I. The Coastal Conundrum
A. Framing the Problem
Just about everyone loves a shoreline. Walking the beach, listening to the surf, wading and splashing—people are so strongly attracted to the water’s edge that we can’t stay away and can’t get enough.1 We, as communities, have placed every kind of development as close to it as we can get; commercial downtowns to take advantage of tourism and recreation; industrial facilities to use its transportation and energy resources; and most of all, residential development to just experience it. Nearly every lake, river, and coast in Michigan finds itself lined with buildings and the infrastructure to support them.
Our 3288 miles of majestic Great Lakes freshwater shoreline is no different in this respect, yet it is completely unique in other respects. The enormity of each Great Lake fuels crashing waves that deliver an energy burden to its coastline that is incomparable to any inland lake. Its volume gives it a similarly incomparable reach when wet seasons and cyclical fluctuations raise the water levels. This coast commands individualized attention, which is what this Compendium provides.
One way to name the problem is to call it “flooding and erosion”
The reward of being near the shoreline comes with risk. Water is dynamic, both its movement and in its inherent chemical nature. Plenty of disaster lies at the intersection of water and development: rot, corrosion, erosion, instability. Achieving both closeness and safety has always been a conundrum.
Flooding happens when the surface of the waterbody expands into an area where development exists. It’s useful to remember that the development is a critical part of the definition: where the surface expands but doesn’t adversely affect a human investment, it’s just called a natural hydrologic process. The Great Lakes water levels rise and fall of their own accord, with a span of variation that is increasing as climate change progresses. These changes, and the science behind them, are described in detail in Chapter 2 and 3 of MCMP’s Resilient Coastal Communities Planning Guide.2 In times of low levels, there is a tempting mirage of opportunity to extend our own habitat out to meet it, only to be met with the lake’s punctual return and reclamation. This is unpredictable only on a short timeframe. When we expand our time horizon to consider all we know about the lakes, we can see that this is a mistake we need not keep repeating.
Erosion refers to the force of the water wearing away the surface of the earth. This wearing away destabilizes any structure that the earth was supporting, and eventually the force of the water washes that away too. Unlike flooding, we call erosion by the same name regardless of whether the process affects our development, but we generally only address it when development is at risk. “Managing” erosion often starts by trying to manage the water’s action, since that is the driving force.
But our efforts to get closer to the water’s edge are not just subject to erosion—they can also create and facilitate it. When we remove coastal plants that are blocking our view of the water or forming obstacles to reaching it, we also remove allies that hold the ground in place with their roots and absorb the kinetic energy of the water. A shoreline is not a static line on a map; it is a complex ecosystem that developed its own checks and balances long before humans arrived on the scene. Here, too, we may be suffering from a bit of myopia by focusing so intently on ourselves. When we expand our considerations to include the coastal habitat more generally, we can see opportunities to align ourselves with existing processes.
| Is this a new problem? Hint: No (Click Image for Full Article) "One Billion Dollars Damage: Heavy Rainfall Raises Level of Great Lakes" by Arlene Bell (The Michigan Daily, 1952) |
Another way to name the problem is to call it “existing development”
For at least the whole history of the United States, communities large and small have valiantly built their way out of this conundrum. We’ve prioritized proximity to water, willing to trade uncertainty and perpetual investment to preserve and enjoy our access to it. Levees, seawalls, dams, breakwaters, jetties, groins, riprap, sandbags—we accept that all of this “armoring” just comes with the territory.
It’s taken some time to see just how expensive it all is. There’s the cost of installation, which can be eye-popping all by itself. Eventually, the cost of maintenance emerges as the cumulative effort needed to supply an opposing force that can keep pace with tireless and capricious hydrodynamics. Then there is the inevitable cost of the failures and losses, because we certainly don’t win all the battles we pick with nature. More recently, a new cost is coming into focus: the system-wide harms and casualties of these battles. Seawalls distribute the water’s force onto neighboring properties. Groins disrupt regenerative sand transport. Water quality suffers without protective wetlands. Ever-longer stretches of coastline are taken out of the public trust. The evidence suggests that our tradeoffs need rebalancing.
Rather than being perpetually at arms with our state’s most awesome natural feature, we can look to an approach that carefully considers and deeply respects the reality of how that feature behaves. Prioritizing safety and health—of both the human-made development and the aquatic system—means some measure of deprioritizing our proximity to the water’s edge.
