[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Program Iwo 1\00 41Z ...... ..... TC 330 S56 1975 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES C3\0\14 COASTAL Zoi@@E OFFICE OF RESOURCES MANAGEMENT INFORMATION CENTER. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Milton J. Shapp, Governor DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES Maurice K. Goddard, Secretary Office of Resources Management C. H. McConnell., Deputy Secretary SHORELINE EROSION AND FLOODING) ERIE COUN The Coastal Zone Management effort is partially financed by the Federal Government, through the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under Section 305 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (P. L. 92-583) and by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Office of Resources Management, Department of Environmental Resources. Prepared by THE GREAT LAKES RESEARCH INSTITUTE June 1975 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The project was carried out by Great Lakes Research Institute, Erie, Pennsylvania, under contract from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The principal investigators and authors of the report were Paul D. Knuth, Department of Geography, Edinboro State College; and G. Rodger Crowe, Great Lakes Research Institute. Additional project support was provided by the Institute on Human Ecology (Project NOQ), the Faculty Research Council of Edinboro State College, and the Edinboro Foundation. ABSTRACT Due to higher than normal water levels in the Great Lakes Basin since 1972, there has been accelerated shoreline erosion and bluff recession. As part of the Coastal Zone Management Program in Pennsylvania, a study of the Erie County shoreline was made between January and June, 1975. Erie County contains approximately 48 miles of lakeshore and five miles of bayshore. The recession analysis primarily focused on 40 miles of lakeshore excluding Presque Isle Peninsula. The main purpose of the study was to identify and classify hazard areas on the lakeshore. There were 109 areas (residential sections, cottage areas, camps, parks, industrial sites, etc.) classified as critical, moderate, or limited hazard areas. There are 44 critical hazard areas, 51 moderate hazard areas, and 10 limited hazard areas. The most critical areas are in Springfield, Millcreek, and North East Townships. The townships of Girard, Fairview, and Harborcreek are somewhat less hazardous, but are still subject to significant damage within 25-ye-ars.--_The City of Erie and Lawrence Park Township have the least degree of hazard due to the protection offered by Presque Isle Peninsula. The most immediate threat on the lakeshore is flooding and erosion in low-lying cottage areas. There have already been over two dozen cottages com- pletely destroyed and over 100 cottages that have suffered damage. The rate of recession of the bluff has increased significantly along the entire shoreline during the past three years, and if the current rates continue over the next 25 years, several hundred homes and cottages will be endangered. The bluffs in the Millcreek and Erie bayshore are relatively stable. The principal hazard in the bayshore is flooding of low-lying dock areas. Average recession rates since 1938 were measured from aerial photographs at 89 points throughout the county. The average long-term rate for the points measured was calculated to be approximately one foot per year. The bluffs west of Presque Isle have a rate slightly higher than the average. The bluffs east of Presque Isle have a rate slightly lower than the average due not only to the protection offered by Presque Isle, but also to the existence of long stretches of exposed bedrock above water. The actual rates measured at the points varied between two inches per year and 52 inches per year in the west county and between two inches per year and 21 inches per year in the east county. However, because of the great variety of usage and protection at different points on the bluff and because of the many complex causes of recession, the recession rates are not con- stant over time and do in fact vary at each location, depending on the level of lake water and climate variations. TABLE OF CONTENTS Pages SECTION 1. PURPOSE OF STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-2 SECTION 2. AREA-OF STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7 SECTION 3. CONTRIBUTORY PHYSICAL PROCESSES . . . . . . . . . . . 8-43 SECTION 4. DESCRIPTION AND RESULTS OF FIELD RECONNAISSANCE . . . 44-107 A) FIELD RECONNAISSANCE METHODS B) BLUFF PHYSIOGRAPHY SECTION 5. RECESSION RATE ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108-146 SECTION 6. SUMMARY OF HAZARD AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147-169 SECTION 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .. . . . . . . . . . . 170-172 APPENDIX A. NATIONAL SHORELINE STUDY FOR ERIE COUNTY . . . . . . . A-1 - A-7 APPENDIX B. WATER LEVELS HYDROGRAPH 1860 - 1975 . . . . . . . . . B-1 - B-7 APPENDIX C. COMPUTER PROGRAM AND RECESSION RATE DATA . . . . . . . C-1 - C-32 APPENDIX D. PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1 - D-18 APPENDIX E. CONTROL POINTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1 - E-5 APPENDIX F. BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1 - F-6 SECTION 1 PURPOSE OF STUDY Since 1972 high lake levels have brought on a new wave of concern in the Great Lakes Basin for shore property and structures within the erosion and flood prone sections of coastline. The concern is addressed in Federal legislation through the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 which has mandated research into coastal processes and the function of the nation's coastal areas. Within the Commonwealth, the Lake Erie shoreline has come under extensive attack during this time period. Property owners with land adjacent to the shore are losing as much as three feet per year of bluff. Those with structures within a recession limit of ten years are especially concerned as are those with beachfront structures susceptible to destruction by every storm. It is the intent of this study to identify areas of the coastline thatc@p are considered hazard areas under the following guidelines: 1) Those properties, or structures, that are in danger of being destroyed by a receding bluff. 2) Those properties, or structures, that are in danger of being destroyed by floodwaters created by combinations of storm and highwater level. 3) Each hazard zone will be assessed as to whether the threat to structures is imminent (critical); or those potentially hazardous by the year 2000 (Moderate), and those areas that are relatively secure from threat within the next 25 years (limited). NEED FOR STUDY Interest in shoreline changes due to erosion and recession phenomena is apparent at all levels of government. Federal, State and local units are under various pressures to identify the seriousness of the threat and to plan for the future of the coastal zone. Within the Federal structure, the Army Corps of Engineers has for years been responsible for monitoring change in coastal areas. According to a representative from the Corps, "... the problem of shore damage, both from erosion and flooding, demands high quality technical studies to support non-structural shore damage reduction strategies."l He adds, "From my perspective, there is no comprehensive or coordinated Federal program available at the present time for the recession or erosion rate analysis on the Great Lakes.."2 There are various agencies involved, however, mostly at the planning stage, for some type of recession and erosion rate analysis. The Corps has com- pleted 22 studies under the cooperative beach erosion control program and 29 studies under the mandate of the River and Harbor Act (1972). Thd Department of Commerce (NOAA) has been given the responsibility for carrying out the Coastal Zone Management Act (1972). With this act, each state will institute research with the ultimate goal of providing information to local planners for the protection of future land owners in the coastal zone. Recession Rate Workshop Proceedings. R. Buddecke,, p. 6. 21bid. p. 5. 1 The Natural Disaster Assistance Act (1973) will require a tremendous amount of information about flooding and recession or erosion so that programs for compensation for structural loss can be established with uniform guidelines. Other Federal agencies have funded research related to coastal phenomena including the Department of Interior (OWRR), Department of Commerce through the Sea Grant Program and the Department of Defense, Coastal Engineering Research Center. The Environmental Protection Agency is also in need of information relative to the effect of erosion on the quality of water in the Great Lakes. State agencies in the Great Lakes Basin have essentially the same require- ment, but are under greater pressure to establish information in support of enacted legislation that will establish setback requirements, zoning changes and activity designation. It is imperative, then, that each state develop enough data on respective coasts to accomplish the goals of the various programs. With this report, the Commonwealth will have information that will meet the immediate needs as seen by the agencies involved. Within the recommendations for future study presented in this report is an identification of further projects to substantiate the intital steps made here. AUTHORITY AND SCOPE The work was undertaken through contract with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, the administrators of the Coastal Zone Management Program for the Commonwealth, under the provisions as set forth by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and within the authority of the. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. The scope of work includes the following elements: "Establish Erie County Shoreline physiography, particularly bluff characteristics; define and evaluate t-hq coastline as a hazard zone in relation to bothrecession and erosion-related phenomena, including an examination of causative factors (both environmental and man-made); define, inventory and locate all hazard areas in which recession or erosion has caused, or may potentially cause, damage to land or structures; develop estimated coastal recession rates based on historical evidence and project future recession-prone hazard areas." 2 SECTION 2 AREA OF STUDY .General The area under examination is that section of the Southern Shore of Lake Erie under the political identification of Erie County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the minor civil divisions that border on the shoreline (Figures 1 and 2). In particular, the study comprises that section of the shore inter- face described as that area between the zone of breaking waves shoreward to the 100 year recession limit as delineated within the study. The critical physical features included are the beach face, the bluff (toe, slope, and crest), that area behind the bluff and affected by potential recession comprised of flat-lying glacial sands and clays, and the minor delta areas associated with thestreams that cut the bluff. General Physical Description of Study Area The coastline of Erie County, Pennsylvania consists essentially of bluffs of varying heights above mean lake level (571 feet) from ten to 170 feet. Breaks occur in the bluffline where streams have established drainage channels from the area behind the coastal zone. Depending on the size of the stream, embayments have been developed varying in size with the amount.of sediment being carried by the,stream, the volume of outflow, and the strength of the longshore transport system which tends to form baymouth bars protecting the bays and which carries the stream load down shore. Weather tributaries have also added an irregularity to the coastal face dissecting the bluffs into a series of gullies of various depth and breadth. Induced gullies have formed as a result of agri- cultural tile drains, septic tank outfall, and other forms of drainage. In the central county, a unique sandspit peninsula protects a large harbor at Erie. Over 3,500 acres in size, Presque Isle Peninsul 'a is made up of beach and dune deposits that alternate with lagoons closed as formation of the spit progressed. The narrow neck is attached to the shoreline on the west and an artificial channel has been maintained at the eastern and western basins of Lake Erie (Figure 3) and the system is now dependent on longshore transport for sediment required for maintenance. The maximum elevation of the spit is just over ten feet, the relief being produced by sequential dune development through. succession. The bulk of the spit is particularly susceptible to damage by ero- sion, littoral currents, and flooding. A massive amount of data has been accumulated by the Army Corps of Engineers' as a result of Cooperative Beach Erosion Control Studies. Therefore, Presque Isle has been eliminated from this report to avoid needless redundancy in effort. The studies have been referenced in the bibliography. The inner bay shoreline protected by Presque Isle was included in this study. However, because,of the protection offered against attack by lake waters, the high density development of the shore with resultant interior and exterior drainage control, and the stability of the bluffs in that area, a complete recession analysis was not performed for the bay shore area. Most of the shore,is protected, indirectly, by control structures established for some other purpose, particularly dock facilities and materials storage areas. Examina- tion of the bayshore bluff revealed bluffs varying in height from 20 to 90 feet with a stable vegetative cover in most areas. 3 LAKE ,@OA&RIO I-AIIEI HURON NIAGRA FALLS 0 N T A R 10 MICHIGAN BUFFALO 41 DETROIT NEW YORK Cole ERIE '00" STUDY AREA TOLEDO rn PENNSYLVANIA z M CLEVELAND z rn rn z G) rn OHIO z 0 , I - REGIONAL LOCATION !n F I GU RE2 NORTH LAWRENCE EAST PARK r I ARBORCREEK NORTHEAST PRESQUE ISLE STATE PARK WISLEYVILLE ERIE CITY GRE NFIELD its2 -'MILLCIIE SCALE IN MILES FAIRVIEW SUMMIT VENANGO.: i AL, AK ;00 ov FAIRVIEW00.1@ WATTSBURG ERIE MITROPOLITAN PLANNINO DEPARTMENT GIRAR GREENE I ri M, KEAN GIRARD tASt @ILAIIA r WATERFORD WAYNE SPRINGFItL Me, KEAN I AMITY D WATERFORD I UNION IFRANKLIN j I CITY @JELGIH MILIVILLACE I ALBION [:] I I CRANtSVILLE- -t CeEDINBORO MEW ELK CREEK WASHINGTON LE 806F UNION CONCORD FIGURE 3 83, 82. a 80* A Age NURON OU ,a 4Y 00, '00 so 0 Sr. CLAIR 10 0 5 to PELEE so ERIC 42-- 42 BOTTOM TOPOGRAPHY L A K E E R I E CONTOUR INTERVAL 50 FEET SCALE OF MILES 1) 10 20 30 0 SANDUSKY CLEVELAND 13 3* 02, 81* 80, 79- The bottoin topography of Lake Erie. Source: after Hough, Great Lakes*Basin indicates moraine deposits separating the east and west basin and suspected to have provided the source material for both Presque Isle and Long Point, Canada 6 The following is a general summary of the use of the bluff in each township or municipality on the shoreline: Springfield Township - six major cottage areas, four private summer camps, a county park, a township beach, an undeveloped industrial site (Penelec), and a small number of permanent residences. Girard Township - an undeveloped industrial site (Penelec), the mouth of Elk Creek, three cottage areas, three private summer camps, a community park, a fruit farm, and a few permanent residential areas, including several high value homes. Also Lake City Borough has two separate shoreline areas within the town- ship; one, a small combined summer/permanent residential area, and the other having a concrete works plant. Fairview Township - medium to high value permanent residences in approximately nine separate areas. There are also a few small cottage areas, a summer camp, a private country club, and the Walnut Creek Fish Commission Access Area. Millcreek Township - one high value permanent residential area, a large undeveloped private estate tract, seven beach cottage areas and a restaurant. On the bluff above the cottage areas, there are four medium-value residential areas, a mobile home park, and a public amusement park. Also, the only land access to Presque Isle State Park and the U.S. Coast Guard station is in Millcreek Township. The Millcreek bayshore contains a mobile home park, an outdoor theater, an apartment complex, a new county park, a City of Erie water pumping station, and a high value residential area. The City of Erie lakeshore - two large manufacturing facilities, a small oil tank farm, a public boat launching ramp, a series of two dozen private boat houses built on public land, a private cemetery, a medium value permanent residential area, and a private facility available for parties and receptions. It is also the site of the diked disposal area proposed by the Army Corps of Engineers to hold Erie Harbor dredging material. Lawrence Park Township - a medium value residential area, a township boat launching facility, a private fishing boat facility, and a private golf course. Harborcreek Townshi - ten medium value residential areas, four cottage areas, a small oil tank farm, a church property, an elderly housing facility, a private camp, a county park, three small motels, and a public tavern. - North East Township - approximately ten me'dium. value residential areas, five cottage areas, a private yacht club, a township beach, a boat livery, the Dewey Road Fish Commission Access Area, a home for the elderly, and several fruit farms. 7 SECTION 3 CONTRIBUTORY PHYSICAL PROCESSES Shoreline recession, which is a geometric concept, involves the landward displacement of shore or bluff lines; erosion is a mass concept, involving the net removal of material. Recession, which is what the trained and un- trained first observe, is not as fundamental a term as is erosion. The consideration of shore processes in terms of energy, material, and geometry demonstrate the importance of inter- action between factors and groups offactors contributing to recession and erosion. The proposition that the opera- tion of a single factor accounts uniquely for an erosional or recessional event is.at best an oversimplification.* The purpose of this section is to provide the foundation upon which the Erie County recession rate analysis and critical hazard area identification iias accomplished. It mu st be emphasized that examination of the scientific processes involved in the coastal zone is one of the most important areas of study for future determination of shoreline use. MASS WASTING PRINCIPLES All of the factors discussed later in this section relate to the mass wasting and subsequent erosion of material forming the bluff. Since mass wasting on the bluff is the direct result of these factors working singly or in concert, a brief description of principles is offered. Any changes in the form of a bluff will be due to the normal elements of landform change, principally: structure, process and time. The form of any slope is determined by the relationship between the rate of decay of the under- lying material and the rate of removal of the debris produced from the surface and the base of the bluff. The forces described below work on the slope itself or at the base or crest of the bluff in molding its form. The nominal angle of a slope is generally governed by the rate of removal of material at the base. When debris piles up at the foot of a slope it means that production exceeds removal and such a slope will be less steep than the one from which material has been removed. The types of movement evident on the bluffs in Erie County include falls produced by undercutting material on slope or sod at crest, slides in the form of rotational slumps, and flows produced by super-saturation of clay materials. Distinctive scars and depositional features produced by slides and flows are apparent in most sections of coastline. Especially common are spoon-shaped scars associated with shear failure along arcuate planes. The hummocky features at racteristic in landsli -e- ----ph the base of the bluffs are d topogra y. A landslide will be set in motion when the stress along the-potential surface of rupture exceeds the resistance to shear along that surface. The *Pincus, "Recession of Great Lakes Shorelines," Great Lakes Basin, 1962, p. 123. 8 'Lug , rz@w 1 U -WZ - U b- Mz&- Above and below: Cirgpe-like features prqduced_--- by landsli-des-in weakened materials. 9 following conditions usually are causative factors: a. @Increased weight of overlying material due to absorption of water b. Decrease in mass resistance due to undercutting C. Decrease in shear strength of the material itself due to the absorption of moisture. One example of change would be a rise in water table, forcing more water into the bluff face and reducing shear strength. We have found this to be one of the principle causes of recession on the bluffs of Erie County. Mass wasting occurs on a bluff when any of the conditions below are met: 1. Deep weathering 2. Sedimentary structures of variable lithology 3. Swelling in clays 4. Large quantities of water 5. Seasonal ice formations 6. Undercutting by wave action Unfortunately for the shoreline user, all of the above factors are active in the coastal zone. It is unreasonable to expect that individual efforts to retard mass wasting by the placement of debris or rip rap of some kind will have much success. The following are factors that are generally accepted by researchers to be most critical as contributory elements in recession and erosion of shore- line areas: 1. Lake water levels 2. Storm conditions and frequency (waves, storm surge, changes in profiles of equilibrium) 3. Geological structure of the bluff and beach area 4. Wind direction and strength 5. Material availability in longshore transport systems 6. Ground water seepage 7. Sheet runoff on bluff face 8. Runoff from area behind bluff crest 9. Frost action and raindrop impact 10. Induced drainage onto bluff face related to man's activities 11. Ice conditions on lake 12. Control structures in shore zone 13. Vegetation on crest and slope 14. Land use 15. Sediment loading by streams 16. Stream dissection (valley widening and headward erosion) 17. Beach deposits at base of bluff 18. Gravity Each of the above will be briefly explained as to effect and degree of threat. 10 v _t@, -maim Above: An area of slumping due probably to increased infiltration of ground water because to vegeta- tion cover at crest ion Above: Typical hummocky appearance produced by landslide activity LAKE LEVELS: The factors producing high water levels on Lake Erie over the past three years include abnormal amounts of precipitation in the basin over this time period, less evaporation from surface of the lake, and the condition of ground water supply already present during periods of heavy precipitation. Precipitation in the spring and fall as well as snow melt all contribute generally to runoff as opposed to infiltration, producing a problem of excess runoff during these periods. Lake levels can be expected to vary as the elements producing them vary. As a result, water level reaches a high on the lakes in mid-summer and a seasonal low during the winter months. Variation within the elements over extended periods of time will produce period highs and lows over time. However, there is no scien- tific evidence that short term cycles (seven of 11 years) are a factor in water levels. The variables have been such that, in combination, they have produced record high water levels on Lake Erie from 1972 to the present. The recorded high (573.5 ft.) during the summer of 1973 was as much as three feet over average level (570.4 ft.) for the period of record (1960-1973) and five feet over low water datum (568.6 ft.). The hydrograph for the period of record is reproduced in the appendix (Appendix B) to allow an examination of water level variability in relation to periods of development in the Erie County coastal zone from a historical perspec- tive. Figure 4 is an analysis of the period of record, averaging monthly data over that period and applying a smoothing line provided by computing a moving average of order seven. The result clearly indicates that the water levels now being experienced are well above average for the period of record. During the mid-1950's there was a brief period of high water, but essentially water levels (until now) have not been significantly above the average for any length of time since before 1900. However, most of the construction in the coastal zone has taken place since 1900 (i.e., during low water periods). As a result, property owners have-developed expectations regarding water levels that may not be applica- ble in the future. Future planning must involve an understanding of this phenomenon to protect future investment. EFFECTS OF HIGH WATER LEVEL: Figures 5, 6, and 7 illustrate the relationships of water level with conditions in the coastal zone. As Figure 5 illustrates, structures built behind protective beach berms, but in effect lower than high stage levels, will be flooded during periods of high lake levels. Storms producing waves of even moderate height will produce greater severity in terms of damage. These areas are sus- ceptible to damage even at normal water levels during time of storm as a result of wind set-up over a long fetch producing wave uprush. Figure 6 shows the effect of storms on water levels. This tilting (seiche) effectively drowns narrow beach areas that have low sloping profiles and creates a zone of breaking waves higher on the beach face during high water levels causing damage to shore structures previously protected by beach deposits. In the West County, this effect caused the destruction and severe damage to cottages in the Baer Beach and Eaglehurst sections. In the East County, the effect was duplicated in the Francroft-Woodmere area. Ironically if water levels subside in the lake these areas will once more have broad sandy beaches. Future construction in these areas should take into consideration that any lowering or subsidence of lake levels could be temporary. 12 FIGURE 4 LAKE ERIE -1952 -1973 YEARLY AVERAGE WATER LEVEL 1860-1973 1929 F. AA. AVE vif ol 570-39 ft -1964 v YEARLY AVE. - LOW V*TER MOVING AVE OF ORDER SEVEN DATUM 568.6 V934 Source: Paul Knuth @A FIGURE 5 A. FLOODING DUE TO HIGH, CALM WATER STAGES (MEAN MONTHLY) LAKE HIGH STAGE (WATER) NORMAL WATER LEVEL AREA PLODDED CALM WATER LEVEL BELOW LAND CREST. HIGH WATER EXCEEDS LAND HEIGHT. B. STORM STAGE FLOODING WIND WIND SET UP S.TOIRM NORMAL W.L. (CALM) AREA FLOODED CALM WATER LEVEL BELOW LAND CREST. STORM WATER LEVEL EXCEEDS LAND HEIGHT. THE PRINCIPAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A & B IS THE DURATION. IN A., THE DURATION MAY BE ONE TO SEVERAL MONTHS. IN B., THE DURATION IS USUALLY ONLY SEVERAL HOURS, ALTHOUGH IT MAY REMAIN LONGER, DEPENDING ON DRAINAGE BACK INTO LAKE. C. WAVE UPRUSH FLOODING STORM STAGE W.L. LOW DUNE OR DYKE NORMAL (CALM) W.L. STORM STAGE BELOW LAND CREST. UPRUSHING WAVE SPILL OVER LOW BARRIER, DUNE OR LOW LAND AREA FLOODED DYKE. USUALLY OF SHORT DURATION AND LOW WATER COVER IN AREA FLOODED. AMOUNT OF FLOODING DEPENDS ON STORM SEVERITY AND DURATION A@ T E @RL E V @@EL@ @@@OR @M@W A@ NORMAL (CALM) W.L. @RM @AGE BE AND PI L@ STO ST OW@ L L CREST UPR S H @NGAVE U I W S L 0 OW BARR IER. DU NE0 R LOW LANC TYPES OF FLOODING. Source: Great Lakes Water Levels Board 14 FIGURE 6 WIND STORM WATER LEVEL UNDISTURBED (STILLWATER) LEVEL h LAKE PROFILE ALONG PATH OF WIND im ULTIMATE WATER LEVEL WIND GENERATED WAVES RU STORM WATER LEVEL Z@h UNDISTURBED WATER LEVEL m SLOPE OF BEACH OR STRUCTURE RU= WAVE RUN-UP Ah WIND SET-UP, OR WIND TIDE ULTI MATE U M W S7TOR DIAGRAM OF STORM EFFECTS ON WATER LEVELS. Source: Great Lakes Water Levels Board 15 LAKE ERIE PROFILE 17TYPICAL SHORE) TOP VARIES 580 o,- BLUFF TYPE SEVERE DAMAGE- $22,290/M O./mI. MAX. ULTIMATE WATER LEVEL MAR.'52 BARRIER SLOPE MODERATE DAMAGE- S1,050/MO. mi. 1:8 ULTIMATE WATER LEVEL 573.5' Ch BEACH ULTIMATE WATER LEVEL ZERO DAMAGE 570.6' TYPE W.E. MEAN LAKE LEVEL (570.36') Q 570 - - - - --- - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - 0 568.6 LWD - -------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ t7u - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - w ----------------------------------------------------- U_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------------ ----------------------------------------------- z - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------------------------------------- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 560 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 0 ----------------------------------- --------------------------- ---------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------- w w 550 0 200 400 600 Boo 1000 1200 DISTANCE IN FEET VERTICAL SCALE I"=10' HORIZONTAL SCALE I"=200' LAKE ERIE PAOFILE Source: Great Lakes Water Levels Board SPECIAL NOTE: As a result of contact with and response from citizens during this project, the following observations seem pertinent: Most citizens do not understand the complex factors that affect water levels in the Great Lakes. Furthermore, citizens in general seem to think that the level of Lake Erie can be closely controlled by means of "dams at Niagara Falls." Despite periodic articles in the local newspapers on the subject, there still exists a need for better public understanding of the complex factors involved. WAVES AS A FACTOR IN EROSION AND RECESSION: Essentially two types of waves can be identified as being active in this area. Figure 9 illustrates shore zone and wave characteristics. The first type is constructive waves in which the,backwash is relatively weak and that will result, after a long period, in the building up of a beach with a broad berm of various material sizes. The berm usually has a more or less steep front leading down to the more gently graded profile of the foreshore. Where beach accumulations have survived, the berm usually consists of coarse materials up to cobble size or flags depending on location, as well as a jumble of debris carried by the transport system and deposited on the berm during storms. Because of the accelerated rate of recession of the bluffs, trees have become a common depositional feature of the entire beach. In many cases, downed trees have fastened themselves to the shore and have acted as natural groins and seawall structures and have offered some measure of protection to the berm. The second type of wave is of the destructive variety in which the back- wash is quite strong. As a result, scouring of the beach face takes place and materials move outward, reducing the extent of the beach significantly, in fact to "zero" in many cases. If waves with destructive tendencies prevail for any length of time, then erosion of the base of the bluff will take place. STORM SURGE: When high lake levels are combined with wind and storm waves, the result is storm surge. Low lying and easily erodible coasts are especially vul- nerable to these disastrous coincidences. CONCEPT OF PROFILE OF EQUILIBRIUM: Figure 9 illustrates the concept of the ideal profile of equilibrium and is the result of conditions prevailing with respect to water levels and storm activity. Line AB represents the slope involved. If AB represents the steep bluff conditions prevalent in the Erie shoreline, the result is erosion at the base producing steepening of bluff slope. If the material involved is easily erodible, it is carried to just off-shore or moved by longshore transport. If water level is lowered and storms are moderate, the shallower slopes of beach formation are exposed and greater amounts of deposition will occur. Therefore, bluffs with a bedrock exposure can be expected to have little accumulation of materials at their base, even under optimum conditions, except that which might be provided by longshore transport. 17 FIGURE 8 SHORE ZONE Hear shot* son* Beach or Share Lek* Front (Area of near shore currents) Bockshore Bluff. CIM, or 4- Foreshore escarpment Off share In shore extends thru breaker zone' too of bluff Berms @ooo- Beachscalp Breaker& at Uprush Dest of berm breaker depth BEACH PROFILE Low Water Backrush illustrating terms 00 Inner Bar Beach face Adopted from Beach Erosion Board Tech. Report No. 4. Outer bar I I Deep bar I Plunge point Direction of wave travel Wov* crest F L: Wave Lonqlh Stillwater level Wave flough d depth bottom WAVE CHARACTERISTICS r -sc FIGURE 9 A Erosion c BL@F@i-@ Deposition D B C -Reposition X X: W -AC Erosion A B D EFFECT OF OFFSHORE DREDGING ON THE PROFILE OF EQUILIBRIUM: "Artificial interference with natural profiles by offshore dredging introduces a factor that will have dangerous results if done within the range of profile equilibrium."* Studies have shown that dredging increases the slope from the shore and, therefore, promotes beach and cliff erosion replacing the material dis- placed by the dredging activities. Figure 10 illustrates the effect produced when dredging steepens the offshore slope. FIGURE 10 ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------ ---- ---------- d Of f shore Dredging Steepens Line a-b *Holmes, Principles of Physical Geology, 1965, p. 815. 19 BLUFF STRUCTURE AND GENERAL GEOLOGIC RELATIONSHIPS: General Geology The Coastal Zone of Erie County lies within the7glaciated section of the Appalachian.Plateau and the Eastern Lake section of the central lowlands. The shore area itself is the remnant of former lake levels of Lake Erie producing lake plains of very low relief. The bluff produced by the present elevation of the lake above sea level is the most outstanding characteristic. A number of streams drain the lake plain producing cuts of various dimensions. These streams @drain a relatively small watershed with a north-south drainage divide lying close to the coastal zone. Bedrock underlies the area and dips generally to the southwest and is exposed on the bluff face, as well as in association with stream cuts and road cuts in the area. The oldest of the bedrock sections is exposed along the bluff zone. The area has seen two glacial advances and retreats with resultant deposi- tion of materials over bedrock. On the lake plain, the glacial tills are covered over by lacustrine deposits. The accompanying diagrams illustrate the character and extent of the general geologic structure of the coastal zone. Fugure 11 illustrates the surfi- cial deposits in Erie County. The deposits at the crest of the bluff have been identified as bedded sands, silt and clay, and sand and gravels. Figure 12 shows the general cross section of the area with thickness and geologic age of materials represented. The Upper Devonian sequence exposed on the bluff face is further refined in Figure 13, showing the interbedding taking place between sandstones and shales. Because of this lithologic change, differential weathering of the bedrock takes place as evidenced by the shelf-like characteristics apparent in rock exposures at the base of the bluff. Cuspate features are found in the bedrock sections of the East County. While not conclusive, these dramatic features are probably the result of jointing in the bedrock. The energy brought to the exposed rock face by waves results in hydraulic pressure which enlarges the joint to dimensions of over 100 feet. The result is the formation of rectilinear cusps that are rounded by abrasion or corrasion in-the shore zone. The major geological factor affecting bluff recession on the lAkeshore is the difference in bedrock exposure. Generally, in the west county shoreline there is very little bedrock shale exposed above the surface of the lake. Con- sequently, the bluff toe and bluff face are extremely vulnerable to wave attack. In the east county, there is bedrock exposure in thickness from one to 25 feet. This provides a certain measure of protection to the bluff which is-reflected in the generally lower rates of recession in the east county. BLUFF STRUCTURE: A typical section of bluff in the west county area would be east of Elk Creek, where the bluffs are approximately 80 feet high. The bluff consists of shale at the water line, with coarse-grained till overlying the shale, and a thick clay sequence, probably lacustrine, overlying that, all covered by sands of lacustrine origin. 