Ok Ge 137) Evaluation of Potential Use of
Vegetation for Erosion Abatement | : Along the Great Lakes Shoreline
by V.L. Hall and J.D. Ludwig
MISCELLANEOUS PAPER NO. 7-75 JUNE 1975
Prepared for
U.S. ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ee
7, COASTAL ENGINEERING usd RESEARCH CENTER
U3 Kingman Building Fort Belvoir, Va. 22060
Reprint or republication of any of this material shall give appropriate credit to the U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research
Center. Limited free distribution within the United States of single copies of this publication has been made by this Center. Additional copies are
available from: National Technical Information Service
ATTN: Operations Division 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, Virginia 22151 The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless so designated by other
authorized documents.
ANU
9
[
i
]
AN
UNCLASSIFIED
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered)
READ INSTRUCTIONS 1. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO.| 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER MP) 7-75
4. TITLE (and Subtitle) 5. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED
EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL USE OF VEGETATION FOR EROSION ABATEMENT ALONG GEIR ERORNINGIGHGNRCRORTINGHSER THE GREAT LAKES SHORELINE 9604-003-17
[7. AUTHOR(s) 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(S)
V.L. Hall J.D. Ludwig DACW72-74-C-0022
Miscellaneous Paper
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT, TASK
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS
Dames §&‘Moore 1150 West Eighth Street Cincinnati, OH 45203 11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS
Department of the Army
Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERRE-EC)
Kingman Building, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060 MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(if different from Controlling Office)
G31265
12. REPORT DATE June 1975 13. NUMBER OF PAGES
35
15. SECURITY CLASS. (of this report)
14.
UNCLASSIFIED
DECL ASSIFICATION/ DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE
15a.
- DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited
- DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered in Block 20, if different from Report)
» SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
- KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse side if necessary and identify by block number)
Shore Erosion Hydrophytes Coastal Structures Great Lakes Plants Dewatering Shoreline Changes Res loping
. ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse side if necesaary and identify by block number) This study identifies plants with potential, either alone or in combina-
tion with structures, to alter the erosion rate along shores of the Great Lakes. Information was obtained from literature, personal interviews, and a field survey. Shoreline plants were identified and evaluated. Thirty-three terrestrial species were found that effectively decreased surface erosion resulting from wind and runoff. No emergent or submergent plants were found to control erosion. While several emergent species may have special use in
DD , artes 1473 ~~ EDITION OF 1 NOV 65 IS OBSOLETE
UNCLASSIFIED
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered)
IIEAL
IV
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .
PROCEDURES . Z 1. Literature Search . 2. Field Survey.
FIELD OBSERVATIONS . Lake Superior . Lake Michigan . Lake Huron . . Lake Erie . 5 Lake Ontario . .
aWBWNeE
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . 1. Literature Review . 2. Field Survey. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS LITERATURE CITED . TABLES
Scorecard indexing erosion control potential of plant species
Sampling points along the Great Lakes shoreline
Characteristics of plants identified during literature review .
Characteristics of plants identified during field survey
Plant species with good to excellent potential for erosion abatement .
FIGURES
Locations of sampling points along the Great Lakes
Sand blowout caused by wind erosion
A secondary colonizer, sand cherry, invading a sand dune .
Page
28
29
11
14
15
10
11
CONTENTS
FIGURES - Continued
Bank erosion caused by seepage high above the water level.
Wave scouring causes undercutting and bank recession with loss of vegetation .
Lake Michigan bank erosion caused by seepage through sand and gravel layers. siti Staley xchiece, Memasite
A seawall at Kenilworth, Illinois has successfully stabilized -the bank.
Gently sloping shoreline (Lake Michigan)
Protective structure creating pool favorable for growth of reed.
Landscaped beach area and parking lot is ae by reforming a high eroding sandbank . Aiud
Reformation of rough bank and landscaping of shoreline .
Page 16
17
19
20
Ze
23
25
31
i shea! bi oe
Peace ..
EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL USE OF VEGETATION FOR EROSION ABATEMENT ALONG THE GREAT LAKES SHORELINE
by V.L. Hall and J.D. Ludwig
I. INTRODUCTION
The present physical characteristics of the Great Lakes shores in the United States resulted from natural changes in the Great Lakes region since the glacial recession and from the man-induced developments of recent years. The shore varies from high clay, shale, and rock bluffs, to lower shores of rock, sandy beach,and marsh. Except where bedrock is already exposed or protective works have been constructed, the shores of the Great Lakes are being altered by water and wind erosion.
Wave erosion is the most severe type of erosion occurring along the open shores of the Great Lakes. Damage from wave erosion has been more pronounced since lake levels have risen, the result of recent increases in rainfall over the Great Lakes basin. The average annual rainfall from 1900 to 1972 for the basin was about 32 inches; since 1964, how- ever, the annual rainfall has been above that 72-year figure (Inter- national Great Lakes Levels Board, 1973, 1974).
Surface runoff, the second most prevalent type of erosion along the Great Lakes shores, is most destructive on steep, unprotected slopes. If protection is inadequate, gullies form rapidly. A related problem, seepage, causes slumping, which increases the erosion rate and probability of landslides.
Other agents of lesser concern causing shoreline erosion are freezing and thawing and the action of floating ice. Freezing in- creases the volume of water and thawing reduces the volume;- the expan- sion-contraction process can move soil or rock sufficiently to cause landslides or rockfalls. In addition to the displacement from freezing, thawing may also cause an unstable layer to form between the ice and substrate, thus increasing the tendency toward bank failure.
