Introduction
Under Phase 2 of the IJC Levels Reference Study, the USACE contracted for a comprehensive inventory of current land use management practices in the United States shorelines of the Great Lakes. The purpose of this task is to review this prior work and modify it accordingly for current conditions employed in Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana. In addition, the existence of other land use management measures in the five-county prototype areas will be studied and evaluated.
A review of the previous inventory of management practices has been completed. An update of those practices is underway. This update is both quantitative and qualitative. The update is looking at what practices are still being used, what practices may have been dropped or "sunsetted", changes in legislation and how regulatory programs are functioning.
The basic purpose of this task is to evaluate, as of 1999, how effectively various federal, state and local shoreline management programs and practices are functioning and to identify where there are gaps. The 1993 study provided an extensive text and a series of helpful tables to summarize a wide range of shoreline management practices, regulations and programs, where they are applied and an evaluation of effectiveness. The update will not attempt to duplicate all aspects of the 1993 tables, but will focus on areas in which there has been significant change and on issues related to application of management practices. The 1999 update will place greater emphasis on qualitative aspects of shoreline management.
It is clear from the focus groups and preliminary discussions with state officials that fewer, different, structural shoreline protection techniques are approved than in 1993. The update will try to get a handle on that change.
The update is expanding the attention paid to local government land use management compared to the 1993 study. Local governments have enormous potential influence on shoreline land use change, either through proactive involvement or by abandoning that opportunity. A qualitative discussion of shoreline management practices may be more revealing than an inventory of those practices. While the fact that a community has adopted an environmental protection provision may be important, its effectiveness can be undermined by a lack of a planning basis or through inadequate language. The update is paying particular attention to the Master Plans of communities to evaluate how well prepared the communities are to tackle shoreline issues. Preliminary review suggests a wide range from poorly prepared and uninvolved in shoreline issues to well prepared and experienced in shoreline issues.
The update is also looking at changes in state legislation affecting shoreline management practices since the 1993 study.
Methodology
This 1999 update does not repeat the same methodology as the 1993 IJC Report. This study:
- Reviewed the 1993 IJC Report to identify topic areas to investigate.
- Identified additional topics important to shoreline management.
- Sought compiled data and anecdotal information on the topics being investigated.
- Fit updates and new information into the existing format of the 1993 IJC Report.
The scope of study of this 1999 update is narrower than the 1993 IJC Report, which investigated shoreline management on both the Canada and United States sides of all the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River. This study focused on the states surrounding Lake Michigan, and five counties in particular: Allegan and Ottawa Counties in Michigan and Manitowoc, Ozaukee and Sheboygan Counties in Wisconsin. To a limited extent, information on state-level shoreline management was also investigated in Indiana and Illinois.
The screening of measures employed in the 1993 IJC Report was not followed in 1999. The consultants found the 1993 screening to not be particularly revealing or detailed and there appeared to be no practical purpose to the grouping. Instead the discussion of each shoreline measure studied in 1999 includes comments on how useful and how frequently used a particular measure appears to be and why.
To evaluate the various practices, sources for evaluation included literature, interviews with local and state officials and a series of focus groups for opinion background. Some site specific investigations also occurred and the study area was defined as the states surrounding Lake Michigan with a focus on five counties. Some targeting occurred, with more detailed information on local implementation approaches obtained for the five counties and more generic information for the four states. Comparisons are sometimes made with states outside the Lake Michigan basin, where other states have dealt with erosion and flooding issues.
In addition to the literature review, a qualitative assessment was made of the following:
- Master plans and zoning ordinances of communities within the five study counties that had prepared those documents.
- State statutes and administrative rules
- Shoreline permit information from the RAMS data base (USACE)
- Shoreline protection inventory in the 5 counties conducted in 1999
- Focus group results of riparians and officials
- Shoreline land use maps
- Shoreline planimetric maps of Allegan and Ottawa Counties, Michigan
There was no formal committee of state representatives with interaction or direction on the 1999 study such as existed prior to the 1993 IJC Report. These and many other stakeholders were however, invited to participate in a two day-long briefings in 1999 (in Muskegon and Manitowoc) and a large multi-stakeholder technical committee (with many academics) provided guidance and oversight to the Army Corps of Engineers on all phases of the potential damages study.
Summary of Results
A detailed evaluation of all practices is provided in the full consulting report for this topic (Planning and Zoning Center and Wade Trim, 2000). The key conclusions and recommendations are presented here.