20 -t: p IT -.. - - - WOM Above:-.Cuspate@ features in bedrock, Harborcreek Township__ -A-1 Above- Aerialvl-e@w- -ofcus-p-at-ef-e-atures, typical of -mdEH---- of the eastern shoreline 21 FIGURE 11 UNIT CHARACTER TOPOOR A PH Y OF MATERIAL I - BEACH BEDDED SAND. swr a :ENEIIALLY.SMOOTH TO CLAY. SAND 9 GRAVEL ENTLY UN ULATING I - ICE CONTACT SAND & GRAVEL KNOBBY, COMMONLY IN THE FORM OF AIDGES.TEARACES OR ISOLATED MOUNDS KNOB AND KETTLE MPOGRAPHY; 3 - TILLS TILL (SILT) 1 --42019' e.ASTABULA NUMEROUS UNORAINED DEPRESSIONS ;;go b.HIRAM TILL (SILTY CLAY FLAT TO GENTLY UNDULATING. LOCAL TO CLAY) POORLY DRAINED AREAS c.LAVEAV TILL (SILT) LEVEL TO GENTLY UNDULATING UNDRAINED AREA RARE 00 do 4.KENT TILL (LOAM TO SMOOTH TO GENTLY UNDULATING SANDY LOAM) UNDRAINED AREAS LOCALIZED tas, 4 - OUTWASH BEDDED SAND, SILT GENTLY SLOPING DOWNSTREAM CLAY.SANO & 601@.*EL 3C Ix 0 5 -STREAM ALLUVIUM AND BEDROCK 3C j w z op 4 ORCRE 30 Q 2 00 3d. 4 3 3C lid dOo !LLCRE 4 @rz lid 2 4 FAIR,1 4 @MMIT MILES IA r;oooo" 2 LA.[' IT, 'N", 3 If kpo 4 2 wAYN 2 a lid I It 3C 3 b 5 3 d -t IS Id- ST 7 L@L A a z 4 - mu@,Lo 3 C IN luko 2 2 SPRINGFIELO lid 4 4 *b. 4 3o lid 3 d 4 4 A-7 5 .,4 2 lid 3 3c d. M.LLV.IL lid b a lid d CON CAUTj1fRr C ECK virv NGT t. BOFUF UN p CRAwrofflO Cou.Vrr C&AWFOR0 Pennsylvania eolOgica survey GENERALIZED GEOLOGIC MAP, SURFICIAL DEPOSITS SOURCE: Engineering@ Science Inc., 1974. 07A &ma FIGURE 12 GENERALIZED GEOLOGIC CROSSECTION ci z L) Q: 4 ILI 0 j3 0 W Z GLACIAL SEDIMENTS um z Fr 73 Ld 0 LL) it - w 0 CONNEAUT Ir ATTAAAUGUS POCONO@@ X C w CANADAWAY 0: FEET < 2000- 0 AN _2000- LOWE VONIAN-AND @SILURIAN 0 R D 01 C I A N -4000-- -CAMBRIAN %, 1, -6000- ;% z _8000: PRE CA MORIAN z % e I'll -10000 rn z ul m z FIGURE 13 BEDROCK COLtJMX SHON#ING UNITS EXPOSED AT THE SURFACE THROUGHOUT ERIE-COUNTY ROCK TYPE DEPIT@ @AME' AGE - 11,7formal Names)- 15M . "I'll-e 001, sandstone) :495 \ P.0jJSV'ijj6 Fm. PENN 475 lCussewrogo shale 5 sandstone) Poionb Group 1415 shales Kiteville Formatich (Woodcock sandstone M5 LEGEND (Saegarlown shale Sand slone 1215 Catorougus (Salamanca sandstone T @'red shales" I I Shale Formation - (Amity shale z (LeSoeuf so CheMung or Elk Creek z sandstone) 0 Alternating shales and sand- stones- line grained, gray, fossiliferous UJI Conneaut Group 700 (G irard shale Transitional zone from fine grained shales to overlying coarser grained shales and sandstones 473 M (Northeast shale w Alternating series of gray shale layers and thin layers QL of fine grained graysondstome Canadaway :3 Formation Height above Lake Erie level (571 feet above sea level). SOURCE: Tomikel & Shepps, 1967. p. 28 24 1 71 Above: Glacial tills overlain by clay and sand deposits eA U 'Sn Above: Typical section; bedrock at base, coarse grained tills, lacustrine clays and sands 25 The till is approximately five feet thick in this area. The clay sequence is silty and blue in color . The sands above are generally a charac- teristic yellow and vary in thickness over the section. Soil associations in the bluff crest are generally of the Rimer- Wauseon-Berrien association developed in sandy sediments underlain at shallow depths by gray calcareous silt deposits. The somewhat poorly drained River soils make up over two-thirds of the area west of the city of Erie. East of the city, the soils are generally of the Allis-Ellery-Alden association, developed on very thin glacial tills over shale. Slow permeability and high water tables produce high quantities of subsurface runoff existing within the bluff zone pro- ducing negative effects on recession due to shear failure. WIND Winds provide the energy for current flow and waves, both of which affect the relative stability of the shoreline. A series of wind diagrams for the study area is presented and illustrates the predominant direction of wind, as well as velocity, for each month. The prevailing winds are out of the south, but of extreme importance to the shoreline is the direction from which storms are likely to appear in the critical months of November, before ice can be expected to protect the shore; and March, April and May during seasonal high water and spring storms. The diagrams indicate that, in November, winds tend to be of high velocity essentially from the west to northwest. This direction and velocity has maximum impact on the coastal zone manifested by debilitating storms during this period. If ice cover and ice dunes are not present, the damaging winter winds operate for the entire season. This has been the case for the past two years. Wind in the spring and early summer tends to be of lower velocity and from the south to southwest quarter. Because of the configuration of the coast w ith respect to wind direction, only an occasional storm has influence on the i production of destructive processes. FIGURE 14 LEGEND WIND DIRECTION, PERCENT OF OBSERVATION TNI WIND VELOCITY, KNOTS DIRECTION INDICATES ORIGIN OF WINDS 16 KNOTS WIND PATTERNS PORT ERIE AIRPORT W ANNAL E 19 65 TO 19 69 5% 10% S 26 FIGURE 14 (con't) TN TNI 16 KNOTS 16 KNOTS 8 too 00 JAN w FEB E 5 0 5 % 10% 10% S S TN 16 KNOTS 16 KNOTS j MAR E APR E 5% 0 0 10% 10% s TN TN 16 KNOTS 16 KNOTS 8 8 AY E i N E It top % 500 10% 10% S 27 FIGURE 14 (con't) TN TN 16 KNOTS 16 KNOTS w E w AUG E JULY 5% 5 % 10% 10% S TN TN 16 KNOTS 16 KNOTS 8 E w OCT E 10% 10% >/ TN TN 16 KNOTS 16 KNOTS 8 8 It0 NOV E DEC E 5% 5 0 10% 10% S 28 S LONGSHORE TRANSPORT: As indicated by the summer surface and summer bottom current diagrams (Figures 15 and 16), the longshore drift is from west to east over the entire beach. Any materials introduced into the longshore system by stream deposition are then carried along the shore nourishing the beaches to the east. Conditions on the lake, however, mentioned in the previous section, have caused the offshore movement of these materials. During more normal periods the sediment produced by the streams will deposit along the beach face.over much of the reach. The major interruption to the system is Presque Isle which effectively terminates the eastward movement at that point. As a result, even during low lake levels, sand does not begin to accumulate again in significant amount until the area east of Lawrence Park Township. These sandy beaches are of extreme importance to the protection of the bluffs behind, A good supply of sand at the appropriate time is found to give better coastal protection than groins or seawalls. If the sand is absent, the bluff is open for attack and the result is accelerated bluff recession. There is very good substantiation of this in the recession rate data presented in this report. I GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE, SURFACE RUNOFF, ICE AND PRECIPITATION IMPACT, AND ARTIFICIAL DRAINAGE: The above elements are factors affecting the face of the bluff and all will be dealt with in this section. The runoff of surface water as an energy factor contributes to recession and erosion, with respect to the bluff face, in unconsolidated material. Avail- ability of water for this system is indicated in the accompanying NOAA abstract for Erie weather and the Rainfall Intensity Diagram (Figure 18). Sheet runoff from beyond crest as well as down the face itself produces mini-drainage features that, if unchecked by vegetation, can deepen significantly, producing irregularity of form and resultant recession. Efforts to channel this flow by drain pipes exiting at crest of mid-slope compounds the problem since it collects water from a large area and channels it to one location. The result is significant erosion. We observed this phenomena over all sections of the reach and have found it to be a significant factor. In some cases, the property owner has extended the drain pipe down the face of the bluff to the shore zone. It appears that this would be a sound practice. The flow of subsurface water and/or ground water is a leading contributor to instability on the bluff. The emergence of subsurface water along a spring line in a bluff face is quite common in Erie County, especially in the spring. This presence is a great significance in mass wasting processes producing internal lubrication permitting the downward movement of material by gravity. This effect is magnified by agricultural drainage, especially in the east county. Historically, farmers in the area have buried drainage systems to maximize field potential or to remove subsurface water during the spring. Many of these drainage tiles exit directly on the bluff face with the expected result. It should also be mentioned that individual property owners have found it convenient to drain effluent fields onto the bluff face to reduce the impact of poor soil conditions on on-lot sewage disposal systems. As in the case of the other drainage diversions mentioned, the effect is to concentrate water in 29 LAKE FIGURE 15 HURON 0 N T A R 10 CANADA MICHIGAN DETROIT L A K E ERIE ERIE PENNSYLVi --lob CLEVELAND DOMINANT S FLOW PATTER 0 H 1 0 (DIREC SOURCE: LAKE ERIE ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY, 1963-1964, EPA, 1966 NOTE - FLOW PATTERN ABOVE THERMOCLINE WHERE STRATIFIED. L LAKE FIGURE 16 HURON ONTARIO CANADA MICHIGAN DETROIT Lo -4- dd@ A K E E@4E ERIE PENNSYLVAN ____w CLEVELAND DOMINANT SU 0 H 1.0 FLOW PATTERN SOURCE* LAKE ERIE ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY, 1963-1964, EPA, 1968 (DIRECTI one location maximizing the energy available for erosion. Also, drainage from roads in the area have had some effect. The location of diversionary ditches should be placed so as not to concentrate water in the crest area. Raindrop impact on the bluff face and the effects of frost action are minor compared to the other processes mentioned, but are a factor. Each of these processes prepared the surface by loosening materials and facilitating their removal by some other agent. The effect is magnified when the slope is devoid of vegetation. ICE COVER ON LAKE ERIE: Normally, the shoreline of Erie County is protected by freeze-up of water on the lake (Figure 17). W 'ith the lake effectively remove d as-a force and with ground water and surface water essentially absent, the bluff is offered a period of relative stability. When climatic conditions in variance with the norm occur, however, recession and erosion will continue through the winter months. For the past two years, ice cover on Lake Erie has been sporadic and never continuous. Mild temperatures have produced fewer freezing degree days (Figure l7b) than average so that ground water was active for extended periods of time. As a result, conditions already worsened by high lake levels have reached critical proportions as a result of the loss of protection by ice and freezing. It can probably be stated that this combination has produced acceler- ated erosion and recession unequalled in recent history for a short period. SHORE PROTECTION DEVICES: Shore protection devices come in all shapes and sizes and vary in degree of success. The larger ones, being more costly, are obviously financed through governmental cooperation and usually protect public land. Some of the structures in place on the Erie County shoreline, though private, are quite extensive. Most structures, however, protecting individual properties are relatively small. The following are types of structures one could expect to find: Revetments and seawalls Groins Breakwaters The approximate locations of each are described in the section covering bluff physiography and shoreline description. A groin essentially is a structure placed perpendicular to the shore to intercept the sand being carried by the longshore transport system. There is, therefore, an accumulation of sand upstream in the system, while downstream a scalloped appearance is produced by lack of material and an eddy effect as waves round the tip of the groin. This effect will be further explained below. We found groins of various sizes and con- structed of materials varying from timbers, cement filled drums, concrete, rocks, precast blocks, and gabions. Most of these were individual efforts having vary- ing degrees of success. 32 A UNITED FATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE LOCAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DAT PUBLICATION ANNUAL SUMMARY WITH COMPARATIVE DATA ERIE PENNSYLVANIA FIGURE 17 NATIONAL. OCEANIM ANM AiAUVUI;Tr@ DEPARTMENT.' ,,,C0MMER6ii- @ENVIRONIVIENTA DATX@ SERVI@@% 12@ 1972 NARRATIVE CLIMATOLOGICAL SUMMARY Erie is located on the southeast shore of Lake shore. The last killing frost in the spring Erie and observations are now made at Erie curred on May 25, while the average da International Airport, which is 6 miles southwest April 20. In summer heat waves are temp of the center of the City and about 1 mile from by cooling lake breezes that may extend se', the lake shore. The terrain rises gradually in miles inland, and days with temperatures a a series of ridges paralleling the shore line 90' are infrequent. Summer thunderstormi to 500 feet above the lake level 3 to 4 miles in- less frequent and usually less destructiv land and to 1,000 feet above the lake about 15 Erie than inland areas due to the stabil miles Inland. This upslope usually increases effects of Lake Erie and mostly occur the amount of snowfall from instability showers frontal passages. from off the lake to the south of the City some- what higher than the fall along the immediate Autumn, with long dry periods and an"abund shoreline. of sunshine, is usually the most pleasant p( of the year in Erie. The growing seasc During the winter months the many cold air- extended by the influence of thewarmerwz masses advancing southward from Canada are of the Lake. The average date of the first ki modified considerably by the relatively warm frost in the fall is November 1, while the ear waters of the lake. However, these conditions date is October 7. also produce an excess of cloudiness and frequent snow from November through March. Precipitation Is well distributed throughou. year, although the number of days with mea Spring weather is quite variable in Erie, but able amounts varies considerably from a generally is cloudy and cool. Nearness to the average of about one day in three for the mc lake frequently prevents killing frosts that are of June through September to about one-ha observed further south. This has led to the the days for November through January establishment of numerous vineyards and fruit snow flurries and squalls prevail from of'. orchards in a narrow belt extending along the lake. 33 AVERAGE TEMPERATURE FIGURE 17B FIGURE 17A TOTAL DEGREE DAYS ERIE, PEMSYLVANIA T-- . S-e Seuon July AugT Year I Jand Feb. I Mar.1 Apr. I MayiJunel Julyl Aug.lSeptj Oct. I No@. I DW.TAnnual _L p@OctlNovjDecl Jan.1 Feb.1 Mar.1 Apr.Imay Puriel Total 1913 16:: 19:6 31 1?:. 59:1 71 743:6 7,2 67:0 12:.1 37:6 31:1 111:9 1933:3 0 153 388 826 1032 10651426106260D 178 12 6,645 '93, , 03:6 45 060 8 71: 7 6 6.:7 67 6 ,2 46 934 35 0 3952 402 ,6Z log11761090 784 642 415 66 6 1 0 14a '. 29 a 9 1935 27.1 26.0 39.7 43.8 51.9 65. 75.6 71.5 62.4 53. 4 .6 26.6 498.93 1935-36 0 23 120 354 672 119 1282 1321 64 680206 44 6740 37:1 42:4 .1:@ .7: 71:0 12 1 66:1 13:1 3'1:-1 1 49:1 1931:17 2 1BI 16-1 11566 2 234 24 0 1199,1.6 143:1 109:4 91 938 966 1072 59 6026 7 3 2::4 3 8 3 50 4 45 28 2 67 73 1 74:3 62 9 0 40 1 496 937 3B 7 0,52 47. 742 tll2It.4 936756494 263 34 6160 .0 .8 5 .0 32.6 .4 1. 9 1 5too 1068 1,193,1 16:: 11:1 4141:. 19:11 17:2 1:: 73:1 7,1.., 61.. 6 [email protected] 93. @ 0 022 '96 9''972 911 647 207 ?4 57886 9. 30." 30 19.4 '111.6,9.o 6'. 71.D 70. 15 ,41 41.0 31.1 50.6 1939-40 6 081 341 748 920 1416 1104 1108 692294 58 6 04 1940 19 26 .9 2 2 4 9'6 672 4 7 . 6.. 51.6 4 .4 35.6 47 .8 1940:41 22 41 124 422 706 912 1134 1104 1122 4470 210 54 6299 1941 28.4 23.6 20.8 50.5 6O.Z 6a. 73.6 69.4 67.3 36.6 43.4 37.0 50.9 1941 42 3 16 59 297 587 896 11 68 11 61 854 40215 39 5702 1942 27:4 23:4 37:4 52:0 60:1 67 71 6 70:2 623.:C 54:9 4Z:: 298:4 50:1 1942 4 6 14 12 31 665 11 1217 1028 931735303 42 6514 -1 1 31 40 1 13 L 943.43 4 91307 432 757 1 0:1044 10511 37 ':43 21.@ 2:.1 , 0 1:.6 71 71.: 71.4 6 1 1 0 @1 28.3 49 6 4 01a 671 136 6402 1944 3 28.13.2 42 .:62 69.2 73 73 2 65.1 32.8 44.9 2 8 50.4 1944-4' 0 990 390 603 1124 14131020 574 419 399 1Z9 6170 43 19.4 2 646.9 .51.6 32.8 64.B 71.7 71.6 66.6 32.7 44.0 27.6 49.6 1945-46 5 683 381 630 1162 1066 1021 566 549 28a 98 5855 1946 30:6 1,8:,l 46:61 41:21 -1. 66:2 72:1 IS 66:3 -19:1 47:6 11 1 11.0 1946-47 6 2273 211 524 906 too011631035 593 343 73 59@q 7 4:1 6:D I 2:@ , 1 194 32 7 231 45 5 0 66 470 4 7 4 66 7 1 1 40 0 3 0.1 1947-4a 5 3118 L54 748 1018 1324 1064 :63 444 333 54 613b 1948 22:1 241:3 37:1 10:3 11 66:6 73:1 71:4 66.4 51.4 41.9 3'.' 11.1 1948-4 3 567 423 487 925 929 84670 5(8,3 217 30 53893 1 9 '9:3 10 1 94 33 0 3 736 7 45 65 13 a75 4 72 6 61 4 4 5 3 2.6 1949-590 0 5147 219 70D 900 830 L00347 0 234 44 5 28 19 so 38.1 29.0 31.2 41.3 57.B 67.4 69.1 70.1 63.0 57.5 39.8 28.3 49.4 1950:31 10 a101 244 759 It3l 1046 966 843 55 13 224 36 5926 1951 30:2 37:6 46:'1 18:1 67:21 72:1 69:@ 692:6 57:63 37:76 34:0 50 1931,2 1 7102 272 at79551013961go7465 30' 11 -1,149 "1 3':1 9 70 73 5 70 9 6 a 49 43 3 1:4 a 985 470 579 1:12 n.l 11391.o 49 5 a 5 3 01952-53 113 23@ 32 .3 3.1 . 3. .9 4 , .5 13 53 1 3 .2 32.9 44.9 58.1 :9.8 78.., 72.3 63.1 53 42.6 3 .2 50.6 1953.54 2 06 360 602 1916 111795 10872 990 472 393 54 3973 1954, 2:.8 33*.63 49.1 52.8 76 66 6 6 6 54.2 4 .0 351.3 49.L L9 4 5 17 37110 363 603 036 20 09 912 392 247 a2 6099 0195 25.8 2. 6.6 74.9 73:4 63.: 39.2 28-3 49.8 2: 0 01935:56 0 7L12 347 76.,5 1132 1213 1039 1027 647 3645 96 6730 .9 .7 .:. S6 1 1 2 195: 29.7 ::*4 :31. :: 1 65'.6 6 .6 68 9 59. 42.3 36.0 40.3 19 57 9202 :91 129,8 951 920 526 310 51 6157 1957 30.8 -11:1 11:1 6.1:1 66:'1 11:01 49:7 4@:3 4..8 1937.58 2 3 98 67 1 ,I 1 1 6637 22.9 31,:l 411:@l 21 8135 467 675 98 19 2 @973 529 33 40 2 6 3:1 191, 26 :2 21:4 3 .4 4.,4.4 61.2 71.8 67.5 63.6 53.2 43. 46:OB 19598:5 3 34 112 36 62 128 12:6 1077 100 53 22 69 6616 19 1. 23 3 26 332 5 4 .2 60 1 67 27 75 7 53 7 39 : 34.22 so 195 690 1 a9 3651 749 947710 61051242 4604 2727 52 6322 1 5 1960 29.8 26.5 24.6 49.9 56.6 66.1 68.4 69.9 66.3 52.1 44.8 25.3 48.6 25 64 397 597 1221130296: 8456a370 96 6381 a 1960:61 23 10 69 276 640 105 1266 1125 977 571 16 1961 22 29 437 4 412 053 6 64 77* 1 71:4 6101:1 .16:2 43:2 3-.9 49.2 1961 62 4. 1 6 9:' 6 6 , .1_ ' '9 6' '962 23:'q 24:1 33:3 4A: 1:6 66:6 69 D . 1 411 4 @I.l 4..@ 962 63 7 27 176 338 73L 11714 1394 1306 839 548 350 64 -.4 963 19 .. is .23'.7 46.3.9 6..:7D.. . 11.6 ,8.7 45.0 29.3 47.5 190 .64 20 28 1733 221 594 122 1077 1158 .74 53133 L95 1 4 47:2 72:.5 :.76 62..' 50.0 45 1_ 3 53 14 461 396 97211109 114 19' .19:, 10:.1 24:: 3::6 6.:l 61:6, 1 363:2 49 6 964 65 0 8209 072 93 6 6 05 65 68. 66.3 io. 2:0 9 23 26 2 3 41 662 0 64 367 2 5 4 4 3 0 48:4 ,1 965 .66 26 44 76 441 673 $92 1302 106D 842 609 417 64 6454 1966 22 26 637 6 44 351 6 67 71:: 69:3 61.1 51.3 43.3 32.3 48.3 1966:67 5 115 42 644 1006 993 IL37 94 51 47 18 6314 1967 32:'. 24:2 34:6 47:6 49:6 7L:', 68 66 6 60:0 51:@l 16 34:,0 48.3 957 6 25 3021614 3704 83 95128127 8611 4984 3717 1 67773 a 20 25 33 '3 191 4 44 X96 23.3 20.7 36:4 @'1:1 52:6 6@1:1 70.1 70 4 65 9 42:'4 30 48.4 1968-689 65 67' 10633 1160 1097 1020 526 32 1845 6 1969 27.0 25.7 31 8 4 2,4 7 6 669.0 69i6 61 7 50.0 38.3 25-8 470 1969.70 20 2o169 462 796 L211 14pa 1169 1129 605 235103 7407 1970 16.8 23.1 20.4 " .1 58.2 63.9 69.9 68.0 62:8 53.0 40.4 30.8 46:6 1970:71 1' 1'12' 36- 711 1.@916 111324 10478 107: 723 404 648 69:9 11971 22 0 27 3390 0 40 651 9 16:1 66 9 64 7 64:1 11:0 19:31 11, 47:2 1971 72 32 119 @4 763572121 108 742 207 16 67 a 5 , . 1 3 :9 1_ 6 R972RD 26:9 22:9 2 :8 40:0 3:6 966:4 66:1 61 47 2 7 3 43 7 972 73 55 47 1474 54 820 97 ECO Me AN 27.41 26 734.3 @5.4 .16:1 66.6 71.4 69.9 64.1 53.4 41.8 31.7 49.1 MA 34:0 :4:7 3314.1 74 7.1:9 77:4 71 7 60 71 47:1 37:.11 16:11 20 8 1 '6 9 'a, '.:@ 6 81 62 31 56:51 46:0 35 '1 25 a MIXN N.11 2'1 37:@i41 1 TOTAL PRECIPITATI;ON FIGURE 1 7c TOTAL SNOWFALL FIGURE 17D Yearl Jan.1 Feb. I M..J Apr. I M.yJJ . . . TJulyl Aug.lSept.1 Oct. I Nov. I DeC.lAnnual Season 7Ju1yJAUg.JSeptJ Oct. lNov.1 Dec] Jan. I Feb.1 Mar.1 Apr.1 May JJun@ Total 1933 1 1 1:31 2.74 Z:11 2:15 1:7511 2 4 3" 2 3 2 5 2 67 27 00 1933:334 0 0 a 00 0 1 2 11:1 ::1 1:0 l0:1 1:'5 @:o 11. DD:0 11:4 1934 2: D34 i ol 2.3 2,00 55 145 1:92' 3:15 2:93 1:51 2:9: 1:50 23:84 19345 0:0 0:0 0:0 3:7 2 624 55 6511 0.0 0 0 41 a 1 2.0 6 0 5 9 935 2 2.60 2.21 1.17 2.20 2.68 7.54 2.02 3.14 1.75 1.57 2.62 31.32 1935-36 0.0 0 00 0 0 3 0 022 711 711 32049.00 0 0.0 76.Z 1936 2 373 2 97 1:27 1:75 0:9 1:2 1:5 2:86 4 it 1 19 29 1936:37 0:0 0:0 0:0 ; 13:4 3:2 7:1 6:5 5:4T0:0 0.0 35.6 I:N' I : N3 7 01 1 to 6 141 .9 11 4DO 1@7 36 0 0 0:0 0:0 1:1 7:1 11:1 I@D:l 2:11 1:1 3 : 9D:0 0 0 49.4 1917 6 ':" 610 4 485 2 5! 1 1: 3:61 4, 1. 'tq" 1.46 4.@l2;'6 311,1.11 11.2.'I '... '..- i '..9 19, 3,.48 t938_39 0.0 0 00 0 0 0 a,10 21 72 22 93 3 0 0 0:0 4 0 1931 1.71 4.13 1.71 3.222.11 171 4.17 2.1D 4..4 4.56 1.16 1.96 19. 41 1939_4o 0.11 D.11 11.11 1). 1 T7.618.916.310.25.5 T 0.0 5a.6 1940 2.1, 3. .2 3.14.72 2.730.95 @.16 @.l4 2.'2. 2..1 3.5" 380 1940-41 0.0 0 00 0 0 3 7 710 314 0 0 0 'o 7 1941 2.40 1.28 1.16 1.58 2.04 2.58 2.77 3.31 X.32 3.20 2.10 1.56 25.30 1941-42 0.0 0:0 0:0 0:0 2:3 3:6 8 :59 f :41 1":@' 00 :70 00: 00:0 30:1 19 2 1 64 2 14 3.22 Z 79 6 4 1 33 4 12 2 87 6 4 4 36 3 61 2:08 41:31 19 2 43 0 0 0 0T 1 0 2:1 11:5 7:1 7:1 10:7130:0 0:0 41:1 0 9 1 25 2.5 2 0 3 1 0 1 1:1 943 :6:471 1:65 6:27 1:49 3:3' 6:40 :9 1 1 37 53 943-44 0:0 0:0 1:1 6 47 11 02 501 0 0 0 11 41 1 3 1 '@ 02 8 . 9 . .0:0 0. ., .6..' D. 944 0.85 2.22 3. 23 5.04 4:32 3:91 1:16 3.35 4.51 3.91 2.01 4.1 40.72 1944-45 0 0 0 00 0 1 736 34 047 00 0 0 1 1945 3.01 2.47 4.52 5.6228a 4 85 2 69 @.@I 7.6@ I.'l '..97 1 97 44.97 1943:46 0.0 0 00 0 OT 4:1 21:38 17:48 368:5 203To0 0:0 41:'1 1946 1 11 2 46 2. 9 1 31 7 6: 5:784 4:47 2:25 1 :662 4:,17 3:41 3.16 40.88 1946 47 0 0 0:0 0:0 .0 714.8 1390:0T ; 0 65 1947 4:40 2:77 1:7137 1:11 1:1 .,1 3.17 @..o 15 0.04 6.29 2.30 54.72 947 48 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3016,8 9:1 7:T 10:6 1_' T_ 0.0@ 79.8 1 '.19 3.79 '.DI 1 0 0.0 . 1948 2 07 2 674 64 22 1 9 1:11 42:12 1948 0 OT T17.6 6.4 15 012.4 0.1 32:3 19 0 .21. ' 7' 11 . , 19:49 ':o 0;' 0 7.40a 12. 0:@ 0.0 94 3.51 0'3.28 2.61 3.7 I.Ig 5.04 7- 5@ 4.@4 l.@l :.33 2.94 40 87 94 50 0:'o a 0 35 8 0 0 54 4 1950 6 25 4.91 4.41 4.12 2.64 26 12 3.9a 4.48 3.71 9 3 03 54.83 1950-51 0 0 a a0 a 0 0 46 924:0 1.1:1 l1:1 9:1 0;4 -@:o .:1 X11:1 "19.11 3..%@ 3.09 4.10 4 2-2 7 4:17 2:13 IJ6 2:95 2:23 4.341 3.9@ 38.93 x95 52 0: 0:0: 0: 11:2 23 025 36 6 0 0 69 5 '9'2 3:79 2:'1.0 2 02 2:12 4: 882 2 70 1 63 5 51 3.531 0.94 2: 798 2:46 35 #19 51:5 0.0 0.00.0 To 9.79.810.7 3.5 0.9 0.00 0.00 41.6 1.0 3:08 195 3 36 4:15 2:16 6:10 1:21 3.11 4 '4 0.10 1.7, 1.14 00 19123-534 .0 .0 .0 0.0 6.09 16.610.2 11 14:1TTo 0 0 3 . 1 9. 2 1 1 5 0 0 0 00 0 1954 1 75 2.034 624 4 41.1l 2 1.4 6 2. 11. 1:01 0 3 28 9 7 9 9 2 91 4D 9 45 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0600 3 T . 0:0 49.1 0195 3 .8.6 31.8 . 32.60 5.7 2.2 .1 . 2.7 '9': 1.41 13 1 5 2 1 90 37 #1935:56 0:0 0:0 0:0 To 36:4 1.1:6 11:1 4:1 17:1 4:-T 0:0 7, , 1 1 3 2.4 3.74 1.:, 5 51 1.00 7.11 6.611 1.7: 1.139 1.:0 1:11 41:41 19556.57 0.0 0.0 0.0 4."221 1'6 1., 7.1 To 9 5 '.' @.@I 'D 1 0 0 o':4 1957 2 9 1.719 332 7.74 1.75 1.43 4.63 38 24 9 7 11 0 0 1 11 1 1:2 77292.76 2 4 0.00 61 3 4:61 64 1958 2.81 t.,20;A 10 4a' 5 6.01 Z.21 4.03 2.73 39. 80 195a.'q 0.0 0,00.0 .o ,5.T 41.024.77A15. 0 0 08.5 1939 . 9 3' 338 .4 02 3, 0 58 5.65 6.29 4.76 3.58 43.51 1959-60 0-0 0.0 0.0 0-0 16.0 12.8 7.3 22.6 11.3 2.6T 0.0 72.0 4 5 3.08 .14 :" 2. 5 3:4 1960 3.09 2.53 0.63 @.18 3.66 2.60 2.95 2.03 1.45 2.21 2.68 1-38 27.41 1960:6 00 0 00 0 T 317423713 608,9 T 0*1 69:6 1961 1 13 4 03 2:11 1:11 1:01 3:9. 1:2,1 3:11 2:1@ 2:56 2:fll 1:84 3::910 1961 61 0: o:-: To 0:'.11:9 9:514:4 4: 1.4 0.0 0.0 42J 1962 3:30 '7 1 11 1 4 913 4 56 4 9 4D 1 1 421 1912-6t 0.0 0o0D ,:D 0:1 11:.1 151:7 11:3 10: .:1 0:1 0:D '71 9 .94 6 1:.4 .1 . . I . , .' t@13-14' .00 0.0' 0 . (@l0 6 15621,9 70 5 0 0 0 0 1 19 ' 1 5' 0.9' 4 87 2 62 1 4 1L -1 9 ', '..It 7 1964 2.@l 1.39 31.1 3.03.11 Z3.4 4.60 1.9, 2.16 .1 .0. @.21 31.47 1964-65 ..0 0.00.0 T 193.'II.I13.726.2.2 0.0 0.0 92.9 1963 3..6 3..o3.55 1.66 3.40 3.7 3.4a 2.68 2.24 3.84 4.27 2.66 38. 41 1961:66 0:0 0:0 0:0 OTO 11':3 29:9 4:1 T 0:0 14:: ':4 ':7 17:7 1 1966 2 01 92 3.47 426 2:01 3:!11 3:11 *@:24 1:73 5 4.32 17.74 1966 67 0.0 a.0 0.0 236.08 1 To 0.0 loS .'32 0 7.9 1 6 1 24:0, 4 5:34 1 36 11.4224.' 9. .4 9 7 0:90 1:67 1.67 4:21 3 13 7 48 4 23 Z 77 ly 2.21 37.78 967 68 0 0 0 00 0 134A 0 1968 2 9 1:6 ?.64 3 06 2:6 2:3 2 7 z 93 3 4 4 7 4 06 34.33 1968 69 0.0 0.a0.0 T 9.a,a.86.113.6 1. 2.0 0:. '0.'C 79 7 19 9 2:91 0':7'3149 5.27 5:4 4 63 3 64 1:76 1:99 3:00 2:91 2:43 36 1919 70 0,0 0*00,0 1,2 :1,"It*919,7 21, 0* 0. O.o 85:6 6 33 9 a5 1970 1.44 2.09 1.61 2.49 3.23 2.65 7.70 2-03 7.08 3.52 4.81 2 so 41:',o 1 21. 1971 1 2:017 1:81 1:'11 1:20 2:.@ ?.:1' 1:41 3 970-7 0. 0. 0. T 8 '23.6 26:. 19 0.0 0:0 0 1 0 00 6a ' 0 'o 1 61 3:4,1 4 51 4:06 34:16 1971-7 0. 0. 0. T 14. 9. 27.3 32.X 7.1 1.1 0.0 0 0 9Z.3 972 1:94 2 739, 244 69 7 30 2 91 3 01 5:5,17 1 7 3:36 3 69 43 55 1972-7'3 0 .'0' 0.00 0-00 0-6 6 . '6' 18.35 "'CORD MEAN 2.71 2.4C 2.7C 3.01 3.31 3.34 3.26 3.11 3.49 3.46 3.44 2.70 37.11 Record v a listed in the Station Location table) are means for the , bgi..!Iues above (not adjusted for instrument location change per od ing in 1847. # Indicates a break in the data sequence during the year, or season, due to a station move or relocation of instrwents. See Scation Location table. Data are frm City Office locations through August 1953. 8 FIGURE 18 RAINFALL- INTENSITY -DURATION -FREQUENCY CURVES ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA 1903-1908, 1910-19229 1924-1951 60.0 50.0- 40.0- 3.0-0-- 20.0 10.0 0 8.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0-1 /0' z 'T' 0 w 0 1- /0 z 1.0 10 -J 0.8 U<- @ Z 0.6-- M wN 13 11 N IN i: 7 ;FE 0.5 0.4- 0.3-- 0.2 0.1 5 10 20 30 40 60 2 3 4 6 8 10 15 20 24 MINUTES HOURS DURAT16N SOURCE: NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 25 00 15- Above: Seawall constructed of rock-filled fence netting ME Above: Baymouth bar sheltering small harbor behind _10 @6 N. 'a, N @ -7 ---Above: Junked cars at base of @@uff, EIk7_Cr_eek_,@___an_ attempt to-riM-i@-rd@6160e'-f-ai ure Above: Steel pipes, 8 feet long, 5 feet in diameter and filled with concrete, offer some protection to this cottage association, East County 37 zz_ 17 gj 7aM %M awl, NZ 0-m- Above: Cause and effect: groin construction in center has restricted sand accumulation to the left (East) producing accelerated erosion 2 Above: Typical groin placement for beach nourishment. Despite high water, sand accumulation is sig- nificant. _38 Seawalls, too, were of varying types of material and usually placed by individuals for the protection of their property or structure. Breakwaters are virtually absent because of the high cost of placement. The Army Corps of Engineers has proposed the construction of breakwaters off Presque Isle to protect the beach nourishment program established many years ago. It must be noted here that groins can be a mixed blessing as a shore- line protection device. Groins interfere with the replenishment of beaches farther down the coast by robbing them of their former sources of supply. Drifting of materials then does not stop along the starved sections until they finally disappear. The coast behind them, which they had been protecting from erosion, is exposed to increasing attack by the waves. In many areas, we found erosion to accelerate greatly downshore in the transport system after the place- ment of groins. This "end of groin field phenomena" is readily apparent on Presque Isle and at other Erie County locations and has caused massive reshaping to take place imperiling roads and structures. During high water levels, when sand accumulation is spotty at best, it is quite important that the placement of future groins take into consideration the owner downstream in the longshore transport system. While an individual may successfully defend himself by invest- ing in such a structure, he may maximize the erosion of his neighbor's property. Since the purpose of the groin is to store up sand and it has already been mentioned that sand is the most protective device in preventing erosion of .the bluff, it can be expected that, where groin fields are in place, recent recession at these points has been somewhat minimized. In at least one section, however, other processes of recession were extremely active in reducing the bluff despite the fact that the toe was relatively secure from attack. LAND COVER AND LAND USE: A cause and effect association related to land cover and land use is apparent in the coastal zone. First, vegetation will offer a measure of pro- tection to the bluff face, decreasing the effects of sheet runoff, frost action, and raindrop impact. Vegetation in the crest zone will protect the lip by root structure, preventing decay. Second, vegetation on the slope or crest is a measure of relative stability. When conditions are stable, vegetation will take root. If conditions produce rapid activity (undercutting, slumping), the vegetation is not capable of withstanding the pressures involved and is removed by slides or toppling. One of the most outstanding features of the bluff face observed during the course of study is the presence of trees being moved about in the littoral, the debris accumulations at the base of the bluff, and the degree of disruption on the face itself. Therefore, vegetation can be seen as an indicator of relevant stability as well as a source of protection against minor attack. Land use on top of the bluff has a direct effect on the face of the bluff, as already indicated in the discussion on drainage disruption. Property owners on the bluff are tempted to remove much of the standing trees to open a vista on the lake. Generally grasses are maintained to the very edge of the bluff. There is a direct correlation between this change in land cover and the rate of bluff recession at that point. The effect needs more study to determine cause and effect, but generally the absence of dense vegetation allows a greater 39 @E - - - - - - - - - - - -M M d' of movement slump _kb-ove:___Ve_getation as an in ication bloEk in -center wi-th-trees upr ht X&M& ................ -Above:Area -of rapid recession: land cover beyond bluff is a contributory cause of recession 40- IF Above and below: Vegetative disruption on bldff-a-S--- indication of slope activity -7@ A@ 41 4-@' , @315' NOR 10 5, @A 54 Above: Rapid recent recession evident in bluff unprotected at base and devoid of significant land cover Below: Truncated hill, rapid recent recession in clay bluffs iqll 'U@ I.'.I Pll. z@. M ztx W -6,-4, V . . . ............. 42 amount of surface and subsurface runoff to reach the bluff face. Also, the root structure of a large tree will offer greater protection than a sod layer, which is easily undercut and lost. 43 SECTION 4 DESCRIPTION AND RESULTS OF FIELD RECONNAISSANCE DES C A I-P T_ Ii O__ N -0- F F I E _L'_D-RE_C_O-N_NAI_ S SANC E: The coastal Zone of Erie County presents some unique problems for field reconnaissance: 1. The Coastal Zone is a relatively narrow area with vertical differentiation as well as areal extent. 2. The bluff, both in physical character and cultural orien- tation, is difficult to perceive from any single vantage point. 3. Access to the bluff is generally limited by private use as well as distance from public roads in some cases. 4. Beach areas are non-continuous, limiting observation from this vantage point. Therefore, to gain a complete, and accurate, insight into the parameters involved, a number of techniques were utilized. 1. On site visitation: The Coastal Zone, as mentioned previously, is accessed by a number of public toads. In many cases, access is direct by roads immediately adjacent to, or servicing, a coastal land use function. Indirect access is also possible by a short walk, usually through private property, to gain access to the bluff zone. To gain first hand information, the staff undertook as complete a foot reconnaissance of the entire coastal fringe as access permitted. Field notes, chain measurement, and supportive photography (both black and white prints and color slides) were methods used. As a result, we were able to investigate critical areas closely to establish the nature and extent of problems in each location as well as physical features and land- based causative factors for recession and erosion. Where access permitted, a foot study was made of beach conditions at the toe of the bluff to establish geologic character and use patterns in this zone and to record potential environmental hazards. In most cases, where major streams enter the lake, access has been facilitated through establishment of roadways along the stream to the shoreline. Such access has, of course, allowed fordevelopment of stream mouths in most cases. Major cottage developments and fishing access areas were examined thoroughly, due to easy access to them. 2. Offshore reconnaissance: Since access to the bluff 'crest was limited in some cases, and access to the shore area reduced by high bluff conditions, the need for offshore reconnaissance was apparent. The entire Erie County coastline was observed and photographed utilizing small craft with the potential of running close in for observation purposes. From this vantage point, bluff characteristics and use were completely open to view. Active mass wasting on the bluff, invisi- ble from above, could be observed in close proximity, as well as contributing factors of erosion and recession, namely drainage outfalls, groundwater seepage, under- cutting of toe, and human activity. 3. Aerial reconnaissance: To establish the character of the coastal zone in its entirety, small aircraft were used for low level reconnaissance. The coast was flown several times from various altitudes to establish a photographic record of the zone from an elevated plat- form. The record consists of black and white photo- graphs as well as color slides, invaluable for purposes of analysis of current activity and-as an excellent base for future study. To assist in analyzing and assessing critical areas, a 16mm black and white film was made providing continuous coverage of the coastal zone. 