hazards and mapping: Yes • Local statute(s) that define coastal erosion mapping: No • Published coastal erosion hazards map(s): 1980s, undergoing update as of 2019 • High-risk designation: Natural Protective Feature Area (NPFA); Structural Hazard Area (SHA) • Estimated high risk shoreline (miles):NA • Mapping agency: NY DEC

77 New York Department of Environmental Conservation. CEHA Map Revision Process. Accessed 11/1/2019. Available: https://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/90934.html

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 40 • Dataset(s) used for mapping and designations: Aerial imagery (1970s, 1980s, and modern), oblique imagery, LiDAR elevation • Map Development78: o Mapping strategy: The first step in assessing erosion hazards is identifying the natural protective feature (NPF) which includes nearshore areas, dunes, beaches, and bluffs. The first step in identifying the location of NPFA is using LiDAR-derived elevation data along transects, distanced 50 meters apart, and identify the extent of NPFs. The most landward NPF is used to delineate the natural protective feature area (NPFA). These delineations are field verified whenever there is a concern and are then marked on the map. Shoreline recession rates are calculated based on comparing historic and modern aerial and oblique imagery along transects. A structural hazard area (SHA) is delineated only where the long-term recession rate is greater than 1 ft per year and the setback is calculated by rounding the recession rate to the nearest half foot and multiplying it by forty. o Field-work required: Yes, for designating NPFA if concerns arise o Geomorphology-based: Yes o Vegetation-based: No o Transects: 50 meters o Erosion Hazard Area Designation: Two EHAs are identified: natural protective feature areas (NPFA) and structural hazard areas (SHA) o Software: NA o Recession calculation: Distance between shoreline features divided by time between datasets o Error: NA o Severity determination: NPFA are designated along the entire shoreline. SHA are designated where the shoreline recession rate is greater than 1 ft/ year. • Map Publication and Distribution o Map published and maintained by: NY DEC when available o Public comment period required: Yes o Property Owner Appeal(s): Yes

78 New York Department of Environmental Conservation. CEHA Map Revision Process. Accessed 11/1/2019. Available: https://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/90934.html

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 41 Recommendations for Coastal Erosion Designation and Mapping for Minnesota

Reviewing the strategies used across the Great Lakes to designate and map coastal erosion and related hazards, it is clear that there are very different approaches taken across the eight Great Lakes states (Table 1), however the importance of tackling erosion appears to be consistent across the region. Each state has recognized that coastal erosion is an on-going issue and have some effort, either at the local or state scale, to identify the extent of current and historic erosion. Most states are also engaging with local communities and property owners on same level to develop techniques and strategies to address the problem. Despite the recognition of the extent of erosion-related damages, not every state has an established program to designate or map areas of high erosion risk and even fewer have well-coordinated outreach efforts to stakeholders. The states of Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania have the longest, most consistent mapping and designation efforts. Like Minnesota, New York is also decades behind in updating its coastal hazard maps, but is currently undertaking a similar effort in updating its maps. Below are some important considerations and recommendations for developing a methodology and related outreach and public policies for the designation and mapping of coastal erosion hazard areas (EHAs) in Minnesota.

Recommendations for Designation of Erosion Hazard Areas & Mapping Features

• Set a standardized approach for both mapping and field work, with detailed instructions, to ensure that the methodology can be applied consistently between users. • Incorporate geologic information with the map, including soils and bedrock. Determine if communities and property owners would benefit from a delineation of the natural features adjacent to the coast, including dunes, beaches, and bluffs. Any delineation should include detailed characteristics about these features where available, such as the stability or slope of bluffs. • Base the erosion hazard line on geologic features for better comparison between historic imagery. Choose features that are easy to identify both in imagery datasets and field visits, such as bluff crests. • Deliberate how control points for measurements to the erosion hazard line will be identified. Select control points that can be compared between images over long time periods with minimal disturbance. • Consider what, if any role a fieldwork component would consist of and how this can be maintained in the long-term. Fieldwork can be for long-term monitoring, modern recession measurements, and identifying natural features relevant to imagery analysis. • Utilize standardized software for determining recession, such as the USGS Digital Shoreline Analysis Software.

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 42 • Decide whether transects should be based on a standard distance apart and, if so, what distance. Deliberate whether additional transects may be warranted in areas of expected or observed higher erosion risk and how this can be applied consistently. • Set a minimum number of years for establishing a long-term recession rate, such as 15 years established in Michigan state law. • Validate recession measurements by creating a standard method for determining error in recession distances and rates that is transparent and easy to communicate to map users. • Establish clear designations for severity based on a reasonable understanding of the data. Create a threshold for more severe or higher risk erosion, based in some respect on the standard of greater than or equal to 1 ft per year. Decide on a term for areas that have less severe erosion susceptibility that does not discount the likelihood of erosion that may occur.

