In the 1993 IJC Report (Ecologistics Limited, 1993), a wide range of shoreland management measures were described and evaluated for effectiveness in reducing potential damages from changing Lake Michigan levels. These measures included setbacks, structural shore protection, nonstructural shore protection, legislation, loans, grants, insurance programs and others.

In 1999, shoreland management measures were again inventoried and evaluated. Compared to the 1993 IJC Report, the 1999 evaluation focused on more land use management approaches, including local planning and zoning efforts. A survey of riparians was conducted as part of the 1993 IJC Report in which respondents were asked about likely shoreline protection structures they would choose. In 1999 a series of focus groups was used to assess commitment to property protection, values at which property owners would act or amounts they would invest and awareness of the range of shoreline management approaches. By 1999, most riparians appeared to be already aware of the costs of different shoreline protection measures, what might be permitted and the extent of protection they might be afforded.

This task speculates on whether local governments and individuals would apply shoreline management approaches with a resulting change in the magnitude of economic damage. It looks at the information gathered about available shoreland management tools and the responses of focus group participants and interview subjects, in light of possible changes in Lake Michigan levels. The information is examined from several different directions:

1. Given the extreme high and low lake levels that the US Army Corps of Engineers recently calculated are possible (greater than experienced in the past 30 years), what damages (descriptive, not quantitative) can be expected.
2. Given different sequences of lake level change, how will the various stakeholder groups respond?
3. What, given the experience of extreme lake levels, will be the response of the different stakeholder groups toward the different shoreland management measures? How effective will the different stakeholders believe the shoreland management measures will be?
4. What will the stakeholders think of the shoreline management measures recommended?

Summary of Results

A detailed description of the results of this activity can be found in the full consulting report prepared by Planning and Zoning Center and Wade-Trim. A general summary is provided here.This task provides conjecture on whether different stakeholder groups would adopt adaptive land use measures to limit potential damages from changing Lake Michigan levels. While it is likely that many stakeholder groups would support or seek adoption of adaptive shoreline management measures, this conclusion does not suggest a simple result. Actions by stakeholder groups would likely depend on how much lake levels changed and in what sequence and how they perceived the adaptive measures to meet the needs of their own interests.

Three combination hydrologic scenarios were described to better estimate stakeholder response. These scenarios were:

• A long period of extremely low water followed by an extremely high water period late in the 50 year planning period.
• An extremely high lake level early in the planning period followed by low water.
• A cycling of moderate highs and lows similar to that of the past 30 years.

The first scenario of an early, extremely low water period will likely divert attention from preventing high water damages in the future. Federal and state regulatory agencies will spend considerable time reviewing permits for dredging and other projects to insure recreational boating and commercial shipping activities continue. Local governments may become lax in enforcing setbacks and other regulations aimed at protecting properties and the health and safety of the public. It will be a difficult period to educate property owners and legislators about high water impacts.

The second scenario of an early, extremely high lake level will provide the best opportunity to educate property owners, local, state and federal officials about shore processes, the potential for damages and adaptive measures to limit damages. This scenario would probably provide the most impetus to look at investment policy and at hazard mitigation planning as well as loans and grants and insurance programs. At the same time, there will be increased pressure to regulate lake levels.

The third scenario will provide repeated educational efforts on lake processes and adaptive measures, but responses may depend on stakeholder perceptions of risk and on leadership in government. Local governments will likely continue to defer to state government to "be the bad guys" in development permit review. If lake level change is moderate, the level of adoption of adaptive measures may be moderate as well.

The discussion also looks at how stakeholders might respond to adaptive shoreland management measures. Many of the groups would be supportive of most of the measures. Support may vary depending on how specific were the interests of the stakeholder group. For example, FEMA might be in favor of all of the adaptive measures as they limit investment in hazard zones or guide investment wisely. But recreational boating interests may be most interested in access to the water, and would provide weak support or opposition to some of the measures if they perceived access would be limited.

This task also speculates on stakeholder estimate on the effectiveness of the various adaptive measures. While most stakeholder groups would find most adaptive measures effective, or at least helpful in reducing damages, some groups would find a few of the measures difficult to support. These latter measures are the less familiar ones, such as hazard mitigation planning and policies to limit infrastructure investment. Also, these would be viewed by some stakeholder groups as limiting their own interests.

Four recommendations are put forth. These are:

1. Develop consensus between Michigan and Wisconsin (at a minimum) and the other Great Lakes states and Ontario (preferred) on a common set of goals and a common management approach to minimize hazards from flooding and erosion in shoreline areas.
2. The Great Lakes states and Ontario need to pass or modify existing laws to reflect the management strategy.
3. Provide education and technical assistance to real estate and financial institutions on the hazards associated with shoreline development, as well as on the risks of such development to their respective occupations and businesses.
4. Determine if implementation of shoreline management strategies can be achieved in great measure by actions of real estate and financial institutions and other private sector groups.

Most stakeholders would find these recommendations positive, although a few would be wary. Property owners may fear a loss of state oversight if more of the management responsibility of shoreline development were turned over to the private sector. Some of the private sector interests, such as realtors and developers may be opposed to assuming liability.

Certainly some responsibility for development decisions resides in all involved parties and includes state, federal and local governments, private property owners, builders, realtors, appraisers, financial institutions, surveyors, architects, engineers and others. Decisions about how the responsibility should be split will be key to debate on future potential damage reduction alternatives. There are many issues that need consideration in this debate.

A still missing piece is the actual estimate of damages. Until this estimate is made, or property owners and officials witness considerable damage, many stakeholder groups may defer a commitment to adopting adaptive measures. This is somewhat of a "head in the sand," approach, but given the many activities of the various stakeholders, it may take dramatic information to gain action.

Click to return to the Lake Michigan Potential Damages Study Page.