'The film was shot at 24 frames a second for image clarity from a low angle and is a complete record of the coastal zone as it existed in May, 1975. The ability to analyze the film frame by fra'me is especially important to delineate and assess coastal features, both natural and man-made, that are affecting relative rates of recession and erosion. As a result of utilizing the three methods of field reconnaissance, we believe we have a definitive record of the coastal zone essential for critical hazard area assessment. We further believe that the collection of this informa- tion for use as a visual base will be essential for future study. 45--, RESULTS OF FIELD RECONNAISSANCE LOCATION: Ohio Line to Rudd Road TOWNSHIP: Springfield PLACE NAME U. S. Steel Property IDENTIFICATION: LONGSHORE DISTANCE: 1.5 miles BLUFF HEIGHT: Uniformly 50 ft. dipping to 10-20 ft. near Rudd Road STRUCTURES SUBJECT 29 cottages TO DAMAGE: CONTROL STRUCTURES: None SHORE ZONE Bluff is near vertical with recent rapid recession DESCRIPTION: apparent. Narrow beach strands (2-3 ft.) during low water. Bluff crest usually grassy to edge with sod lap in erosion areas. Some trees on edge. Bluff face is essentially void of vegetation. Two unnamed tributaries east and west of Rudd Road have dissected the bluff and reduced land elevation to 10 to 20 ft. 46-- Above: Old take- Road-9-Springfield Township betwee-n--Ohio Lime -and Rudd-16-ad- VP Al View,looking east from near Ohio Line, Springfield Township -47 06 2M. 9. 7__ jj W__ Abave- ViEmlookin westtowaid Ohio Line, Springfield 9- Above:.At foot -of.Rudd Road lookin-g-e-a-st, Springfield Township 48 LOCATION: Rudd Road to Elmwood Road TOWNSHIP: Springfield PLACE NAME IDENTIFICATION: LONGSHORE DISTANCE: 0.6 mile BLUFF HEIGHT: 15 ft. gradually rising to 60 ft. before Raccoon Creek STRUCTURES SUBJECT 4, plus 10 mobile homes and two picnic shelters TO DAMAGE: 'CONTROL STRUCTURES: None (destroyed groin at Raccoon Creek) SHORE ZONE Bluff is bare of vegetation and near vertical with DESCRIPTION: erosion and recession evident. Several large slump blocks are visible on narrow beach strand. There is considerable vegetative disruption with sod lap and downed trees acting as temporary groins in several places. Severe beach erosion (20-30 ft.) in County Park within past eight months. 49 7F Mv, WCP ME: A 7N_ Above and below: Views of Raccoon Creek County Park, Springfield Township Z: -50 LOCATION: Raccoon Creek to Ellis Road TOWNSHIP: Springfield PLACE NAME IDENTIFICATION: LONGSHORE DISTANCE: 1.0 mile BLUFF HEIGHT: Irregular, varies between 40 to 70 feet STRUCTURES SUBJECT 2 TO DAMAGE: CONTROL STRUCTURES: None SHORE ZONE Near vertical bluff; mass-slumping evident. Grass DESCRIPTION: and trees on bluff crest and slope are disrupted. Ground water is evident as a contributory factor in recession. -UP T P-4 a V I., vto eMix' M -"D4 @ t! @7e'V'Xv Mi MOR @- W Ap7 -NAM Above and below: Between Raccoon Creek and Ellis Road, Sp_ringf ield Township LOCATION: Ellis Road to Eagley Road TOWNSHIP: Springfield PLACE NAME Summer City, Dunmar Estates, Eagley Road, Spring- IDENTIFICATION: field Township Beach LONGSHORE DISTANCE: 0.5 mile BLUFF HEIGHT: Variable, 10 to 40 ft. STRUCTURES SUBJECT 27 cottages TO DAMAGE: CONTROL STRUCTURES: 5 groins, 3 breakwalls (railroad ties, posts and rubber tires, cyclone fencing at individual cottages) SHORE ZONE Area is dissected by three main drainage divides. DESCRIPTION Bluff varies from vertical with rapid erosion and recession to gentle slopes subject to toe erosion and wave runup. Narrow beach strand in low water. Several cottages in critical danger on bluff edge. Makeshift breakwalls here suffered damage. Vegeta- tion is spotty and disrupted. Recession has been caused by both ground water and wave action. 53 LOCATION: Eagley Road to Holliday Road TOWNSHIP: Springfield PLACE NAME Camp Lambec, Dan's Beach, Camp Judson IDENTIFICATION: LONGSHORE DISTANCE: 1.0 mile BLUFF HEIGHT: Irregular, 30-50. ft. at Camp Lambec, decreasing to 8-10 ft. at Camp Judson STRUCTURES SUBJECT 7 cottages and homes, plus 18 mobile homes TO DAMAGE: CONTROL STRUCTURES: 11 groins and 1 seawall SHORE ZONE Low bluff, mostly vertical with little vegetation. DESCRIPTION: Bedrock (1-3 ft. height) is briefly exposed. Camp Lambec, a private home, and Dan's Beach are pro- tected by groin fields. Camp Judson is unprotected and is suffering rapid recession. Camp Judson has recorded 65 ft. of recession since 1970. Narrow beach strand (3-5 ft.) during low water. 54- - Abo-ve: Camp Judson and Holliday Shores, Springfield Townsfdp_ A 3w, Above: Ho-1l.iday Shores, Springfield_Township -55-- ,LOCATION: Holliday Road to east of Crooked Creek TOWNSHIP: Springfield .PLACE NAME Holliday Shores, Crooked Creek, Miles Beach IDENTIFICATION: LONGSHORE DISTANCE: 0.4 mile ,BLUFF HEIGHT: Small bluff and rising lake plain 0-10 ft. STRUCTURES SUBJECT 27 cottages TO DAMAGE: CONTROL STRUCTURES: None at Holliday Shores; 3 groins at Crooked Creek SHORE ZONE Vertical bluff at Holliday Road subject to rapid DESCRIPTION: recession; project team recorded 4 ft. recession from February to May, 1975. Practically all trees in beach zone have been washed away. Cottages have suffered flooding and damage from waves, ice, and toppled trees. At Crooked Creek, groins built since 1973 have built up beach and protected cot- tages. 56 tL@I 3:@ Above: Damage to beach-and structures at Holliday Shores 5@ 7 LOCATION: Crooked Creek to Elk Creek TOWNSHIP: Springfield/Girard PLACE NAME Camp Fitch, Camp Sequoyah, Penelec Property IDENTIFICATION: LONGSHORE DISTANCE: 3.4 miles BLUFF HEIGHT: Uniformly 80 ft. except rising 110 ft. at Elk Creek STRUCTURES SUBJECT 3 TO DAMAGE: CONTROL STRUCTURES: Camp Fitch - 3 groins; Camp Sequoyah - 1 groin SHORE ZONE Bluffs in the camps are wooded, 70-800 slopes, and DESCRIPTION: are relatively stable where the shore is protected by groins. The Fitch groins have created a large beach area. However, east of the groin field at Camp Fitch, rapid erosion and recession is occur- ring. From Camp Sequoyah to Elk Creek there is periodic evidence of erosion and recession. In places, the bluff face is covered with vegetation and trees. In other places, it is open and eroded. On the shore, fallen trees are serving as temporary groins. There is a narrow beach strand (5-10 ft.) during low water. At the Penelec site, there is - evidence of erosion and recession. The bluff rises to 110 ft. at the site due to truncation of a former glacial beach ridge. When the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed power plant at the site was written in 1972, there was little con- cern for the recession problem. Recession was not expected to be a problem to be dealt with. However, higher water levels since 1972, apparent erosion and recession, and the planned construction of .several portions of the plant close to the bluff crest, and the planned construction of intake and effluent pipes down to the shore zone make the problem of greater concern in 1975. 58 Above: Camp Fitch, Springfield Township: showing vegetation on bluff face west of groin and apparent rapid recession east of groin 7. Above: Camp Sequoyah, Springfield Township: showing toe- erosion on right side of photograph and bluff recession directly below camp building -59 4@f -G. MEN @_M wm M ------------------------- . . . . . . Above: _Penelec___ site, Girard Township:- -stfowing evidence of erosion of blu - - - - - - - - - - - - .......... Above: Mouth of Elk Creek, Girard Township: showing flooding potential 60 LOCATION: Elk Creek TOWNSHIP: Girard PLACE NAME IDENTIFICATION: LONGSHORE DISTANCE: 0.5 mile BLUFF HEIGHT: Stream moutb-plain rising to 30 ft. terraced bluff STRUCTURES SUBJECT 10 subject to flooding; 6 subject to imminent TO DAMAGE: recession; 20 cottages plus road subject to long term recession CONTROL STRUCTURES: 2 groins plus several abandoned cars at base of bluff SHORE ZONE The Mouth of Elk Creek is a broad, wide beach DESCRIPTION: extremely vulnerable to lake flooding. East of the mouth (approximately 1,000 ft.) there is a 30 ft. terrace bluff in front of the 100 ft. main bluff. There is intense cottage development in this area which is in critical danger because of rapid reces- sion due to both storm erosion and ground water drainage. Two groins east of the area and cars. toppled over the bluff have started to build 10-20 ft. of beach during low water. However, ground water and storm driven waves still make the bluff very active. It is vertical in most places. 4 wan- RIAM ij W @_PM 77777777 Above: Cottages on bluff terrace east of Elk Creek, Girard Township; showing bluff recession despite groins and sand accumulation @@ -Mv @z Ra- Above: Cottage overhanging bluff crest; view looking west toward mouth of Elk Creek, Girard Township; note abandoned cars at base of bluff 62,- LOCATION: Elk Creek to Culbertson Road TOWNSHIP: Girard PLACE NAME Fiesler Drive, Lake Erie Community Park, Richardson's IDENTIFICATION: Cement Works, Erie Lakelands Association LONGSHORE DISTANCE: 1.4 miles BLUFF HEIGHT: Uniformly 110-120 ft. except two large stream cuts STRUCTURES SUBJECT 10 TO DAMAGE: CONTROL STRUCTURES: 2 groins SHORE ZONE The high bluffs with 600 slope are generally stable DESCRIPTION: from Elk Creek to Lake Erie Community Park. In the park there are two massive slump blocks on 800 slopes which have been displaced downward to 10 ft. in the past two years. There are also several areas that have suffered rapid erosion and recession. This area is relatively unprotected with only a narrow beach strand during low water and occasional trees acting as temporary groins. The groin used by the cement works to collect sand and gravel has built up 25-50 ft. of beach and serves to protect and stabilize the eastern edge of the park. In the Lakelands area there is another large slump block similar to the ones in the park. There is periodic erosion interspersed with stable bluffs. 63 1A Ap r 4;-iI @i Above-:-Lake Erie Community Park, Girard Township showing area of mass wasting gr IMW NOSM !.'Z .4 .244 Ro Above: Lake Erie Community Park, Girard Township; showing vertical displacement of massive slump block 64 LOCATION: Sixteen Mile Creek to New York State Line TOWNSHIP: North East PLACE NAME Sunset Beach, Orchard Beach, Francroft, Woodmere, IDENTIFICATION: Peck's Subdivision, Hidden Lane, Dewey Road Fish Commission Access Area, Twenty Mile Creek, Gay Road, St. Barnabas House LONGSHORE DISTANCE: 4.0 miles BLUFF HEIGHT: Irregular, 10-50 ft. to Perdue Run, 10-30 ft. to State Line CONTROL STRUCTURES: Steel drum breakwall at Orchard Beach plus several individual breakwalls SHORE ZONE This is a section of beaches and low terraced bluffs DESCRIPTION: which is intensely developed for residential use, both permanent and summer. There is also some agricultural usage on top of bluffs. Bedrock is essentially absent in this section. There are sand and gravel deposits at most areas along the shore. At Sixteen Mile Creek, there is a broad delta which has formed a bay mouth bar which periodically causes flooding to several cottages at Sunset Beach. There has been severe damage in several places, especially to boathouses, cottages, and homes on the beach. In the Francroft- Woodmere section approximately a dozen structures on the beach have been destroyed in the past three years. Other areas have received varying degrees of damage, with protection only available from beaches 25-50 ft. to water's edge. There has been significant toe erosion in areas where low bluffs are near the water's edge. 65 71 agmn- 7: %al '-W 4 ftkA -i 0 z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Above: Sunset Beach, Sixteen Mile Creek, North East Township; showing flood potential behind bay mouth bar -I-Olis -Z WN MOM- .......... Above: Orchard Beach, east of Sixteen Mile Creek, North East Township; showing steel drum breakwall 6-67-7 Above and below: Francroft Subdivision, North East Township; showing destruction of boat-.,houses and beach cottages 61- -wm "I CORWO M@v Above: Francroft Subdivision, North East Township; showing --,-,.-disrupted boat ramp . . . . . . . . . . . . Above: Francroft and Woodmere areas, North East Township; showing destruction of beach cottages and boat. houses zaz - - - - - - - - - - Above: Woodmere, North East Township 7 D.-M. - -lRmj#, ..Above: Peck's-Subdivision, North East Township- --7 7 - At@ I QFU Above: Dewey Road, North East Township; showing disrupted --Ff6li Commission boat access at far left of_picture. R A@ "x- z4f, ki Above: Gay Road, North East Township LOCATION: Culbertson Road to Fairview Township line TOWNSHIP: Girard PLACE NAME Culbertson Road, Camp Eriez, Godfrey Road, Fairplain IDENTIFICATION: Road, Camp Sherwin LONGSEORE DISTANCE: 2.3 miles BLUFF HEIGHT: Variable - 70-90 ft. STRUCTURES SUBJECT 30 (Mostly large cottages and permanent homes) TO DAMAGE: CONTROL STRUCTURES: 11 groins, 3 breakwalls, 1 destroyed breakwall SHORE ZONE This is a high bluff area except for two cottage DESCRIPTION areas on Culbertson Road and Godfrey Run, both 10 to 30 ft. terrace areas. There are two cottages in,each area subject to imminent danger; however, they are protected for the short term by breakwalls and groins. In the absence of protective lake ice, these structures are subject to direct attack by storm-driven waves. Bluff slope varies from 60-800 with toe erosion, recession, and slumping at bluff crest periodically appearing. East of Culbertson Road, bedrock appears (3 to 5 ft. high). Most of the bluff crest has been cleared for residential or agricultural use. Ground water drainage has caused two areas of bluff crest slumping. There is a narrow beach strand during low water. Individual groins plus periodic bedrock protect some properties. However, there are also several homes near the bluff.edge which-are in danger if this protection is lost or if ground water seepage endan- gers the bluff crest. 71 M ALM4 @. @Q I Umm "ove: Vicinity of Culbertao-n-Road, Gira-rd Township; showing @-re 6 eKt- i@l-um-plng at -drest--of-b-luff -2Q @Above: Vic-l-ni ty -o f Culb er t son Road-,- -Gi-r-a-r- -d Township showing two cottages in danger 72--- 01- @17 7 N Pm *m JW -MA Above: Godfrey Run, Fairplain Road, Girard Township; showing cottages in danger; there is also a cottage at base of bluff behind two trees 7-- M MROWN Above: Godfrey Run, Fairplain Road, Girard-T-6-wffs-hip; showing cottage in-da--nger on Cfd-s-t --- of -bluf f Mia= PE- Above: Farm in Girard Township; showing toe erosion due to wave action and bluff crest recession due to ground water runoff 0: M U P B I I @W 1-1- 7- za Above: Vicinity of Camp Sherwin, Girard Township; showing structure in danger ROPER- LOCATION: Fairview Township line to Trout Run TOWNSHIP: Fairview PLACE NAME Hartley Road, Beach Drive, Melhorn Road, Erie Shores IDENTIFICATION: Association LONGSHORE DISTANCE: 1.5 miles BLUFF HEIGHT: Uniformly 80 ft., except for three drainage cuts STRUCTURES SUBJECT 20 homes plus one swimming pool TO DAMAGE: CONTROL STRUCTURES: The bluff area shows disrupted vegetation as evidence of periodic slumping due to ground water. There is also toe erosion in places which is changing the slope to near vertical. There is a narrow beach strand during low water and downed trees acting as temporary groins. Several beach cottages and boat houses in this section were destroyed in recent years. 75 LOCATION: Trout Run to Walnut Creek TOWNSHIP: Fairview PLACE NAME Avonia Road, Lard Road, Eaton Road, Camp Notre Dame, IDENTIFICATION: Manchester Beach LONGSHORE DISTANCE: 2.1 miles BLUFF HEIGHT: Variable 30-80 ft. descending to a 10 ft. lake plain at Manchester Beach STRUCTURES SUBJECT 28 TO DAMAGE: CONTROL STRUCTURES: 9 groins and 1 seawall, plus Fish Commission channel groins at Walnut Creek SHORE ZONE Bedrock appears, rising to.4-5 ft. high. In shore DESCRIPTION: reaches unprotected by groins, there is active reces- sion with slopes devoid of vegetation. Erosion at the toe of the bluff is disrupting vegetation up to the bluff crest. Ground water is also causing some slumping. Downed trees are acting as temporary groins in a few places. The private homes at Manchester Beach are protected by extensive beach deposits cap- tures by the channel groins at Walnut Creek. 76 Above: Large h-o-me-s---e--a-s--t----Of- -9-v&n"�a7R6ad,- Fairview Township M17 el. uj "jE Above: Manchester Beach, Fairview Township .-77 LOCATION: Walnut Creek to Montpelier Avenue TOWNSHIP: Fairview/Millcreek PLACE NAME Walnut Creek Fish Commission Access Area, Manchester IDENTIFICATION: Heights, Lake Shore District, Lake Shore Country Club, Colony Subdivision, Wilkins Run, Wolf Road, Scott Estate LONGSHORE DISTANCE: 3.3 miles BLUFF HEIGHT: Uniform 90-100 ft. except two main drainage cuts and several smaller access cuts. STRUCTURES SUBJECT 38, plus one swimming pool TO DAMAGE: CONTROL STRUCTURES: 4 groins at Walnut Creek plus 11 private groins and one seawall SHORE ZONE The Walnut Creek Fish Commission Access Area has DESCRIPTION: experienced severe beach erosion east of the stream mouth which is endangering the Fish Commission building on the shore. Immediately east of the stream delta, the bluff rises to 90 ft. Bedrock appears in .the Lake Shore District and continues to Montpelier Avenue in heights from 5 to 15 ft. Eleven private groins and a large number of downed trees provide some sand accumulation at the base of the bluff; otherwise, there is not beach. There is periodic disruption of the vegetation on the bluff, which varies from 60 to 901 slope. There is active slumping and material flow in several areas, including a large slump measuring approximately 150 ft. long and 30 ft. wide. The bluff is alternately stable or active depending on groin protection, ground water drainage, and vegetative cover. 78 -60 Above: Mouth of Walnut Creek, Fairview Township; showing Fish Commission Access Area east of stream'mouth 7 Above: Walnut Creek Fish Commission Access Area, Fairview Township 7 --Z . . . . . . . . . . J@ Above: Manchester Heights, Fairview Township; showing stable bluff due ;to groin protection and vegetation on bluff ZF Above: Lake Shore District, Fairview Township; showing stable bluff with toe erosion beginning 86 LOCATION: Montpelier Avenue to neck to Presque Isle Peninsula TOWNSHIP: Millcreek PLACE NAME Hartt Estates, Glenruadh (The Willows) Eaglehurst, IDENTIFICATION: Forest Park, Baer Beach, Kelso Beach Hotel, Kelso Beach, Beachcomber Cottages, The Mark Restaurant LONGSHORE DISTANCE: 1.6 miles BLUFF HEIGHT: Uniform 90 ft. except for 6 drainage cuts; beach and terrace bluffs 0-15 ft. high STRUCTURES SUBJECT 90 cottages TO DAMAGE: CONTROL STRUCTURES: 18 groins, plus 25-30 individual breakwalls and one buried breakwall at Beachcomber cottage area SHORE ZONE The bluff, with a 60-800 slope, is essentially stable, DESCRIPTION: well-covered with vegetation, and protected by beach and cottage development at the base of the bluff. There are, however, several places suffering slumping, soil creep, and toe erosion due to ground water seepage and wave action where the beach is totally submerged. Bedrock appears briefly in one section near the foot of Ardmore Avenue, rising to 8-10 ft. high. The significant activity in this section is related to the extensive cottage development on the beach below the bluff. There are several cottage areas on narrow beaches and low bluff terraces which are in continuing danger from flooding and erosion. Since 1972, the area from Hartt Estates to Baer Beach has suffered extensive beach erosion, flooding and storm damage to cottages and breakwalls. Approximately one dozen cottages in this area were completely destroyed as a result of storm. The cottages remain- ing have suffered varying degrees of damage from slight to extensive. There has been significant beach erosion. Makeshift breakwalls and groins have also been subject to storm damage. The Kelso Beach cottages have been relatively free from damage because of extensive beaches built by a groin. The Beachcomber cottages are somewhat protected by a beach ridge stabi- lized by a now-buried breakwall and the beginnings of the Presque Isle beach system. However, this area is subject to flooding during storms. 81 Z8 d-Elqsumol anu9AV TTam Od 30 -Isam-'(SmOTTTM 9ql) qpunauaTD :aAoqV jjnTq go as-eq ap sa2viloD 2uTmoqs !dTqsumol 3l9aJDTTTK lanuaAV aalTadquoW lsa:jv:jsS q42PH :aAoqV 577 M -R@ Qtv UN W v7 L-1 4-L W nl: m -'PoT Above: Glenruadh section, (E@a@s-tof well Avenue, MfIlcreek f ing -cottages aFt ase o Township; show Above: East end of Glenruadh section, looking east toward Eaglehurst, Millcreek Township 83 View lookin&-Yes.t toward Forest Park an,d.,Eagle- hurst,,M41creek Township @. _@Y Above: Baer Beach Cottages, Millcreek Township rt7 k0i 77-17 :!l7N=3'z Above: Baer Beach, Millcreek Township Above: Kelso Beach, Millcreek Township; s@-o'win-g-beach pro- tection created by groin C5- LOCATION: Presque Isle Neck to Cascade Street TOWNSHIP: Millcreek - Erie Bayshore PLACE NAME Scott-Algeria County Park, Sommerheim Pumping Station, IDENTIFICATION: South Shore Drive, Erie Yacht Club LONGSHORE DISTANCE: 2.3 miles BLUFF HEIGHT: Uniform 70-90 ft., except for three large cuts STRUCTURES SUBJECT 4 areas: Sommerheim, Yacht Club, Ferncliff Beach TO DAMAGE: cottages, Cascade Creek cottages CONTROL STRUCTURES: 3 breakwalls at Sommerheim,, Yacht Club, and the Strong Estate (west of Cascade Creek) SHORE ZONE The bluff is fairly stable, covered with vegetation DESCRIPTION: and sloped at 60 and 801. There is a drainage cut at the foot of Pittsburgh Avenue which is experiencing headward erosion. The area is fairly well.protected by Presque Isle. Flooding of structures on the shore is the main danger in this area; however, seawalls provide protection. 86 LOCATION: Cascade Street to Wayne Street TOWNSHIP: City of Erie Bayshore PLACE NAME Cascade Docks, Chestnut Street Pumping Station, IDENTIFICATION: Public Dock, Grain Elevators, Sewage Treatment Plant, Marine Terminal LONGSHORE DISTANCE: 2.5 miles BLUFF HEIGHT: 70 ft., decreasing gradually to 30 feet at Wayne Street STRUCTURES SUBJECT 13 major industrial and commercial areas TO DAMAGE: CONTROL STRUCTURES: 12 major docks and breakwall systems SHORE ZONE The bluff is stable, covered with vegetation, at a DESCRIPTION: 60-700 slope, and well removed from the shoreline. At the shore, there are extensive docks and artificial fill areas which are used mainly for industrial and commercial purposes. The main hazard is flooding due to high water and storm driven waves, principally in the Public Dock area. Additional study is needed to determine the effect of the proposed Bayfront Highway on the stability of this area. 87 LOCATION: South Pier to Dunn Blvd. TOWNSHIP: City of Erie PLACE NAME Koppers Coke Plant, Proposed Diked Disposal Area, East IDENTIFICATION: Avenue Boat Ramp, Gulf Oil Tanks, Port Authority boathouses LONGSHORE DISTANCE: 1.1 miles BLUFF HEIGHT: 0-10 ft. artificial fill and beach area STRUCTURES SUBJECT Approximately 20 boathouses and 11 oil tanks TO DAMAGE: CONTROL STRUCTURES: One small breakwall at East Avenue Boat Ramp One large breakwall around Gulf Oil Tanks SHORE ZONE This is a low-lying industrial and recreational area DESCRIPTION which is protected from the west and northwest by Presque Isle. The area will receive further pro- tection when the proposed diked disposal area is constructed from the South Pier adjacent to the Koppers plant which is planned by the Corps of Engineers for the latter 1970's. The Erie Port Authority owns the shoreline containing the boat ramp and boat houses. This area is subject to flooding and erosion by storms from the north and northeast. Several of the boathouses have been damaged. The Port Authority hopes to further develop the area for recreational boating. 88 ,7 1 Above: Gulf Oil Tanks and boat houses, foot of East Avenue, City of Erie @2 Above: Foot of Hess Avenue, City of Erie, showing west end of Hammermill Paper Company facilities @tM - - - - - - - - - - Above and below: Hammermill Paper Company facilities, City- of Erie TZ - - - - - - LOCATION: Lighthouse Street to Harborcreek Township line TOWNSHIP: City of Erie and Lawrence Park Township PLACE NAME Lighthouse Park, Hammermill Paper Company, Lakeside IDENTIFICATION: Cemetery, Lakeside Drive, Sunset Inn, Lawrence Park Boat Dock, G. E. Fishing Club, Lawrence Park Golf Club LONGSHORE DISTANCE: 2.4 miles BLUFF HEIGHT: Variable 20-60 ft. with 5 drainage cuts STRUCTURES SUBJECT 42 private homes plus Hammermill facilities and G. E. TO DAMAGE: Fishing Club Boat house CONTROL STRUCTURES: 5 Hammermill Breakwalls and Lawrence Park Boat Dock SHORE ZONE Bedrock appears at Lighthouse Street and is continuous, DESCRIPTION: except at Four Mile Creek, throughout the section at heights from 5-15 ft. Presque Isle provides some pro- tection for this section from west and northwest storms. Historically, this section has been relatively stable due to the protection of Presque Isle and the bedrock. Most damage that occurred resulted from ground water seepage. Hammermill Paper Company has experienced hazardous conditions since 1967 and has spent $135,000 in four separate projects to protect its facilities since 1968. The company also constructed an outfall pipe in 1971 that is protected by massive sandstone rip rap. The bluff varies from 60-900 in slope. There are a few areas that have experienced mass wasting due to ground water and residential disturbance on the Erie portion of Lakeside Drive. Higher water levels and lack of ice cover have caused recession to accelerate in the past two years due to wave run up and spray on the bluff. Trees and houses on top of 40 ft. bluffs have been covered with 2 inches of frozen spray. UW7' 0 Lee f Erie; shaiwrtfg-bedrock at ----Above: Lakeside Driveg City 0 base of bluff Ate I _0 -0- -7 Above: Lakeside Drive, City of Erie; showing Sunset inn s _b-l. u- on cr-e-t-of Lff 92@ Abo.ve:--Lakeside Drive, Latqrence Park Township; showiqg___ public boat ramp and dock Above: Lakeside Drive, Lawrence Park Township 93 =.x "fz., 'Ai ........... Above: General Electric Fishing Club, Lawrence Park Township Above: Lawrence Park Golf Club, Lawrence Park Township; showing differential recession rates causing scalloped shoreline 94-- LOCATION: Harborcreek Line to Six Mile Creek TOWNSHIP: Harborcreek PLACE NAME Gunnison Park, South Shore Estates, Mobil Oil Tanks, IDENTIFICATION: Fairfield, Conrad House LONGSHORE DISTANCE: 2.2 miles BLUFF HEIGHT: Irregular, 20-50 ft. to Fairfield, rising to 70 ft. at Conrad House, and decreasing gradually to 10 ft. STRUCTURES SUBJECT 37, including Conrad House TO DAMAGE: CONTROL STRUCTURES: None SHORE ZONE Bluffs are 70-901 in slope, with exposed bedrock form- DESCRIPTION: ing one-fourth to one-half and more of total bluff height. Extremely irregular height of bluff is-due to truncation and erosion of glacial deposits. This section, and the next section east, exhibit deep scal- loping of the exposed bedrock, a phenomenon not other- wise seen on the Erie County shoreline. There is essentially no beach except near the mouth of Six Mile Creek. Bluff recession has accelerated the past two years due to lack of ice cover. The lower sections of bluff are then exposed to direct wave action and the overburden is easily eroded. 95 e7@ .U NW. Above: Gunnison Park South Shores Estates, Harborcreek Township Above: Cambridge Road Northview Drive , west Of -Six Mile Creek, Harborcreek Township; showing scalloping of bedrock 96 LOCATION: Six Mile Creek to Eight Mile Creek TOWNSHIP: Harborcreek PLACE NAME Cowell's Beach, Carter's Beach, Seven Mile Creek, IDENTIFICATION: Camp Glinodo, Shade's Beach County Park LONGSHORE DISTANCE: 1.4 miles BLUFF HEIGHT: Variable, 10-20 ft., past Camp Glinodo Rising to 70 ft. before Shades Beach STRUCTURES SUBJECT 30 cottages plus one swimming pool and a light TO DAMAGE: industrial facility; also a large boathouse at Shade's Beach CONTROL STRUCTURES: 4 groins, 1 breakwall, 2 boat docks SHORE ZONE Bedrock decreases to 4-6 ft. Bluff is near vertical DESCRIPTION: and is experiencing serious recession over entire section. Most cottages are near the bluff crest and are in imminent danger with only limited protection offered by control structures and bedrock. Very narrow low-water beach strand exists in some areas. Bluff vegetation is sporadic. Glacial erratics appear. The Shades Beach groin maintains a beach up to 50 ft. in depth which protects a public boathouse in the county park. 97 im@ MA 3W AAA taps OEM- Harborcreek Towiiship; showing Above: six Mile formation of bay mo r J- t of Six Mile Creek, Above: Cowell's Beach cottages, eas Harborcreek Township; showing scalloped bluff; also showing e'rosion of bluff crest due to wave uprush 98 Above and below: Kraus Drive, Harborcreek Township 99 COTO= Shades-Reach -County Park.- and Mouth of Eight.-Mil-e- Creek, Harborcreek Township : rft-2@- --W Above: View looking-eas-t of Shades Beach County Park, Harborcre.ek-Township Z!4;@- Above: East of Eight Mile Creek, Harborcreek Township C- Above:, BetweenEight Mile Creek and Twelve Mile _-ree Harborcreek Township LOCATION: Eight Mile Creek to Twelve Mile Creek TOWNSHIP: Harborcreek PLACE NAME Lake Shore Terrace, Carey Farms, Driftwood Drive, IDENTIFICATION: Windsor Beach Court, Shorewood Inn LONGSHORE DISTANCE: 2.8 miles BLUFF HEIGHT: Rises to uniform 90-100 ft. STRUCTURES SUBJECT 55 homes, 8 cottages, and 1 tavern TO DAMAGE: CONTROL STRUCTURES: One seawall at Shorewood SHORE ZONE Bedrock begins at 4-6 ft., then disappears and then DESCRIPTION: reappears, going to 15 ft. high. The bluff is near vertical with rapid recession just east of Eight Mile Creek. Then the bluff slope decreases to 60-700. There is essentially no beach in this section. There is both toe erosion and crest slumping at sporadic points. The section is primarily a permanent residen- tial area on the top of the bluff. The only beach development is at Shorewood, where several cottages and the Shorewood Inn have been 'damaged by storm- driven waves and flooding. A recently built seawall of concrete filled steel drums has offered some protec- tion. However this control system is easily over- topped by storm waves and has suffered some vertical and horizontal displacement. The cottages on both banks of Twelve Mile Creek also are subject to flooding due to the damming of the creek by high lake water and the formation of a bay mouth bar. 102 jW Above: Between Eight Mile Creek and Twelve Mile Creek, Harbo-rcreek Township r law&& Above: Lake Shore Terrace, Harborcreek Township; showing serious toe erosion and loss of beach access 1_0_3' REM - - - - - - - - - - - Above: Shorewood Inn, Twelve Mile Creek, Harborcreek Township Above: Near Brickyard Road, North East Township; showing vertical bluff and structures in danger A 04 LOCATION: Twelve Mile Creek to Sixteen Mile Creek TOWNSHIP: North East PLACE NAME Brickyard Road, Cemetery Road, Sand Hill Farm, IDENTIFICATION: Freeport Lane LONGSHORE DISTANCE: 5.0 iiiles BLUFF HEIGHT: 100-110 ft. rising to 170 ft. west of Brickyard Road, decreasing to an ancient stream mouth and another low terrace area before Sixteen Mile Creek STRUCTURES SUBJECT 33, including 4 critical; TO DAMAGE: CONTROL STRUCTURES: None SHORE ZONE This section contains the highest bluffs in the county. DESCRIPTION: The bluffs are mostly covered with vegetation and are sloped at 60-700. Bluff crest usage is primarily agricultural-grape vineyards and fruit trees - with some permanent and summer residential usage. In a few places the bluff vegetation is disrupted either by toe erosion or surface drainage. The bluff crest is severely dissected and scalloped due to interior drainage from the farmland. There are older slumps in various places. The bluff is generally stable, except for a few critical areas, including two homes in danger near Brickyard Road. Bedrock disappears and then reap- pears in this section, with thickness from 0-15 ft. There is an almost continuous beach strand of 10-20 ft. during low water. At Sixteen Mile Creek, there is a gravel and shingle public beach formed by the stream mouth. 