The concept of a tradeoff is key to this change in approach. All existing development that is at risk of flooding and erosion represents an investment, and each type of development has its own delicate, intricate challenges when considering how best to protect it. There is the sheer number of residences, each in its own unique physical circumstance. There is the public economic impact of commercial development, tourism and infrastructure. And there are the environmental and pollution concerns with industrial development. In all of these instances, both change and the status quo pose possible perils.
Leading this shift rests at the feet of local decision-makers
Taking a general approach of moving development away from the water’s edge is difficult for practical reasons, and it’s also difficult to want to do: that shoreline is magnetic and alluring, and the status quo is almost always the easiest path. After all, in many cases the buildings are already there. And where they are proposed, the economic potential seems much more immediate and concrete than the risk.
For the most part, because land use decisions are made at the local level in Michigan, this responsibility is in the hands of the 387 individual local units of government that line the Great Lakes coast. It’s a hard ask for 387 separate entities to manage a single feature harmoniously. Yet, that is what the task requires: while land can be divided up with borders, water resists this imposed order. It moves under its own power, and it crosses our borders with impunity. Water quality somewhere is water quality everywhere.
Moreover, the line of responsibility between local leaders and safeguards of both public and private investment is often quite clear. We issue the permits that allow residents and businesses to build at the shoreline. We invest public dollars in roads and marinas. We bear the costs of cleanup when disaster strikes. Local leaders are the only ones charged with the hard job of balancing immediate apparent gain with long-term considered risk.
The shift from coastal management to coastal resilience
Historically, communities have taken a reactive approach to flooding, erosion, and other issues, only mounting action once these issues are urgent and then forgetting about them again once levels drop. There has been a perception that coastal issues are manageable.
As coastal challenges increase in frequency, severity, and cost, this approach is increasingly inadequate. The rising costs of emergency repairs, disaster recovery, and infrastructure upgrades have formed a growing financial incentive for a more proactive approach. There is measurable value in planning for resilience in advance, investing in nature-based preventative measures, and using land use planning to reduce the need for emergency response.
Leading this shift rests at the feet of local decision-makers
Taking a general approach of moving development away from the water’s edge is difficult for practical reasons, and it’s also difficult to want to do: that shoreline is magnetic and alluring, and the status quo is almost always the easiest path. After all, in many cases the buildings are already there. And where they are proposed, the economic potential seems much more immediate and concrete than the risk.
For the most part, because land use decisions are made at the local level in Michigan, this responsibility is in the hands of the more than 300 individual local units of government that line the Great Lakes coast. It’s a hard ask for 300 separate entities to manage a single feature harmoniously. Yet, that is what the task requires: while land can be divided up with borders, water resists this imposed order. It moves under its own power, and it crosses our borders with impunity. Water quality somewhere is water quality everywhere.
Moreover, the line of responsibility between local leaders and safeguards of both public and private investment is often quite clear. We issue the permits that allow residents and businesses to build at the shoreline. We invest public dollars in roads and marinas. We bear the costs of cleanup when disaster strikes. We are the only ones charged with the hard job of balancing immediate apparent gain with long-term considered risk.
1 Blue space: The importance of water for preference, affect, and restorativeness ratings of natural and built scenes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, Volume 30, Issue 4, December 2010, Pages 482-493. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494410000496?via%3Dihub
| Coastal Resilience Video Series by The Michigan Coastal Management Program (MCMP), a NOAA-funded program housed in the Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE) |
| Great Lakes Water Level Data (Click Image for Full Screen) by US Army Corps of Engineers, Great Lakes and Ohio River Division |
 |
B. Framing the Solution.
The way to support both water quality and resilience to hazards is to give the lakes what they need: space to move, and a natural shoreline. By pulling our investments out of harm’s way and allowing the shoreline to produce, use, and benefit from its own resources, our communities benefit, too. We won’t need to be in continuous conflict with a jousting partner that never flags or makes a mistake. And by understanding “the lake” as not just the surface of the water and the earth beneath it but the inseparable, dynamic interface between the two, there is even more of it to love than there was before. Planning and zoning are two powerful tools that can do that.