Floating ice has a variable effect on shore erosion. Driven ashore by strong winds, it can cause extreme land scouring. On the other hand, ice may move onto shore and form a protective barrier against wave action that would otherwise erode the shore.
Wind erosion, normally a dry-weather phenomenon, occurs around Great Lakes dune areas that are droughty and barren. Wind is espe- cially destructive in dune areas, blowing sand inland. The deposited sand may bury established vegetation and perhaps develop a new dune area.
Erosional problems and damages include loss of land, imperilment to roadways, loss of recreational beach, loss of access to the lakes, and structural damage to dwellings, boathouses, docks, and stairways. Some shoreline conditions along the Great Lakes are difficult to alter to control erosion, particularly in areas where there is no beach or where the water interfaces immediately with steep bluffs. However, there are numerous areas where erosion can be abated by attenuating wave action with mechanical barriers and then using terrestrial and aquatic vegetation to protect the shore against the reduced wave action and against surface runoff.
There are three types of terrestrial plants that can be used to abate erosion: (a) pioneer plants, the species to first become established on new substrates; (b) secondary plants, the species to first invade edaphically stable areas colonized by the pioneer plants; and (c) tertiary plants, the species poorly adapted to dynamic conditions and requiring areas previously stabilized by pioneer and secondary species.
Most species used in terrestrial planting operations are the pio- neer type. The pioneer initiates a development sequence (Cowles, 1899; Hack, 1941). It stabilizes the surface, provides lodging for windborne disseminules, shields seedlings from sun and wind, and prepares the way for natural invasion of other plant types (Daubenmire, 1968).
Establishment of hydrophytes (submergent or emergent plants) is very difficult. They are highly restricted by currents and water level fluctuations. Emergent hydrophytes are limited to low-energy shores, where they modify less forceful waves; submergent aquatic plants estab- lish in even more protected areas. The restriction of submergent species to quiet waters limits their phytogeographical distribution, and their vulnerability to strong wave forces prohibits them from natu-
“rally colonizing the wave-swept littoral zones of lakes. —
The main purpose of this investigation was to determine if terres- trial and hydrophytic plants, either alone or in combination with structures, can be used to attenuate wave energy immediately offshore and to stabilize the areas adjacent to the waterline, thereby reducing the erosion rate along the Great Lakes shores.
II. PROCEDURES
The study was conducted in two phases, a literature search and a field survey. In both parts of the study, the emphasis was on vegeta- tion endemic to the Great Lakes area, because these plants are expected to be well adapted to the present environmental, edaphic, and climato- logical stresses.
ile Literature Search.
The literature was reviewed for pertinent information on plants
useful for reducing shore erosion. Based on information from these sources, plants were evaluated for their potential adaptability to abate erosion on the Great Lakes shoreline. Plants were classified by their ability to invade and become established as pioneer, secondary, or tertiary species.
Federal and State agencies, universities, and private industries provided topographic maps of the Great Lakes shoreline and several reports related to erosion problems and controls. Interviews were held with personnel knowledgeable about the Great Lakes area or erosion control methods.
During the literature survey, information on use of structures and shoreline modifications was collected and used to form broad guidelines for evaluating how various structural and shoreline modifications might be used with vegetation to decrease erosion rates.
2. Field Survey.
A scorecard fashioned after Parker and Woodhead's (1944) scorecard was developed (Table 1) for evaluating the erosion control potential of plants found at the site. The card was designed to index reproductive potential, density, composition, organic litter accumulation, soil deposition and removal, gully formation, slope angle, and evidence of wave action. The card allowed for evaluation of species to be performed tn sttu. Since the card includes two edaphic categories not applicable to aquatic plants, the investigators weighted the evaluations of the remaining parameters to compensate for the difference. The best expression of each category received the lowest numerical value; plants with an index less than 31 classify as potentially effective erosion abatement species.
Reconnaissance of the Lake Superior shore included the States of Wisconsin and Michigan; Lake Michigan shores were surveyed near Kewaunee, Wisconsin, and from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to Muskegon, Michigan. The north and south shore of Lake Huron were surveyed. The Lake Erie shoreline from Detroit, Michigan,to Buffalo, New York,was inspected. The Lake Ontario shoreline was surveyed from Youngstown to Rochester, New York, wherever there was access to the lake. Sampling points (Fig. 1) for each of the lakes are located by county, State, and vicinity in Table 2.
Because private ownership along the Lake Michigan shore limited access, the number of survey points there was reduced.
III. FIELD OBSERVATIONS he Lake Superior. Most Wisconsin shores east of Superior to Cornucopia, particularly
along the red clay bluffs, are subject to eroding runoff from upland areas, undercutting by wave action, and clay bank sloughing caused by seepage.