105 fig 1R. Now -.4 'Above: High bluff sect@lon between Twelve Mile Creek and Sixteen Mile Creek, North East Township OM ------------- -_7 -7- Above: East of Brickyard Road, North East Township;, showing cottages on low delta area which dissects----- 7- high bluff section 0 61- z:7- -N Above and below: Between Twelve Mile Creek'and Sixteen Mile Creek, North East Township; showing agri- cultural use to bluff crest SECTION 5 RECESSION RATE ANALYSIS (By Section with Correlations to Site Location) The following narrative represents a synthesis of recession rate data (Appendix C) with Coastal Zone features, both natural and manmade. The rates determined by the direct measurement techniques are explained as to variation in time and space. DESCRIPTION OF RECESSION RATE MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUE Photogrammetry Aerial photographs of the years 1938-39, 1:20,000 scale (ASCS); 1959, 1:20,000 scale (DOA), and 1974-75, 1:14,000 and 1:24,000 scale (Erie County Department of Public Works) were utilized. Stereo pairs were available for all three sets for stereoscopic comparisons of coastline changes and recession phenomena. (A mirror steroscope, with 4X binocular heads was used to assist in bluffline delineation.) Scale comparisons were performed with the USGS 7-1/2 Minute Series of topographic maps as the principal control. The topographic maps are recent with photo-revisions through 1969. A computer program was written to bring each set of aerials into common denomination with the topographic series. Procedure A precision measuring device, the Microline Super Gage, was used to measure distances common to the topographic map and the three sets of aerials. The Super Gage measures under 40X in thousandths of an inch. A 1OX scope, with crosshairs, allows precision alignment of points for comparative measurement. The data obtained is then computer coded for scale determination. Recession measurements were taken from selected locations along the shoreline where conformity between the three series of aerials could be estab- lished. In most instances, the points were established where recession of greater than 0.6 foot per year was apparent since anactive slope could be identified much easier than a non-active one. The points average appr oximately 0.4 mile apart and include all varieties of slope condition, land use on the crest, and beach conditions at the toe of the bluff. Bluff recession was measured by selecting points common to the aerial imagery using clearly defined geographical locators, principally east-west trending highways as the control line and north-south trending roadways, private drives, clearly defined fence rows, and outstanding permanent features as the measurement line to the bluff's edge. These measurements were taken using the Super Gage and computer coded for analysis. (See Appendix C.) The location of these points are shown on maps contained in this section. PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED There is some inherent difficulty in utilizing aerial photography for recession analysis. First, the photographs themselves areof the nominal 108 scales indicated but actually vary to some degree between photographs and within the photograph We feel that) by proper scale justification, a number of times in any phoLographic sequence, most of this problem has been eliminated. Second, at the latitude of Erie County, Aerial photographs taken under the best of circumstances (mid-June in early afternoon with sun angle at its highest), the resultant photograph places the bluff face under shadow which makes it extremely difficult to determine the crest of the bluff where vegetation is a factor. The measuring points were carefully selected to avoid this dif- ficulty as much as possible. Third, the 1959 coverage was flown in August when vegetative cover is at its maximum. Where trees line the shore, the canopy obscures the bluff crest making it nearly impossible to delineate the actual bluff line properly. The 1938-39 coverage and the 1974-75 coverage were flown in early spring. Vegeta- tion is of little consequence and the bluff line can be seen with maximum clarity under most conditions. The recession rates have been established for this report using the differences between the 1938-39 line and the 1974-75 line so that a long term average under the most ideal conditions can be established. Fourth, tilt in the aircraft as the pictures are shot can create dis- tortion in the photograph making measurement to a nominal 0scale difficult. Govern- ment contract photographs have a guarantee of less than 3 of tilt. Therefore, the 19 'M-39 imagery and the 1959 imagery are within the standards. It is not known with what degree of precision the photographs taken under contract with the Erie County Department of Pulbic Works were done. By scale conversion a number of times on any photograph, the effect of tilt, if any, has been minimized. Fifth, picture clarity is more of a problem on the older imagery. It is well known that the.state of the art in 1939 did not provide the image clarity available today. By careful selection of measuring points, most of the problem of bluff delineation due to clarity difficulty was-eliminated. Advantages in Availability of Materials For the type of data collection involved in recession analysis, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is fortunate to have available to a complete, updated series of 7-1/2 minute topographic maps facilitating comparisons with current aerial imagery. We were also fortunate to have excellent aerial coverage of the shore- line, making historical comparisons possible. Coverage, beginning in 1938 and every ten years thereafter (1950, 1958, 1969 and 1974-75), was available to us. By coincidence, the Erie County Department of Public Works had commissioned a complete photo reconnaissance of Erie County for purposes of Planning for sewer and water mains throughout the county. Therefore, we have a great deal of analytical capability for historic as well as current coverage. Because of the accelerated erosion and recession that has taken place during the period 1972 to the prasent time, the existence of current imagery is invaluable. The degree of land use development in Erie County has been a distinct advantage in this project for recession rate analysis. There exists, in the 109 Coastal Zone, excellent control lines in the form of primary and secondary roadways. The existence of these roads makes it possible to set definite control lines easily referenced in 1938 as well as 1975. The absence of such con- trols would hamper analysis and the results would suffer appreciably. Most of the shore zone is in some type of land use with the result .being the elimination of forest cover as a disadvantage in analysis. Residen- tial use, and agricultural use, in the bluff area, while presenting some hazard to the owner, has, nevertheless, made it possible to delineate bluff lines in most areas with a minimum of difficulty. 110 RECESSION RATE ANALYSIS The following narrative is a sectional analysis of recession rates and the factors affecting the relative rates produced, as well as a general descrip- tion of the bluff area involved. The maps accompanying the narrative illustrate the area covered by each section, the location of the recession rate measurement points, as well as other pertinent information. For those areas where change is evident on a mappable scale, diagrams of those areas are presented illustrating bluff and shore recession over time and include a measure of the degree of threat-such change has on the coastal zone. Photographic documentation included in this section of the report graphically portrays the seriousness of physical change in relation to human use. SECTION I Ohio State Line to Elmwood Road The entire section can be characterized by rapid recession over the period of record. High water levels have had devastating effects at the base of the slope producing a near vertical bluff. Points 01-1 and 01-2 average 22.2 inches annually. There is every indication that recession has been greatly accelerated in the past five years. At a particularly critical point in this sectio *n, the investigators witnessed four feet of recession from February to April, 1975. Fallen large blocks of material and slumping are readily apparent. An entire row of trees has dis- appeared since 1940. Point 01-3: Recession reduced somewhat due to protection offered by slight foreland to west. Accumulation of material at the base of the bluff offers a measure of protection. Erosion at crest remains accelerated, however, due to ground water seepage producing a less than vertical bluff with slumping apparent. Point 01-5: A foreland-cove combination here is producing an "end of groin field effect," deepening the cove and threatening the roadway. Recession rates of 23 inches annually have been measured placing the bluff less than 100 feet from the road by the year 2000. Points 01-6 - 01-8: Represent a headland-cove combination. The headland is being planed off and the cove deepening; recession is 18 inches annually in this area. Since 1939, the Lake Road has been relocated in this area, and by 1974 the former roadbed has been eroded. The recession rate would indicate that the relocated road will be within 100 feet of bluff by the year 2000 and again imperiled. SECTION 2 Raccoon Creek to Camp Lambec Point 02-1: Raccoon Creek County Park--average recession in that area is 36.4 inches. The recession rate was measured for the mouth of Raccoon FIGURE 19 ' 8 ? 3 P74 '38 SHORE BLUFF 59 SH. BL. 74 SH. IN BL. STRUCTURE Z'5 Z C) U.S. STEEL COTTAGES f Jous slope produced i-n 'Above dnd below: Slopes o var relatibn to recession dctivity in Springfield Township --Alai "goO 0 0 W-Ru- Creek; no bluff is present. There is extensive damage in the form of sand removal, tree loss, threat to picnic shelters, and flooding from the stream, as well as from high water and storms. The groin to the west of the park is severely damaged, thus having little effect. The groin is improperly placed for the production of sand accumula- tion at the park. Average recession of Points 02-3 and 02-4 is 20.75 inches, and erosion and recession are quite apparent. The slopes are steep and devoid of vegetation. Ground water seepage is an obvious factor of slope failure. The land was in agricultural use until the late fifties, and now is undergoing plant succession, but the bluff crest is essentially unprotected. In one section, grass is being mowed to the edge of the bluff. Recession has been extremely active during the past year. Point 02-5: Two groins constructed after 1959 have allowed for the development of beaches, having an expected effect on recession, which has been somewhat slowed in the current period after construction. The average, however, is still 22.9 inches. Point 02-6: Ellis Road - Eagley Road - There is high density cottage ,development in this section; bluff recession is not a constant phenomenon. Groins constructed to the west after 1960 may be adversely affecting stability in this section. Small groins and seawalls have protected this section during low water. The recession average for the period is 5.9 inches. I., Point 02-7: The bluff here rises vertically from the flood plain of the stream. While devoid of vegetation, there does not appear to be rapid reces- sion. Interior drainage is absent and the base is protected by a groin and sea- wall combination at a township-maintained beach. The recession is 4.5 inches per year. Point 02-9: Recession here is 7.4 inches annually. A large private camp has placed several groins to protect the bluff and maintain beaches,for recreation. The groins were constructed after 1960 and have had measurable suc- cess. SECTION 3 Crooked Creek Vicinity Point 03-1: There is a 10-15 ft. vertical bluff on either side of a boat access which is deranged and the evidence indicates a significant loss to both the beach and the bluff during the past three years. The investigators witnessed six feet of recession.from February to April, 1975. This point is unprotected by any device and storm damage is severe to existing residential structures. Point 03-2: A foreland-cove combination, the measurement point is in relation to the cove; the-bluff is not clearly defined. The recession measured is beach erosion over the period (10.1 inches is the annual average). During lower lake levels, it is expected that this area will accumulate sand, offering a measure of protection to this area. 114 FIGURE 20 Go VA '38 SHORE BLUFF '59 SH. uj BL. IN '74 SH. BL - ----- STRUCTURE L A K E. R 0 A D "SUMMER CITY" SHORELINE CHARACTERISTICS Pa. State Line to Camp Lambec 1"n) co lp 0 (50') N 0 PE T 0 HSE (401) LBE C) LA E 6 0 HBE (40) C FJ x 0i -X 0 L) 0 coo Lu U) 01-1 Photogramm0rik Control I BLUFFS OF LOW TO MEDIUM HEIGHT, SEVERELY DISSECTED BY TRIBUTARIES ...X S rvey Control LBE Erodible Low Slull Aupprox, Bluff Line PE Erodible Plain Section Location (40') Minimum Ht. 4:'> 2. COTTAGE AND CAMP AREA a HBE Erodible High Blull 3. THIRTEEN GROINS; THREE BREAKWALLS See Appen. A 0 cc 4. CRITICAL AREAS: STATE LINE To RUDD ROAD ELLIS ROAD EARCH INSTITUTE GREAT LAKES RES RUDD ROAD TO Ei-mwooi) ROAD EAGLEY ROAD 1E COASTAL qAZAR0 AREAS LAKE ER 0 RACCOON CREEK COUNTY PARK COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 000 (D In - 01 ania Department of EnvironiTientat ResourCeS z 10 ID n Pennsylv 1975 Konectric FSC roints 03-3/03-4: Both these points are 'located at Camp Fitch. The bluff is divided into two sections by conditions. Point 03-3 has been stabilized somewhat by the construction of three major groins. Vegetation on the slope has taken hold and recession has been minimized. However, Point 03-4 has experienced massive recession recently. Measurements of slump blocks displaced during the winter season of 1974-75 indicate as much as 25 feet of recession has taken place in four months. While the phenomenon would require further study, the indica- tion is that the groins to the west have produced this accelerated slope failure. Between Points 03-4 and 04-1, the bluff is relatively stable. The entire section is protected back from the bluff by second growth timber and on the bluff face by mixed vegetation. One section, Eagles Nest on Camp Sequoyah property, is point recession produced in association with groins at Camp Fitch to the west and ground water seepage. This land was farmed prior to 1938 and allowed to regenerate since its purchase as a camp. SECTION 4 Camp Sequoyah Vicinity Point 04-1: This is an exposed bluff section, but recession is moderate due to the placement of protection devices on the beach for sand accumula- tion providing the camp with beach facilities. One groin was established 20 years ago and one was established recently. McBrier Lodge, belonging to the camp, is within 53 feet of the crest and is in moderate danger. Point 04-2: Validity of this point is in question. Bluff delineation is extremely difficult due to dense vegetative cover. Taken in context with other areas, however, a recession rate of 9.6 inches annually seems reasonable. SECTION 5 Camp Sequoyah to East.of Elk.Creek, Girard Township Points 05-1 and 05-2: A great deal of change is evident over these points due mainly to agricultural runoff producing an enlargement of stream drainage on the bluff slope. Headward erosion and valley widening by the streams would appear to be the prevalent force in Point 05-1, while normal processes are responsible for more gradual change. The recession measured in Point 05-2 seems exaggerated. Further ground evaluation is indicated. A private engineering firm under.contract with the Pennsylvania Electric Company has reported no sig- nificant erosion problems in this area. The truth probably lies somewhere between these extremes. SECTION 6 Elk Creek to Lake Erie Community Park, Girard Township Point 06-1: The 52.7 inches of annual recession computed is shoreline recession at Elk Creek Bay access area. Changes in the delta deposits have been dependent on water levels, storm activity, and ice cover, all of which have been severe in the negative over the past three years. The sediments produced by Elk Creek have not kept pace with the removal of delta deposits by the long- shore transport systems. A groin to the west of Elk Creek has been severely 117 FIGURE .21 E L A K E oin Fgr- - - * - &"rooked destroyed cr P38 SHORE BL UFF 59 SH. BL. '74 sH . .......... BL. F" STRUCTURE 00 HOLIDAY SHORES Above: Slumping with associated vegetative disruption, Girard. f6wn-ship.- Below: Vertical bluffs with block falls occurring, Springfield A 119 SHORELINE CHARACTERISTICS Camp Lambec to Elk Cr IV -HB@ (901 C 0 x HBE (70) 7 b PF 0, (20) @,x ,,JOS FW a 0,0 0. % LAKE FID- '0, ca In NOTES LEGEND 01-1 Photogrammet'ic Control x Su rvey Control LBE Erodible Low Bluff 1. GENERALLY A HIGH BLUFF AREA WITH LOW BLUFF AND STREAM MOUTH AT WEST APProx. Bluff Line pE Erodible Plain a Section Location (40 ') Minimum Ht END OF SECTION -HBE Erodible High 81-11 F 1 2. CAMP AND COTTAGE AREA PLUS UNDEVELOPED PENELEC SITE Se Appe.. A 0 "1 3. TEN GROINS; ONE BREAKWALL GR E AT LAKES RESEARCH INSTITUTE 4. CRITICAL AREAS: DAN'S BEACH HOLLIDAY ROAD LAKE ERIE COASTAL HAZARD AREAS CC 0 CAMP JUDSON CROOKED CREEK COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Pennsylvania DeparwiLN ot Environmental PeSOurc:e@ 0 z 1975 FIGURE 22 :,0100, N '38 SHORE 9 BLUFF 59 SH. ELK CREEK BL. '74 SH . ...... BL. - STRUCTUR damaged. There is some question of the relative benefits of the structure in any case. The Fish Commission has proposed a structured access for this area. It is strongly recommended that a full study be made of conditions here before this is done, to prevent a repeat of the problems occurring at Walnut Creek to the east. Points 06-2 to 06-5; These points cxhibit relatively stable slope conditions with two startling exceptions noted below. Recession, as measured, is average for the shoreline; however, accelerated recession west of Point 06-2 is evident. A series of groins at this point has a limited effect on bluff recession. Recession is related to an unvegetated crest, septic tank outfall, and road drainage in addition to normal ground water seepage and high water levels. Lake Erie Community Park at Point 06-4 has perhaps the-most dramatic evidences of bluff recession phenomena on the entire coast. During the past year and a half, Park Commissioners have been r 'ecording a massive amount of slope failure producing slump blocks of extraordinary dimension. Slope failure is quite apparent in all stages of occurrence. Investigators feel that the greatest contributory cause is abnormally high amounts of lacustrine depos@its in the area and extremely high ground water conditions over the past three years. The deep sand deposits become quite unstable with the addition of large amounts of water. Slump blocks of the following description have been examined: (1) A deranged block with landslide characteristics with complete derangement of materials and vegetation. (2) A block.approximately 30 ft. by 150 ft. with a vertical displacement of 60 ft. from top of bluff. Trees in second growth are deranged, though some still upright. (3) A block with vertical displacement ok 8 ft. measuring 41 ft. wide by 165 ft. long, with definite continued movement evident. (4) A crack and displacement of a few inches indicates continuation of activity to the east of (3) above. Anticipated dimensional proportions would indicate a slump of material 30 ft. wide by 250 ft. long. There is strong indication that this process has been repeated through time on various sections of coastline. One notable location in the Millcreek Township area (Montpelier Avenue to Kelso Beach) has indications that this type of activity has taken place, probably as much as 60 years ago or more. SECTION 7 Lake Erie Community Park to Camp Eriez (formerly Caledon), Girard Township There is extreme variability in recession rates along this section due 122 This set of four photographs documents the degree of activity at Lake Erie Community Park. Three distinct slides are evident in (1), (2), and (4). (3) shows aerial view of area. IVA. IrW 123- J-0 ZI: -21 a--W- -@v4, -f.. -al -Z@- 124- SHORELINE CHARACTERISTICS Elk Creek to Godfrey R. HBE x C HBE 7 0 (too) G 10 b, PE '6x A Ln -C 0 '06 ETA Z 0 Li ctj :.X: 1:D m NOILS LEGEND 01-1 Photogrammet,ic Control x Survey Control LEE Erodible Low Biuti Approx, Blull Line PE Erodible Plain GENERALLY HIGH BLUFFS WITH THREE STREAM CUTS; SEVERAL AREAS OF a Section Location (40') Minimurn Hr SEVERE SLUMPING -HBE Erodible H,gh 01.11 See Appen. A 2. COTTAGE, PARK, AND CAMP AREA a: (1- 3. FIGHT GROINS; ONE BREAKWALL GREAT LAKES RESEARCH INSTITUTE 4. CRITICAL AREAS: ELK CREEK MOUTH LAKE ERIE COMMUNITY PARK LAKE ERIE COASTAL HAZARD AREAS 0 T ELK CREEK - BLUFF COTTAGES CULBERTSON ROAD COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CD Pemsytvanja Depaitm&iI of Envi(onnenial Resouces z q 1975 SHORELINE CHARACTERISTICS Godf rey Run to Eaton Rd. (10 0 LBE (30') C 0 b HBE (70') ga 0 x fkD. z 0 M NOTES LEGEND of- I Photogrammetric Control x Survey Control LBE Erodible Lo@ Bluff 1. HIGH BLU FF AREA SEVERELY DISSECTED BY STREAMS AND TRIBUTARIES APProx. Bluff Line PE Erodible Plain a Section Location (40) Minimum Hl. 2. MIXED RESIDENTIAL, COTTAGE, AND CAMP AREA *HBE Erodible HighBluff o, See Appen. A 3. SIXTEEN GROINS; TWO BREAKWALLS cc 4. CRITICAL AREAS: GODFREY RUn/FAIRPLAIN ROAD GREAT LAKES RESEARCH INSTITUTE Uj LAKE ERIE COASTAL HAZARD AREAS cc 0 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM U) (D Pennsylvana Depailmew 0( Et'v'10(")e()taI ResaxCes z 1975 q SHORELINE CHARACTERISTICS Eaton Road to Wolf Rd. HBE C (so') x fkd. PE X2 0 0 HBE (70') a z 0 A U) NOTES '---GEND oo-Y Photogrammetric Control x sti-ey Control LBE Erodible Low Bluff Appro., Blot I Line PE Erodible Plain 1. 11IGH BLUFF AREA WITH PLAIN AT UALNUT CREEK MOUTH a Section Location (40') Minimum Hf. 2. !IlrH VALUE RESIDENTIAL AREA PLUS FISH COMMISSION ACCESS AREA Erodible High Bluff Se@ App- A 3. FIFTEEN GROINS AND TWO hREAKWALLS 4. CRITICAL AREAS: '1ALNUT CREEK FisIi Commissim lIiCCESS AREA GHF A[ IAKIS RKSE-WH INSTITUTE LAKE ERIE COASTAL HAZARD AREAS k_@@)ASTAI ONE 1975 FIGURE 23 SEVERE SHORE EROSION Fi sh omm. 00 cl@ /* anc lb Walnut Creek Access #38 SHORE BL UFF 59 SH. BL. '74 SH. BL - ----------- STRUCTURE to differences in slope, shoreline, and use. Point 07-1: Is in a cove with some sand accumulation offering limited protection. There is, however, evidence of rapid recession at the toe of the bluff by wave action which is overriding the beach berm. There is an increasingly common phenomenon, a second bluff producing a step effect, representing a dif- ferential wasting of materials. This secondary bluff is evidence of rapid erosion rates at base and somewfiat stable condition on the bluff above, pro- duced either by material resistance of a heavy blanket of vegetation. Just to the east, for example, is an elevated stream mouth, an indication that recession is outpac-ing stream downcut. Point 07-2: The recession rate was based on an error in photogrammetric interpretation due to the relocation of a private access road and must therefore be discounted. Point 07-4: Reduced recession at this point is due to slope stability. The base is protected by two groins with an accumulation of beach deposits. SECTION 8 Camp Eriez to Camp Sherwin, Girard Township There are eight groins protecting private property in this section. The result is some stabilization at those points. However, the placement is not spaced to provide protection for all. As a result, there are areas experiencing accelerated erosion due to natural phenomena in combination with effects produced by groin placement. Since the groins are relatively new, the expected effect will not be measurable for some time.' Most slopes are relatively stable and sev'ere problems are the exception. New construction and change in land cover at Point 08-3 will undoubtedly create difficultLes for the owner in the future. Points 08-1, 08-2, and 08-4 are protected by vegetated slope in com- bination with groins and are not considered especially threatened. SECTION 9 Melhorne Road to Eaton Road, Fairview Township The distinctive feature of this section is the Trout Run access area. West of Trout Run, the bluff is stable with only minor, highly lo'calized, problems; and east of the area, the same conditions exist. The slopes are protected by vegetation and little activity is apparent. In the vicinity of Point 09-4, there are two properties where vegeta- tion has been reduced to grasses. Both areas show every indication of accelerated recession recently. It can be expected that, if unprotected, these properties will continue to incur losses in the future. The Trout Run area has been protected by 9 groins that are substantial in construction and effect. Land accumulation behind each is significant even during high lake levels. It can be expected that these structures will offer a measure of protection to the bluff in the future if land cover on the crest does 129, not change. The Trout Run access has been manipulated by the owner for purposes of commercial growth. Heavy equipment has been used to reduce the bluff to the west of the stream mouth and the borrowed material used to establish a beach area protected by groin structures. The outcome of the alteration on shore con- figuration will bear future examination. I Point 09-3: The recession rate here has been measured at 38.5 inches annually. Investigation has revealed that the control point passes through a drainage system in relation to a substantial structure on the immediate edge of the bluff. The rate is somewhat questionable as a result. The owner has indicated threat to his property and has offered evidence to this effect@. SECTION 10 Walnut Creek to Wilkins Road, Millcreek Township The Walnut Creek access area has been reconstituted by major construc- tion over the past five years. The stream mouth has been channelized by major rock structures on both sides; to the west serving as a groin to prevent long- shore transport from forming a baymouth bar across the stream mouth, and the structure on the east serving as a protective device for safe access and periodic easterly storms. The effect on the shoreline at this point is illustrated in Figure 23. A major structure at this point is in peril and concrete forms are being placed as groins to safeguard the structures as well as the access area. Three residential neighborhoods mark this section: Manchester Heights, Lake Shore, and the Wolf Road area. The bluffs are moderately stable through this section with the exception as noted. Point 10-1 in the Manchester area can be considered stable. A groin to provide beach materials has protected the bluff for some years. Point 10-2 is stable with vegetative slopes and little apparent reces- sion. Points 10-3 to 10-5 are selected points exhibiting an exception to otherwise semi-stable bluffs. Each exhibits strong point recession due to some causative factor. Point 10-4, for example, is on Lake Shore Golf Club property. There is strong indication that material loss is due to accelerated ground water seepage and the lack of vegetation on the crest. Point 10-6: This section is protected by 6 groins spaced for maximum protection of shore reach. A large volume of sand has been captured, thus protecting the base of the bluff from direct attack. SECTION 11 Wilkins Road to Montpelier Avenue, Millcreek Township Bluffs in this section are densely covered by mature trees creating stable conditions. Recession is at the crest mainly, usually due to removal of vegetation at the top for residential landscaping. The combined loss of root structure and ground water control is creating losses at the top, though not severe. The total effect is the production of slopes of lessening steepness. There is evidence that slumping on a large scale has taken place historically, probably 100 years ago or more. 130 Points 11-1 to 11-4 all have bedrock exposed at the base, varying in thickness to 8 feet. Accelerated recession is taking place at Points 11-3 and 11-4 due to sruface water runoff and ground water seepage from a large field south of the bluff crest. Changing land use here allowing for plant succession should be a retarding influence in the future. SECTION 12 Montpelier Avenue to Waldameer Park, Millcreek Township Recession in this area is minimal, with an average rate of 4.55 inches annually. There is strong evidence that slumping on a large scale was a causa- tive factor in producing these slopes. Terracing here is very prominent and, though covered with dense vegetation to include mixed hardwoods, slump blocks are still evident. Activity took place at least 100 years ago. Dendrochronology of trees could produce important time references for this period of accelerated recession for correlation with causative factors active during that time. Beginning just west of Point 12-1 and extending through Point 12-4, the bluff crest is marked by dense residential development. There is some con- cern for those structures on the immediate edge though recession is quite insidi- ous. Beginning at Point 12-3, a broad sandy shelf (representing the roots of the Presque Isle sand spit downshore) protects the bluff and effectively removes the lake as a factor in bluff recession. NOTE: Bluff conditions east of the City of Erie differ remarkably from those characteristic of the West County over most sections. The greatest controlling factor for the bluff is the protection offered by bedrock exposures at the base over much of the reach. This bedrock is only minimally exposed in a few sections in the western reach. As noted elsewhere, the exposure 'has produced unique configurations on the coastline. SECTION 13 Hammermill Paper Company to Four Mile Creek, Lawrence Park Township_ Recession is slight over all points except 13-5. During low lake level, these areas are relatively safe from frontal assaults by lake processes. However, recent high levels and storm activity have removed beach deposits and there is much wave undercutting of bedrock and great evidence that storm waves are eroding materials resting on the bedrock producing-a distinctive shelf. Con- tinuation of this phenomena over time, coupled with ground water effects will cause slope failure and result in accelerated recession in susceptible areas. Point 13-5 represents an area where gullying has produced a channel extending down to bedrock. Headward erosion of this channel has been highly accelerated over time producing point recession of 36 inches annually, a good example of problems associated with man's attempts to drain the plain behind the bluff. 131 SHORELINE CHARACTERISTICS Wolf Road to Presque Isle % HBE -% lp HE1 x P E 6 c 60 L.x HBE (go') a Fj %V1 D M NOTES LEGEND 01-1 Photogramm tric Control 1. HIGH BLUFF WITH GENERALLY STABLE SLOPES X SurveyConferol LBE Erodible Lo. 81.11 2. HEAVY BEACH C07TAGE DEVELOPMENT WEST OF PRESQUE ISLE Approx Stull Line PE Erodible Plain a Section Location (40') Minimum Ht. 3. EIGHTEEN GROIN *HBE Erodible HighBlulf _5; APPROXIMATELY THIRTY INDIVIDUAL BREAKWALLS 0 Sea Appen. A cr 4. CRITICAL AREAS: HARTT ESTATES BAER BEACH GLENRUADH BEACHCOMBER COTTAGES GREAT LAKES RESEARCH JN91TUTE EAGLEHURST PRESQUE ISLE STATE PARK LAKE ERIE COASTAL HAZARD AREAS 0 FOREST PARK COASTAL 'ONE MANACZAvIENT PR)CIRAM (,N1 01 E,w0,vic1)1a1 ReSoLxCes 1975 MW Above and below: Bedrock exposures in Lawrence Park and Harborcreek. Township_ --- ----- 4 70@ Pb 13-3 cc OMNI.; Above and below: Shelving over bedrock produced differential erosion of bluff Harborcreek Township :-J, 7 134 SECTION 14 Lowry Road to Six Mile Creek, Lawrence Park Township Bedrock exposures through the entire section has the expected influence on recession. Rates are consistently under the overall average of 12 inches annually for the shoreline. There are, however, the same features being produced as in the last section, namely wave undercut, sand removal, and shelfing over bedrock. Again, if conditions on the lake continue over time, recession will become an increasing problem. SECTION 15 Seven Mile Creek to East of Eight Mil Creek, Harborcreek Township This entire section is essentially a repeat of the previous section. Recession rates are essentially less than average. Point 15-5 has evidence of accelerated recession, the cause attributable to land cover. The vegetation has been reduced to grasses offering little protection to the bluff crest with the expected results, including a disruption of vegetation on the bluff slope. SECTION 16 Highmeyer Road to North East Township line, Harborcreek Township This section is a continuation of the two previous sections. Additional factors include changes in land use through section with resultant impact on recession. Points 16-1 and 16-2 are within the suburban fringe area with the urban frontier just to the east where agricultural use becomes the dominating use on bluff crest and beyond. Agricultural fields utilized to the very edge of the bluff can have adverse effects on bluff stability. Point 16-4 is an indication of this phenomena, with recession at 19.4 inches annually. Scalloping of crest with no counterpart on the shore is an indica- tion that the cause lies not with lake processes,_but with either natural or man-incuded factors on the bluff face or crest. SECTIONS 17 AND 1-8 North East Township Line to Cemetery Road Area, North East Township Sections 17 and 18 can be discussed together because of the homogeneity of this region. Deep scalloping of the bluff crest is the most distinguishing charac- teristic. The recession rates are not high, but the proximity of State Route 5 gives this area some cause for concern. It is apparent that the lack of significant natural surface drainage in the area is having an effect on bluff crest. While it bears greater examina- tion, it appears that surface and subsurface flow are producing significant drainage cuts in the bluff. Once started, these cuts can only enlarge in all directions. 135 FIGURE 24 ............... elk ev \kA . ......... r '38 SHORE BLUFF '59 SH. DRAMATIC CHANGES IN BAyMOUTH SEDIMENT BL. 074 SH. BL. CD STRUCTURE N COWELL'S BEACH & CART ER 'S BE ACH SHORELINE CHARACTERISTICS Hammermill to Fairfield HBE x LBE (30) x b x HEIC Uj FA -LB (50) x U.) (30) !2 HBE a AST L z 0 00 C) co NOTES LEGEND 01-1 PhotGgrammeffic Control x S rvey control LBE Erodible Lo. Bluff u 1 VARIABLE, MEDIUM HEIGHT BLUFF; BEDROCK PRESENT A pplox Bluff Line PE Erodible Plain a s., Location (40') Minimum Ht. INDUSTRIAL, RESIDENTIAL, AMD OPEN SPACE USE i0o 2. *HBE Erodible HighBlutt 3. 110 GROINS; FIVE BREAKWALLS; ONE BOAT DOCK See App- A 4. CRITICAL AREAS: PORT AUTHORITY "OAT IIOUSES LAKESIDE DRIVE w IIAMMERMILL PAPER COMPANY GENERAL ELECTRIC FISHING CLUB GREAT LAKES RESEARCH INSTITUTE Cr 0 o LAKE ERIE COASTAL HAZARD AREAS T SUNSET INN U) COASTAL ZONE MANACEMENT PROGRAM Pennsylvaita Deitailment ol Enviroynenial Reswces SHORELINE CHARACTERISTICS Six Mile Creek Highmeyer R. HBE 7 (70') X LBE (25') mlie -C fee PE LBE-- OD (30') '4, 0 CO NOTES LEGEND 01-1 Photogrammetric Control 1. LOW BLUFFS AND BEACH AREAS IN WEST HALF OF SECTION; HIGH BLUFFS IN X S vey Control LBE Erodible Low Blulf EAST HALF OF SECTION Aur, Blull Line PE Erodible Plain Pp 0. a section Location (40') MinimUrn Hf *HBE Erodible HighBlull =j 2. COTTAGES IN WEST SECTION; RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN EAST SECTION S- Appen. A o 3. FOUR GROINS; ONE BREAKWALL; TWO BOAT DOCKS Ir 4. CRITICAL AREAS: COWELL'S BEACH GREAT LAKES RESEARCH 1@&ITUTE d, CARTER'S BEACH ERIE COASTAL WARD AREAS cr LAKE 0 KRAUS DRIVE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM z Peivisyvania Depatimait of Envi(ofynOrfal FL-sourCes q 1975 F I GURL 25 oll *. 4D CD - SHOREWOOD . . ........... 0:4 liv '38 SHORE BLUFF '59 SH. BL. '74 SH . .......... BL. ---, STRUCTURE SHOREWOOD SHORELINE CHARACTERISTICS 01 Twelve Mile Creek to Orchard Beach - Freeport LBE- (30') HBE (14a) LBE (20') X ..... ..... LD HEIIE ... ....... 170') pD, LAKE p b x HBE (70') a x co LD LU U) NOTES LEGEND Of-I Photogrammetric Control "106 LBE Erodible Low Blull 11 x su-ey control APPro-. Bluff Line PE Erodible Plain a Section Location (40') Minimum Ht. 1. HIGHEST BLUFFS. IN THE COUNTY 'HBE Erodible HoghBluft 2. AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL AREA See Appen. A 0 a- 3. NO GROINS; ONE SEAWALL AT SHOREWOOD GRE AT LAKES RESEARCH INSTITUTE 4. CRITICAL AREAS: SHOREWOOD INN/COTTAGES LAKE ERIE COASTAL WARD AREAS BRICKYARD ROAD COASTAL ZONE MANAGENENT PROGRAM Pe,visyivaina Deparl-en, of EnviroryTO)Ial Rewurces 1975 Again, the evidence is strong that recession is not being produced by lake related processes, but byprocesses active on slope, and behind. The shore does not exhibit the same,degree of scalloping; however, there is evidence in this section, as well as in sections immediately east and west, of accelerated erosion at the base of the bluff. A steep, almost vertical face is being pro- duced, essentially by storm waves. A's material is removed from the base, the slope will become increasingly instable, leading ultimately to slope failure. SECTION 19 Sixteen Mile Creek to Twenty Mile Creek, North East Township Section 19 is marked b@ bedrock control producing reduced recession rates through the section. The low bluff, with signi 'ficant drainage channels, presents a major change in conditions just west of this area. The area is used extensively as summer cottage development areas because of easy access to the water's edge. Control of such a bluff should be relatively simple if conditions on the lake persist. High water is taking its toll in beach materials and struc- tural damage at the present time. Point 19-4 is a measure of shore recession with the indication being little net loss over time. SECTION 20 Twenty MileCreek to New York State @ine The bedrock disappears east of Twenty Mile Creek and so does reduced recession. Shore erosion at Point 20-1 is severe for the East County at 14 inches annually and recession of the low bluff at Point 20-2 reaches 21 inches annually. This accelerated recession rate continues into New York State and is cause for major concern there. At both points, there is a threat to State Route 5 within the@next 40 years. SUMMARY Assuming a small margin in error in recession rate measurement and with the averaging of data, a clear picture emerges for conditions in the Coastal Zone. Figure 28 is a plot of average rates measured by section and shows not only variation in causative factors, but the reduced recession of the East County area. Recession is a phenomena that must be considered at every planning stage for Coastal Zone Management. Nowhere on the coast is recession "zero" over time. There are certain safe areas with greatly reduced rates due to some controlling factor. The purpose of this report is to essentially identify critical hazard areas, and these we think are clearly defined by the accelerated recession rates apparent in many areas. The other factors considered in critical hazard zone delineation are cited elsewhere in this report. It is clear that the following are factors contributing to accelerated 141 FIGURE 26 *38 SHORE BLUFF '59 SH. GAY ROAD BL. #74 SH. BL. STRUCTURE E ? STATE LINE A ? IN SHORELINE CHARACTERISTICS ORCHARD BEACH TO N. Y LINE LBE (30') PE 0 x Id LBE C5 (30') 010 X Cc n w j< HBE (60') PE T 0 NOTES LEGEND 01-1 Photog rammerric Control x su rvey Confrof LBE Erodible Low Bluff 1. LOW BLUFF AND BEACH AREA A opt " Bluff Line PE Erodible Plain ID 2. flEAVY COTTAGE AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT a section Location (40 *) Minimum Ht *HOE Erodible H,9hBl.lf 3. NO GROINS; STEEL DRUM BREAKWALL AT ORCHARD BEACH, SEVERAL INDIVIDUAL BREAKWALLS ApM,,.A 0 4. CRITICAL AREAS: SUNSET BEACH DEWEY ROAD FISH COMMISSION ACCESS AREA ORCHARD BEACH 11IDDEN LANE GREAT LAKES RESEARCH INSTITUTE cc LAKE ERIE COASTAL HAZARD AREAS 0 FRANCROFT TWENTY MILE CREEK T in COASTAL Z(-)Nf- MANAGENENT PROGRAM recession rates: 1. high lake levels 2. storm conditions and frequency 3. bluff structure (bedrock, tills, lacustrine clays and sands) 4. wind direction and strength 5. sediment 1@ading by streams 6. material availability in lon'gshore transport systems 7. ground water seepage 8. sheet runoff on bluff face surface 9. runoff from area behind bluff crest 10. vegetation on crest and slope 11. beach deposits at base 12. occurrence of ice on lake (essentially absent for the past two years) 13. frost action on bluff 14. gravity 15. control structures on shoreline (groins, seawalks) 16. stream dissection 17. land use on bluff crest 18. induced drainage onto bluff slope by septic outfall, storm drains and highway drainage, as well as buried drainage tiles in conjunction with agricultural use An examination of these factors as variables and the interaction between them are found elsewhere in this report. Because of the variables involved, it must be stressed that recession rates-determined are only long term averages for future planning. It cannot be assumed that the rates are constants or that rates are applicable over broad areas:east and west of the photogrammetric controls. Each parcel of land must be carefully analyzed according to the variables present and its use then planned to be in conformance with the least possible threat to structure or environment. It is dangerous to use a 12-inch annual recession rate as a measure for any critical local planning determination. An analysis of the recession rate data reveals that the average is in no way representative of recession over most points. 