Only a few of the wide variety of shoreland management tools available to limit damages in Lake Michigan shoreland hazard zones are widely applied. Most frequently or thoroughly applied are shoreland regulations, zoning ordinances and setbacks. Other tools, such as insurance programs, resource inventories, master plans, hazard mitigation planning and public infrastructure funding are available (and used in other states for reducing the likelihood of future damages in natural hazard zones) but are seldom or ineffectively used to protect against Lake Michigan potential hazards.
The most frequently used tools at the local level (zoning, setbacks and shoreland regulations) are among the least effective in reducing damages where they fail to site development outside of the hazard area. In many Michigan communities these tools serve to modify development in hazard areas or to regulate and monitor structures used to protect developed property, but often do not reduce the value of property in hazard areas. The Wisconsin DNR reports that counties that have adopted setback standards exceeding the minimum (Manitowoc, Sheboygan and Ozaukee Counties) have been very effective in siting development outside the hazard area. The regulations of the state of Michigan are also effective at preventing new structures in hazard areas. However, a comparable level of achievement has not been reached with flood hazard or high risk erosion area regulations in already developed areas. The least used tools (e.g. deed restrictions, loans, grants, etc.) either serve to educate property owners and decision-makers, limit shoreland development or limit public financial responsibility for losses.
The extent of potential economic damage from extreme Lake Michigan levels is due, in part, to past decisions to heavily invest in developing shoreland hazard areas. (An estimate of the potential economic damage is being prepared as a separate task.) Potential damages includes both private residential, commercial and industrial development, the public infrastructure to support this development and public facilities, such as power plants and water and sewage treatment plants.
The large extent of potential damages is also due to the lack of knowledge of the extreme levels, both high and low, that Lake Michigan can reach. Developmental planning has occurred on the basis of a more moderate estimate of highs and lows (100-year rather than 500-year). The result is considerable property at risk for damage from bluff erosion and flooding.
There is a momentum to continue shoreland development for the following reasons:
- The shore is a powerful attracting force for residential development.
- The shore is convenient for certain public facilities, such as water treatment plants.
- There is an accepted belief among local governments that the tax revenues from shoreland properties is greater than the costs to service them or repair damaged infrastructure.
Although state-mandated setbacks exist in both Michigan and Wisconsin, these may not be sufficient to protect properties within the next fifty years on shore segments where past structure siting close to the bluff and limited parcel dimensions will limit future choices to respond to bluff retreat. In addition, there is no consensus on a common set of shoreline management goals or on a strategic management approach between Michigan and Wisconsin, let alone between all the other Great Lakes states and Ontario. Without a common set of shoreline management goals and a common strategy, every measure initiated at the state or local level is just another experiment that may or may not contribute to reducing damages in hazard areas.
A knowledge gap among property owners and local decision-makers is, in part, responsible for placing development at risk for potential damages. This knowledge gap consists of the following:
- A good understanding of the location of hazard areas. Local decision-making could limit the private and public investment and thus loss in hazard zones. Master plans could identify hazard areas based on resource inventories and set goals for limiting investment there. A few communities along the study area do so but most do not. Until local planning adequately recognizes Lake Michigan-related hazards, investment is likely to continue.
- Range of lake levels. Because planning has considered only the 100-year flood level and a moderate range of Lake Michigan levels, shoreland investment may continue to occur that is at risk from more extreme, but highly possible, 500-year flood levels and lake level extremes. The wider extremes of lake level and more accurate bluff recession rates that are emerging represents new knowledge for shoreland communities. Past planning, including the decision that planning to deal with Lake Michigan-related hazards is unnecessary, has not had the benefit of improved information.
- The potential public costs of damages. Local communities probably have little idea of the potential loss or replacement costs in public investment for infrastructure or public facilities located in hazard areas. Individual shoreland property owners may hope for or expect the public investment or reinvestment will continue following damages or the knowledge of the potential extent of damages. Local officials and taxpayers may not fully understand the size of the public burden to support shoreland development or public facilities in the hazard areas and may not support a continued at-risk investment.
- Missed opportunities for use of other shoreland management tools. Local communities may not understand that there are other tools, such as insurance programs, hazard mitigation planning, land acquisition and other tools that can help reduce potential damages. However, local communities may be consciously making the choice not to apply these tools because they do not want to discourage shoreland development (because of the tax revenues) and are hoping that the risk will never materialize.