(pr6l ‘pesyupooM pue toyIeg 192FV)
eee
tsquemmog r0eN19
et0og [530], SmEnercecrevcceccovccseccoeloog OE-6 E7999 922°"? poor Thre °aFBF IO ALOZoRIsTZESUY Qinde°2e 8 *queTlLeoxy
WYOOS TWLOL JO NOILYIGUdUSINEI €2°89°°**oaTsseoxKy zeoeeeeeeenuepunqy poeeeeeeenoteg 0 [Emon uoT}OB OAM JO eoUEPTAG
eeeeesenoge pure 409 FFOOODOOOTIOIOOQION FIERY seoccccrcecea nonce yee socceregnz=o
eT2ue edots
occvcccccccccvccccveccccccovcccecotrimg pedeys <9 10 =, deep yuenbery
eeeeesetT[n3’ deep Teuotses[9 °*sOFTTNd KOTTEYS Teuctseo[g eeoceuctzE}eceA UZTM PETPSY TTeM 3nq Sees AOTTeYUS TreUs Teuotseo09
© 0000000000000000000000000000080000000000090099000000900999SGTTING ON
SOK NNN
uopzemos ATTN)
L ceeeeseeeeeengsodxe Tposqns mex ‘qoedmoo pue pivy ATTeLeued sTyos *eatsseoxe yUuouBAed TEuoTso1e ‘ponower ATOZ1eT uozzxoy Tos seddy
¢ evecvcccovccocooesccsosrss9enadOTaAep queuesed Teuojtsole *pesodxe Thosqns mex go sqods yyTM ‘peaower Zuzeq ATpydet uoztioy Tos teddy
€ Poeeeresevecooovesoooerooacrgosevegrecovesorooes0elooD9OCHOOL pus seTaqed pesodxe woly Zupwtoy queweaed TeucTsole ‘suey [ETANTTS einjzeTUTU snoroumu uzTA dn yeeIq 07 ZupuuTseq uozys1oy Tos reddy
| °°°*sy90 pue seTqqed pesodxe [euofTseo00 ‘suey [BTANTTE oinpEpUpU [euotsv00 fq pezoezop eq UBd YUCUMAOW TFOS ynq YorZUT stokBT [FOS TIV
0 ceccereereccccceceescccosovoccsorcoserecloTsole YeOYs quoiedde ou *stagep zueTd yTA peteaoo [TAM pue zOeIUT sUOZTIOY Io sekET [FOS TLV (PUTA puw tezen) TeAOWOT [FOS puB pues
occccccccsccveccvcscscccc0%%000(soUmp PUB PUBS UMOTG) FJTIP eATSSEOXy evcccccescvccccccccsevccescecs00000nr TID Kavoy
ccccoenstap ZUSTIS
eee ccccecsscevcescccecscacvecc0cc000000eNnTTID ON
(PUTA) uoTz;sedep [Fos puw pues
OK NNO
2 eee eeonm0y *quepunge Are;
AN MNS
squetd ueenzeq edejins [Fos uo 103zTT OTUBRIO
'SHCLYOIGNI ‘TICS
Z quepunge Ate, T yuepungy Q SupxoRT Jo edteds setoeds Apoan do/pue sesseis Tenuuy 4 toog € ape Z pooy T yueTTeoxs: uotzFsoduny
4 toog € atey Z poopy T uetteox: Ay Tsueq
G queseid sopoeds aopiejuy “°seyouetq peep snoteumu yA 10 peap squetd Auey € coverccvccccccveccvccceccvcccccoccoeccescvecgouripadde pespey euNSSe SQUETZ
JZ COPeeevccccveevcvvccvccvosevesvovesessecsovscccvsesccoeesseseHaInoy SLUTTY
T coeeeeesquetd 3unok [njpueTd pue yAOIZ Teupute, 10 Teseq Mou URTA SzUETy
L ceerccccgvcccccoecccccvccvcsccsceenvar3 SSOT YLBEP YYTA elel sSuTTpees *qtoys ATomWeryxXe pue Mey syxTeYS pees “4oTOo ATYOTS ‘eTed eq Aew ‘HeeM sqUPTZ
G cevccccccceveccecyTeis poos YYsUeT eYBtepom UTM AUZTESY AToPELOpom squETY
€ C00 0c /eele\e/e\e/e\v. 00/0/00 ele]ele.e clejeeleeleslelcieececeeseecieeveuornTpu0d aood ao ayes uy edféy eatzEejeton oy UF Sjods [TruoTst|09 *saivat poo ATouerzxe UF ydeoxe eoteds uoTyonpoidey “*syxTe}S pees ZuoT uyTAM eacge se¥ szueTyZ
qe POLLO LCLOH OHO SLOG LOLHTOTOODSOSOOSOOOSSOSOS OSC THEOL poo3 ut Taypquetd uofzonpoidey °squetTd peep ou 10 Mey ‘snoteumu pue SUOT SsxTeYS pees ‘seareT snoiteunu ATeuwelzxe puw IOTOO ueeiZd yaup *AUZTECY UTA *4sTQoI szUPTY
*seole peqoozoid ATezELepou yYTA eredwoo ‘eumpToaA pues yYySTey ‘toTOD uo peseg :SYOLYOIGNT INVId
eweN UoCmMIOD setoeds snuey
UOFPBSOT OTS
978d
= ee ee ee ee a ee ee ee a ae
“sotoeds quetd fo [et}uezod [o1}UOD UOTSOLe SuTXeput paedeL09g “[ oTqey
10
“soyey] 3eer19 oy} Buote squtod Bsurtdwes Fo suotze.0T “T aiIn3sty
OIHO | VNVIGNI VINWATASNNAd ot | ! anv13A310 @ ee 003701 | 2 = SIONIT11 42 O9WIIHD 5 ee oS a | 1104130 eAEIOES WAET o1vs4ne 4¥31S3HI0U ee NVOIHOIW J3NNVMIINW Ava N33u9 Si SS. NISNOOSIM ) !
ee — is — el — | HinNiNG S37IW | VLOSANNIW j a ee OlNVLNO SEAN
Table 2.
Sampling Point
Lake Superior
v
Sampling points along the Great Lakes shoreline.