144 FIGURE 27 SUMMARY OF RECESSION RATES BY SECTION SECTION x / Y(l) r(2) 1 151.7 8 18.96 2 139.3 8 17.40 3 87.7 4 21.90 4 12.3 2 6.15 5 46.3 2 23.50 6 95.1 5 19.02 7 64.4 4 16.10 8 17.4 4 4.35 9 82.5 5 16.50 10 99.2 6 16.50 11 56.4 4 14.10 12 18.2 4 4.55 13 57.1 5 11.42 14 45.4 6 7.57 15 31.9 5 6.38 16 32.7 4 8.18 17 34.7 3 11.57 18 26.3 4 6.58 19 22.0 4 5.50 20 35.0 2 17.50 (1) X = Total average recession rate by Point Y = No. of Points in section (2) 4 = Annual recession rate in inches over period of record (1938-1974/75 Average West County - 14-89" annual average (Sections 1 thru 12) Average East County - 9.34" annual average (Sections 13 thru 20) Total Erie County Average - 12.12" annual average 145 FIGURE 28 ANNUAL RECESSION RATIES Average BY SECTION annual rate in inches 22- 21- 20- 19. 18- 17- 16- 15-- 14-- 13-- 12-- 11- 10- 9--- 8-- 7-- 6-- 5-- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 io 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Section number SECTION 6 HAZARD AREA SUMMARY HAZARD AREA CLASSIFICATION Before arr shoreline can be classified in terms of how susceptible it may be to erosion aud/or recession, a careful definition of terms and the factors affecting selection of hazard areas must be provided. We have found by interview and by responses on the survey questionnaire that most property owners feel that they have experienced "severe erosion" because of loss of beaches, destroyed boathouses, displaced atairways, and water pipes. To them it represents serious problems. The scope of this study, however, is to determine those areas where extreme disruption of land and structure is likely to occur. Therefore, there may be some omissions of isolated problems; for example, single lots on Lakeside Drive in Erie and Wolf Road in Millcreek. Furthermore, there was little attempt in this study to analyze the recession and erosion data in conjunction with land values or structural values. As work continues and as citizens become more involved in the Coastal Zone Management Program, a more definitive classification should occur. In general a reach or area of shoreline can be identified as a critical hazard area if any of the following criteria are met: 1. If the shore zone is subject to Lake flooding of land or structures or stream flooding caused by a bay mouth bar. 2. If the area has experienced severe loss of shoreline by erosional processes and/or high water and there are structures built in the shore zone that have come under extreme attack. 3. If the bluff is experiencing a recession rate that is likely to exceed an annualized average of 1.5 feet over a period of years. These areas are considered critical hazard areas regardless of the present density of development as a guide for future planning. 4. Those areas experiencing only moderate recession rates, but containing structures near the bluff crest. 5. In general, if the area is expected to suffer significant damage to land and structures within the next ten years. Within the context of the above, those areas identified as being critical hazard areas are summarized in this section. Other areas were further classified either moderate hazard or limited hazard. Since recession is a phenomenon that can be expected to continue through time, sections now classified as moderate may in fact become critical: in the span of a few years due to changes in any of the factors causing erosion or recession. The following definitions were used for moderate and limited: (a) Moderate Hazard Area - areas that could become potentially critical within 25 years (i.e., by the year 2000). 147 (b) Limited Hazard Are a - areas that are not likely to be affected over the next 25 years because of limited recession or definite stability in conditions. The above classifications are given with the understanding that the range of con- ditions that have existed during the past 35 years will occur during the next quarter century. It is not possible to predict the variables producing accelerated periods of recession during that time. On the one hand, water level conditions on Lake Erie could moderate to the point that little recession would occur over the next 25 years. On the other hand, if water levels remain high and moderate winters provide little ice cover, recession rates could continue to accelerate and make the entire shoreline extremely critical and hazardous. Therefore, any prediction on future activity must be based on the average of conditions in the past. There are a total of 109 areas or sites which have been identified. There are areas within each section that are relatively small in extent and vary with the ovdrall classification. This section of the report uses place-name designation of hazard areas. Included are all major residential areas and all large individual sites, such as camps, parks, churches, motels, and industrial sites. Of these sites, forty-four (44) have been designated critical; fifty-one (51) as moderate; and ten (10) as limited. On the following page, there is a summary of the hazard areas by township. The Townships of Springfield, Milicreek, and North East contain the most hazardous sections. Springfield has long reaches of nearly vertical bluffs that are unprotected by bedrock, vegetation, or man-made control structures. However, the shoreline contains the least number of permanent residences; the land is used mainly for summer residences and camps. Millcreek Township has a number of critical areas because of the large beach cottage developments from Montpelier Avenue to Kelso Beach. Also, Presque Isle State Park hag been listed in the Millcreek section. North East Township is critical because of the intense residential development on the beaches and low bluffs from Freeport Lane (State Route 89) to the New York State Line. In the less hazardous townships, the critical areas are primarily at the mouths of streams where the hazard is flooding and beach erosion. In Girard Township the problems include recession as well. The critical areas are the mouth of Elk Creek, Lake Erie Community Park, and two private residential areas. In Fairview Township, Walnut Creek is the most hazardous area. In the City of Erie, the Port Authority boathouses near East Avenue and the site of Hammermill Paper Company are the significant critical areas. In Lawrence Park Township, the Lakeside Drive area and the General Electric Fishing Club have been designated critical. In Harborcreek Township, the low lying cot- tage areas are the most critical; namely, Cowells' Beach, Carter's Beach, Kraus Drive, and the Shorewood area. HAZARDS TO ROADWAYS There are presently no public roads.in critical danger. There are 148 FIGURE 29 HAZARD AREA SUMMARY TOWNSHIP CRITICAL MODERATE LIMITED TOTAL Springfield 10 4 14 Girard 5 7 12 (including Lake City) Fairview 1 10 11 Millcreek 8 6 -- 14 (Lakeshore only) Erie 3 4 4 11 (Lakeshore only) Lawrence Park 2 2 1 5 Harborcreek 4 13 5 22 North East 11 5 16 44 51 10 105 149 FIGURE 29 A HAZARD AREA STjV4ARY (Longshore Distance) TOWNSHIP CRITICAL MODERATE LIMITED Springfield 4.2 miles 3.3 miles 0.0 miles Girard 1.3 3.5 0.0 (including Lake City) Fairview 0.3 4.8 0.0 Millcreek 0.3 2.1 0.0 (Lakeshore only) Erie 0.7 0.6 o.8 (Lakeshore only) Lawrence Park 0.3 0.8 0.1 Harborcreek 0.7 5.8 0.0 North East 4.4 4.1 Sub-total 12.2 25.0 0.9 Presque Isle 8.0 0.0 0.0 State Park TOTAL (Lakeshore) 20.2 miles 25.0 miles 0.9 miles 150 several private access roads which are in critical danger; these are usually dirt roads which run parallel to the lake and in back of cottages which front on the lake. Th:2re are a number of access roads, both public and private, which terminate at or near the shoreline. These access roads are being eroded away at the same rate as the adjacent property. However, their basic function is not being impeded, except in the case of a few roads used as boat ramps. Only if severe conditions continued over a long period would public roads be endangered by the year 2000. These roads are: Old Lake Road in Spring- field Township; two sections of State Route 5 in Harborcreek Township; several subdivision roads in North East Township; and several sections of State Route 5 North East Township. However, such severe conditions are not anticipated at the present time. HAZARD AREA PROTECTION MEASURES Excluding the groins and breakwalls on Presque Isle, there are approxi- mately 90 groins and 55 seawalls protecting the Erie County shoreline (See Township Summary on following page). Most of these control structures are pro- tecting private property and were built by the property owners. Public structures are at the Springfield To*nship Beach on Eagley Road, Walnut Creek, East Avenue Boat Ramp, Lawrence Park Boat Dock, and Shades Beach County Park. Most of these control structures, both public and private, are now offering some degree of protection to property. However, most structures mani- fest the weaknesses typically found in all control structures. That is, groins generally protect the property to the west because the littoral drift in this section of Lake Erie is from west to east. Sand and gravel are thus trapped on the west "Side of the groin. But because there is no material supplied to the east side of the groin, there is generally accelerated beach erosion and bluff recession to the east. This phenomenon was observed throughout the county, with outstanding examples at Camp Fitch, Walnut Creek, the Millcreek cottage section, and Kraus Drive in Harborcreek. Breakwall effectiveness depends mainly on size and depth of placement. Small walls are easily overtopped and undercut by waves. Even large walls that are not placed deep enough to resist undercutting can be easily weakened by waves. There are significant seawall structures, both large and small, in the following areas: Ellis Road and Eagley Road in Springfield Township, the Mill- creek beach cottage area, Hammermill Paper Company, Shorewood Inn in Harborcreek, and Orchard Beach in North East. 151 FIGURE 30 SUMMARY OF CONTROL STRUCTURES TOWNSHIP GROINS WALLS Springfield 23 4 Girard 15 3 (including Lake City) Fairview 27 2 Millcreek 18 30 (Lakeshore only) Erie 7 (Lakeshore only) Lawrence Park 1 -- Harborcreek 6 3 North East -- 6 TOTALS 90 55 152 SUN1ARY OF HAZARD AREAS .BY TOWNSHIP AND PLACE NAME The following section contains a listing of hazard areas in each town- ship using the classifications previously defined. There are also maps of each township which are copies of USGS topographic maps. The hazard areas are desig- nated on each map using the following code: C CRITICAL HAZARD AREA M MODERATE HAZARD AREA L LIMITED HAZARD AREA SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP HAZARD CLASSIFICATION AREA COMMENTS Critical State Line to Rudd Road Severe accelerated recessit Critical Rudd Road to Elmwood Road Severe accelerated recessi( Critical Raccoon Creek County Park Loss of beach and vegetati( Critical Ellis Road--Summer City Recent recession forcing structural setback Critical Eagley Road Individual structures subj( to severe storm attack Critical Springfield Township Beach Loss of beach and vegetati( to (Eagley Road) Moderate Moderate Camp Lambec Structure on crest of bluf-. but camp protected by groii Critical Dan's Beach Low bluff; rapid recession to but structures are mobile Moderate homes Critical Camp Judson Low bluff, no protection; rapid recession 153 SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP, continued HAZARD CLASSIFICATION AREA COMMENTS Critical Holliday Road--Holliday Flooding plus recent rapid Shores recession and loss of trees Critical Crooked Creek--Miles Beach Flooding Moderate Camp Fitch Protected by groins but one critical area of slumping due to end of groin field Moderate Camp Sequoyah Two areas of significant recent slumping Moderate Penelec Property Headward erosion of drainage channels endangers area. behind crest GIRARD TOWNSHIP (including Lake City Borough) HAZARD CLASSIFICATION AREA COMMENTS Moderate Penelec - (Proposed Power Some slumping evident Plant Site) Critical Elk Creek - (Proposed Flooding Pennsylvania Fish Commis- sion Access Area) Critical Elk Creek--Bluff Cottages Rapid recession, improper drainage Moderate Fiesler Drive (Lake City) Beach loss; toe erosion Critical Lake Erie Community Park Severe slumping Moderate Richardson's Cement Works Threat to conveyor system (Lake City) 154 -q 41 R AD )if x --630@ 630 It J6 IP CD t_n 600 '10 !r c 0 D I fl-66 4117 '0 0 'Vol NTRAL @NN CE SCALE 1:24 000 1 0 1 MILE 1000 0 1000 20DO 3000 4000 5000 6001) 7000 FEET 5 0 1 KILOMETER ZA, Ro D 700 10, ,Q@ @004 le, K, SCALE 1:24000 0 I MILE 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4" 5" 6" 7" FEET I KiLOMETER GIRAR CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET DATUM Is MEAN SEA LEVEL PEPTH CURVES AND SOUNDINGS IN FEET-DATUM IS LOW WATER 570.5 FEET GIRARD TOWNSHIP, continued HAZARD CLASSIFICATION AREA COMMENTS Moderate Erie Lakelands Association Severe slumping Critical Culbertson Road Two cottages at base o. bluff subject to damag@ Moderate Camp Eriez (formerly Beach loss Caledon) Moderate Godfrey Road Recession/slumping Critical Godfrey Run/Fairplain Significant recession i Road individual sites Moderate Camp Sherwin FAIRVIEW TOWNSHIP HAZARD CLASSIFICATION AREA COMMENTS Moderate Hartley Road/Beach Drive Moderate Melhorn Road/Erie Shores Loss of beach and boat houses Moderate Trout Run/Avonia Road Protected by groins Moderate Lord Road/Eaton Road Moderate Camp Notre Dame Moderate Manchester Beach Low lying beach, extent sand accumulation behir Walnut Creek channel gi 157 m _71 % co ...... ..... . 0 670- Ll. 00 o SCALE 1:24000 1 MILE 0 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 I KILOMETER FAIRVIEW TWP. CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL @DEPTH CURVES IN FEET-DATUM IS LOW WATER 570.5 FEET FAIRVIEW TOWNSHIP, continued HAZARD CLASSIFICATION AREA COMMENTS Critical Walnut Creek - (Pennsyl- Significant alteration to vania Fish Commission beach face due to channel Access-Area) ization and groin structu Moderate Manchester Heights Moderate Lake Shore District Moderate Lake Shore Country Club Recent slumping in one small area Moderate Colony Subdivision MILLCREEK TOWNSHIP (Lakeshore Only) HAZARD CLASSIFICATION AREA COMMENTS Moderate Wolf Road--Wilkins Run Moderate Scott Estate (Westlake Junior High School Critical Hartt Estates--Montpelier Avenue Critical Glenraudh (The Willows) High water levels here -cause severe beach loss and property damage to Critical Eaglehurst cottages at base of bluff Critical Forest Park Critical Baer Beach 159 ............... .. .7, J, 74 till .1, sr 74 LA wr@ SCALE 124000 I MtLL Iwo 0 low 2000 3wo 4ow 5" 60M IWOF ca_@ i K)LDMEIER CONTOU R INTE7RVAL 10 FEEr: DATUM IS, MEAN SEA LEVEL MILLCR OEPTH CURVES AND SOUN DINGS N FEET-DATUM 15 LOW WATER 570.5 FEET MILLCREEK. TOWNSHIP, continued HAZARD CLASSIFICATION AREA COMMENTS Moderate Kelso Beach Hotel Protected by broad beach built by groin Moderate Kelso Beach Moderate Waldameer Park Large structure on bluff Critical Beachcomber Cottages Flooding behind beach berm Moderate The Mark Restaurant Protected by groin Critical Presque Isle State Park See Corps of Engineers reports Critical U. S. Coast Guard Station Flooding CITY OF ERIE (Lakeshore Only) HAZARD CLASSIFICATION AREA COMMENTS Moderate South Pier--Port Authority Protected by Presque Isle Limited Proposed Diked Disposal Same as above Area--Army Corps of Engineers Limited Koppers Company--Coke Plant Same as above Moderate East Avenue Boat Ramp/Port Flooding Authority (including pro- posed expansion) Limited Gulf Oil Tanks--East Avenue Protected by seawall 161 " < /29 13 A UE is L ERIE -6 0,,6 f 6 0 pre8 94e Isle Bay c,,6 CLE 571 FEE! S.0- ra, Y, BAYSHORE ol -- ----- ------------ 0 "th 10 CITY OF ERIE 1:3 m c BDT MT@ SCALE I 0 P mg 1000 2000 300 ik,e 0 WO@D CONTOUR INTE IrM., 'E 650 DArum IS 61"A DEPTH CURVES AND SOUNDINGS IN F 0(, 10 LAKESHORE CITY OF ERIE, continued HAZARD CLASSIFICATION AREA COMMENTS Critical Boathouses--Port Authority Flooding Limited Lighthouse Park Bedrock protection begins Critical Hammermill Paper Company Plant at water's edge make., continued protection neces- sary Moderate Lakeside Drive Cemetery Bedrock protection, but subject to wave uprush Moderate Lakeside Drive Bedrock protection, but subject to wave uprush Critical Sunset Inn Large.structure on crest of bluff LAWRENCE PARK TOWNSHIP HAZARD CLASSIFICATION AREA COMMENTS Limited Eastminster United Pres- Structure not in shore zone byterian Church Moderate Lawrence Park Boat Dock Critical Lakeside Drive Low bluff subject Critical Lawrence Park/General Large boathouse at shorelir Electric Fishing Club Moderate Lawrence Park Golf Club 163 6 T@Z Parking A,ei Mai 95 EAST@, '!MCOA171@;,9 -Z 710 SCALE 1:24000 0 1 MILE 1000 1 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET 1 5 o I KILOMETER CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET DAT@JJM IS M@AN SE., LEVEL DEPTH CURVES AND SOUNDINGS IN FEET-DATUM IS LOW WATER 570.5 FEET LAWRENCE PARK TWPm 164 HARBORCREEK TOWNSHIP HAZARD CLASSIFICATION AREA COMMENTS Moderate Gunnison Park Bedrock protection Moderate South Shore Estates Bedrock protection Limited Mobil Oil Tanks Tanks not in shore zone Moderate Fairfield Bedrock protection Limited Faith Evangelical Lutheran Structure well back from Church crest Moderate Conrad House High rise apartment for elderly near bluff crest engineered for structural safety, but bears watching Moderate Cambridge Road - North- view Drive Critical Cowell's Beach - Six Mile Cottages near lip of low Creek bluff Critical Carter's Beach - Seven Mile Cottages near lip of low Creek bluff Moderate Camp Glinodo Critical Kraus Drive Cottage near lip of low bluff Moderate Kraus Drive to Eight Mile Creek Moderate Shades Beach County Park - Protected by groin Eight Mile Creek 165 6 C c.m @c m r r 65( K 0" -1. T f\o f @so OP -- 414, 650 6 Q, LEWIS .90A" SCALE 1:24000 0 1000 0 ICZr 2@@ 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET 1 .5 0 1 KILOMETER HA CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL HARBORCREEK TOWNSHIP, continued HAZARD CLASSIFICATION AREA COMMENTS Limited Lakeside Motel Structures well back fr bluff crest Limited Ravine Motel Structures well back fr bluff crest Moderate Lake Shore Terrace Beach loss; toe erosion Moderate Indian Drive - East Drive Beach loss; toe erosion Moderate Driftwood Drive Beach loss; toe erosion Moderate Windsor Beach Court Beach loss; toe erosion Moderate Highmyer Road to Moor- Beach loss; toe erosion headville Road Limited Lakeview on the Lake Motel Structures not on crest Critical Shorewood Inn/Cottages - Significant beach loss, Twelve Mile Creek structures on beach bert subject to flooding and wave damage NORTH EAST TOWNSHIP HAZARD CLASSIFICATION AREA COMMENTS Moderate Moorheadville Road to Brickyard Road Critical Brickyard Road Two structures on edge bluff, rapid recession Moderate Brickyard Road to Freeport Lane 167 NORTH EAST TOWNSHIP, continued HAZARD CLASSIFICATION AREA COMMENTS Moderate Freeport Lane Freeport Beach provides protection Yacht Club Moderate North East Township Beach Freeport Road Critical Sunset Beach - Sixteen Mile Subject to flooding behind Creek a bay mouth bar Critical Orchard Beach Cottages on beach berm subject to wave attack Critical Hutchinson's Boat Livery Steel drum seawall provides Orchard Beach- protection Critical Francroft Subdivision Heavy damage to boat houses and beach cottages Critical Woodmere Same as above Critical Peck9s Subdivision Low bluff Critical Dewey Road Access Area - Disruption of boat access Pennsylvania Fish Commission Critical Hidden Lane Low bluff Critical Cottages - Twenty Mile Creek Subject to flooding behind shore zone Critical Gay Road Beach loss leaving struc- tures unprotected Moderate St. Barnabas House 168 c JsD -- - --------- -t S90 WIt @4 700- SCALE 1:240M 0 1 MILE 1000 0 1000 30M 4WO 5000 wx @wo FEET x?U)mVfp SECTION 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS STUDY CONCLUSIONS The conclusions made as a result of the investigations conducted by GLRI include the summarization and synthesis of the interaction between natural processes and human activity. The coastal zone of Erie County is a fragile feature easily comparable to the flood plains of major streams. Just as man has competed with nature for occupance of river valleys, so too has man sought to reap the benefits provided by the shore zone. Apparent in both forms of occupance is the risk-taking by individuals gambling that the natural system will not reclaim those lands subject to continual change. Unfortunately, nature, in variance with the norm over the past five years, has built a set of conditions that has produced severe damage to the coastal zone and man's,occupance of it. The following are conclusions we have drawn combining cause and effect relationships: 1. A majority of the construction built or zoned for was done with the assumption that average water levels on Lake Erie were a constant to be depended on for planning purposes. 2. Construction in the coastal zone was done without a knowledge of the potential effects such construction would have on the stability of the bluff or the shore zone. 3. Despite periodic warnings in the form of past damages, local planning agencies have not forced a reevaluation of zoning requirements in the coastal zone. 4. Recession as a physical force is not clearly understood, with the expected misunderstanding of the often insiduous nature of this phenomena. Recession is variable with the processes that cause it and the conditions resulting. Measurement has shown those areas protected by natural or man-made features will experience less recession than an unprotected bluff. Recession will vary between a few inches to several feet annually. 5. In the past three years, the physical processes have been operating at a higher than normal rate and have resulted in disruptions, damage, and destruction. It can not be stated with any certainty whether this accelerated activity will continue and, if so, for how long. 6. We have concluded that, while floodable lands make up a small percentage of the total coastal area, persistant use of these areas for construction purposes has caused the greatest amount of damage to be focused in these areas. Rapid bluff recession is occurring primarily in areas of low density use and the damage is related to loss of land with only occasional instances of structural loss. As recession continues, however, more and more structures will be susceptible to damage. 170 7. The placement of groins by individuals has generally resulted in protection of the individual c;Zdner's property but is creat- ing significant problems in the longshore transport system. 8. The value of vegetation, particularly large trees, as a means of protection is not understood by all property owners. As a result, many trees are being cut to facilitate construc- tion or to provide a view of the lake, thus adversely affect- ing bluff conditions. 9. The overall disruption and localization of drainage due to man's use of the bluff is having serious effects on the*bluff. 10. There is an implied monetary and benefitloss to the community in terms of a loss of tax base as real estate is lost to the lake. Also, the recreation potential of the coastal zone for local use and tourist appeal is declining as beach areas and access areas are being destroyed. RECOMMENDATIONS Clearly, this report is an inventory of processes and damage in the Erie County Coastal Zone, and represents a critical first step in analyzing a severe problem. As investigation was carried out over the past several months, it became increasingly apparent that a great amount of in-depth research needs to be done to fully assess the complicated coastal zone. The elements involved include the following as a means of developing an environmental assessment: 1. In order to define future recession phenomena accurately, precise measurements of bluff material must be undertaken. Sedimentary analysis, section measurement, and movement due to shear failure in these materials are expected elements. 2. A complete study of types and extent of slope failure due to slumping, debris slides and falls will reveal areas of special concern and substantiate evidence gathered during recent investigations. 3. A ground water analysis should be undertaken in the bluff zone since it is apparent that, as a contributory factor in reces- sion, it is as important as wave undercutting. 4. A monitoring of GLRI control points over the next year will help to substantiate data collected by photogrammetric means. 5. On-site monitoring of storms in selected areas sensitive to wave attack should be conducted to determine the effects of short term erosion phenomena. 6. A sediment loading study should be made to determine quantities of materials removed. This is especially important as a correlative factor in the effects produced by dredging in the near-shore for sand materials. 171 7. An in-depth examination of the dredging problem and the effect on bluff recession. 8. A complete examination of storm damage to land in all cate- gories of use over a long term. Each of the above will allow the planner to restrict future development to areas presenting the least threat to environmental conditions and to individuals seeking to gain the advantages provided by the coastal zone interface. 172 APPENDIX A NATIONAL SHORELINE STUDY ERIE COUNTY SHORELINE A-1 Section 9 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLvANIA The Great Lakes Shoreline in Pennsylvania is located in the Lake Erie East Planning subarea 4.4 (Figure 63). The shoreline is 48.3 miles long and consists of high erodible bluffs fronted by sand and gravel beaches. Piesque Isle Peninsula which encloses Erie Harbor is a large sand spit developed as,a park by the State o *f Pennsylvania. The single county area has a population of 257,000 (1970). The major urban center is Eric. The shoreline of Pennsylvania is divided 21.2 miles residential, 3.6 miles industrial and commercial, 11.6 miles public recreation, and 11.9 miles agricultural and undeveloped. Shoreline ownership is classified 11.6 miles non-Federal public and 36.7 miles private. The entire shoreline is subject to significant erosion except where protective works have been consructed. About 36.1 miles of shoreline are subject to noncritical erosion and 5.3 miles are protected. Six miles of shore on the Presque Isle Peninsula are subject to critical erosion. A suitable method of protecting this reach is groins and artifical beach rill. The estimated cost is about SS million doUatL VALE -0 man cc We Erie 6Q '-_J Z.z z L z 0 Ufd" CRY UJ ERIE CL $ME M MILES L 0 5 10 15 20 Figure 63. Lake Erie East Planning Subarea 4.4, Pennsylvania.- a.1 Shoreland Description Erie County, Pennsylvania, which has a shore frontage of 48.3 miles, is the only Pennsylvania frontage on Lake Erie. It hes between Ashtabula County, Ohio, and Chautauqua County, New York. The shore bluffs are ,en , erally 50 feet to 75 feet high and rise to 1100 feet high in a few places. Between the Oftio-Pennsylvania ine and Erie, which includes the westerly half of the s 'hore, the bluffs are entirely silt, clay, and granular material, .vith shale bedrock at about water level. To the east of Erie Harbor, the shale bedrock is frequently from IS ,o 35 feet above the lake level, and the upper part of the bluff is composed of silt, clay, and granular material. iand and gravel benches up to ISO feet wide extend along the toe of the bluffs. Figure 64 and Table. 42 illustrate ihorehne values, uses, ownership, and problem areas for this shoreline reach. nc westerly eight n-dles of the shore, from the Ohio-Pennsylvar@a hne to the mouth of Elk Creek, is thinly @opulated. In the first two miles, where a highway closely follows the lakeshore, a single row of residences ind summer homes borders the lakeshore. 'Me next three miles are mostly occupied by organizational camp% ind the two miles of shoreline west of Elk 'Creek are undeveloped and quite heavily wooded. Between Elk Creek tnd Eric Harbor, the shore development increases. Many of the shore properties in this reach are high-value @ermanent 110MIL Z IL _ 0 _0 1 Z 0@@W A-2 Table 42 Shoreline of the Great Lakes .