Recommendations for Policies on Outreach, Shoreline Permitting & Setbacks

• Engage with the public during the initial release of the map to allow for public comments and address concerns. Also conduct outreach with other stakeholders (i.e., realtors and developers) who have a vested interest in the outcomes of identifying EHAs during the release of the map. • Provide the map not only in an online viewer, but also as printable versions that can be made available to the public at specific locations, such as county or town offices. • Integrate stakeholder input on determining the most appropriate usage of the EHA map and how to make the product accessible to all interested stakeholders. Design simple and easy to use tutorials for users to understand how to engage with the map. • Determine how long-term monitoring of recession could be used as a public engagement tool and also an important data source. • Connect with planning commissions and boards of adjustments on the appropriate usage of the mapping products and how to make best management decisions in consideration of shoreline properties. • Collaborate with planning commissions on updating setback ordinances that take into consideration appropriate timeframes in regards to life span of different structures, the costs of implementing shoreline stabilization, and both public and private costs in regards to erosion-related property damage and loss. A useful consideration is having different setbacks based on the expected life span of a structure, as seen in Michigan and Pennsylvania. Establish consistent minimum setbacks across the coast rather than having them set individually by local municipalities. • Educate and coordinate with permitting agencies to ensure that structure-related permits in EHAs take this fact into consideration. Permits should consider what if any shoreline stabilization measures have been taken and include an assessment of site drainage, particularly how they may impact or be impacted by any shoreline stabilization.

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 43

Table 1: Summary of Great Lakes Coastal Erosion Policies and Mapping Designations

Minnesota Wisconsin Michigan Illinois Indiana Ohio Pennsylvania New York

Shoreline 189 820 3,224 63 45 312 77 418 Miles

Shoreline Natural Natural Natural/Modified Modified Natural/Modified Modified Natural Natural

Geology Bedrock, Clay Glacial Tills, Sands, Loams, Sands Sands Sands, Clay Glacial Tills; Glacial Tills Bluffs Sandy, Silt Clay Loams Silt Bluffs; Clay Silts Clayey Bluffs, Glacial Tills Sand Spit Bar

Shoreline Sand Spit Bar, Sand Spit Bluffs, Beaches Dunes, Dunes, Beaches Beaches, Bluffs Bluffs, Features Bluffs, Bar, Bluffs, Beaches Bluffs Beaches, Beaches Beaches Dunes

State Statute Yes Yes Yes Yes

EHA Permits Yes Yes Yes Yes

Setbacks Annual rate * Annual rate * (30 25 ft minimum Annual rate 50 + 25 ft or or 60) + 15 ft * 40 125 ft 30: easily movable

60: permanent

44

Minnesota Wisconsin Michigan Illinois Indiana Ohio Pennsylvania New York

Erosion High Erosion Recession High Risk Erosion Coastal Bluff Natural Hazard Area Potential (≥ 1 Rates Only Area (HREA; ≥ 1 Erosion Area Recession Protective ft/yr) ft/yr over 15 yrs) (CEA) based Hazard Area Feature Areas on threshold (BRHA) based (NPFA); Structural on long-term Hazard Area study (SHA) where recession (≥ 1 ft/yr

Current Map 1980s 2015 2018 2018 2018 1980s

Data Used Imagery Imagery Imagery Imagery Control Point LiDAR, Field Imagery Measurements

Transects 250 m 10 m 150 ft 100 ft 0.5 km 50 m

Geological vs. Geological Geological Vegetation Geological Geological Geological Vegetation Erosion Hazard Line

Field Work Yes Yes Yes Component

Public Yes Yes Yes Yes (Yes) Comments (Appeals)

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 45

Appendix

Appendix: Minnesota Coastal Erosion Mapping

Appendix Figure 1. Airphoto methods used by Carol Johnston at NRRI, UMD for measuring Minnesota North Shore erosion79.

79 Carol Johnston. 2019. Personal communication.

46

Appendix Figure 2. Description of error estimates for airphoto erosion measurements by Carol Johnston at NRRI, UMD80.

80 Carol Johnston. 2019. Personal communication.

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 47 Appendix: Ohio Coastal Erosion Mapping

Appendix Figure 3. Example image with details on how a coastal erosion area (CEA) is identified along transect lines81.

81 ODNR Office of Coastal Management. Coastal Erosion Area Maps. Accessed 11/1/2019. Available: http://coastal.ohiodnr.gov/ceamaps

Great Lakes Coastal Erosion 48