1 Bayfield, Wisconsin West of Fish Creek mouth on State Route 13 2 Bayfield, Wisconsin 2.5 miles west of Port Wing on State Route 13 3 Bayfield, Wisconsin North of Port Wing and east of lighthouse 4 Bayfield, Wisconsin “Herbster s Bayfield, Wisconsin Cornucopia 6 Marquette, Michigan Buckroe 7 Marquette, Michigan 32 miles west of Munising on State Route 28 8 Alger, Michigan 11 miles west of Munising on State Route 28 9 Alger, Michigan Grand Marais State Park 10 Chippewa, Michigan Whitefish Point Lake Michigan ll Kewaunee, Wisconsin Kewaunee 12 Lake, Illinois Tllinois Beach State Park 13 Cook, Illinois Glencoe 14 Cook, Illinois Kenilworth 1s Porter, Indiana Porter 16 Berrien, Michigan New Buffalo 17 ‘| Berrien, Michigan Union Pier 18 Berrien, Michigan Warren Dunes State Park 19 Berrien, Michigan St. Joseph 20 Van Buren, Michigan 4.5 miles south of Grand Haven, Van Buren State Park 21 Emmet, Michigan Cecil Ba Lake Huron 22 Mackinac, Michigan 38 miles east of State Route 134, I-75 Interchange on State Route 134 23 Mackinac, Michigan 3.4 miles east of State Route 134, I-75 Interchange on State Route 134 24 Presque Isle, Michigan 6.7 miles northwest of Huron Beach on U.S. 23 25 Presque Isle, Michigan 5.9 miles northwest of Huron Beach on U.S. 23 26 Presque Isle, Michigan 2.8 miles northwest of Huron Beach on U.S. 23 Lake Erie 27 Monroe, Michigan Sterling State Park 28 Ottawa, Ohio Crane Creek State Park 29 Erie, Ohio 2.7 miles west of junction of State Route 60 and State Routes 2 and 6 in Vermilion 30 Erie, Ohio 1 mile west of junction of State Route 60 and State Routes 2 and 6 in Vermilion 31 Lorain, Ohio 2.7 miles west of junction of State Route 611 and 6 in Lorain 32 Lorain, Ohio 0.8 mile west of junction of State Route 6 and 57 in Lorain 33 Cuyahoga, Ohio Huntington Park, Cleveland 34 Lake, Ohio Headlands State Beach Park, Fairport Harbor 35 Lake, Ohio Madison-on-the-Lake 36 Ashtabula, Ohio Geneva-on-the-Lake 37 Ashtabula, Ohio Ashtabula 38 Ashtabula, Ohio Conneaut 39 Erie, Pennsylvania Presque Isle State Park 40 Erie, Pennsylvania Freeport Yacht Club junction of State Routes 5 and 89 41 Chautauqua, New York Ripley 42 Chautauqua, New York Barcelona 43 Chautauqua, New York Lake Erie State Park 44 Chautauqua, New York Dunkirk 45 Erie, New York Evangola State Park Lake Ontario 46 Niagara, New York Coolidge Beach 47 Niagara, New York Roosevelt Beach 48 Niagara, New York Wilson 49 Niagara, New York Lakeview Ei!) Orleans, New York Shadigee $1 Orleans, New York Lakeside
52
Monroe, New York
Hamlin Beach State Park
Wave action and erosion appeared minimal along the Michigan shore between Marquette and Big Bay. The coastline was forested, with a narrow beach. Generally, forests extended to the high water line with no evidence of severe shore erosion.
Sand dunes of the Grand Sable Banks near Grand Marais, Michigan, are subject to blowouts (Fig. 2) and wind erosion. The shore at Whitefish Point, Michigan, is relatively flat and is eroding. Rock was exposed in many areas, but where vegetation existed, it retained small mounds of sand; this area showed some of the most successful examples of sand retention by vegetation.
No emergent hydrophytes were observed on the Lake Superior shores.
Extensive beach areas north of Port Wing, Wisconsin, are stabilized by the terrestrial codominants beach-pea (Lathyrus maritimus) and wild rye (Elymus mollis). A low topographic relief enhanced land stabiliza- tion by both rhizomatous perennials. Dense rhizomatous mats of blue- joint (Calamagrostts canadensts), prairie sandreed (Calamovilfa longt- folta), brome grass (Bromus kalmit), and rush (Juneus balttcus) were observed at Cornucopia, Wisconsin. These heterogeneous stands close to the wave-shore interface provided excellent control against surface runoff.
Eleven miles west of Munising, Michigan, is a sandy shore stabil- ized by wild rye and sand cherry (Prunus puntla). Invasion of the secondary colonizer, sand cherry, is successfully stabilizing the soil (Fig. 3). Active sand dune blowouts, stable sand dunes, and successional plant establishment were found at Grand Marais State Park, Michigan. Pioneer sand stabilizer was again wild rye. The lee side of active dunes was colonized by the herbaceous pioneer tansy (Tanacetum huronense) and the secondary colonizers sand cherry and heart-leaved willow (Saltx cordata). Tertiary species were limited to balsam poplar (Populus balsamtfera). At Whitefish Point, Michigan, abrasion by blowing sand limited vegetative vitality and diversity, although the low-habit false heather (Hudsonia tomentosa), along with scouring rush (Equisetum hyemale) and wild rye, were vigorous enough to impede the wind and accum- ulate appreciable sand mounds.
Some bank erosion along the Lake Superior shore was caused by seep- age (Fig. 4) and wave scouring (Fig. 5). Only one structure was noted, riprap to abate bank erosion near the State highway at Herbster, Wiscon- sin. The treatment appeared successful; the bank was stabilized, with vegetation well established between the riprap and road to prevent erosion due to surface runoff.