- Erie County. Pennsylvania Existing Shorriand Use Miles of Shoreline Problem Identifloistion 4filn of Shoreline Miles of Percent Number Public subject to Erosion I Subject to Not Subject to Ero- Shoreknd Vie Oregory Shoreline of Total of Sites Federal Non-Federal PrIvate 0-itical Noncritical- Protected Flooding sion or FloodinS Economic Uses Residential 21.2 43.8 0 0 21.2 0 20.5 0.7 0 0 Industrial and commercial 3.6 7.4 0 0 3.6 0 1 3.1 0.5 0 0 Agricultural and undeveloped 11.9 24.8 0 0 11.9 0 11.9 0 0 0 Commercial harbors X//// //X I > Electric power sites I //,//// I ///_,_/Z@ /lIZZ @Z@ Public buildings and relarted lands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Recreational Uses Parks 11.6 24.0 0 11.6 0 15.0 0.5 6.1 0 0 Recreational boat harbors 4 -7 171@1 717, Beach zone (48.3) (100.0) (0) (11.61 136.7) Environmental Uses Wildlife perserves and game lands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fish and wildlife wetlands (offshore) (0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 48.3 100.0 0 11.6 6.0 36.0 6.3 0 F4 0 0 @136__V 3617 Residential Pri vate Non-Federal Commercial & Agriculture & Public %,dustri8l Undeveloped 24% 7% 25% Recreation 24% SHORELINE USE SHORELINE OWNERSHIP Figure 65. Distribution of Shoreline Use and Ownership, Erie County, Pennsylvania. The first mile of shore cast of Erie Harbor is occupied by a steel raill and a paper mill. The next eight miles, to the mouth of Twelve-mfle Creek, are developed with residences and a golf course. The next four miles, to near Sixteen-n-We Creek, is generally undeveloped. The shore from there to the Pennsylvania-New York line is being developed for residential use. The westerly half of the mainland shore in the city of Erie within Presque Isle Bay is residential. The easterly half is commercial and industrial. Presque Isle Peninsula, which encloses Erie Harbor, is a large sand spit developed as a state park. The distribution of shoreline use and ownership is shown in Figure 65. . ftesque Isle State Park has the largest and best public beach on Lake Erie. It has a total shoreline of over wen rrtiles on its lakewood edge and almost as much on the bay side of the peninsula. Its unique formation and development are of considerable ecological and botanical interest. Perry's Monument on the peninsula is of historical interest as a memorial to Commodore Perry, whose fleet defeated the British in Put-in-Bay in 1813. In addition to this 3,200-acre park, the Commonwealth owns lake frontage at the mouth of Walnut Creek and at the Borough of Northeast, about two miles west of the New York State line. These areas are managed by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission. There is a local community park in the Borough of Like City located riear the mouth of. Elk Creek- For its future recreational needs, Erie County has proposed six new lake front park developments. -These would be located at the mouths of the following tributary streams: Racoon Creek, Crooked Creek, Elk Creek, Eight-Mile Creek, Sixteen-Mile Creek, and Twenty-Mile Creek. In addition, Erie County would fike to preserve the tributary valleys as natural areas for hiking trails and fishing. There is a Federal deep-draft navigation project at Erie Hasbor. A Federal sm2ll-boat harbor has been authorized at Elk Creek, where there are private marina facilities. And a study is underway for a new Federal small-boat harbor at Northeast, Pennsylvania, about two miles from the Pennsylvania-New York line. The Commonwealth is planning further improvement at the mouth of Walnut Creek to accomodate small boats now using its public launching ramp. There is a large marina operated by the Commonwealth in Presque Isle State Park. There are also private marina facilities and a yacht club in Presque We Bay. #I-" 0-73-,.L V-ii A-4 Table 43 Total Damage to Shore Property on Lake Erie - Erie County, Pennsylvania Damages, $ Land Use Actual 1951-52 Value Updated 1970 Value Private Residential 400 800 Industrial and commercial 1,800 3,500 Agricultural and undeveloped 4,300 4,500 Total, private property 6,500 8,800 Public Parks and beaches 442,000 1,021,000 Total, public property 442,000 1,021,000 Total erosion damages 448,500 1,029,800 9.2 Erosion and Flooding History Erosion of the bluffs is generally noncritical, since sand and gravel beaches provide good protection. Beaches in some of the highly developed residential and camp areas between the Ohio-Pennsylvania line and Erie have been improved by construction of groins. Erosion of the frontage east of Erie Harbor is further slowed by the shale in the lower part of the bluffs. In general, the development is well back from the bluff face and, except in a few isolated cases there has been no critical erosion damage, apart from the lakeward edge of Presque Isle Peninsula. Erosion damages reported in the damage survey made in 1951-52 in Erie County are shown in Table 43. The principal damages shown occurred at Presque Isle State Park. Presque Isle Peninsula has a history of serious and continuous erosion. It consists entirelybf fine sand, with a surface elevation averaging about seven feet above low water datum. Parts of the peninsula are low marshes, which are flooded during extreme high lake stages. Its principal problem, however, is erosion of its lakeward edge. Due to Littoral forces, the peninsula tends to move in an easterly direction, and several wide breaks have occurred in the narrow neck in the past ISO years. Between 1872 and the present time, much of the peninsula has been progressively protected by groins, bulkheads, and sand fill. This work has been done by the city of Erie, the Commonwealth, and the Federal Government. The latest Federal project, in cooperation with the Commonwealth, provided for construction of groins along the neck of the peninsula and placement and replenishment of sand fill where needed along the entire lakeward edge. 9.3 Solutions to Erosion Damages The cooperative beach erosion project at Presque Isle was authorized as recommended in a report of the Chief of Engineers in October 1952, published in House Document No. 231, 83rd Congress, I st Session. A later report, published in House Document No. 397, 86th Congress, 2nd Session, recommended Federal help in beach replenishment for the original project, in which about 4,200,000 cubic yards of sand fill were placed and I I groins were constructed. Replenishment requirements have been greater than originally estimated, and a review study is now underway to find means of reducing those requirements. The rate of natural accretion is obviously not enough to maintain the extensive park beaches. Costs of the cooperative project to date have been a little over $4 million. An additional $2 million to $5 million may be required for additional groins or other project changes and replenishment of the beach fill, to restore the project. The rate of littoral drift, particulary west of Presque Isle, is sufficient that groins have successfully protected long lengths of privately owned shore. Other than further participation in the Presque Isle project, there are no other critical erosion or flooding problems along the Lake Erie shore of Pennsylvania of interest to the Federal Government at this time. A-5 LAKE ERIE FR-@-- B C R B T mI z B ZI rn 10. z 0 V) * B <i -< Erie r 0 R <: M B > X > VICINITY MAP CA- SCALE IN MILES ERIE 0 1 oij z -E 0, tL SHORELAND USES. SEE REVERSE PAGE FOR LEGEND 4 LAKE ERIE 0 SCALE IN 'MILES 0 5 20 15 Presque III z z zm 'o. U) r<i Erie 0 <! m > X 0:j ERIE ilz w 0, tL ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES, WATER INTAKES AND WASTE OUTFALLS. S LAKE,.E-FIE _0 rn zi z zam U) <i Erie r,o <1 ;o > ;Iz z 0:j ERIE ilz w 0,0_ I PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION, OWNERSHIP, AND 'EROSION AND FLOODING PROBLEM REACHES. SHORELANDS OF THE GREAT LAKES, ERIE COUNTY LEGEND SHORELAND USES PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION, OWNERSHIP, AND EROSION AND FLOODING PROBLEM REACHES Commercial. Industrial. Residential and Public Buildings Federal Lands Recreational and Urban Open Space Non-Federal Public Lands Agricultural and Undeveloped Private Lands Forest Shoretype Public Beaches Artificial Fill Area A Erodible High Bluff, 30 ft. or higher HOt Commercial Deep Druft Harbors Non-Erodible High Bluff, mo 30 ft. or higher HBN Recreational Harbors 1-2.1 Erodible Low Bluff, less Commercial Deep Draft and than 30 ft. high LBt Recreational Harbors MR Non-Erodible Low Bluff. less than 30 ft. high LOn Electric Power Stations High Sand Dune. 30 ft. or higher HD Low Sand Dune, less than 30 ft. high LD Erodible Low Plain PC Non-Erodible Low Plain P" Wetlands W ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES, WATER INTAKES Combinations Shown As: Example AND WASTE OUTFALLS Lakeward /Landward -WIPC Significant Fish and Wildlife Upper Bluff Material Hat Values Lower Bluff Material Mg. Beach Material ............ Unique Ecological or Natural Areas Sand and gravel Ledgerock Outstanding Shoreland Areas of Possible National Interest No Beach Problem Identification Potential Recreation Sites Areas subject to erosion generally protected Waste Water Ouff ails and Intakes Critical erosion areas not protected HiNim Public Outfalls 0 Non-critical erosion areas not protected Public Intakes Shoreline subject to lake flooding Private Outfalls Shoreline not subject to erosion or flooding Private Intakes 0 Bluff seepage problems As Critical Bird Nesting and Migration Areas- 2 0 APPENDIX B WATER LEVELS HYDROGRAPH 1860-1975 B-1 LAKE SURVEY CENTER, NOAA- U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE HYDROGRAPH OF MONTHLY MEAN LEVELS OF THE GREAT LAKES ELEVATIONS IN FEET ABOVE MEAN WATER LEVEL AT FATHER POINT, QUEBEC INTERNATIONAL GREAT LAKES DATUM (1955) 572.0 ..... ..... . . FI. ----I 571@O .. ........ ... ........... .. 5700 569.0 ... ....... ........... . . ... ....... 56e.0 H.. ..... ........ Y. E Ll A N D. ........... :77_LOw WATER DATUM 568.6:q:l::-' 567.0 0 Z 2 'K z -c z :1 .4 z 2 3 1870 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 -1865 1 1866 1867 -1 1868 1 le7l ...... ........... .. ------- ...... .. ...... .. --------- ...... ...... . .. . ....... ..- . ......... T': ................ ... ....... ....... ---- ------- ... ............ ......... ............ . . ......... ----------- ..... ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... 7-. ...... .... ........ . ......... . . ..... ........... .... . ...... ........... ..-. ...... ... ...... ........ + 14 T'- to @ 0 CD w 0 C3 2 3cz 2 4 z 6 2 -C z 2 < zj@ 2 'C zL, -C z -C z -C Z z 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 18114. . ... ..... ... ----- ---- . ..... ...... ......... . -4 1--== . .......... ........... ...... . ... .... CLEVE"Ll-AN --.O:.'H. )ATUM ..... .... ...... . ... ........ LOW WATER C ........... 8 2@ ..... ........... ........... . & 0 'ta 0 a Ij U :). 6w 4 :0 z w 4 Z 6 z 2 C x Z 2 z 2 4 z 4L3 4 z 1.2 -C z z le8s 1 1886 18871 1888 1889 1890 1-8 9-1 -r 1-8 9 21893 1894 1895 1896 -Iwi- T=- 7:: .... .......... ....... .... ......... ....... ...... ....... ... ..... .... ..... ........... .. ........... . . ... ....... ......... ... ........ .. ....... ....... .... ......... ......... ......... .. ........ .. .. ............. ......... ..... ....... ..... .. 7:. ---------- ----- ........ ........... ....... .... ........... . ...... ....... . ........... .... @.. . ..... - : --: :-. :-.::......... .......... ... ........... .. ........ .......... .. :: ....... ........ ........... ... ........... ........... ............ ........... . ......... ........... .... ........... ........... ........... ........ -:4 1! 1:: --- ----------- ---------- ......... ..... IWO 3 Li -C Iq 03 Z tj 3 Z 4 Z L, 6. < 1. .4 z 2 -9 4 z 1908 1909 1898 1899 1900 -1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 19071 910" 5730 ........ 572. ..... ..... ........ 571.0 .... ...... 570D 569@0 @T: ... ....... .... .. .......... 7- 7. ; @7.' . ........ . ......... ........... . . . .............. ... . ........... ........... ..... ..... ........ 568.0 .. ........ ... ... ........ ...... .......... ... ........... ...... ........ ........... ........... ....... . ............. 567.0 7 7 Li .4 z -C z < z c Z 3 572.0 ....... .. =7:: 571.0 . . ..... .......... . ........... ........ ........... 570wo --- ------ fA.-.-- . .. ......... . ........... ...... .......... ........... .. ........ .. 5690 .......... . . .... .......... ... ........... 568.0 ...... ... ....... ... ........... ....... ... ............ ........... - - - - - - - - - - - ........ ...... 567.0 ... . ......... ........... 77-- D 4 z 2 A z 4 z 11 24 -C z C .4 z Z --T 24 1925 i 1929 i 1920 1921 F-19-22 1923 1926 i927 1928 1930 A, ........... ........... ... ......... ... .......... ... ....... J-4: ........ ..... - - ------ -- . ....... .... .......... ... ........ ........ ........... ................. ........ ........... .. ......... ........... ... ... ......... .......... j;:: :z ......... ........ ... ........... . ...... ..... ........... ........... ....... co m U -C 8 u z w 3 z w 3 s- .1 A -C z .9 z .4 z 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935- 6 1937 1938 1939 1942 193 71@= . . . . . . .. . . . . . ... .. ... .... Z:; ----------- ---------- :T' ....... ........ . ...... ... ... . I; -:@ -7-= lZ -7- ........... ........... ...... ......... .......... 7: =..z: jr::-: 00, 7: E: .... ........ ........... .... .... ............ ..... .......... -CLF-VELI-AN .......... ........ .. ..... ..........- WATER DATUM 568.6::_-::::@: T I oq co Co 0 M >. co ID @0:16LJ.1:38W430WA38 @6W43 z 2 4 z 4 2 < Z z 2 -C Z a 4 z -K z z - 0 'Im , 0 - 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 -1948 1949 1950 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 a, zi= 'W-w_ ....... .. ..... ;w . ....... ....... . .. ....... HHH::L:@ 7 ....... ... ........ .. .......... . ... ......... ------ ........ -_7 ....... ........... %.H: ........ ..... ......... ........... ..... ........... ... . ....... r@T .......... al Loj ow 03 I 4@ A -K A z 2 Z z 2 Z 2 z 3 't z w 3 z Lw. 3 z w z 2 z Elevation In feet, referred to tow Water Datm. FE8 MAY 0 AUG 0 DO NOY FEB JAN MAY Fee 4 AUG NOV APO z FES WAY NAV t ri AUG JUN Ca FEB JUC MAY Rua M -4 CJ AUG lihi ago NOV 404c, 0 0 r MAY NOV > I- AUG Dec NOV r JAN > rn FEB C rn MAY 0 Fee 4 C/) U1 n NOV AUG 0 0 V arm FEB MAY 0 Co MAY 4 1 CM > (P AUG ra JU w NOV 4-k 4A JUL i FES Jill 11im MAY -4 Aua -4 AUG Ln Sep NOV Oct FES Hilt MAY NOV (3) AUG Dec Nov 7- FEB JAN MAY a AUG MAN 0 0 NOV APR Ln Cn (n 0) 0 JUN 41 + + APPENDIX C COMPUTER CALCULATION OF RECESSION/ RATES r-1 EDINBORO STATE COLLEGE COMPUTER CENTER PROGAMI SUKMARY SHEET PROGRAM NAME SCALCO WRITTEN BY Marc Solomom PROGRAM LANGUAGE FORTRAN-IV DATE WRITTEN April, 1975 CORE REQUIRED 4812 0 bytes CONFIGURATION 1 reader, I printer REQUIREMENTS PROGRAM FUNCTION This program was designed to input for three years, various reference line measurements and reference point measurements. Using the reference point measurements, a scale is computed for each year. Having this value, all map inches are converted to actual inches. The program ultimately shows the advance or withdrawal of a bluffline to a reference line. Using the average distance for C, years 1 and 3, the program.predicts where the shoreline is in the year 2000. If you wish to change the year 2000 tc some other date, then lines 78 and 83 of the program would have the number 100 changed, e.g., if you want 2050, then change the 100 to 150 in 78 and 33. Also, lines 70 and 85 must have the literal changed. C-2 DOC107 51 DIST(2,I)-DIST(2,1)-DIST(3,I) 52 14 DIST(3,I)=DDIST(l)-DTST(3,I) 53 WRITE(6,15)@IYEAR(l),NYEAR(2),(T)TST(I,J),J-1,N) 54 @.tRITE(6,15)NYEAR(2),NYEAR(3),(T)IST(2,J),.T-1,N) 55 WRITE(6,15)NYEAR(l),NYEAR(3),(DIST(3,J),J-1,N) 56 15 FORMAT(3X,12,' - ',12,2X,10(F8.1,lX)) .57 COMPUTE AVERAGE DISTANCE- DISTANCE DIFFERENCE / (NO. OF YEARS) 58 DO 16 1-1,N 59 DIST(1,I)-DIST(I,I)/(NYEAR(2)-NYEAR(l)) 60 DIST(2,I)=Di-ST(-2,I)/(NYEAR(3)-NYEAR(2)) 61 16 DIST(3,1)=DIST(3,I),/(NYEAR(3)-NYEAR(l)) 62 14RITF(6,17) 63 17 FORMAT('O',25X,'AVERAGE DIFFERENCE DISTANCE (ACTUAL INCHES/YEAR)' 64 -P FOR YEARV) 65 WRITE(6,32)(J,J=1,N) 66 14RITE(6,15),NYEAR(l),NYEAR(2),(DIST(I,J),J=1,N) 67 WRITE(6,15)NYEAR(2),NYEAR(3),(DIST(2,J),J-1,N) 68 WRITE(6,15)NYEAR(l),NYF.AR(3),(DIST(3,J),J=1,N) 69 WRITE(6,18) 70 18 FORMAT('ODISTANCE FROM REFERENCE LINE IN YEAR 2000 (ACTUAL INCHES) 71 -'/' BASED ON AVERAGE OF FIRST AND LAST YEARSf/) 72 WRITE(6,33-)(j,J=1,N) 73 33 FORMAT(' ',3X,10(I2,8X)) 74 COMPUTE DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE LINE IN THE YEAR 2000 75 C DISTANCE = YEAR 1 DISTANCE AVERAGE DISTANCE DIFFERENCE FOR 76 C YEARS ONE AND THREE * (100 YEAR(lY) 77 DO 19 I-1,N 78 19 DIST(2,I)=DDIST(I)-DIST(3,I) *(100-NYEAR(l)) 79 WRITE(6,20)(DIST(2,J),J=l,N) 80 20 FORMAT(lOF10.1) 81 COMPUTE DISTANCE DIFFERENCE BE114EEN YEAR THREE AND 2000 82 DO 35 I=1,N 83 35 DIST(2,I)=DIST(3,I)*(100-NYEAR(3)) 8.4 WRITE(6,34) 85 34 FORMAT('O',25X,'DISTANCE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YEAR 2000 AND LAST YEA -R (ACTUAL INCHES)'/) 87 WRITE(6,33)(J,J=1,N) 88 WRITE(6,2O)(DIST(2,I),I=l,n) 89 GO TO 100 90 1000 STOP 91' END FORTRAN IV (VER L43) SOURCE LISTING: 04/03/75 1 PROGRAM SCALCO 2 DIMENSION TITLE (20), A(3)v Y(3), NYEAR(3), DIST(3,10) 3- -,SCALF(3),DnTST(lO) 4 C INPUT HEADING CARD 5 100 READ(5,1,END=10O0)TITLE 6 1 FORMAT(20A4) 7 DO 2 I=1,3 8 C INPUT SET OF THREE CARDS WITH LESSER VALUE YEAR FIRST 9 C NTEAR(l) = 1 TH YEAR 10 C A(l) = REFERENCE DISTANCE TAKEN FROM PHOTO 11 C YM = REFERENCE DISTANCE TAKEN FROM TOPO MAP 12 C N - NUMBER 0F DATA POINTS 13 C DIST(I,J) = DISTANCE ON PHOTO FROM REFERENCE LINE FOR I TH 14 C YEAR AND J TH DATA VALUE 15 READ(5,4)NYEAR(I),A(I),Y(I),N,(DIST(I,J),J=I,N) 16 4 FORMAT(I2,lX,F6,3,lXF6.3,IX,12,lX,lOF6,3) 17 COMPUTE SCALE FOR EACH YEAR 18 2 SCALE(I)=(Y(I)*240OO.)?A(l) 19 WRITE(6,5)TITLE 20 5 FORMAT('l',20X,2OA4) 21 WRITE(6,6) 22 6 FORMAT('O',25X,'DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE LINE (MAP INCHES)' 23 -P FOR YEARV) 24 WRITE(6,3O)(J,J=1,N) 25 30 FORMAT(' "lgx,10( 12,6X)) 26 DO 7 1-1,3 27 7 WRITE(6,8)NYEAR(I),(DIST(I,J),J=1,N) 28 8 FORXAT(4X,I2,12X,10(F6.3,2X 29 WRITE(6,10) 30 10 FORMAT('O',25X,'DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE LINE (ACTUAL INCHES)' 31 -/' FOR YEAR',3X,'SCALE'/) 32 WRITE(6,31)(J,J=1,N) 33 31 FORMATC ',19X,10(6X,I2,3X)) 34 COMPUTE ACTUAL DISTANCE = MAP DISTANCE SCALE 35 DO 28 I=1,3 36 DO 9 J=1,N 37 9 DlST(I,J)=DIST(I,J)*SCALE(I) 38 28 WRITE(6,11)NYEAR(I),SCALE(l),(DIST(I,J),J=I,N) 39 11 FORMAT(4X,I2,5X,11(F9.1,2X)) 40 WRITE(6,12) 41 12 FORMAT('O',25X,'DISTANCE DIFFERENCES (ACTUAL INCHES)' 42 -/' FOR YEARV) 43 WRITE(6,32)(J,J=1,N) 44 32 FOR,',iAT(' ',15X,10(I2,7X)) 45 C SAVE ACTUAL DISTANCE FOR YEAR ONE 46 DO 13 I=1,N 47 13 DDIST(I)=DIST(1,I) 48 COMPUTE DISTANCE DIFFERENCES 49 DO 14 I=I,N 50 DIST(1,I)=DIST(l,I)-DIST(2,I) C-4 EQUATIONS USED Scale: Scale (I) = (Y(I)*24noO.)/A(I) Distance from Reference-Line (Actual Inches) DIST(I,J) = MAP DISTANCE (I.J)*SCALE(I) Distance Difference DD(l) = DIST(1,I)-DIST(2,I) 00(2) = DIST(2,1)-DIST(3,I) DD(3) = DIST(I,I)-DIST(3,I) Average Distance AVDD(l) = DD(l)/(YEAR(2)-YEAR(l)) AVDD(2) = DD(2)j(YEAR(3)-YEAR(2)) AVDD(3) = DD(3)/(YEAR(3)-YEAR(l)) where, I = subscript on year, i=1,2,3 J = subscript on distance value, j=1-10 AM = ith map reference distance YM = ith topo reference distance YEAR(O last two digits of year of consideration c-5 LAYOUT OF 1NPUT DATA CARDS The input consists of a (iroup of four cards. -The first card is the title card. The user may use all .00 columns for title purpose. Cards 2, 3, and 4 are used to input the data to be processed by the program. Each of these Cards 2, 3, and 4 have the same layout. Column Description 1-2 Last two dir-itsof year of consideration. 3 Blank 4-9 Reference distance as measured from photo. 10 BlanK 11-16 Reference distance as measured from topo map. 17 Blank 18-19 Number of distance values to follow (max. of 10) 20 Blank 21-26 Distance Value 1 27-32 it 2 33-38 If 3 39-44 of 4 45-50 It It 5 51-56 is Is 6 57-62 It so 7 63-68 of if 8 69-74 it It 9 75-80 It is 10 The year of lowest value is first, followed by the year of middle value, followed by year of highest value. See sample input below. This is followed by a sample output. )LUMS 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 5 0 5 0 5 0 V-- TTTL@ CARD V ;ST K1.1j,4 Fr)R SCALL PgLDURAM V-- UATA CARDS V .5 .45 10 .696 .696 .696 .696 .696 .696 .696 .696 .696 .49 .45 10 .694 .694 .694 .694 .694 .694 .694 .694 .694 .694 .75 .45 10 .996 .996 .996 .996 .996 .996 .996 .996 .996 .996 NOTE: all data values must contain decimal points, except the data values in columns 1-2'and 18-19. These values must be right justified, that is, the units position is the right mo 'st position of the field and the tens position is the next position to the left. c-6 JOB CONTROL STRUCTURE LOGOFF [DATANGROUP [DATA 2GROUP T YEAR 2 ATA YFAR (rITLE CARD (/-Ex-EC -S CA L C 0 (/LOGON user id, acct. no., TIME '-000 The above illustrates how several groups of data would be submitted in a single run. Remember /LOGOFF must always be t6he last card. A T YE ATA Y9EAt E r-'7 SEC 01 OHIO LINE TO ELMWOOD ROAD SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP FOR YEAR DISTANCE FRnM REFERENCE LINE (MAP INCHES) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 35 n.142 0,235 0.227 0@186 0.130 06232 0,195 0.115 39 0.131 0.214 n.232 0.165 0.111 0,209 0.177 0609c 74 0.167 0.291 0.3L2 0.240 00138 09305 0.247 0.130 FOR YEAR S CA L E D I S T A,,,iC EFROM REFERE14CE LINF (ACTUAL INCiJFS) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 38 2098609 2980-1 4931.9 4764.0 3903.6 2728.3 4869,0 4092.5 [email protected] 59 21144*6 2769.9 45Z4-9 4905.6 [email protected] 2347ql 4419oZ 3742.0 1903.0 74 137e2,9 2301.7 40L0.8 4300.2 330o9 1902.0 4203*8 3404,4 179.1.--- FOR YEAR DISTANCE DIFPERENCES (ACTUAL INCHES) 1 2 13 4 5 6 7 s 38 - 59 210-2 407.() -141.5 414.7 331.2 449.7 349.9 510.5 59 - 74 468-2 51,#.l 605.3 181.0 445.0 215.5 338.2 111.2 @%38 - 74 676-4 921-1 464.-A 595.7 82h.3 665.2 bae.1 621.7 FOR YEAR AVERAGE DIFFEPENCE DISTANCE (ACTUAL INCHES/YEAR) 1 2 7 4 5 6 7 8 38 - 59 10-0 19.4 -6.7 19*7 18.2 21.4 16-7 24.3 59 - 74 31-2 34.3 40.4 12-1 29.7 14.4 2,2o5 7.4 ,maw;* 3 8 - 74 10#8 25.6 17.9 16.5 23-0 18.5 19.1 17.3 DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE LINE IN YEAR 2000 (ACTUAL I WCHES BASED CN AVERAGE UF FIRST AND LAST YEARS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1811.8 3345*6 3q65-3 2977.,7 1305.1 @2723.3 290?.4 1342-7 DISTAtICE njFIC.RENCE BE7WEEN YEAR 2000 AND LAST YEAR (ACTUAL 114CHES) 2 3 4 6 7 490.0 66503 335-0 43n*2 j96.7 4oa.,4 497.0 449.0 SEC 02 RACCOON CREEK TO CAMP LAMBEC SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP FOR YEAR DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE LINE (MAP -INCHES) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 38 Oo254 0.260 o.223 0 ?71 0.433 0.550 0.870 0-985 59. 0*210 00239 0.2op 0:241 0.41l 0.549 1.880 0.99.14 74 0.276 0.325 0.261 0.331 0.571 0*785 1.254 1.414 DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE LINE (ACTUAL tMCHSS) FOR YElR, SCALE 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 38 2037009 5174.2 5296.4 4542.7 5520.5 3820.6 1120490 17122,0 20C65.3 59 20082*7 4217.4 47vg.o 4177.2 4e39,9 Ao53.2 11025.4 1707290 19942*1 74 1400-0 3864.8 45D1.0 3934*9 4635*0 799j,7 10992,4 17@,59,6 19pan.3 DISTANCE DIF@FRENCES (AC7UAL INCHES) FOR YEAR 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 36 - 59 956*8 496.7 365.5 680.6 .767.4 178,6 49.9 123.2 59 - 74 352.5 248.8 242.3 204.9 57.4 33.0 11300 i4l.6 38 - 74 130994 745.4 607.8 885.5 624o8 211.6 162*8 265.0 AVERAGE-DIFFERENCE DISTANCE (ACTUAL INCHES/YEAR) FOR YFAR 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 38 - 59 45*6 23.7 17.4 32.4 36o5 815 Zo4 5.9 59 - 74 23-5 16o6 16.2 13.7 3.8 2.2 7*5 9.5 38 - 14 36o4 20.7 16.9 24.6 22.9 5o9 4.5 7.4 .-Ti. 4 -7. F G, --@ -70-4 10Q.To 9!@ - 9 2'. 7. '3 a. k,3 DISTANCE FROM RFFERENCE LINE IN YEAR 2(100 (ACTUAL INCHES) BASED Lit. AVER4GE JF FIRST AND LAST yEAPS 1 2 3 4 5 6. 7 8 2919.2 401?o6 3495.9 3c)9595 7400oO JU839.6 17442.2 19638@9 DISTANCE nlFI'ERENCE BETWEEN YEAP 2000 Al,,J LAST YEAR (ACTUAL !NCHES) SEC 03 CRonKED CREEK VICINITY SPRINGFI@LD TOYNSHIP DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE LINE (MAP INCHES) FOR YEAR 1 2 3 4 38 0-580 0.599 n.6U4 0.730 59 0-595 0.617 ().674 0.723 74 0.838 0-386 0.993 1.007 DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE LINE (ACTUAL INCHES) FOR YEAR SCALE 1 z 3 4 38 21683*8 12576.6 1298P.6 14831.7 15829.1 59 21035-8 12516.3 12979.1 14178.2 15208,9 74 14251-0 11942.3 126Z6*4 14151.2 14350.9 0 IS I AtICE nIFI-ERENCES (ACTUAL INCHES) C? FOR YEAR ?t 4 38 - 59 60-3 9.5 65?..5 623.2 59 - 74 574-0 352.7 26.9 853*2 38 - 74 634-2 362.2 68!N.4 1473.4 FOR YEAR AVERAGE DIFFEPENCE 0157ANCE (ACTUAL INCHES/YEAR) 1 2 3 4 38 - 59 209 o.5 31.1 29.5 59 - 74 36-3 23.5 't.r. 57.2 38-- 14 17-6 13.1 IA.9 41.1 -7 3.!33 'ik- 7 It ..3 DISTA.NCE FPOM Rr-FERENCE LINE IN YEAR 2000 (ACTUAL INCHES) BAIED 01. AVERAGE UF FIRST ANO LAST YEARS 1 2 3 4 114a4.3 12364.S7 13659.8 13?83-C DISTAPCE pIFt-FRENCE 8ETWEEN YEAR 2UOO AIND LAST YEAR (ACTUAL INCHES) 1 4 456,1 261*6 491*4 10670 SEC 04 CAMD SECUOYAH VICINITY SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP FOR YEAR DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE LINE (MAP INCHES) 1 2 39 1-126 1.957 59 1-1-35 1.97o 74 1-661 2.875 DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE LINE (ACTUAL INCHES) FOR YEAR SCALE 1 2 39 21265 8 23945.3 41617o2 59 21065.8 23909.7 [email protected] 74 14359-0 23b5O.2 412U2,0 DISTAt!CE t%IF?'ERENCES (ACTUAL IhC@HES) FOR YEAR 1 2 39 - 59 35o6 117.5 59 - 74 59-5 217.6 39 - 74 95.1 335.2 AVERAGE DIFFEPENCE DISTANCE (ACTUAL INCHES/YEAR) FOR YEAR 1 2 39 - 59 168 5.9 59 - 74 4.0 14.5 39 - 74 2#7 9.6 d 3 o. o DISTANCE F-ROM REFERENCE LINE IN' YEAR 2f%00 (ACTUAL INCHES) BASLD Cli. AVERAGE 6F @IRST AND LAST YEADS 1 2 23779.6 41033.0 DISTANCE off@rRENCE BETWEEN YEAR 2000 AND LAST YEAR (ACTUAL INCHES) 1 2 70.6 249*0 SEC 05 CAMP SECUOYAH TO E OF ELK CREEK G.IRARD TowNSHIP FOR YEAR DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE LINE (MAP INCHtS) 2 3� 1.920 2.010 59 1-854 1.920 74 2.871 2*e98 FOR YEAR SCALE DISTAMCE FROM REFERENCE LINE (ACTUAL INCHES) 1 2 39 21OC397 40327.1 42217.5 59 2124o.o 39591.4 407de.8 74 14008.2 40217.7 40595.9 ci I im.. DISTA.NICE niFPFRENCES (ACTUAL INCHES) f-j FOR YEAR 1 2 39 - 59 735-8 1435*7 59 - 74 -62693 184.9 39 - 74 1^1915 1621.6 AVERAGE DIFFEPENCE DISTANCE (ACTUAL INCHE5/YEAR) FOR YEAR I 39 - 59 3608 71.8 59 - 74 -41-8 12.3 39 -.74 3.1 46.3 )4.@ I cl 2. 9 'k. DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE LINE IN YEAR 4C00 (ACTUAL INCHES) BASED nN AVERAGE UF FIRST AND LAST YEAPS 2 40136.3 3939183 DISTAIKE DIF@ERENCE BETWEEN YEAR 2000 AND LAST YEAR (ACTUAL INCHESi 1 2 81.3 12T496 SIEC 00 ELK CREEK TO LAKE ERIE COMMUNITY PAlK GIRARD TOWNSHIP DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE LINE (MAP INCHES) FOR YEAR 1 2 4 5 38 1*187 1.133 1.0be 1.115 1.072 59 1-193 1.122 1.016i 1.110 1.057 74 1-647 1.699 1.5-1.5 1*640 1-580 DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE LINE (ACTUAL INCHFS) FOR YEAR SCALE 1 2 3 4 5 3a 20424-7 24244.1 23141.2 21813.6 22773o5 21395.3 59 20496-4 24454.j ?29'y9-1 21789.7 22753-2 21871.5 74 13567-7 22346.0 230:3POO 21369.1 22251.0 .21437.0 DISTANCF rIFPERENCES (ACTUAL INCHES) FOR YEAR 1 .4 5 38 - 59 -210.4 142.0 23.q 20.4 23*5 59 - 74 21(',8*5 -3a*8 420.h 502-1 434oB 38 - 74 183391 103.2 444.4 522.5 4501-3- AVERAGE DIFFkPENCE OIS7ANCE (ACTUAL 1%4CWES/YEAR) FOR Y F I- R 1 2 3 4 5 38 - 59 -10-0 6.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 59 - 74 140*6 -2.6 Zq.n 33.5 29.0 3b - 74 52-7 2.9 17.3 14.5 IZ.7 DISTANCt FRO" PCFERENCE LINE IN YEAR 2COO (ACTUAL INCHES) BASE"' Cf. AVERAGE JF FIRST AND LAST YEAPS 3 20975.2 22963*4 21048.1 20730 21106.0 DISTANCE DIF"FRENCE BETWEEN VEAR 200() AND LAST YEAR (ACTUAL li.CHES) 1 2 3 5 )37n.9 740's 'A?Iln -3 7 7, 'A"a i , n SEC 07 LAKE ERIE COMk'.UNITY PARK TO CAMP CALEDON GIRARU TOWNSHIP DISTA%,CE FROM REFERENCE LINE (MAP INCHES) FOR YEAR 1 2 3 4 39 1.079 1.0as 0.944 L.100 59' 1.143 1.143 0,9bl 1,163 74 1.730 1-666 1.4.55- 1,751 DISTANCE FRnM REFERENCE LINE (ACTUAL INCHES) FOR YEtR SCALE 1 2 3 4 39 21355.1 23042.1 23,214*3 20159.% 23490.6 59 2012301 23000.7 230UCo7 19740o7 23403 1 74 13279.2 22973.0 2212?41 19321.2 23251.3 0 DISTANCE DIFP-rRENCES (ACTUAL INCHES) s:- FOR YE4R 1 2 .4 39 - 59 41-5 233.7 41P.,5 87o5 59 - 74 27-7 877.5 419.5 151.3 39 - 74 69-2 1111.2 F3,q.0 23d.8 AVERAGE-OIFFERENCE DISTANCE (ACTUAL IPICIJES/YEAR) FOR YE;-R 1 2 3 4 39 59 2-1 11.7 2no9 4.4 59 - 74 1-8 58.5 2P.0 10.1 39 -.74 290 31.7 23-9 6.8 iR @ 3 131. ) q q " i Dli- 3 DIST-4NCE FROM PEFERENCE LVNE IN YEAR 2COO (ACTUAL INCHES) 84SED 01, AVERAGE @iF FIRST AND LAST YEARS 1 2 4 22921-6 21297-6 18698.7 23n74.5 DISTA14CE nIFI-FRENCE BEIWEEN YE-Aik 2000 IWO LAST YEAR 1ACTUAL INCtiE%) 2 3 4 51.4 e2595 622.5 177-4 SEC 08 CAMP CALEDON To CAMP SHERhIN GIRARD TOONSHIP DISTANCE FROM- REFERENCE LINE (MA? INCHES) FOR YEAR 1 2 3 4 39 1.331 1.419 1.60q 1.783 59 10367 1.462 1.624 1.041 74 2.041 20'183 2.414 2.751 DISTAkjCE FRIM REFERENCE LINE (ACTUAL INCHES) FOR YE4R SCALE 1 2 3 4 39 21818.2 29040.0 @096(1.0 35105.4 3890109 59 21126-8 28880.3 30RU7.3 34943.7 3889494 74 14117.6 2881491 ?Ionlpee 34927.1 38837.7 DISTANCE DIF@ERENCES (ACTUAL INCHES) FOR YEAR 1 2 3 4 39 - 59 159-7 72.6 161.8 7.4 59 - 74 66-2 6a.5 16.6 56.7 39 - 74 225-9 141.2 17F.4 64.1 AVERAGE DTFFERENCE DISTANCE (ACTUAL INCHES/YEAR) FCR YEAR 1 2 4 39 - 59 900 3.6 0.1 0.4 59 - 74 4-4 4.6 1.1 3.8 39 --@'74 6*5 4.0 5.1 1.8 @2 7, 3 -7. 5' DISTA-4cr FRom REFERENCF Ll*4E IN]YEAR 000 (ACTUAL INC-4ES) BASE3 Ct: AVEki@GE JF FIRST AND LAST YEARS 1 2 3 4 2bb4t.3 30714*0 34794.5 38790.C DISTANCF nlFVrRE,4CE BETWEEN YEAR 2000 AND LAST YEAR (ACTUAL INCHES) 1 2 3 4 167.A ln4.9 132.5 47.t SEC 09 A..MrLHUPNE ROAD TO EATON ROAD FAIRVIEW TC'4NSHIP DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE LINE (MAP INCHES) FOR YEAR 1 2 39 (3.Z46 0.090 59 0.244 0.06R 74 0.357 0.121 FOR YEAR SCALE DISTANCE FRPM REFERENC,E LINE (ACTUAL INCHES) 1 39 20987-2 5162.8 188A.8 59 21137.9 5157.7 1860.1 74 14146ol 505092 1711.7 DISTANCE f)IF@FRENCES (ACTUAL INCHES) FOR YEtR 39 - 59 5-2 28.7 59 - 74 107-5 148.5 39 - 74 112-7 177.2 AVERAGE DIFFE.RENCE DISTANCE'(ACTUAL'INCHES/YEAR) FOR YEAR 2 39 - 59 0-3 1..4 59 - 74 702 9.9 39 -74 3e2 5.1 3@ 3 dl, 3 DISTANCE FROM REFEREUCC LINE IN YEAR 2COO (ACTUAL INCHES) BASED (It. AVER-AGE OF FliST AND LAST YEADS 1 2 4966.5- 158U*l DISTANCE DIFI'FRENCE BETWEEN YEAR 2000 ASO LAST YEAR (ACTUAL INCFES) 1 2 83.7 131*6 SEC 09 B.MFLHUPNE ROAD TO EATON ROAD FAIRVIEW TOWNSHIP DISTAKE FRIM REFERE14CE LINE (MAP INCHES) FOR YEAR 2 4 5 39 0*000 0.000 ?.733 2,726 09375 59 0-000 0.000 2.71p 2.726 0,374 74 0.0oo 0.0*)0 3.901 4.056 0.552 0 1 STANCE F R.nf4 REFERE14CE LINE (ACTUAL INCHES) FOR YEAR SCALE 2 3 4 5 39 21150.9 0.0 C.0 57805.4 57657.4 7931.6 59 2114993 0.0 coo 57459.3 57628.4 7906.5 74 14101*4 0.0 coo 56456.3 57519,Q 7828,2 DISTANCE DIFPFRENCES (ACTUAL INCHES) FOR YEAR 1 2 -3 .4 5 39 - 59 000 0.0 346.2 29.0 25.1 59 - 74 000 U-0 1002.9 100.4 78.3 39 - 74 000. 000 1349.1 137.4 103.4 AVERAGE DIFFERENCE DISTANCE (ACTUAL INCHES/YEAR) FOR YELR 1 2 4 5 39 59 0-0 0*0 17,3 1.4 1.3 59 74 0*0 0.0 66.9 7.2 5.2 39 74 000 0.0 3ft.5 3.9 3.0 J4,9-.4 I(, A 1. DISTANCE FROM REFEPENCE LINE IN YEAR'ZC00 (ACTUAL INCHES) BASED Ch AVERAGE JF FIRST Ar4D LAST YEAAS 2 3 4 5 0.0 0-0 55454.2 57417.9 7751.3 DISTAKE nIFPERENCE BETWEEN YEAR 2000 AND LAST YEAR (ACTUAL LrICHES) SEC 10 A WALNUT CREEK To wILKINS ROAD MILLCREEK TE)WNSHIP DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE LINE (MAP INCHES) FOR YEAR 3 4 39 065oz 11995 1.936 1.854 59 0.569 2.015 1.9:)p 1.881 74 0,8.57 3.038 2.slV6 2.791 DISTANCE FR9M REFERENCE L114E (ACTUAL INCHES) FOR YEAR SCALE 2 3 4 39 21535.9 12103.2 42964.2 41693.5 40143.0 59 2123o.8 12080.3 4276C.0 41569.8 39935.0 74 1404082 12032.4 42,s.')4..O 40660.3 39186.1 DISTANCE DIFI-RENCES (ACTUAL INCHES) 00 FCR YEAR 2 4 39 - 59 22.9 184.2 12'A.7 207.9 59 - 74 47*9 126-0 909,5 749*0 39 - 74 7008 310.2 1033.3 956.9 AVERAGE OTFFEPENCE DISTANCE (ACTUAL INCHES/YEAR) FOR YEAR 1 2 4 39 - 59 1-1 9.2 6.? 10.4 59 - 74 3*2 8.4 60.6 49.9 39 - 74 2-0 8.9 2c). 5 27.3 DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE LINE IN YEAR 2(.100 (ACTUAL INCHES) BASED ON AVERAGE UF FIRST AND LAST YEARS 2 3 4 1197918 42423o6 39892.7 38475.2 DISTAt,CE nIFI-FRENCE BE7WEEN YEAR 2000 ANO LAST YEAR (ACTUAL INCHES) 2 3 4 @2,6 230.4 767.6 71f)oP SEC 10 8 CC,.qTlNUED TO WILKINS ROAD DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE LINE (MAP INCHES) FOR YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 6 39 00000 01000 0.00c" 0.000 19840 0.609 '59 00000 0.000 0100c 01000 1.875 0.616 74 00000 00000 o.ouc 0.000 2.670 0.881 FOR YEAR SCALE DISTANCE FRnM REFERENCE LINE (ACTUAL INCHES) 1 2 3 4 5 6 39 21324o5 0.0 o-o 0.0 0.0 39237,1 1296696 59 20619-0 o.u coo 0.0 0.0 38660.6 127ol@3 74 14396*4 000 COO 0.0 000 38438,4 1268392 DISTANCE DIFI'ERENCES (ACTUAL INCHES) FOR YEAR 1 2 3 .4 5 6 39 - 59 000 0.0 0.0 0.0 576*5 285.3 59 - 74 000 0.0 0.0 0.0 222.2 .1601 39 - 74 0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0 798.6 303.-4 AVERAGE DIFFLPENCE DISTANCE (ACTUAL INCHES/YEAR) FOR YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 6 39 - 59 0-0 0.0 C.0 0.0 28.8 14,3 59 - 74 060 0.0 0.0 0.0 14*8 1.2 39 -74 0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.8 8.7 DIS7414CE FPOm REFERENCE LINE IN YEAP 2000 (ACTUAL INCHES) BASED Cf. AVERASE OF FIRST AND LAST YEAPS 1 2 3 4 5 6 000 0-0 0.0 o.c 37845o2 12457*9 DISTAtICE DIFPPRENCE BETWEEN YEAR Zooo AND LAST YEAR (ACTUAL INCHES) 1 2 3 4 5 6 SEC 11 A WILKINS ROAD To MONTEPELIER AVE MILLCREEK TOWNSHIP DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE LINE (MAP INCHES) FOR YEAR 1 2 39 19142 1.402 5,9 1-191 1.455 74 1.748 2.126 DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE LINE (ACTUAL INCHES) FOR YEAR SCALE 1 2 39 2140691 24445.8 30011.4 59 20510.5 24427.9 79842.7 74 13955.9 24394.9 7961C.2 DISTANCE nlFI"FRENCES (ACTUAL INCHES) FOR YEAR 1 2 39 - 59 17.8 166.7 59 - 74 33-1 172.5 39 - '14 50-9 341.2 AVERAGE DIFFLRENCE DISTANCE (ACTUAL IPICHES/YEAR) FOR YEAR 1 2 39 - 59 0.9 6.4 59 - 74 2-2 11.5 39 -. 74 1*5 9.7 (a 4 S q 0. i/ DISIANCE FROM REFERENCE LINE IN YEAR 2rOO (ACTUAL INCHES) BASED ON AVERAGE 3F FIRST AND LAST YEARS 21#357.0 29416-7 DISTANCE nIFI-ERENCE 8E7WEE-N YEAR 2000 AND LAST YEAR (ACTUAL INCHES) 1 2 37,8 253*4 SEC 11 B W.ILKINS ROAD To MONTEPELIER AVE MILLCREEK TOWNSHIP FOR YEAR DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE LINE (MAP INCHES) 2 3 4 39 0.000 0.000 1.2bc 1.058 59 0*00n 0.000 1.3L? 1.082 75 0.000 0.000 1.116 0.990 DISTAINCE FRnri REFERE14CE LINE (ACTUAL INCHES) FOR YEAR SCALE 1 2 3 4 39 21924*3 0.0 C.O. 2803.1 23195*9 59 21015.5 0.0 coo 27572.4 22738.8 75 22915-3 0.0 C.0 26948.3 2268691 DISTANCE DIFI-FRENCES (ACTUAL INCHES) FOR YEAR 1 2 .4 39 - 59 0-0 0.0 490,7 457.1 59 - 75 0-0 0.0 624.1 52.7 39 - 75 0-0 0.0 1114.P 509.8 AVERAGE 0IFFEPENCE DISTANCE (ACTUAL INCHES/YEAR) FOR YEAR 1 2 ? 4 39 - 59 000 0.0 24.5 22.9 59 - 75 0-0 0.0 39.0 3.3 39 - 75 0-0 0.0 31,0 14.2 DISTAPICE FPOM REFERE14CE LINE IN YEAR 2COO (bCTUAL I,-NC4ES) BASED 01% AVERAGE OF FIRST AND LAST YEARS 1 2 3 4 000 0-0 26174.2 2233291 DISTANCE VIF@-FRENCE BETWEEN YEAR 2000 A14D LAST YEAR (ACTUAL INCHES) 1 2 3 4 SEC 12 A M.ONTEPELIER AVE TO WALDAMEER PARK MILLCREEK TOWNSHIP DISTANCE FROM REFEREINCE LINE (MAP INCHES) FOR YEAR 1 2 38 1*144 1.006 59 1.145 1.010 75 19032 0-905 DISTAMCE FROM REFERENCE LINE (ACTUAL INCHES1 FOR YEAR SCALE 2 33 20B4300 238if4.4 2095S.1 59 203Z6-5 23273.9 705Z9*8 75 2289695 23629,2 20721.4 D I STANCE VIFt*ERENCES (ACTUAL INCHES) FDA YEAR 1 2 38 - 59 570.6 438.3 59 - 75 -355-3 -191.6 38 - 75 215-2 246.7 AVERAGE DIFFERENCE DISTANCE (ACTUAL INCHES/YEAR) .FOR YEAR 1 2 38 - 59 27*2 20-9 59 - 75 -22,2 -12.0 38 -75 5-8 6.7 Qw. @@- ol @ %. DISTd;vCE FROM.REFERENCE, LINE 114 YEAR ZCOO (ACTUAL INCHES) BASEO Gf, AVERAGE JF FIRST.AND LAST YEApS 1 2 234a3.8 2U554o7 DISTANCE nIFl'FRENCE BETWEEN YEAR 2000 AND LAST YEAR (ACTUAL INCHES) 1 2 145.4 166.7 SEC 12 B MONTEPELIER AVE TO WALDAMEER PARK MILLCREEK TOWNSHIP DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE LINE 0AAP INCHES) FOR YEAR 1 2 3 4 39 0.000 0.0@)o 0.146 .1.297 59 0.000 0.000 0.141 1.284 75 0.000 0.0.)o (). 1?2 1.1%26 DISTANCE FRPh REFeR6NCE LINE (ACTUAL INCHES) FOR YEAR SCALE 2 3 4 38 19970ol 0.0 0.0 2915.6 25901.3 59 20120*3 0.0 C.0 2837*0 25834*5 75 22920-8 0.u coo 2796.3 25808.8 0 DISTANCE DIFI'ERENCES (ACTUAL INCHES) FOR YE4R 1 2 3 .4 38 - 59 0.0 0.0 7P.7 66.8 59 - 75 0*0 0.0 40.6 25.7 38 - 75 0#0 0.0 119.3 92.5 AVERAGE DIFFERENCE DISTANCE (ACTUAL INCHES/YEAR) FOF. YFI.R 1 2 3 4 38 - 59 0-0 0.0 3.7 3-2 59 - 75 0-0 0.0 2.5 1.6 3d --75 0-0 0.0 3.2 2.5 Olr,%@JCC FRCM REFERENCE LINE IN YEtR ZCOO (ACTUAL INCHES) BASEJ 611 AVERASE JF FIRST AND LAST YEARS 1 2 3 4 0.0 000 2715.7 25746-3 DISTANCE r)IFFFRENCE BETWEEN YEAR 2000 AND LAST YEAR (ACTUAL INCH.ES) SEC 13 A HAMHEPMILL PAPER CO. TO FOUR MILE CREEK LA4RENCE PARK TOWNSHIP DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE LINE (MAP INCHES) FOR YEAR 1 2 3 39 1-290 1 . 287 1.312 59 1-297 1.297 .1.4U4 75 1-157 1.152 1.226 DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE LINE (ACTUAL INCHES) FOR YEAR SCALE 1 2 3 39 2G568.5 26533.4 26411.7' 28220.0 59 20394*9 26452.2 264:)2*2 28634.5 75 22943-1 26429.5 26315-3 28005.6 DISTANCE VIr-t-FRENCES (ACTUAL INCHES) FOR YEAR 2 3 39 - 59 81-2 19.4 -414.5 59 - 75 22-8 137.0 628.8 *19 - 75 10399 156.4 216.3 AVERAGE D!FFLRENCE DISTANCE (ACTUAL INCHES/YEAR) FOR YF@R 1 2 39 - 59 4.1 1.0 -2n.7 59 - 75 1-4 8.6 39.3 39 -75 219 4.3 6.0 )@. I i -?. el, 0 sl. @) DIST114CE FROM REFERENCE LINE It! YE6R 2COO (ACTUAL INCHES) BASED D;, AVEAAGE JF FIRST AND LAST YEARS 1 2 3 26357.3 262C6*7 27856.8 OISTA?.CF -ENCE BETWEEN rilFIEq YEAR 2000 AND LAST YEAR (ACTUAL INCHES) 2 3 72.2 ICS06 148.8 SEC 13 B HAM14ERMILL TO FOUR MILE CREEK DISTANCE FRrlli REFERENCE LINE (MAP INCHES) FOR YEAR 2 3 4 5 39 O-OOD 0.000 0.000 1.493 1.359 59 0-000 0*000 , 0.00c 1.505 1*368 75 0-000 0.000 0.0Qc 1.335 1.168 DISTANCE FRnM REFERENCE LINE (ACTUAL INCHES) FOR YEAR SCALE 1 2 4 5 39 20741*2 000 COO 0.0 30966.6 28167.3 59 2C495.2 0.0 coo 0.0 30845.3 2803794 75 23001*7 000 COO 0.0 30707.2 26866.0 DISTANCE DIFI'FRENCES (ACTUAL INCHES) FOR YEAR 1 2 3 .4 5 39 - 59 000 000 0.0 121.3 149.9 59 - 75 0-0 0.0 o.0 138.0 1171.5 39 - 75 000 0.0 0.0 259.4 1321.3 AVERAGE DIFFERENCE DISTANCE (ACTUAL INCHES/YEAR) FCR YEaR 1 2 3 4 5 39 - 59 000 0.0 0.0 6.1 7,5 59 - 75 000 0.0 0.0 8.6 73*2 39 - 75 0*0 0.0 0.0 7.2 36.7 3Q, 0 , S. Q. 9,A, D I STaijCF FR.:).4 PEFERENCE LINE IN YEAR ZrOO (ACTUAL I NCHES BASL9 -,I-, AVPRAGE LIF FIRST AND LAST YEAPS 3 4 5 0.0 000 0.0 30527*1 25948,4 DISTAtjCE MIFI-FRENCE BETWEEN YEAP 20D(i AND LAST YEAR (ACTUAL INCHES) 2 3 4 5 SEC 14 LOWRY KCAD To SIX MILE CREEK LAWRENCE PARK TOWNSHIP DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE LINE tMAP INCHES) FOR YELR 1 2 3 4 5 6 39 0-203 1.156 ().736 0,603 0.449 0.567 59 o.z3o 1.153 0.772 0.532 0.464 0.561 75 0-1116 1.037 0.649 0.524 0092 0.496 DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE LINE tACTUAL INCHES) FOR YE0 SCALE 1 2 3 4 5 6 39 20780ol 4218.4 2't021-8 15294.2 12530.4 9330.3 11782,3 59 2042499 4697*7 23549.9 15768.0 1086660 9477..2 11458.4 75 23073#1 4)60.9 239Z6-8 14974.4 12090.3 9044.7 11444o3 cII DISTAtICE PIF@ERENCES tACTUAL INCHES) 1.) FOR YEAR cr% 2 3 4 5 6 39 - 59 -479-4 471.9 -473.9 [email protected] -14699 324.0 59 - 75 636.9 -376.9 793.6 -1224.3 432.5 14.1 39 - 75 157-5 95.0 319.7 440.1 285.6 338.1 AVERAGE DIFFERENCE-DISTANCE (ACTUAL INCHES/YEAR) FOR YE.'