The tools in this Compendium are organized into the broad categories of giving the lake “space to move” and a “naturalized shoreline.” These are complementary concepts. When development is pulled away from the shoreline, it’s natural and naturalized features that fill in that space. Conversely, the plants, habitats, and features that make up a naturalized shoreline can’t exist without making space for them. We are really looking at the same desired end from two different perspectives.
Space to move
Regulatory approaches can move and keep private development investments out of the range of harm from the Great Lakes’ natural processes. This section discusses how zoning districts and development standards can be supported by data and planning to navigate the balance between permitting wise use of the shoreline and falling prey to the temptation to get too close to the water. We also consider the unique role of land division.
Naturalized shoreline
This Compendium certainly isn't the first effort to advocate for planning and zoning to support wiser coastal development, yet in many ways it seems that the implementation of change is moving at a much slower pace than the understanding of the need for it. Existing research has documented a few key reasons for this mismatch. These are worth acknowledging so that we can overcome, untangle, work out, and press forward on known impasses.
Why isn't this already done?
This Compendium certainly isn't the first effort to advocate for planning and zoning to support wiser coastal development, yet in many ways it seems that the implementation of change is moving at a much slower pace than the understanding of the need for it. Existing research has documented a few key reasons for this mismatch. These are worth acknowledging so that we can overcome, untangle, work out, and press forward on known impasses.
The nature of local government
A few-year elected term is not enough time to fully learn about a complex issue, lead a community to consensus, develop a technical solution, and shepherd it through an official process. But this is the system we have. Local governments also face chronic limitations on staff capacity, funding, and specific expertise. And even just in the space of coastal management, issues ranging from disaster debris to invasive species compete for the same finite pool of attention. These are structural issues.
What can help? A thorough, well-documented planning process can help carry work from one term to another, so that new officials can get up to speed quickly. This will help them further the work of their predecessors rather than duplicate it. A good planning process is an investment, but like any good investment, it allows initial resources to stretch and multiply over time.
The nature of people
Political processes are meant to reflect the will of the people, and they often do a fairly good job. This is a double-edged sword. It’s human nature to prefer short-term gain over long-term prudence; to look to allies for information rather than develop independent sources; to stop worrying about a danger once the immediate threat recedes; and to trail off on enforcement of a policy once it shows signs of success. This certainly makes the job of steady, responsible governance hard. It’s also the human condition.
What can help? Consistent, measured, iterative community engagement builds trust between people and government. A dialogue that exchanges education and experience reveals the durable truths over time, and focuses attention on the opportunities to make progress on long-term problems. This should certainly be a part of a planning investment. It’s also true that over the long term, leaders have to lead. They must use their influence in support of the longer view and the wiser course. That’s what it’s for.
The nature of change
The engineering approach to water management has been in place a long time. There are deeply embedded systems that support it, and examples of it are everywhere–some of which reflect decisions made in public processes with public funds. When a resident or business is faced with making their own shoreline investment, they are most likely to reach out to a contractor or engineer in the private sector, and that person will become the source of their education and expertise on the issue. Because the limitations to the current method are showing up in the longer term and the broader scale, there are few immediate incentives to adopt a new approach. The status quo is quite durable.
What can help? Engineers, contractors, and real estate agents are a few of the private sector professions that could be better included in ongoing dialogues about coastal management. Ultimately, regulation is the most direct form of communication here: its purpose is to guide their work, and they respond quite nimbly to changes. The example set by the public sector is also highly valuable. It can blaze a trail forward by demonstrating the possible, and conversely, it can also thoroughly discredit a community’s “talk” when it fails to deliver the “walk.”
The nature of the solution
Land use planning, policy, and regulation are powerful tools, but dry and technical subjects. There is often a wide gulf between the language of community desire and the legalese that implements it. “Consent of the governed” means that restrictions need buy-in, and there is a perpetual tension between regulation and flexibility. How is preference informed by data, and how do those work together when expressed in a local ordinance? This is the art and science of the work of governance.
What can help? Decisions that are grounded in data and made through transparent processes publicly connect the solutions to the problems they are intended to solve. So does measuring the effectiveness of decisions after they are made, and periodically revisiting regulations to review the conditions they are meant to manage.