2): Lake Michigan. Kewaunee County shores south of Kewaunee, Wisconsin, were high,
near-vertical bluffs of glacial till with exposed sand and gravel lenses. During wet periods, the lenses become water-saturated and seepage along
‘uoTSOZa putm Aq pasned 4nomoTq pues
°Z oIN3STy
14
-okz prim Aq poeztttqeys AToeeLOpow ounp pues e SutpeaAut ‘AtLeyd pues ‘teztuoToo ATepuodses VY
‘¢ oan3sTty
IS
UMOPp JUSUBAOW [TOS soqeLoTIONR *(QF9T) [TEeAST ZO1emM 942 sAOGe
“yueq 944 (2y8T1) oedo[s Fo 90} uO UOTIDe OAeM ysty osedees Aq posned uoTsore yUueg
"p oansTy
14
NOV
16
*UOTIEYOIBOA FO SSOT YIM UOTSSO.0I YUeq pue BUTIINITEepuN sosned BUTINOIS oAeM
Ss omn3sty
\7
the bluff causes slumping of the soil and, at times, large landslides.
Shore conditions of Lake Michigan from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to Muskegon, Michigan, varied from sloping beaches to severely eroding bluffs. The shoreline of Cecil Bay was not severely eroding; the bay formed a protected area with a relatively flat bottom for a consider- able distance from shore.
Two emergent hydrophytes, great bulrush (Setrpus acutus) and spike rush (Eleocharis palustris) were observed at Cecil Bay, Michigan.
Vigorous stands of wild rye were present at the public beach at Kewaunee, Wisconsin, despite public land use pressures. At Illinois Beach State Park, diverse plant species enhanced sand accumulation. The pioneer wild rye and the secondary invaders, creeping cedar (Juntperus hortzontalts), false Solomon's seal (Smtlactna stellata), sandbar-willow (Salix interior), pepper-grass (Leptdtum virgintcum), wild rose (Rosa blanda), forest-grape (Vitis rtparia), sand cherry, and bearberry (Arctostaphylos uva-urst) were well established. Wild rye, an excellent sand binding grass, was present also at Porter, Indiana.
Steep, unstable sandy bluffs are a problem at New Buffalo, Michigan, but the sand cherry established on the more gentle cap has increased Slope stability, thereby retarding the sloughing process. High water toe lines were stabilized by forest-grape and red osier dogwood (Cornus stolontfera) at Union Pier, Michigan. Stabilized dunes were noted at Warren Dunes State Park, Michigan. There, the dominant rhizomatous grass, prairie sandreed, provided a wind impediment resulting in sand accumulation and dune stabilization.
The Soil Conservation Service at Kewaunee, Wisconsin, has success- fully stabilized shores by dewatering the glacial till, sloping the face of the bluffs, and seeding the reshaped slopes (Fig. 6). In this case, dewatering is the key factor and is essential to control erosion caused by seepage.
At the Kenilworth, Illinois, Public Water Works, a concrete seawall and groin have been built (Fig. 7). A private residential beach fronted the seawall, but the recent rise in water level has reduced the beach to a small area adjacent to the groin. This seawall has success- fully controlled bank erosion.
About 4.5 miles south of Grand Haven, Michigan, a high sandbank overlies a firm clay base; rainfall rapidly eroded the unprotected sand, and gullies developed in the shore. Public access will influence what type of vegetation is used here.
oye Lake Huron.
The northern shores of Lake Huron, from its junction with Inter- state Highway 75 to De Tour Village, Michigan, (and adjacent to State
18
(°8DTALES UWOTIPATESUO)
[tos Fo AsojzInN0)) °*(9A0qGe) UOoTSsodezZ yueqg pezt{tqeqys sey FFounz Aq uotsord jusaeid 01 SUTpses pue ‘38utTdeysor yueg “Sutzoqemoq *(4F0T) TTT} TetoeTs ey? ut sLoAeBT TOACIS pue pues y8nory. o8eds_as Aq posned uotsoza yueq uesTYyoTW oyeT
19
“yueq 94} pezTTtqeys AT[InNJss9oons sey ‘STOUTTI]I “YJIOMTTUSy 1e [[eMeesS Vy
2 Sasiakss yes
20
Highway 134), is about 43 miles long. The shore consists of low plains and some outcrops of limestone and dolomite. None of the sites inspected had severely eroding shorelines.
A second survey was made along U.S. Highway 23 from Mackinaw City, Michigan, to Hammond Bay, where the shore is potentially erodible even though stony. Although the banks appeared to be easily erodible, there was little evidence of severe erosion, and grasses and broadleaved plants were observed in the sandy reaches.
A gently sloping shore 3.5 miles east of State Route 134 and the Interstate 75 interchange provided suitable habitat for bluejoint, great bulrush, and rush (Fig. 8). Although bluejoint and rush are flood-tolerant, they are not important species for wave attenuation.
About 38 miles east of the State Route 134-Interstate 75 inter- change, pioneer, secondary, and tertiary terrestrial species were ob- served. Rhizomatous, herbaceous pioneers included wild rye and blue- joint. Secondary species included creeping cedar, false Solomon's seal, sand cherry, and bearberry. The invading arborescent tertiary species was balsam fir (Abtes balsamea). Pioneer species such as silver-weed (Potentilla anserina) closely associated with the land-water interface were observed at 6.7 miles northwest of Huron Beach, Michigan, on U.S. Route 23. Other sampling points along Lake Huron were at 5.9 and 2.8 miles northwest of Huron Beach, Michigan, on U.S. Route 23. Plants observed at the former site included wheat grass (Agropyron dasystachyum), wild rye, false Solomon's seal, sand cherry, beach-pea, and red osier dogwood; the latter site contained wild rye, heart-leaved willow, sand cherry, and bearberry.