.R 2 4 5 6 39 - 'q -2400 23.6 -v.7 @83-2 -7.3 16.2 59 - 75 39-8 -23.6 49.6 -76.5 27.0 0.9 39 - 75 4#4 2.6 P.9 12.2 7.9 9,4 i @.'a 1 0. li S-).l -s ib. &- 3:2.9 9. @L 0 1 S 7 r.'-jC EFROM, REFERE14CP LINE. IN YEAR ZC-00 (ACTUAL INCHE@) BASEO [;!. AVEPAGE JF FIRST AND LAST YFARS 2 3 4 5 6 3951s5 23960*8 14752.4 117e4,7 864693 1120995 DISTANCE nIFFFRENCE BETWEEN YEAR 2000 AND LAST YEAR (ACTUAL INCHES) 1 2 3 4 5 6 109.4 66*0 22200 -@0500' 198.3 2:4,,e SEC 15 SEVEN MILE CREEK TO EAST OF EIGHT MILE CREEK HARBORCREEK TWPo DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE LINE (MAP INCHES) FOR YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 39 1.036 0.852 0.9UL, 0.530 0.507 59 1-015 0.626 0.915 0.506 0*496 75 0-90 0,756 O.AU4 0,456 0.448 OISTANCE FROM REFERENCE LINE (ACTUAL INCHES) FOR YEAR SCALE 1 z 3 4 39 20879-0 21630.6 177be-9 18916.3 11065.8 10585.6 59 21089-9 21406,3 1742C.3 19297.3 10671.5 10460.6 75 2327763 21252.2 17597.7 18715.0 10847.2 10428*2 DISTANCE DIFPFRENCES (ACTUAL INCHES) FOR YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 39 - 59 22403 368.6 -380.9 394.3 125.0 59 - 75 154-1 -177.4 587.3 -175.7 32.4 39 - 75 378.-4 191.2 201,4 218.6 157.4 AVERAGE DIFFERENCE DISTANCE (ACTUAL-INCHES/YEAR) FOR YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 39 - 59 11-2 18.4 -19.0 19.7 6.3 59 - -s5 9o6 -11.1 36.4 -11.0 2.0 .39 - 75 10#5 5.3 5.6 6.1 4.4 43,7 L)Q. j 013 91 -141 1 k -.*I DIST: ICE F R 0 REFERENCE L I NE I N YEAR 2COO (ACTUAL INCHES) BAS@U of. AVERAGE OF FIRST AND LAST YEARS 2 3 4 5 209bq.4 17464.9 1.8575.1 10695.4 1031-8.9 DISTANCE qlFVERENCE-SETWEEN YEAR 2000 AND LAST YEAR (ACTUAL PICHES) 1 2 3 4 262-8 132-8 139.9 151*P 109.3 SEC 16 HIGHMEYER R040 TO NORTHEAST TWP. LINE HARBOpCREEK TWP, ..FOR YE4R DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE LINE (MAP INCHES) 1 2 3 4 39 00289 0.460 0.7ley 0.834 59 0*27B 0.456 . 0.715 0.836 75 002.')5 0.414 0.61t6 0,728 DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE LINE (ACTUAL INCHES) FOR YEAR SCALE 2 .3 4 39 20899.1 6019.8 9613.6' 15026.4 17429,8 59 2084398 5794.6 .9504.8 14903.3 17425,4 75 22972-7, 5858.0 951L,.7 14840.4 16724*2 DISTAriCE DIFPFRENCES (ACTUAL INCHES) 00 FOR YEAR 1 2 39 - 59 24503 los.8 12?.2 4.5 59 - 75 -63-5 -6.0 62.9 701.2 39 - 75 181-8 102.9 186.1 705.7 AVERAGE OTFFEPENCE DIS7AHCE (ACTUAL INCHES/YEAR) FOR YEAR 1 4 34 - 59 5.4 6.2 0.2 59 - 75 -4.0 -0.4 3.9 43.8 3 9-75 5-0 2.9 5.2 19.6 DISTtitiCE FRr IM REFERENCE LINE IN YEAR 2000 (ACTUAL INCHES) BASED ON AVERAGE OF FIRST A14D LAST yEAp$ 2 .3 4 5731.0 94390 14711.2 16234ol DISTANCE JlIFPrRENCE BETWEEN YEAR 2000 AND L AST YEAR (ACTUAL INCHES) 1 2 3 4 126.2 71-4 IZ9.2 490.1 SEC 17 NORTHEAST TWP. LINE TO BRICKYARD ROAD NORTHEAST TWP. DISTANCE 9ROM.REFERENCE LINE (MAP INCHES) FOR YEAR 1 2 3 38 Oo535 0.12t) 0.201 59 Ov491 0.088 00i'le 75 0-445 00031 0.164 DISTAtICE FROM REFERENCE LINE (ACTUAL INCHES) FOR YEAR SCALE 1 2 3 38 1937993 10367.9 241#1.8 3895.2 59 20374*6 10003.9 1793.0 3626.7 75 22349-6 9945o6 IRIC93 3665*3 DISTANCE DIFPERENCES (ACTUAL INCHES) FOR YEAR 1 2 3 38 - 59 36400 648-8 26S.6 59 - 75 58o4 -17o4 -38.7 38 - 75 422e3 631.5 229.9 AVERAGE D-IFFE-PENCE DISTANCE (ACTUAL INCHES/YEAR) FOR YEAR 1 2 3 38 - 59 1703 30.9 12.8 59 - 75 3-6 -1.1 -2.4 38 -75 11*4 17.1 6.2 Z, 7. 16 7/, 3 ;2 'j- - S@3 DISTA14CE FROM PEFEPENCE Llt'E IN YEAR 2COO (ACTUAL INCHES) BASED or4 AVERAGE UF FIRST AND LkST YEARS 1 2 3 9660.2 1383s6 3510*0 DISTANCE ojFtERENCE BETWEE'N YEAR 2000 AND LAST YEAR (ACTUAL INCHES) 1 2 3 285,4 42697 15593 SEC 18 CEMFTEKY ROAD AREA NORTHEAST TOWNSHIP DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE LINE (MAP INCHES) FOR YEAR 1 2 3 4 39 0.348 0*107 0.2L6 0.168 59 0.088 . 0.221 0,168 75 0*292 0.087 0.1tJ6 0.148 DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE LINE (ACTUAL INCHES) FOR YEAR SCALE 2 .3 4 39 20646*7 7185.0' 2209o2 4459o7 3468.6 59 2026799 7174.8 17U3*6 4479o2 3405.0 75 22970-3 6707.3 199e.4 4272*5 3399,6 0 DISTANCE DIFI-ERENCES (ACTUAL INCHES) CD FOR YEAR 1 2 3 .4 39 - 59 10-2 425.6 -19.5 63.6 59 - 75 467.5 -214.8 206.7 5.4 39 - 75 477-7 210.8 187,2 69oO AVERAGE DIFFERENCE DISTANCE (ACTUAL INCHES/YEAR) FOR YEAR 1 2 3 4 39 - 59 005 21.3 -l'.0 392 59 - 75 29o2 -13.4 12.9 0.3 39 - 75 13*3 5.9 5.2 1 Q", G. .71. 7. -7,. @ . DISTANCE FRO14 R:FERiNCE LINE IN YEAR 2COO (ACTUAL INCHES) BASED Cr4 AVERAGE UF FIRST AND LAST YEARS 1 2 3 4 6375.6 1852*0 4142-5 33510 DISTANCE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YEAR AOOO AND LAST YEAR (ACTUAL INCHES) 1 2 3 4 331,7 146o4 130oO 47ol; SEC 19 SIXTEEN MIL E CREEK TO-TWENTY MILE.CqEEK' NORTHEAST TOWNSHIP FOR YEAR DISTAmCE FROM REFERE14CE LINE (MAP INCHES) 2 3 4 39 0#554 0.444 o.562 0,648 59 00602 0.499 0.599 0.707 75 Oo535 0*422 0.53e 0.631 FOR YEAR SCALE DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE LINE (ACTUAL INCHES) 2 3 4 39 22488*3 12458.5 998,f..8 12638.4 14572*4 59 2048.2 12309.8 102U3.7 12248#5 14456,9 75 22982,8 12295.8 96YP.7 12364.7 1450291 DISTANCE DIFPERENCES (ACTUAL INCHES) FOR YEAR 1 2 3 4 39 - 59 148-7 -218.9 389.9 115.5 59 - 75 1490 504.9 -116.3 -45.2 39 - 75 162@7 286.0 273.7 70.2 FOR YEAR AVERAGE DIFFERENCE DISTANCE (ACTUAL INCHES/YEAR) 2 3 4 39 - 59 7-4 -10.9 1q.5 5.8 59 - 75 009 31.6 -7.3 -2.8 39 4*5 7.9 7.6 2.0 t &. 7@' 3 @. q. 3 1. 7. &.3 DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE LINE IN YEAR 2COO (ACTUAL INCHES) BASED C!; AVERAGE UF FIRST AND LAST YEARS 1 2 3 4 12182.8 9500.1 1217497 1445394 DISTANCE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YEAR 2000 AND LAST YEAR-(ACTUAL INCHES) 1 2 3 4 113.0 196*6 190.0 48se SEC 20 TWENTY FILE CREEK TO NEW YORK STATE LINE FOR YEAR DISTArICE FROM REFERENCE LINE (MAP INCHES) 1 2 38' 0.752 0.212 59 0*729 0,204 75 Os633 0.151 FOR YEAR SCALE DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE LINE (ACTUAL INCHES) 1 2 3B 20297,4 15263.7 4303.1 59 21224.0 15472.3 4329.7 75 23306-7 14753.1 3519*3 DISTANCE DIFFERENCES (ACTUAL INCHES) FOR YEAR 1 2 38 - 59 -208s6 -26.6 59 - 75 71901 810.4 38 - 75 510s5 783.7 FOR YEAR AVERAGE DIFFERENCE DISTANCE (ACTUAL INCHES/YEAR) 1 2 38 59 -909 -1.3 59 75 .4499 50-6 38 -75 13-8 21.2 y 1 @- .9 &. '3 DISTA'4CE FROM REFERENCE LINE IN YEAR 2COO (ACTUAL INCHES) BASED 01, AVERAGE UF FIRST A.ND-LAST YEARS 2 14408,2 2989.8 DISTANCE DIFFFRENCE BETWEEN YEAR 2000 AND LAST YEAR (ACTUAL !NCHES) 1 2 345.0 529*6 APPENDIX D PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY A survey of shoreline property owners was conducted as a part of the study. A copy of the cover letter and the survey form is included in the follow- ing pages. Names and addresses were obtained from the computerized printout of tax assessment data maintained by the County. Only 25 out of 710 or 3.5% were returned by the Post Office because of out-of-date addresses or ownerls names. There are approximately 710 separate owners of lakeshore property. Only those properties were selected which have Lake Erie as a northern boundary. There are also nine lakefront properties which contain approximately 110 rental cottages or mobile homes which are not included in the total of 710. Thus, there are an estimated 343 permanent residences and 437 summer residences which front directly on the lake. There are also nine summer camps which contain temporary housing that is not included in these totals (however, camp buildings which are in the hazard areas have been included in the figures elsewhere in this report-which show the number of structures in danger). Bayshore owners were not included in the survey because their properties are protected by Presque Isle and generally fall in the limited hazard category. A general summary of lakefront ownersbip patterns was obtained from an analysis of the list of lakeshore propert! owners. See the next page for this summary. The following highlights of ownership patterns are significant: (1) Somewhat higher density shoreline development in the East County (406 owners) as compared to liest County (284 owners). (2) A greater proportion of permanent residential owners than is generally assumed by the public. (3). A high proportion of local (Erie County)ownership (86%). (4) Most (an estimated 75%) of the owners of summer cottages who live in Erie County are residents of the City of Erie. This fact does not show as a separate statistic in the summary, but can be verified by a detailed analysis of addresses. The letter and survey were mailed during Lhe last two weeks in April, 1975. By June 11, 1975, 144 responses (20.3% of 710 total owners) had been returned. Thirty-two respondents enclosed pictures, diagrams, or survey plots. Following is a summary of use patterns fo-.- the respondents (135 usable responses). Ninety percent of the respondents indicated some erosion, recession, or damage to their property. The most significant information contained in the responses concerns the loss of valuable beach area over the past three years. Practically all respondent listed beach erosion of 20 to 100 feet. Many owners reported the loss of boat- houses, trees, water systems, and stairways which had been swept away from the beach by storms. This beach erosion not only greatly reduced the usefulness of the property, but also left the toe of the bluff unprotected and extremely vul- D-1 MMER RESIDENTIAL OTHER PERIMNENT TOWNSHIP ERIE PITTSBURGH OTHER OTHER TOIMSHIP RESIDENTIAL RESIDENT COUNTY AREA PA STATES OTHER USES Springfield 8 20 8 5 6 plus 54 47 rental units GIRARD (LAKE 13 4 16 2 1 5 plus 12 CITY BORO) rental 41 units FAIRVIEW 49 25 4 2 80 MILLCREEK 26 14 43 24 1 4 4 plus 10 116 rental. units ERIE 14 6 20 LA14RENCE 21 6 PARK 27 HARBORCREEK 10 0 5 38 1 1 3 7 plus 12 115 rental units NORTH EAST 112 26 45 27 1 9 4 plus 24 224 rental - units (including TOTALS 343 49 187 62 3 26 40 34 Erie 710 County owners) vlus 112 rental unit! April, 1975 Dear Property Owner: Great Lakes Research Institute (GLRI) is working under con- tract for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources to identify Lake Erie coastal hazard areas. The intent of the project is to identify Eric County, Pa. shoreline areas subject to bluff recession, shore erosion, or lake f1coding. Such hazard areas, as you know, are subject to damages caused by storm surge, high water levels, ice action, and ground water seepage. We are gathering information from topographic maps, aerial photo- graphs, and on-site reconnaissance from the ground, air, and off-shore. Additionally, we would like to collect any information that shore property owners may have concerning their particular property. Specifically, we would appreciate it if you could furnish us with any of the following data: 1.) Current or historical maps, photographs, or surveys of shoreline and bluff areas on your property. 2.) Information on location and construction of erosion control structures or projects. 3.) Information on land, buildings, or erosion control structures damaged or destroyed in the past forty (40) years along the shoreline. However, we are most interested in such damage during the past three (3) years. In that regard, we would very much appreciate it if you would fill in the enclosed survey and return it at your earliest convenience. Please fill in only those items which pertain to your property. Thank you very much for your co-operation. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, G. Rodger Crowe Program Manager D-3 GREAT LAKES RESEARCH INSTITUTE SURVEY OF SHORELINE- PROPERIY OWNERS 1. Name Cottage Association or Subdivision Mailing Address S. Use of Property Permanent Residential 1. Extent of Property Sumer Residential 8horeline Width Agriculture (List Crops) Lot Depth 3. Shoreline Characteristics Beach Width Private Park or Camp Depth Public Park or .Camp Bluff Width Industrial (List Products) Height Stream Outlet Other (Describe) other (Describe) Location of Shoreline Property 6. NN-Lrabcr and Type of Buildings Subject to Possible Dx-rkage (include distance to bluff edge or shoreline). Road or Street Township D-4 GREAT LAKES RESEARCH INSTITUTE 7. Please describe erosion control measures or structures built or maintained by property owner (breal@i%,alls, groins, rockfill, sandfill, vegetation cover, etc.). Please list date of construction and present condition. S. DESCRIPTION OF DAMAGES SINCE 1972 (Use Back of Page for Additional Remarks or Damage Information Prior to 1972): a.) Extent of Beach Damage (Width & Depth) b.) Extent of Bluff Recession or Erosion (Width & Depth) c.) Extent of Damage to Erosion Control Structures d.) Extent of Other Damage (Docks, Boathouses, Stairways, Landscaping, Trees, Water System or Sewer Systems) Other data or comments: Please feel free to s-end photographs, maps, or diagrams to illustrate the above informat (Such items will be returned to you if specifically requested). Thank you for your assi Please return this survey to: Rodger Crowe Great Lakes Research Institute 155 West Eighth Street Erie, Pennsylvania 16501 D-5 SURVEY RESPONDENTS USE OF PROPERTY T014NSHIP PERMANENT SUMMER RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL OTHER SPRINGFIELD 2 5 2 9 GIRARD (Lake 4 3 1 City Borough) FAIRVIEW 9 2 - MILLCREEK 4 18 - 22 ERIE 3 1 3 7 LAWRENCE PARK 7 7 HARBORCREEK 23 16 6 1 NORTH EAST 26 18 4 48 TOTALS 71 53 11 135 norable to wave attack. With the bluff subject to wave attack and too. orosion, thOrc are many o%,niers that now have a slicer dropoff of five to 30 feet which severely limits their access to the beach. All reaches of shoreline in the County have 'peen subject to damage and this is reflected in the data and comments contained in the responses. The following pages contain practically all of the important comments made by property owners. The comments are grouped by township and are listed in geographical order, west to east. SPRINGFIELD TOININSHIP "We lost at least 20 ft. of beach as then and now photo s show ... lost boathouse and stairs that we used to have on beach. Built new beach house near cottage." "Pier and wall made of railroad ties ... 20 ft. of pier gissing, two walls gone Soil is clay. After a bad storm, rain will cause bank to slide." "Twenty years ago, owner of land built three cement pier@ @ out into the water. They are now under water because of the high,water and of no use when fall and spring storms come ...(Beach Damage) lost about 5 ft. ... (Bluff Recession ) lost about 10 ft. ... Lost stairway, several large trees. Next.door lost dock with a water system .... I believe that someone can control the high water. If this isn't done, we and several others will lose our cottages." "Concrete-pier built about 1955, still in good condition, 90 ft. long by 7 ft. wide." "Approximately 40-45 ft. (Bluff) recession along length of property." "Eight cottages near lake moved back to avoid storm damage ... 20 to 40 ft. of beach has disappeared into the lake ... about 20 ft. of bluff has fallen away ... at least 25-50 trees have been destroyed as well as cement patios, beach- front walks, walls, etc. have been destroyed." ."Beach had become non-existent until jetties were built." "Three 150 ft. concrete piers - they are all thfee in good condition, however, high water conditions have made them almost worthless In the past four years, we have lost a beautifi.-l beach that ran the length of our property and varied 30 to 100 ft. in depth (Bluff Recession) width 1,000 ft.; depth of loss 100 ft." GIRARD T014NSHIP "Have lost entirie boat launching ramp and two large willow trees. "Three years ago, our Lakefront property was a gradual sloping hillside to the beach. We had a path down the hillside which we could walk to the beach. Our beach was 35 ft. wide at that time. Now we have no beach; the lake has undermined our hillside and washed it away so that we now have a 10 ft. high bluff. It has washed 15 ft. of our hillside away and has started a landslide which has worked back 80 ft. on our property." D-7 'Thirty years ago, we had about 300 ft. of land between water anj bluff; now that has eroded to about 30 ft." "(Beach Damage) 700 ft. full length has been lost last 3-5 years ... (Bluff Reces- sion 700 ft.full length has been lost about 10-20 ft. in depth." "(Beach Damage) 50 ft. entire length ... (Bluff Recession) 20 ft. entire length." "We had a cement wall parallel to lake - 150 ft. length x 6 ft. height ... 60 years old ... now is broken up, laying on side out in the lake ... no protection ... (Erosion Control Structures) completely destroyed ... destroyed all trees, shrubs, flowers, hand cut stone steps," "Piers built 8-9 years ago. East pier 125 ft. initially lost 16 ft. West pier 50 ft. .... Lost 8 ft. two years ago. Breakwall put in 1974 at base of bluff varies in height from 6-10 ft. ... vegetation'cover - rye, crown vetch, black locust trees. Present condition is just fair - property on east of east pier is badly eroding .... Lost 10 ft. of bluff over period of 10 years. East of pier (bluff) erosion very bad ... piers have helped, but not sufficiently to recommend the investment." FAIRVIEW TOWNSHIP "Tried crown vetch several times (as erosion control measures) ... (Bluff Reces- sion) 135 ft. wide - have lost about 10-12 ft. in past 15 years ... some trees eroded and fallen over bluff." "Planted bristly locusts each spring for the last 5 years from top of bluff towards center ... (Bluff Recession) 68 ft. wide x 75 ft. deep ... lost 15 grown trees and other vegetation on bluff ... spring water seeping from center of bluff seems to be cause of some erosion." "Planted multiflora at top of bluff to prevent crumbling ... also trees. Mcst planting done in early 1960's. Hedge is mostly gone ... origi-,,al beach completely gone (244 ft. x 40 ft.).... steps from top of bluff to beach are half gone .... Originally this was more like a steep bank than a bluff. Now it is approaching the bluff stage. As for the beach, we had about 40 ft. in depth and now have about 10 ft., but the whole thing has moved back so that none of that is part of the original beach." "Homemade cement blocks; used tires interlaced and anchored; rocks in places on shoreline (Erosion control measures). We have topped trees, trimmed t7ees to let in sunlight and permit vegetation to grow." "Locust trees on one side; have tried trees on front, vegetation cover, etc. 1958- 66 construction, a little at a time. Good condition - block and bricks. Have lost 25-30 ft. of bank since 1958 ... (Bluff Recession) about 80 ft. width and 6-10 ft. depth ... I would say we lose from 2-3 ft. a year average. "(Beach Damage) cut away several feet of lawn during heavy wind storm (180 ft. width x 6 fc. depth) .... No structures on my property, but property immediatcly east - had stone breakwall broken." D-8 "Pier completely destroyed by storm in spring of 1970 Walnut Crock jetty appears to be helping some. although we are approximately 1,200 ft. west." "Natural tree growth to water's edge. Breakwater constructed off an adjacent property in 1974 ... (Bluff Recession) 200 ft.,width x 25 ft." "With 3-4 ft. higher water level - beach has disappeared and water eroded above the level of shale ... (Bluff Recession) 100 ft. width; 20 ft. depth." "(Beach Damage) 200 ft.'wide x 50 ft. deep ... (Bluff Recession) 10 ft. to 15 ft. entire width sliding ... trees sliding ... water pump and well destroyed." "Beach much narrower and covered with fallen trees Extensive damage (to bluff) at beach level, with four tiers of "slippages" producing a terraced effect .... Water system, previously from beach, has been destroyed. Many large trees at foot of bluff have fallen along with erosion and slippage of bank." MILLCREEK TOWNSHIP "Gas well drilled 35 years ago 100 ft. from water's edge now head exposed mid- beach, subject to destruction by wave action during severe storms on lake ... (Beach Damage) gradual erosion by lake by perhaps 50 ft. from 1900-1972, aftd. an additional 40 ft. since." (Beach) completely gone (Bluff) approximately total of two acres of land/ foilage/trees lost ... loss of lower half of stairways approximately 60 ft., numerous large trees (2/3 ft. in diameter). "Breakwall undermined and overtopped ... boathouse five feet inside breakwall undermined - torn down by owner in 1975. Septic tank damaged." "(Erosion control measures) breakwall, groins ... 1973 and 1974 wave action ruined groins ... broke up and washed groin, broke up seawall and concrete deck." "The past two years we have planted rye in the eroded areas. First year's planting was completely lost .... Between 8 and 10 ft. of our bluff has fallen into the lake .... The waves have eroded away the earth underneath, our steps; also, our boathouse was completely destroyed." "Winter of 1972-7'3 there was considerable.damage to seawall from storms." "Front end of boathouse bashed in during winter storms of past years., Sand, gravel and stones usually washed over breakwall during winter storms necessitating cleaning up after storms." "Dock (groin) washed out - 30 ft. ... 1972-73 stairway, 1-andscaping washed out - 6 ft. depth; severe breakwall damage ... 50 ft. of beach area in 1967 - trucks and vehicles could drive across front at that time .... In my opinion, the two greatest factors causing problems in stream runoff which is not tubed to shoreline (this also causes loss of thousands of trees), but.terminates at tops of bluffs, hills, etc. and also, sand dredgers - four dredgers now operate in an area from Asbury Road to the tip of peninsula, most dredging being performed under the cover of darkness from 9:30 p.m. to 6:45 a.m. as close as 3/4 of a mile off shore. I have over two and one half years actual documentation. Ohio dredgers now dredge D-9 also, jLlst west of Peninsula. Dredging is eliminiting the nitural protection which "breaks" wave,; at a ---afe distance. Waves are now breaking at the shoreline C.,1L111-;j.n,, a "vacutim" of fect in an effort to restore level - this action then accel- erates erosion. Dredgers now causing (in my opinion) beach erosion on peninsula by dredging sand and then re-selling this same sand.to prevent the problem they cause??? The third cause is increased runoff due to construction of plazas, homes, and natural growth of communities along Lake Erie as well as lake level control." "My cottage was und-ermined by Lake Erie on November 26, 1972. No measures had been taken to control, or counteract the action of the lake, as we had seen the devastating effects such efforts had on properties located to the east of them in 1952 (in the Kelso Estate area) by groins which extended into the lake. Immedi- ately to the west, the beach filled in, but to the east the beach was eliminated ... In September, 1972, the (adjacent) property owners ... built groins extending into the lake, without approval of the Corps of Engineers, and with no technical knowledge. Erosion intensified rapidly and in November our cottage was completely destroyed." "(Beach Damage) 60 ft. wide and all depth are gone .... All trees and one cottage washed away." "Beach eroded probably 30 ft. resulting in water where there was sandy beach. Sand removed from rest of beach, leaving pebbles and large stones ... base of .stairway down bluff eroded away. At least two quite large trees felled by erosion around roqt structure." I'Built breakwall in front of cottage 30 ft. long in 1972. Still in good con- dition ... it has saved cottage so far." "Wave action deposited rocks on patio damaging stone faling, concrete patio steps wrecked, slight damage to Porch doors and storage building." "(Erosion Control Measures) On east side, a line of steel barrPls sunk in ground and filled with stones and cement cap. On west side of line, one gabion wire basket 3 x 3 x 12 ft .... I'm told both are in good shape. Drums installed during summer, 1974 - gabion installed fall, 1974." "Conditions very bad last.5 years; very bad erosion; no sand anymore, all rocks. Have lost 20 feet of depth of beach. Tried everything to prevent it, but am now testing use of wire baskets (gabions) filled with about five tons of flat rocks, laid sideways. Water slams into it, runs through. Last winter (first for basket) was excellent test. Basket, which is 12 ft. long, 3 ft. high, 3 ft. wide, 3 ft. deep, four compartments, took terrific beating but stood up well. Held its own against erosion. Last year our Baer Beach Association purchased 12 gabions (wire baskets), suggested by Army engineers for test. The baskets cost $45 each. They are heavy wire, triple coated to prevent against rusting. We installed one last Fall and the result was amazing. The basket's top is somewhat battered, but we feel it is doing everything it was intended for. We now have five bas'r-lets installed on the beach and extending to the lake's edge. It will be interesting to see what happens this winter inasmuch as we have now extended some into the water a few feet. There has been a little rusting, but not too much to speak of as yet. If this thing works it will be a great boon to cottage owners trying to save their shoreline. Up to now, we are well-pleased and would invite anyone to inspect them. Many have already come from other beaches to see what they have done and seem well pleased. We have seven more baskets to install and by then we will have fortified the most badly beaten D-10 strip of shoreline (about 200 ft. long)." "One wood bungalow. Shoreline tip to front steps at times. higher during storms water conics into porch through door .... Railroad tie wall with steel rods was built in August, 1974. Wall holding up well at pre�ent. Northwest side of wall was not completed up to cottage and land in that area was washed away during winter of 1974 and spring of 1975 .... Before 1972, beach extended 100-150 ft. in front of porch front. In 1973 and 1974 water was up to porch steps .... Spring storms of 1974 eroded the three concrece 12 ft. long and 12 ft. wide steps, concrete porch, 30 ft. long and 12 ft. wide, and part of cottage founda- tion. Foundation and porch were replaced, another storm several weeks later broke up the new porch foundation and was replaced." "(Erosion Control Measures) Constructed one 50 ft. wall by burying 8'ft. railroad ties 7 ft. deep in a vertical position - fall of 1974 and still there - seems to be OK ... lost'75 ft. of beach 50 ft. wide - endangered cottage." "Shoreline has receded approximately 20 to 30 ft. in the past few years ... also much of the sand has washed out and been replaced by rock ... some damage to stairways .... The jetty which was installed approximately 20 years ago at extreme east end of property line has over the years built up considerable beach in front of our cottage up until about 3 years ago, when the water level raised so high. Since then we bave had trouble maintaining our beach in front of our cottage mainly because the existing jetty is not long enough to build beach far enough west to properly protect our cottage." "Although, since the construction of the jetty, we have approximately 25 ft. to shoreline, each year sand built up under the cottage has reach a 7 ft. depth. We now have to dig out the front porch and side steps to prevent rot every spring. "Groin constructed almost 12 years ago and cementied on top about five years ago. Condition - good, and has built substantial beach ... (Beach Damage) not severe for us, but half mile west considerable damage to cottages and breakwalls." "Pier - built in two sections 1950-65 total length 175 ft. - condition - good, built by and paid for by cottage owners .... By installing pier it has built up beach 100 ft. since 1950. Water used to wash in to property line." CITY OF ERIE "Had about 100 ft. of beach, now only about 60 ft." "Built in 1940 - building OK, but the monorail (boat ramp) was knocked over by water and ice three times in the past five years .... All lawn and trees and landscaping ruined." "(Bluff Recession) 60 ft. width; 2 ft. to 40 ft. depth Lost some trees and bushes." "Any bank erusion has been slow and gradual. There has been no slippage of the overburden since 1926 (limit of my knowledge). Erosion of the shale rock (lower) portion of the bank appears to progress slowly as a result of freezing and spaldinj off of the shale, which is in alternate hard and soft layers. I do have a bench- mark. In 1926 my Father built a boathouse on this property at the top of the shale portion of the bank (25 ft. above the water). This was built on a founda- D-11 tion of I-Beams, encased in concrete. The front of the foundation was originally ,even with the top of the bank. Later the wooden boathouse was removed. but tile undation remained. At present (40 years later), the foundation projects about 6 ft. over the bank, indicating that that amount of erosion has taken place in that time." "No beach protection left ... (Bluff Recession) 100 ft. wide .... Since 1926, 6 ft. of shale rock foundation has eroded .... As shale rock base erodes, the bluff drops into the lake creating the hazard of slides, since quicksand exists on top of the rock shale. 'During the winter, considerable ice damage is caused on the banks due to lake waves dashing higher than the rock base." CITY OF ERIE (Hammermill Paper Company Engineering Reports) "Two major areas of protection have been implemented. Each was designed to reduce or arrest erosion of the shale underlying an essentially clay bluff. Total height of bluff is approximately 50 ft. with the base shale layer having a thickness of about 10 ft. above water level. With recent high lake levels and an absence of ice cover, the underlying shale was being eroded at an alarming rate. The clay overburden was also permeated with water and certain areas were plagued with classical slides. Area as shown on the plot plan was protected with massive rip rap of compatible sandstone in 1968 at the toe of the bluff and approximately 15 ft. up from the lake bottom. The clay bluff was planted with a combination of grass seeds and crown vetch with excellent results-- no slides or sloughing has been Pted. Area 'T' was similarly protected in 1969 but utilizing concrete filled nylon bags. Results are encouraging with no known slides or sloughing. The expense of concrete-nylon bags was less costly than sandstone rip rap. Both types of con- struction will be closely monitored to establish longevities. Area "T' is scheduled for protection in 1975 and will be constructed in the same manner as Area "2." Unfortunately shoreline surveys had not been conducted in the past years to establish rates of erosion. The first indication of a problem was noted in 1967 when slides were observed in the bluff areas 1, 2 , & 3. Protective measures were undertaken to protect against building and utilities damage. One additional area of structure (Area "4") was damaged by erosions of shale at the millwater filter plant discharge line. A base of sandst 'one perched on the shale toe was dislodged and was replaced with reinforced concrete in 1974. Area "5" constitutes a massive sandstone -rip rap protection for Hammermill's 1971 Outfall Pipe shoreline facility." LAWRENCE PARK TOWNSHIP 3each has a small pier (30 ft.) built'in fall of 1972. Beach on west side of pier has built up about 10 ft. but has'further been damaged on East side of.pier .... Before pier was installed in 1972, beach lost about 10 ft. in depth." D-12 "Vegetation - put in after "cave-in" plus addition of mulch each week during spring, summer, and fall (Bluff Recession) 50 ft. by 10 ft." "(Bluff Recession) Have lost about 4 ft. in center of bluff .... Shale structure at center of lot seems to be weaker than that at edges. The greatest loss of shale and dirt occurred during the spring storm this year." "Trees on back bluff blown away. Roots caused erosion of soil on bank .... Since 1972, we've had two violent ice storms, which have practically ruined our trees. All lower branches are gone. Back windows and porch ice covered for at least a week and a half. Fish on window sills, back yard covered with fish. Still in back yard from the last storm." "(Bluff Recession) 50 ft. x 3 ft.... Some vegetation destroyed." HARBORCREEK TOWNSHIP "Erosion control attempted several years by vegetation: willow, oats, grass, and 100 plants arnot bristly locust in 1974 .... No beach since 1960 ... (Bluff Recession) 50 ft. x 5 ft.... At top of shale ledge, about 10 trees and 10 ft. x 75 ft. soil eroded.#' "(Erosion Control Measures) Railroad ties, heavy logs, trees planted all within last 10 years .... Beach entirely gone because of higher lake level .... Lost 200 to 300 tons of bank ... (Damage to Erosion Control Structures) All gone or washed into lake .... Several large trees washed away." "From 1973 tree branches, leaves, rye grass, gra ss clippings distributed over ground that is washing away ... (Bluff Recession) Approximately 40 ft. wide x 5 ft deep .... Shale bank is approximately 7 or 8 ft. above lake level .... When lake gets rough, water rushes up bank and washes ground away into lake. Higher up the bank is clay; ice or snow melting washed a couple trees roots and all, into lake." "Bank continues to erode and slide every spring, has lost about 20 ft. in 20 years "(Bluff Recession) 195 ft.. wide, 3 ft. each year." "(Beach Dama-e) 10 ft. deep lost ... (Bluff Recession) 20 ft. deep .... Steps 0 washed away..plus trees." "Breakwall built approximately 20 years ago - now completely destroyed ... 6 Two trees lost plus 8 ft. of property." "A breakwall (pier) was built extending into the lake about 15 ft. in the mid- fifties ... (Beach Damage) There is none left ... (Bluff Recession) Since 1972, a foot or two .... Erosion of bank where pier was attached about 3 ft. .... Trees and bushes alcng the edge of the bluff have been washed down into the lake .... Most of the damage done to the shoreline was previous to 1972. Within the forty years previous to that we lost a beautiful beach, wooden piers which extended into the lake for docking canoes and row boats. We lost a look-out (3 Cement block pump-house, and at least 10 ft. of land from 1940 to 1975." D-13 "1933 retaining wall 40 x 15 x 4 ft. front. 60 x 15 x 4 ft. creek side - present condition poor - needs repai..r partly down ... (Beach Damage) 110 ft. x 30 ft .... '-Erosion around retaining walls - 3 ft ... (Damage to Erosion Control Structures) 3 ft." 11 (Bluff Recession) 30 ft. width - 10 ft. deep ... (Damage to Erosion Control Structures) To date, ice and water damage from water spray .... Trees - one oak fell into lake, one undermined, others damaged - broken limbs .... Adjacent property 300 ft. east and'200 ft. west suffered heavy erosion." "(Beach Damage)- Complete ... (Bluff Recession) 10 ft. of shale bluff .... Took out boat launching crane hoist, base and ail, including mooring space for boat." "What used to be a gradual bluff to the beach is now a 30 ft. sheer drop-off. Beach depth is about the same, but some 25 ft. of bluff i:s gone ... (Bluff Reces- sion) 25 ft. depth loss average, along a 355 ft. width ... 