The Importance of Community Plans
While the focus of this Compendium is to provide a set of tools to address each community’s unique coastal conditions, it’s important to remember that these tools should be grounded in the community’s plans. This provides credibility to the solutions you select, helps communicate the need for changes to others in the community, and provides some legal protections. This is recognized in state law, which requires zoning regulations to be based on an adopted master plan.
There are a number of ways your community can plan for coastal hazards. A few of them are described here, with additional guidance provided in Appendix D.
| Comprehensive Plan |
|
|
Almost every community has a comprehensive land use plan, often called the “master plan,” which guides the municipality’s efforts to accomplish its vision for the future. This plan is a community- wide effort which results in a description of how land within the jurisdiction should be used and developed, given that future vision. The plan typically contains policy and ordinance recommendations, a map showing desired future land use, and a zoning plan. The Michigan Planning Enabling Act (MPEA, Public Act 33 of 2008) requires that the plan be reviewed every five years to keep it current. The community-wide focus and statutory importance of the master plan / comprehensive plan makes it an important document for incorporating coastal resilience goals and recommendations. These may be included in a separate resiliency chapter or integrated throughout the plan. |
|
| Parks & Recreation Plan | Hazard Mitigation Plan |
|
Parks & recreation plans are documents that municipalities typically develop to apply for Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) grants. These plans must follow the MDNR template, which looks much like the format of master / comprehensive plans. To be eligible for project funding, the plan must be updated every five years. Parks & recreation plans offer a great opportunity to advance economic, social, and environmental resiliency, for example by incorporating nature-based tourism to support the local economy or acquiring land for shoreline protection and green infrastructure goals. |
Hazard mitigation plans, also known as “all-hazards” plans, typically include risk assessments and scenario development to anticipate future hazards that could affect the community. The risk assessments often rely on information about past disasters and known hazards to look to the future, but more recently, they are incorporating climate forecasts. These plans are helpful in identifying coastal hazards that the community should understand, prepare for, and make a plan to recover from. An adopted hazard mitigation plan is required for many types of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grants. In most areas of Michigan, the hazard mitigation plan is created and updated at the county level, which ideally includes participation from each jurisdiction within the county. Localities may also produce their own plan. |
| Sustainability or Resilience Plan | Capital Improvements Plan |
|
Sustainability or resilience planning looks specifically toward the changes the community needs to make in order to manage its resources over the long term and to mitigate and prepare for the effects of a changing climate. The Land Information Access Association (LIAA) developed a Community Sustainability Assessment Tool that can be used to evaluate your master / comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance and identify potential areas of focus. Sustainability planning may include subjects not normally included in the land use planning process, such as greenhouse gas reductions, and it may focus more heavily on the health of the community’s natural resources and green infrastructure, such as its water management practices and tree canopy. Resilience planning efforts may pair future climate projections with existing conditions to develop a vulnerability assessment that identifies geographic areas of concern. In order to have a legally binding influence on land use, this information, or at least the key takeaways, should be incorporated in the community’s master / comprehensive plan. |
A capital improvements plan, or CIP, identifies and prioritizes a community’s anticipated public infrastructure needs over the next 6 years. While the tendency is to treat the CIP narrowly as an asset management program or a budget document, it’s an important tool to implement priority infrastructure goals from your master / comprehensive plan. Examples of the ways in which a CIP can be used to support resiliency objectives include relocating at-risk roads, acquiring land for flood protection, and incorporating green infrastructure into the municipal stormwater system. |
| Downtown Development/Corridor/Tourism Plan | [Sidebar] Plan Integration |
|
Many communities have plans for special districts that focus on economic development. These plans can be a subplan of the master / comprehensive plan focused on improving job opportunities and strengthening businesses in the community or region, often through public investments in community facilities and infrastructure. Given coastal communities' unique draw for tourism, these plans can support marina and public beach development, as well as historic preservation of marine heritage sites, such as lighthouses. |
Communities typically rely on a “network” of plans that between them outline a community’s vision, set goals, and guide local development and policy decisions. However, research has shown that these plans tend not to be coordinated, leading to inefficiencies or conflicting policies. For example, a hazard mitigation plan might recommend restricting development on shorelines, while an economic development plan might incentivize waterfront business expansion. In working toward your coastal resilience goals, an early step would be to explore all of your community’s plans to make sure they are in agreement. Reference: Planning for Resilience in Michigan Handbook |