4. Lake Erie.
Severe bank erosion was evident along all of the Lake Erie shore examined. The frequent wave attack on the shore prevents establish- ment of submergent and emergent hydrophytes that might be used for erosion control.
Terrestrial plants observed along the Lake Erie shore were cotton- wood (Populus deltoides) and sandbar willow near Sterling State Park, Michigan, and cottonwood and wild rye at Presque Isle State Park near Erie, Pennsylvania. None of these plants was exposed to waves.
A breakwater jetty at Ashtabula, Ohio, produced a stilling effect between the structure and the shore, providing habitat for reed Gei~e., 9).
Sc Lake Ontario. Wave action and erosion along Lake Ontario shores were as severe
as along Lake Erie shores; no erosion-controlling hydrophytic or terrestrial plants were observed.
2\
“ysni pue ‘ysnatng e913
‘jyutofentq Loz }eITQGeYy eTqe Ins e optAoad sx19zeM YaTNb
ATOAT}ETOI pue (UeSTYITW 2y4e7)
auTTOLOYs BuTdoTs AT UAayD
a1n8 Ty
Ze
"poet FO YIMOIS IOF oTqeLoAez [ood But}eoLD 91NIONIIS 9ATIIE10Ig "6 Oan3Ty
ANAM RUSE RICO SOCEM SOUR UAT
(Ze)
At Hamlin Beach State Park, New York, a high sandbank was graded to a slope of 1:12 (1 unit vertical to 12 units horizontal) and seeded with a grass mixture to stabilize the sand against erosion (Fig. 10). Before reshaping, the sandbank was being eroded by waves; the shore has now stabilized and is a heavily used recreational area.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Ike Literature Review.
The most promising information from the literature on use of vege- tation for erosion control was from Edminster (1949), who suggests plant establishment to control erosion of streambanks. Mulch techniques to temporarily control erosion and to help establish vegetation, with definite guidelines for establishing and maintaining vegetation, are published by the Soil Conservation Service (1966, 1969).
A study of the erosion problem of Berrien County, Michigan, identi- fied problem localities and factors contributing to the problems and suggested corrective action (U.S. Congress, 1958). A more recent study for Lakes Michigan and Huron was made by the Michigan Water Resources Commission (Brater and Seibel, 1973). That engineering study determined the severity of erosion and the rate of bluff recession at selected locations. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (1961) performed a similar study for the Ohio shoreline along Lake Erie; the U.S. Army Engineer Division, North Central (1971), conducted a general study of erosion on all the Great Lakes. The U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers (1971la) established shore management guidelines and also published guidelines for shore protection (1971b).
Carter (1973) described and evaluated structures and natural fea- tures relative to erosion of the Lake Erie shoreline. The State of Minnesota published two reports on shore management (Minnesota Depart- ment of Natural Resources, 197la, b). A report on low cost shore pro- tection for the Great Lakes was published by the University of Michigan (1959), and, although costs have increased, construction methods remain the same.
Literature sources (Lamson and Scribner, 1894; Cowles, 1899; Weaver and Clements, 1938; Soil Conservation Service, 1974) provide lists of plant species potentially useful for erosion control. The erosion abatement potential of these is usually further enhanced if several species are mixed within an area; many of the plants occur naturally in association with one or two other species. Colonizing category, morphological adaptations, seasonal occurrence, and growth form of plant species derived from literature sources are listed in Table 3.
ie Field Survey.
a. Emergent and Submergent Vegetation. The coastline of the Great
24
‘yuegpues SsuTpore hq podopoaep 0, Sutyrzed pue evore
ysty e sutTWLOysoI yoeoq podeospuey
"OT oansty
25
Table 3.
Characteristics of plants identified during literature review that are
effective for erosion abatement along the Great Lakes shoreline.
Wheat grass Quack grass European beachgrass
American beachgrass
Little bluestem Bearberry
Smooth brome grass Prairie sandreed Buttonbush
Inland sea oats Indian reed grass Red osier dogwood Persimmon
Autumn olive
Sea lyme grass, circa 1894 (Wild rye)
Wild rye
Black huckleberry Rush
Juniper Knot-root grass
No common name Reed canary grass
Common reed grass Japanese black pine
Water smartweed
Balsam poplar
Silver-weed
Beach plum
Sand cherry
"Arnot' bristly locus Heart-leaved willow Dune willow Cordgrass
Forest-grape
Agropyron repens Ammophila arenaria
Ammophila breviligulata Andropogon scoparius
Arctostaphylos uva-urst Bromus inerms Calamovilfa longifolia Cephalanthus occidentalis Chasmanthium lati foliwn Cinna arundinacea Cornus stolonifera Diospyros virginiana Elaeagnus umbellata Elymus arenarius
(E. mollia)
Elymus canadensis Gaylussacia baccata
duncus balticus
Juniperus communis
Muhlenbergia mexicana Paronychia jamesst Phalaris arundinacea
Phragmites auetralis Pinus thungergit
Polygonum amphtbium
Populus baleamifera
Potentilla anserina Prunus maritima Prunus pumila
Robinta fertilis
(R. hispida)
Saliz cordata
Salix glaucophylloides Spartina pectinata
‘Vitis vulpina
ee ee
Characteristics
Pioneer, rhizomatous, herbaceous perennial occurring on dunes and droughty soil; traps sand, forms dunes
Pioneer, rhizomatous, herbaceous perennial occurring along gravelly coasts; binds slopes
Pioneer, rhizomatous, herbaceous perennial occurring along the coast; traps sand, forms dunes
Pioneer, rhizomatous, herbaceous perennial occurring on dunes
Pioneer, rhizomatous, herbaceous perennial occurring in open fields and woods
Secondary, perennial woody shrub occurring on sand and exposed rock; forms dunes
Pioneer, rhizomatous-stoloniferous, herbaceous perennial occurring along roadsides and fields; forms turf, stabilizes slopes