- Commitment at the state level to implement and support a wide variety of shoreland management tools. With a trend to minimize state and federal governmental roles in land use decision-making, it may be difficult to fully fund and staff programs to apply such tools. However, where the hazards still exist, some entity may be called upon to oversee a wide range of tools to manage shorelands to reduce potential damages.
- The private sector which provides real estate services is not an active participant in efforts to minimize hazards to shoreline development. Yet there is considerable opportunity to both reduce regulatory costs and increase effectiveness if they were actively involved.
Recommendations
The first recommendation is to 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. A combination of the current Wisconsin and Michigan shoreline regulatory approaches would be much more effective at reducing the number and value of new structures in areas at high risk of erosion. Preventing new structures in high risk flooding areas and aggressive use of land purchase and relocation of existing structures in high risk flooding areas, would also, over time, dramatically reduce potential damages in these areas. However, the first step has to be establishing these as objectives and agreeing to a common management approach.
The second recommendation is to recognize the unique role and benefits that the state and local governments can play in reducing damages in hazard areas. The Great Lakes states and Ontario need to define the overall management approach and then pass or modify existing laws to reflect the management strategy. This would include at a minimum:
- The elements and standards for flooding and erosion management programs.
- Enabling authority for local regulation and a requirement for state regulation where locals choose not too.
- Adequate staffing and training of state staff to carry out the state obligation in those shoreline areas where local governments choose not to regulate (generally the most rapidly eroding areas, and areas with a large number of properties at high flood risk).
- Provision of model ordinances and technical assistance to local governments, realtors, bankers and property owners.
- Adequate monitoring and enforcement staff in addition to staff to periodically update erosion and flooding studies.
In contrast, local governments have a distinct advantage in being able to educate, assist and guide property owners within their jurisdiction (compared to state agencies). For this to be effective, they must be aware of the broader goals and threats, be well informed about options and opportunities to deal with these threats and be provided with model ordinances and technical assistance as needed. A partnership between well-trained state agency staff and local officials is essential for this model to be most effective.
The first two recommendations are essentially an expanded version of the model Michigan is presently using. This model holds considerable promise and is consistent with the first two objectives of this study. It also reflects the new third objective. However, it may be more costly over-time than a public-private partnership model embodied by the last two (new) objectives. Objectives four and five reflect the principle that regulations and programmatic goals are easiest and least costly to administer when they are highly valued by all who are most affected by them. This includes shoreline local officials, property owners and all the support industry personnel (including realtors, bankers, etc.).
The third recommendation is related to the fourth objective and targets providing 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. It may take targeted statutory changes for this to be most effective. For example, changing the Michigan Seller Disclosure Act (Public Act 92 of 1993) may be needed to require sellers to disclose if their property is in a designated floodplain or high risk erosion area. This of course would also require official government notice to all property owners so situated and easy access to this information by property owners, realtors and financial institutions. Recording this information with the deed for each property would be another beneficial step. Each of these efforts would enhance the chance that potential new shoreline owners were well informed about shoreline hazards and potential damage risks before making unwise investments. However, these efforts will have marginal value without enforcement and penalties for those who fail to comply.
The fourth recommendation goes one step further and is consistent with the fifth objective. It seeks to determine if implementation of shoreline management strategies cannot be achieved in great measure by actions of real estate and financial institutions in their day-to-day dealings with clients. This may require shifting some liability to land surveyors, engineers, architects, landscape architects, realtors, banks and title companies for actions taken in violation of state shoreline management laws. By requiring these professionals to incorporate hazard information into their designs and decisions, it is expected that fewer new shoreline property owners would invest in shoreline property ignorant of relevant hazards and laws. Administration of regulatory provisions should also be easier because of broader and deeper understanding of requirements. At least one Michigan DEQ official has suggested dropping minimum required setbacks in return for a statutory standard that shore protection structures will not be permitted on Great Lakes bottomlands and there will be no government support when disaster strikes--no loans, subsidies or relocation support. This would represent a complete shift of responsibility to the private sector and recognize natural hydrologic processes.
Together these four recommendations have the potential to significantly reduce threats to health and damages to property in shoreline hazard areas. They are worthy of further study to flesh them out in greater detail and to determine their political and practical feasibility.
Click to return to the Lake Michigan Potential Damages Home Page.