20 to 30 trees have been washed out at shore line and about the last 30 stairs to the beach have washed out." "About 25 ft. of bluff recession due to lake .... Total loss of dock, boathouses, stairway and three large trees." "Very little damage (Beach) - trees and bushes cover lake bank ... (Bluff Reces- sion) Very little since we moved here in 1962 .... Since we owned lot from 1952 shoreline has changed some but can still walk down the bank - this-year a' nice beach." "Sometime between 1954 and 1960 we had a well dug about 50 ft. down from the top of the bank. In laying a pipe from the house to the. well it disturbed the soil on the bank. Then there was a massive landslide. In order to protect the remainder of the bank, we hired a man who put three huge supports at different levels and used many old railroad ties to hold back the dirt. We do not use the well any more but our neighbor does. This was at the east end of our bank. Some years later there was another landslide at the west end of the bluff which took off about two ft. at the top .... Last year the front was torn off a boathouse and this year's storms demolished the whole boathouse built on the beach." "(Bluff Recession) 500 ft. in width; I ft. to 6 ft. in depth .... Stairways lost several trees - boat - ground covers." "During past two years beach has only been existent during calm weather (Bluff recession) 30 ft. deep x 30 ft. wide .... Approximately five maple and poplar trees up to 8 inches in diameter washed away." "High lake level has eroded beach - necessitating construction of reinforced concrete wall for first floor protection; plus the construction of jntties on shore .... Loss of 70 ft. of beach protection (measured from cottage to water's edge of lake) .... Just east of cottage, bluffs have been eroded by high water a distance of over 25 ft., causing trees (some 25" in diameter) to topple into the lake .... The lakeside steel roll-up door for boats was destroyed--finally this opening had to be abandoned, and a protective reinforced concrete wall constructed across the front of cottage .... Due to high level of the lake, the D-14 storms wash stones and gravel into the mouth of Twelve Mile Creek, damming it up, and foriiing a very sizeable lake, which overflows the ftoperty-adjacent to the creek. This has flooded the first floor of the cottage to a depth o'f two feet several times each year." NORTH EAST TOWNSHIP II(Beach) completely destroyed ... (Bluff Recession) beach inaccessible." "(Bluff Recession) lost 20 ft. depth; 100'ft. wide .... Lost about ten black locust trees .... Cliff swallows burrow into bank four feet for nests, which weakens it. I lose more every year." IlMany large trees have fallen and dirt slides have started ... (Bluff Recession) 6-8 ft.; dirt slides have started .... Many trees fell, one of which did $200 damage to well." "High water has caused most of beach to disappear ....-Bluff has been washing out 3 to 6 ft. per year, carrying trees and bushes up to 3 ft. in diameter due to high water in lake and splashing bluff, carrying dirt, etc. out with it. Half of trees and bushes (Bluff) are now gone with cut and undermining of bank Has left sheet bluff with no way to get to beach." "Installation of two 1-1/2 inch plastic pipes at base of bluff to drain springs (1972-1973); condition - good. Disposal of branches, grass, shingles, logs, etc. over bluff to attempt to halt ground sinking at top of bluff (1971 - continuing) condition - fair. Rock fill at top of bluff with retaining wall (1975); currently .in progress ... (Beach Damage) Erosion - about 3 ft.... Washout, erosion, sinking at bluff base - 10 ft .... Pipes eroded and clogged.- Previous retaining walls oveLturned .... Top of bluff - front yard eroded 10 ft." "We are situated near the mouth of Sixteen Mile Creek. While there has been some flooding of property along creek, there has been no p&rmanent damage along our section of beach.11 "(Beach Damage) Depth and quantity of sand and gravel loss have been notable since 1972 .... Bluff along east side of building has eroded about 10 ft. since 1972 .... S,@nd and stones Pn lake side have washed away, exposing about 6 ft. of patio front since 1972 .... The Sandsuckers, operating close to shoreline have continually removed the natural sand bar, causing waves to break at shoreline, rather than at sand bar." "Bristly arnot locust plants planted on eroded bluff two years ago (Mav, 1973). Erosion fairlv stable-at Present time ... (Bluff Recession) 20 ft. wide and 10 ft. deep'just above shale bed. Washout. Three trees have been washed out." D-35 "vegetation gone - concrete gone - trees gone - second pair of steps just about gone .... No beach. It used to he 20 to-30 ft. into the lake; 50 ft. wide. r..,,(Bluff Recession) 50 ft. wide; about 10 ft. deep .... At one time, we had up to. 30 ft. of beach, now we have none. Every year we lose more cliff and-earth. My fence is gone, too." "Pole, winch, motor for lowering boat cables, ceinent wall, stairs, platform ... wore washed completely from its cement pillars; there was only one guy wire left hanging; everything else 'is gone into tile lake." "I'm pleased to know at lea st a "survey" is being made of the damages along this area. We're all concerned-over tile future of this shoreline. Every major storm whittles away a little bit more away from the bank. I hope this interest doesn't end with just a survey .... Three dozen black locust trees planted on "shelf" area six years agq; also creeping myrtle at top of bank ... (Beach Damage) None - just high water - no beach ... (Bluff Recession) approximately four ft. of recession at top ... (Damage to Erosion Control Structures) everything "wiped out" .... Trees on bank have washed out - no vegetation on bank now. No erosion control existing now." "(1) Summer, 1972 - pine trees on lower bank; washed away; (2) Fall, 1972, Spring, 1973 - rock fill, washed away; (3) Fall, 1973 - 25 chinese elms; 50-100 lb. chunks of concrete (fill) washed away. (4) Winter, 1973-74 - cut down four (Approximately 50 ft.) trees to fall and lay across washed out sections on bank to act as "catch" for erodi:ng soil from upper bank - washed away." "Cement breakwall - part was there when property was purchased. About six years ago we extended this. Completely destroyed January, 1972. There is no Deach at all - water comes up to where house was .... Break-wall, lawn, trees, house, water and system completely destroyed." "Boat ramp including winch and winch motor washed.out. This was mounted on cement foundation. Stairs washed out - vegetation cover with trees ... (Bluff Reces- sion) 10 ft..depth, 20 ft. long ... stairway and boat dock, three large maple trees washed out .... At present, a block 15 ft. long by 8 ft. high has slid down bluff about 3 ft. and will probably slide down to water during next bad storm." "112 ft. width; depth of beach has gone from about 100 ft. to 30 ft ... (Bluff) erosion extends full 112 ft. width, about 10 ft. depth .... Bottom 15-20 ft. of stairway washed away. Seven to eight large trees washed out with another five/six go ing. "Washed a depth of five ft. the whole length of beach. (Bluff) receded a depth of 30 ft. and a width of 100 ft .... Washed everything out on beach; including C@ boathouse .... Damaged steel stairs and destroyed boathouse." "(Beach Damage) 1973 - the lake came over the'top of boathouse as I found fish on top .... Washed bank away and washed my steps and landing which was half-way down .... Floor has fallen in. I had to move my boat and other belongings out." "Washed away stairway to beach twice (1972-74) .... Washed out roots of tree and it fell across my boat - ruined by boat and tires on my dolly.'.' D-16 "51 ft. concrete breakwall - 4.15 ft. high - undermined 'total failure.' -Two ft. collar 3 sides of boathouse - good condition. Approximately 75 ft. clay bank with vegetation cover - some erosion at bottom .... Loss of approximately 60 ft. of beach, exposed shale ... breakwall cracked in two places, erosion behi .... Boathouse doors torn off, some damage to overhanging.porch. Front wheels 0f portable dock torn off .... Little damage until March, 1975 - resulted pri- marily from lack of shore ice." "Has cut bank back approximately 7 ft. and changed height from approximately 3-4 ft. to 7-8 ft .... Lost one large tree." "(Bluff Recession) 4 ft. in depth in the last two months .... Our concrete stairways, two buildings, concrete picnic table, four large trees, the beach (what is left) has been eroded. The bluff or bank has been eroded. The trees that hold the bank are going. If this continues, everything will be gone in the area. I have seen all of this in the last 40 years." "Retaining wall of patio and boathouse built in approximately 1945. Wall com- pletely eroded away and completely replaced in 1973 at approximately cost of $1,000. Vegetation on bank. Wall shows some cracking from current winter storms .... Today beach is 12 ft. deep; prior to 1972, it was approximately 35 ft .... Little bluff.erosion .... Cracks in new retaining wall .... About three trees have fallen in immediate area of beach. Boathouse protected by wall and has so far received no damage .... Retaining wall must be repaired this year to prevent further damage to wall and possible damage to boathouse." "High water reduced beach width to approximately 15 ft. *Waves due to storm washed away 12 to 15 ft. of property and six trees.... Washed away lower tier of steps (12 steps), 4 poplar trees, one willow tree, and one wild cherry." "High water erosion has washed away about 15 ft. of our bank bluff We once could walk down our bank to the beach, but erosion has washed away about 15 ft. of the bank and now we have a 5 ft. drop off to get to the beach .... Erosion caused several trees to be washed out. One large tree falling on several trees to be washed out. One large tree falling on our steps and patio caused extensiv( damage. Storms have washed away the lower portion of our steps. We don't dare replace them because they will just be washed away again 'during the next storm due to the high water level in Lake Erie. If a few more feet of our bank get washed away, it will cause our water system to our house to get washed away." "Planted crown vetch by plant in summer, 1973 - washed away by winter storm ero- sion .... Tiees removed by storms, bank eroded by winter storms .... Larger stones deposited yearly by ice build-up in winter." "Approximately 8 ft. of bluff has been eroded in past 2-1/2 years .... Lost one large willow tree; one other in danger. Our water is obtained from lake. Water line to lake was washed out, broken, and exposed. Septic leach bed also washed out and exposed; plus loss of tree. Dirt and sand in water line is eroding pump and will have to be replaced ... I would like to know if the water level of Lake Erie was increased at any.time to permit the Large ore carriers and ocean going ships to navigate in Lake Erie." "Only 25 ft. of beach remains from a previous 150 ft.... All sewer systems washec out. D-17 "Railroad tie wall 9 ft. high built in 1%5. It's in good condition (Beach Damage) 50 ft. long x 10 ft. wide pile of flat rocks ... (Bluff Recession) 3-ft. wide x 4 ft. deep." "Breakwall - construction 1972 - 1974 good condition .... Beach of 75 ft. has eroded .... Breakwall partially washed out in 1972 & 74 .... Boat ramp destroyed, has uprooted; landscape damage." "Had a breakwall made out of brick and stone 239.5 ft. length of beach, water was 55 ft. from breakwall area, there is no more breakwall - washed out by waves, due to high water in Lake Erie ... (Beach Damage) 238.5 x 50 ft. Lost 11,975 sq. ft. of land from high water .... Lost water system three years in a row. Sewer systems also three years in a row. Lost 5 large oaks, 6 locust trees, 14 evergreen trees, 239.5 ft. of stone breakwall, 7,185 sq. ft. of grass, power winch, light system, and'dock." "No damage in last three years, but the high level of water has caused consider- able trouble due to debris, sand, rock, etc. which had to be removed from pier, patio, etc." "Reinforced concrete breakwall built-in 1955. Good condition. Has withstood all storms so far .... At this location for 24 years. Beach depth changes each storm and year according to lake,level. Too many (other) places built along the lake without considering lake level history." "(Bluff Recession) Base of bluff approximately 10 ft. in depth .... A number of years ago there were two cottages on the beach, which were completely destroyed by high water in the spring. A factor to consider here, was the base construction of the.cottages was poor; but now, in 1975,. no cottage could withstand the point- ing of the high water during the winter and spring months, in that particular location. We have erected a bathhouse on top of the bluff, because we know there would be no chance of it surviving down on the beach. Our property fluctuates between no beach at all during the high winter water level to about 30 ft. of beach during the summer, providing there has not been too many storms out of the northeast. A northeast storm washes all the beach away from our property." D-18 APPENDIX E CONTROL POINTS CONTROL POINT INFOMATION The recession rate analysis, computed from aerial imagery using topo- graphic maps as a basis for scaled distance, provides a relative initial measure- ment. It is apparent that the ground distances computed must necessarily contain inaccuracies inherent in,the topographic coverage. Accurate ground distances for survey purposes-are outside the capabilities of such maps. Thus, it must be understood that the recession analysis is based on the distance difference between various sets of imagery utilized. These relative distances are accurate because of the care taken in scale conversion. If actual distance with established survey accuracy is to b e known, it is essential that control points be established in critical hazard areas and measured by transit or chain. A number of such points have been established and measured and represented on maps contained in the report. This Appendix gives the precise location of each point so that they can be found for future measure- ment for purposes of establishing a recession rate from actual ground truth. The points have been established to represent the variety of coastal conditions that exist. The focus, however, has been on critical areas where recession is accelerated and where there is imminent danger of loss of property and/or structures. E-1 CONTROL POINTS LOCATIONS AND MEASUREMENTS Site Location and Number Physiographic Information Distance 1. Ohio State Line.- Springfield Township 270.0 feet From the center of Lake Road on a line north along the western edge of the third cottage east of the State line to the bluff The bluff at this location is extremely active and devoid of vegetation. 2. Rudd Road - Springfi 'eld Township 340.0 feet From the center of the intersection of Rudd Road and Lake Road north to the bluff on a line along the center of Rudd Road. Rudd Road was until recently used as a boat access area. Recent rapid recession has left the end of the road elevated and the boat access inoperative. 3. Eagley Road - Springfield Township 198.0 feet From a utility pole number 32672 in the parking lot of Eagley Beach Park on a line north to the Beach backshore. 4. & 5. Holliday Road - Springfield.Township 4.5 feet From a marker 15 feet east of the center of Holliday Road and approximately 10 feet from high water level to bluff edge. From the bluff, through the above marker south to 89.0 feet the gate post on the north side of the Holliday Shores access road. The bluff in this location is rapidly receding; evidence of 5-10 feet over past five months; several cottages in danger on a low bluff. 6. Camp Sequoyah - Springfield Township 53.0 feet From the northwest corner of a building now named McBrier Lodge north on a line to the edge of the bluff. E-2 Site Location and Number Physiographic Infon!ation Distance A high bluff, there is evidence of only moderate recession save for the area directly in front of the lodge where disrupted vegetation is an indica- tion of recent continuing activity. Elk Creek -,Girard Township From a utility pole No. 32222 which is 100 yards 58.2 feet east along the service drive for the cottages east of Elk Creek, north on a line to the bluff. 8. Lake Erie Community Park - Girard Township From the pavilion now designated as Number One, 87.0 feet the northwest corner north on a line to the bluff. A high bluff, activity recent in the form of slumping with disruption of vegetation. 9. Godfrey Run - Girard Township From the northwest corner of the deck of a dwelling 80.0 feet now occupied by Evans north on a line to the bluff. Recent activity on this bluff due to recent con- struction of residence and ensuing landscaping. 10. Melhorn Road - Fairview Township From the northeast corner of a dwelling at 7950 157.0 feet West Palmer Drive now occupied by C. E. Palmer north on a line to the bluff. The bluff here is stable with a complete vege- tative cover. 11. Lake Shore Drive'- Fairview Township Opposite the driveway of a dwelling at 6009 Lake 25.0 feet Shore Drive naw occupied t7 Charles Metzgar, the center of the road north on a line to a water intake structure location on the bluff edge. The bluff is stablu with vegetation cover but- proximity of the bluff to road makes this an area for concern. E-3 Number Physiographic Informati2n Distance Glenruadh Avenue - nillcreck Township 70.0 feet From a utility pole No. B13701 at the foot of Strathmore Avenue north on a line to the stairway balcony to the beach, to the bluff edge. A stable bluff, however, there is some concern due to dense residential pattern, both on the top and bottom of the bluff. 13. Lakeside Drive '- Lawrence Park Township 146.0 feet On a line along the western edge of the property at 2664 Lakeside Drive, now occupied by Gerald Porter from a utility pole No. J-112 northerly to the.bluff edge. 14. Lawrence Park Golf Club -.Lawrence Park Township 72.5 feet At the foot of the Club access road in the parking lot, a utility pole northerly to thebluff edge. The bluff exhibits recent recession with vegeta- tive disruption at the crest. The base of the bluff is protected by bedrock to 20 feet, reces- sion taking place over the bedrock section. 15. Taylor Avenue, Fairfield - Harborcreek Township 67.0 feet At the foot of Taylor Avenue, a fenced pumping station; a utility pole at the rear of the fenced area noitherly on a line to the bluff. Some recent recession of bluff noted above bedrock section. 16. Cowell's Beach - Harborcreek Township 67.0 feet The thirdcottage east of the groin at Cowell's Beach; from the gas company valve north on a line separating the property of the third and fourth structure, to the bluff. 17. East Drive - Harborcreek Township 172.0 feet On a line marking the east boundary of 7824 East Lake Road, a dwelling now occupied by Mark Ripley from the center of the roid to the bluff. The bluff is relatively stable with little apparent recession. Base has bedrock protection and moderate beach. E-4 Site Location and Number PhysiographicInformation. Distatice 18. Shorewood Inn 11arborcreek Township 83.0 feet On a line northerly from the northeast corner of the Shorewood Inn to the high water mark, inside a steel drum breakwall. This distance will be variable with lake level and conditions, but future monitoring should reveal loss of beach. 19. Catholic Cemetery Road - North East Township 123.0 feet West of.the intersection of Cemetery Road and East Lake Road a utility pole No. B13479 at the entrance to a residence now occupied by Richard DeVore; northerly on a line to the bluff. Bluff is stable with vegetation present. Deep incisions due to past slumping activity and drain- age diversion. 20. Cemetery Road - North East Township 147.0 feet On East Lake Road from the road marker post 7-35 on a line northerly to the bluff. 21. Woodmere - North East Township 23.5 feet From the,.northwest corner of the second cottage east of the mouth of Perdue Run, now occupied by Carl Dailey, northerly to the edge of the bluff'. A low bluff consisting mostly of sands and clays formerly protected by extensive beach now essen- tially destroyed. 22. Dewey Road Fish Commission Access Area 104.0 feet North East Township From a utility pole No. 1273 in the access area northerly on a line through the cement ramp to the water's edge. Measurement is variable with lake level and con- ditions. When measured, conditions were calm with no wave activity. 23. Gay Road,- North East Township 82.0 feet Along the east boundary of 8 *2 Gay Road, northerly on a line from the center of-the road to the beach backshore. The beach backshore at this location on this day was immediately in front of 82 Gay Road. E-5 APP ENDIX F SELECTED REFERENCE BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Allender, Gerald C., Coordinator, "Interim Report for.the Comprehensive Waste and Water Quality Management Study of the Pennsylvania Portion of the Erie Basin and the Erie Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area," Prepared for Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Water Quality Management, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in cooperation with U. S. Environmental Pro- tection Agency, Engineering-Science, Inc., Arcadia, California, March 1974. 2. Assel, R. A., Great Lakes Ice Cover 1972-73, NOAA Technical Memorandum, NOS LSC D7. United States Department of Commerce, Lake Survey Center, Detroit 1974. 3. Beeton, Alfred M., Limnological Survey of Lake Erie, 1959 and 1960. Great Lakes Fish Commission, Technical Report 6, 1963. 4. Bowmann, R. S.,Sedimentary Process Along Lake Erie Shore, Sandusky Bay, Willow Point Investigations f Lake Erie Shore Erosion, Pincus (Editor) Ohio Geological Survey Report 18, pp. 119-138, 1953. 5. Bruno, Richard and Larry Hiipakka, "Littoral Environment Observation Program in the State of Michigan." Paper Presented at the 16th Conference on Great Lakes Research, 1973. 6. Bue, Conrad D., Flood Information for Flood-Plain Planning, Washington,.D.C. United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey, 1967. 7. Canada Centre for Inland Waters, Annual Report, Ottawa, Canada: Information Canada, Thorn Press Ltd. 1974.. 8. Carmen, J. Ernest, "The Geologic Interpretation of Scenic Features in Ohio,` The Ohio Journal of Science, Volume 46, No. 5, September 19A6, pp. 241-283. 9. Christopher, J., "'Geology of the Ohio Shore of Lake Erie Between Fairport and the Pennsylvania Border," Ph.D Dissertation Ohio State University, 250 pp., 195S. 10. Corps of Engineers, Report on Littoral Processes and Sedimentation in the Cattaraugus Embaym2nt, New York Final Report, Buffalo, New,York: United States Army Engineer District, Buffalo, 1974. 11. Cuthbert, F. Leicester, "Clay Minerals in Lake Erie Sediments," The American Minerologist, Volume 29, Nos. 9-10, pp. 378-388, 1944. 12. Dreimanis, A. and E. G. H. Reavely, "Differentiation of the Lower and Upper Till Along the North Shore of Lake Erie," Journal of Sediment Petrography, Volume 23, No. 4, December 1953, pp. 238-259. 13. Fish, C. J., "General Review Conclusions: Limnological Survey of Eastern and Central Lake Erie 1928-29," United States Department of the Interior Fish- Wildlife Service Special Science Report Fisheries, No. 334, pp. 173-194, 1960. F-1 14. Forsyth, J. L., The Beach Ridge of Northern Ohio, Ohio Geological Survey Inform tion, Circular 25, 10 pp 1959. 15. Fox, William T. and Davis, Richard A., Jr., "Profile of a Storm - Wind, Waves, and Erosion on the Southeastern Shore of Lake Michigan," Paper Presented at the 13th Conference of International Association of Creat Lakes Research, 1970. 16. Great Lakes Basin Framework Study, Appendix 16, Drainage, Ann Arbor Michigan: Public Information Office, Great Lakes Commission. 17. Great Lakes.Basin Framework Study, Great Lakes Basin Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 27 Volumes, 1975. 18. Great Lakes Shoreline Damage - Causes and Protective Measures, Washington, D. C U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Central Division, 1972. 19. Hartley, Robert P., "Bottom Deposits in Ohio Watdrs of Central Lake Erie," Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Shore Erosion, Technological Report No. 6, January 1961. 20. Hartley, Robert P., "Bottom Currents in Lake Erie," Proceeding llth Conference Great Lakes Research, pp. 398-405, International Association Great Lakes Reseal 1968. 21. Hartley, R. P., "Bottom Sediments in the Island Area of Lake Erie," Ohio.Depart ment of Natural Resources Division of Shore Erosion, Technological Report 9, ls 22. Hartley, R. P., "Effects of Large Structures on the Ohio Shore of Lake Erie." Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Shore Erosion, R. I., No. 58., 1964. 23. Hartley, R. P., Sand Dredging-in Lake Erie, Ohio Division Shore Erosion Tech- nological Report 5, 79 pp.,1960. 24. Hatcher, Harlan H., Lake Erie, Bobbs-Merill, Indianapolis 1945, 216 pp., 1945. 25. Herdendorf, C. E., "Sedimentation Studies in the South Shore Reef Area of Western Lake Erie," Proceeding llth Conference Great Lakes Research, pp. 188- 205, 1968. 26. Herdendorf, C. E., "The Physical Characteristics in the Major Reefs of Western Lake Erie," Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Geological Survey AFCS 1-2 Progress Report, 1969. 27. Herdendorf, C. E., Sedimentology.of Lake Erie, Great Lakes Basin Framework Study, Appendix No. 4, Chapter IX in preparation. 28. Hobson, G. D., C. E. Herdendorf and C. F. M. Lewis, "Ifigh Resolution Reflectiot Seismic Survey in Western Lake Erie," Proceeding 12th Conference Great Lakes Research, 1969. 29. Holmes, Arthur, Principles of Physical Geology, Second Edition, New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1965. F-2 30.. Ingle, James C., Developments in Sedimentology 5, "The Movement of Beach Sand, An Analysis Using Fluorescent Grains," New York: Elsevier Publishing Company, 1966. 31. Ippen, Arthur T., Estuary and Coastline Hydroeynamics, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966. 32. Johnson, Douglas Wilson, Shore Processes and Shoreline Development, New York: Hafner Publishing Company, 1965. 33. Kleinhampl, F. J., 11sedimentary Processes Along Lake Erie Shore, Four Miles East of Lorain to Huntington Beach Park," Ohio Division Geological Survey, Report No. 18, pp. 82-118, 1953. 34. Larsen, Curtis E., Variation in Bluff Recession in Relation to Lake Level Fluctuations Along the High Bluff Illinois Shore., Chicago, Illinois: Illinois Institute for Environmental Quality, September 1973. 35. Lawright, Richard, E. G. Williams and F. Dachille, An Analysis of Factors Controlling Deviations in Hydraulic Equivalence in Some Modern Sands., Journal of Sediment Petrography, Volumes 2-3, pp. 635-6-45, "Studies Lights-Heavies from Lake Erie - Paleozoic. - Presque Isle and West," 1972. 36. Leopold, Luna B., M. Gordon Wolman and John P. Miller, Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology, San Francisco.: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1964. 1 37. Leverett, Frank, "On Correlation of Moraines with Raised Beaches 'of Lake Erie," The'American Journal of Science, Third Series, Volume 43, No. 256, January- June, 1892, Article 35, pp. 281-301, 1892. 38. Leverett, Frank, 'Glacial Formations and Drainage Features of the Erie and Ohio Basins," United States Geological Survey Monograph, Volume 41, 1902, 802 pp. 39. Leverett, Frank, "Illinoian Drift in Eastern Ohio," Discussion of American Journal of Science, Volume 237, No. 11, November 1939, pp. 834-839. 40. Lewis, C. F. M., "Reconnaissance Geology of the Lake Frie Basin," unpublished, M. A. Thesis, Department of Geological Science, University of Toronto, Microfilm, 1963. 41. Lewis, C. F. M., T. W. Anderson and A. A. Berri, "Geological and Palynological Studies of Early Lake Erie Deposits," Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Great Lakes Research, Great Lakes Research Division, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, GLRD Publication 15, 1966. 42. Lewis, Charles F. Michael, "Sedimentation Studies of Unconsolidated Deposits in the Lake Erie Basin," University of Toronto Order at National Library of Canada at Ottawa, 1967. 43. Morgan, N. W., "Geophysical Studies in Lake Eric by Shallow Marine Seismic Methods," Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Physics, University of Toronto, 1964. F-3 44. 93rd Congress, lst Session, liou,5e Document Nos. 93-121 National Shoreline Study, Letter from the Secretary of the Armv, Transmi *tting a letter from tile Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, Dated May 4, 1973, Submitting .1 Report, Together with Accompanying Papers, on the National Shoreline Study Authorized by Section 106 of the River and Harbor Act Approved August 13, 1968., Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1973. 45. Packer, R. W., "Nonlinearity in Coastal Geomorphic Processes, V. Simple Model of Bluff Recession and View of Some Historic Records for Canadian Shore of Lake Erie," Source Unknown, Unpublished. 46. Pettyohn, F.J. and A. C. Lundahl, "Shape and Roundness of Lake Erie-Beach Sands," Journal of Sediment Petrography, Volume 13, pp. 69-78, 1943. 47. Pettyohn, F. J. and J. D. Ridge, "A Textural Variation Series of Beach Sands from Cedar Point, Ohio," Journal of Sediment Petrography, Vol. 2, pp. 76-88, l" 48. Pettyohn, F. J. and J. D. Ridge, "A Mineral Variation Series of Beach Sands from Cedar Point, Ohio," Journal of Sediment Petrography, Volume 3, pp. 92-94, 1933. 49. Pincus, H. j. et al, "1950.Investigations of Lake Erie Sediments in the Vicinity of Sandusky, Ohio," Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division Geological Survey, Contract No. 1, Lake Erie Geological Research Proceedings, 0 37 pp., 1951. 50. Pincus, Howard J., "The Motion of Sediment Along the South Shore of Lake Erie,' Proceedings of the 4th Conference Coastal Engineering Council on Wave Research, Chapter 8, pp. 119-146 (Held October 1953), 1954. 51. Pincus, Howard J., "Recession of Great Lakes Shorelineg," Great Lakes Ba sin, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, 1962. 52. Pincus, Howard J., "Retreat of Lakeshore Bluffs," Journal of Waterways and Harbors, ASCE, Volume 90', No. l,W 1, Feburary 1964. 53. Poston, H. W. (Editor), Lake Erie Environment Survey 1963-1964, United States Department of Interior, FWPCS, Great Lakes Region, 170 pp., 1968. 54. "Power-Regulation of Great Lakes Water Levels," t-ppendix F, Report to the International Joint Conunission by the International Great Lakes Levels Board, December 1973. 55. Quigley, R. M. and D. B. Tutt, "Stability - Lake Erie North Shore Bluffs," Proceedings llth Conference on Great Lakes Research, pp. 230-238, 1968. 56. Ramey, Horace P., "Great Lakes Levels and Their Changes,"-Photostat copy taken from Midwest Engineer, Nos. 2-3, 13 pp.. positive, 1952.. 57. Recession Rate Workshop Proceedings, Great Lakes Basin Com;nission, Ann Arbor, December 5-6, 1974. 58. Review Report on Cooperative Beach, Erosion Control Project at Presque Isle Peninsula, Erie, Pennsylvania, Department of the Army, Buffalo District, Corps of Engineers, November 1973. F-4 59. Richardson, W. S. and N. A. Pore, "A Lakz Eric Storm Surge Forecasting Tech- nique," Weather Bureau Technical Memo TDL-24 (PB 185-778), 1969. '0. Ross, A. R., @'Pleistoccne and'Recent Sediments in Western Lake Eric," University of Michigan Geology Ph.D. Thesis, 1950. 61. Rukavina, N. A. and D. A. St. Jacques, "Lake Erie Nearshore Sediments," Fort Erie to Mohawk Point, Ontario, Presented at the 14th Conference Great Lakes Research, Toronto, 1971. 62. Rumer, R. R-., "Dynamic Model Study of Lake Erie,,:Part 1, Similitude Criteria and Experimental Set-Up;.Part II, Analytical and Experimental Results," Advance Engineering Report Nos. 18.1-18.2, State University of New York, Buffalo, 1970. 63. Rummel, Klepper and Kahl, Fertig Engineering Company, Final Engineering Report, Presque Isle Survey, Erie County, Pennsylvania, Prepared for the General State Authority, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Project No. G.S.A. 163-8, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania: Fertig Engineering Company, August 1967. 64. Schooler, Elizabeth E.,Pleistocene Beach Ridges of Northwestern Pennsylvania, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resourres, Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey, 1974. 65., Shepps, V. C., "Correlation of the Tills of Northeastern Ohio by Size Analysis," Journal of Sediment Petrography, Volume 23, No. 1, pp. 34-48 (11 Figures), University of Illinois, March 1953. ',6. Shore Erosion in Ohio, Columbus, Ohio: State of Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Shore Erosion, February, 1959. 67. Shore Management Guidelines, Washington, D.C.: Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, 3.971. 68. Shore Protecticn Program, Washington, D.C.: Department of the Army,, Office of Chief of Engineers, 1970. 69, Spencer, J. W., "Deformation of Lundy Beach and Birth of Lake Erie," The American Journal of Science, Third Series, Volume 47, No. 179, Article 19, pp. 207-212, Figure 1, January-June 1894. 70. State of Ohio, Department of Natural Resources, Shoreline Erosion Study, Lake Erie Shoreline, Lake County, Ohio, Cleveland, Ohio: Stanley Consultants, August 1969. 71. State of Ohio, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Technical Report No.8, "Preliminary Estimate of Erosion or Accreti.on Along the Ghio Shore of-Lake Erie and Critical Erosion Areas," Columbus, Ohio: 1961. 72. Stout, Wilbur, Geology of the Lake Erie Shore, Shore and Beach, Volume 1, pp. 70-77, 1933. 73. A Strategy for Great Lakes Shoreland Damage Reduction, The Joint FRC GLBC Task Force for Great Lakes Shorelands Damage Reduction, March 1974. F-5 74. Thomas, R..L.,, "A Note on the Relationship of Grain Size, Clay Content, Quartz and Organic Carbon in Some Lake Erie and Lake Ontario Sediments," Journal of Sediment Petrography, Volume 39, No. 2, pp. 803-809, June 1969. 75. Tomikel, John and Shepps, Vincent, The Geography and Geology of Erie-County Pennsylvania., Harrisburg, Pennpylvania, Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 1967. 76. U. S. Army Engineer District, Draft Environmental Statement, Diked Disposal Si; No. 2, Erie Harbor, Erie County, Pennsylvania, September 1974, Buffalo, New Yo- 77. U. S. Department of Natural Resources, A Plan for Michigan's Shorelands, Depart ment of Natural Resources, August, 1973. 78. Verber, J. L., "Bottom Deposits of Western Lake Erie," Ohio Department of Natu: Resources Division Shore Erosion, Technical Report 4, 1955. 79. Ver Steeg, K., "The Buried Topography of Western Ohio," Journal of Geology, Volume 44, pp. 918-39, 1936. 80. Wall, Robert E., "A Sub-Bottom Reflection Survey in the Central Basin of Lake Erie," Bulletin Geological Society of America, Volume 79, pp. 91-106, January 1968. 81. White, George W., "Geology of the Lake Erie Shore ir. Ohio from Michigan Bounda, to Marblehead," Report for Ohio Department of Public Works, pp. 1-56, 1943. 82. White, George W., "Illinoian Drift of Eastern Ohio." American Journal of Scien, Volume 237, No. 3, pp. 161-174, March 1939. 83. Whi'te, George W., "Illinoian Drift of Eastern Ohio,"--Discussion, American Journal of Science, Volume 2j7, No. 11, pp. 840-842, November 1939. 84. Wilson, Irat, "Varves in Sandusky Bay Sediment," The Ohio Journal of Science, Volume 43, No. 5, pp. 195-197, September 1943. 85. Wright, H. E., Jr., "Stratigraphy of Lake Sediments and the Precision of the Paleoclimatic Record in World Climate from 800 to 0 B.C.," International Symposium London, Proceedings London Royal Meteorological Society, pp. 157- - 173, illustrated, 1966. 86. Zenkovich, V. P., Processes of Coastal Development,New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. (Interscience Publishers), 1967. F-6 IIIIININIM111111 , 1 3 6668 14100 9003