Pioneer, rhizomatous, herbaceous perennial occurring on sand, often with European beachgrass; traps sand
Secondary, perennial woody shrub occurring in swamps and stream banks; slowly accumulates sand and creates dunes
Pioneer, rhizomatous, herbaceous perennial occurring in moist woods and low thickets; binds streams and river banks
Pioneer, rhizomatous, herbaceous perennial occurring in moist woods and shaded swamps; binds streams and river banks
Secondary, stoloniferous, perennial woody shrub occurring in thickets and on shores; forms dunes
Tertiary, perennial tree occurring on abandoned fields; effective for dune stabilization
Secondary, perennial woody shrub occurring in thickets and on roadside banks; effective for dune stabilization
Pioneer, rhizomatous, herbaceous perennial occurring on sandy beaches; often grows with European beachgrass
Pioneer, rhizomatous, herbaceous perennial occurring on sandy, gravelly, rocky soil; stabilizes sandy surfaces
Secondary, perennial woody shrub occurring in woods, thickets, and clearings; often occurs with junipers to form dunes
Pioneer, rhizomatous, herbaceous perennial occurring on sandy, brackish to freshwater shores; forms small dunes
Secondary, perennial woody shrub occurring on droughty soils; forms dunes
Pioneer, rhizomatous, herbaceous perennial occurring along shores, thickets, damp clearings, and sandy soils
Secondary, perennial woody shrub occurring on rock slopes, breaks, dunes, and clay soils; adapted to gravelly soils
Pioneer, rhizomatous, herbaceous perennial occurring along shores, swales, and meadows; controls stream bank erosion
Pioneer, rhizomatous, herbaceous perennial; similar to reed canary grass Tertiary, perennial tree; horticultural; effective for dune stabilization
Secondary, rhizomatous, herbaceous perennial occurring in meadows, swamps, shores, and ditches; traps sand and forms dunes
Tertiary, perennial tree occurring along river banks; forms dunes
Pioneer, stoloniferous, herbaceous perennial occurring on sandy shores and banks; traps sand, forms dunes
Secondary, perennial woody shrub occurring on coastal sandy soils; effective for sand dune stabilization
Secondary, perennial woody shrub occurring on dunes, sand, and calcareous, rocky shores; dune builder
Tertiary, perennial tree occurring in dry woods, thickets, and on slopes) effective for sand dune stabilization
Secondary, perennial woody shrub occurring on gravelly, sandy shores, beaches, and dunes; dune builder
Secondary, perennial woody shrub occurring on gravelly shores, thickets, and mainly on calcareous soils; dune builder
Pioneer, rhizomatous, herbaceous perennial occurring along shores, in swamps and wet prairies; sand stabilizer
Secondary, perennial woody shrub occurring along river banks, in bottom- lands and thickets; checks advance of sand on protected sand dune slopes
26
Lakes is mostly abrupt, although there are some protected areas on the northern shore of Lake Huron and also at Cecil Bay west of Mackinaw City, Michigan. These protected areas have shores conducive to aquatic plant growth but the gentle action of the water there has resulted in no erosion hazard. Thus, areas where aquatic plants will survive
are not areas of primary concern relative to erosion. Where erosion and shoreline recession is a major problem, the coastline conditions and wave action prevent growth of hydrophytes, especially submergent plants.
Wave action along the shores of Lakes Superior, Erie, and Ontario prevents establishment of any hydrophytic plants that might have erosion-controlling properties.
Lakes Michigan and Huron have some protected bays and inlets suit- able for emergent and submergent vegetation. Plants observed there were herbaceous terete species. Other plants, such as great bulrush, spike rush, and bulrush, will establish there if the shore is gently sloping.
A gently sloping shore on Lake Huron 3.5 miles east of the State Route 134 and Interstate 75 interchange provided habitat for bluejoint, great bulrush, and rush. These plants will not withstand harsh wave action; they cannot be considered suitable for wave attenuation.
One of the few excellent habitats for emergent hydrophytes was found on Lake Michigan at Cecil Bay, where great bulrush and spike rush were very effective in wave dampening.
b. Terrestrial Vegetation and Shore Alterations. The ability of a shoreline to resist erosion, or its resiliency to water dynamics, de- pends upon the composition of material making up the shore front and the adaptability of its vegetation. The erosion resistance of the Great Lakes shores diminishes from the rock bluffs and rocky shorelines of Lakes Superior and Huron, to the sandy beaches of Lake Michigan, to the silty-clay bluffs along Lake Erie. Similarly, the erosion abatement potential of the terrestrial vegetation varies from location to loca- tion along the Great Lakes shores.
Qualitative evaluations of the erosion-controlling potential of each vegetative species were obtained tn sttu using the scorecard (Table 1). Species found during the field survey are listed in Table 4, and an average site index of the observed species is given in Table 5. Vegetative species classified as excellent for erosion abatement in their ecologically adapted areas included balsam firm, juniper, creep- ing cedar, brome grass, reed (Phragmites communis), wild rye, blue- joint, prairie sandreed, spike rush, great bulrush, rush, balsam poplar, cottonwood, speckled alder (Alnus rugosa), silver-weed, beach- pea, false heather, red osier dogwood, and bearberry. The remaining species classified as good include scouring rush, wheat grass, wild rye, reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), bulrush (Setrpus amertcanus), false Solomon's seal, sandbar willow, heart-leaved willow,
27
Table 4.
Characteristics of plants identified during field survey that are effective for erosion
abatement along the Great Lakes shoreline.
a
eee |
Common name
Scientific name
Characteristics
Balsam fir Wheat grass Speckled alder Bearberry
Brome grass Bluejoint
Prairie sandreed
Red osier dogwood Spike rush Wild rye
Wild rye
Scouring rush
Scouring rush False heather Rush
Juniper Creeping cedar
Beach-pea
Pepper-grass
Reed canary grass Reed
Balsam poplar Cottonwood Silver-weed
Sand cherry
Wild rose Heart-leaved willow Sandbar-willow
Great bulrush
Bulrush
False Solomon's seal
Tansy
Forest-grape
Abies balsanea Agropyron dasystachyun Alnus rugosa Arctostaphylos uva-urst Bromus kalmi
Calamagrostia canadensis
Calamovilfa longifolia Cornus stolonifer
Eleocharis palustris (E. amallit)
Elymus arenarius (E. mollis)
Elymus mollte
Equisetum fluviatile
Equisetun hyemale Hudsonia tomentosa
Juncus balticus
Juniperus communis dJuntperus horizontalis
Lathyrus maritimus (L. Japonicus)
Lepidiun virgintcum Phalaris arundinacea
Phragmites .communis
Populus balsamifera Populus deltotdes Potentilla aneerina Prunus pumila
Rosa blanda
Salix cordata Saliz interior Setrpus acutus
Scirpus americanus Smilacina stellata
Tanacetwn huronense Vitis riparia
Tertiary tree, perennial occurring in shoreline woods Pioneer, rhizomatous, herbaceous perennial occurring in droughty soils Tertiary tree, perennial occurring in depressions,: swamps, and along stream banks
Secondary, perennial woody shrub, occurring on rock outcrops and in sand
Pioneer, rhizomatous, herbaceous perennial occurring in calcareous, open soils, and thickets
Pioneer, rhizomatous, herbaceous perennial occurring in meadows, bogs, and wet thickets
Pioneer, rhizomatous, herbaceous perennial occurring in sand
Secondary, stoloniferous perennial woody shrub, occurring in thickets and shore areas
Pioneer, rhizomatous, herbaceous perennial occurring in marshes, ponds, and on stream banks
Pioneer, rhizomatous, herbaceous rocky soil
perennial occurring in droughty, sandy, and
Pioneer, rhizomatous, herbaceous perennial occurring in sandy areas and beaches
Pioneer, rhizomatous, herbaceous perennial occurring in shallow water and wet thickets
Pioneer, rhizomatous, herbaceous perennial occurring on sand or clay shores Pioneer, perennial woody shrub occurring on dunes and sand-blows
Pioneer, rhizomatous, herbaceous perennial occurring on brackish to freshwater shores
Secondary, perennial woody shrub occurring in droughty soils Secondary, perennial woody shrub occurring on rocky or sandy banks
Pioneer, rhizomatous, herbaceous perennial occurring on sandy, gravelly shores
Secondary, herbaceous annual or biennial occurring in droughty soils
Pioneer, rhizomatous, herbaceous perennial occurring on shores and in swales and meadows
Pioneer, rhizomatous-stoloniferous, herbaceous perennial occurring in fresh to alkaline marshes, ditches, and depressions
Tertiary, perennial tree occurring on river banks
Tertiary, perennial tree occurring on river banks
Pioneer, stoloniferous, herbaceous perennial occurring on sandy, gravelly shores Secondary, perennial woody shrub occurring on sandy, gravelly shores
Secondary, rhizomatous, perennial woody shrub occurring on rocky. slopes Secondary, perennial woody shrub occurring on sandy, gravelly shores
Secondary, stoloniferous, perennial woody shrub occurring in alluvial soils Pioneer, rhizomatous, perennial woody shrub occurring in marshes and on shores
Pioneer, rhizomatous, herbaceous perennial occurring on freshwater, brackish, or saline shores
Secondary, rhizomatous-stoloniferous, herbaceous perennial occurring on gravelly or alluvial shores
Pioneer, stoloniferous, herbaceous perennial occurring in sands and gravels
Secondary, perennial woody vine, occurring on river banks snd in thickets
28
Table S. Plant species with good to excellent potential for erosion abatement at sampling points along the Great Lakes shoreline.
a Average
Sampling locations! Site Index?
Family Common name
Scientific Name
Equisetaceae Scouring rush Equisetum fluviatile Equisetum hyemale Pinaceae Balsam fir Abies balsamea
Cypressaceae Juniper Juniperus communta Creeping cedar Juniperus horizontalis
Gramineae Brome grass Bromus kalmit Reed
Phragmites communis 8 12 10.0 Wheat grass Agropyron dasystachyum 21 21.0 Wild rye Elymus mollis 10 12 417]10}] 8 8 19 20 | 20 10 13.4 Elymus canadensis 22 | 24 23 23.0 Bluejoint Calamagrostis canadensis 8 20] 21 16.3 Prairie sandreed Calamovilfa longifolta 9 11 10.0 Reed canary grass Phalaris arundinacea 19 19.0
Rosaceae Silver-weed : Potentilla anserina 10 10.0 Wild rose Rosa blanda 25 25.0 Sand cherry Prunus pumila 20 23 23 16 19 17 | 25 20.4
Fabaceae
Beach-pea Lathyrus maritimus 15 10 16.3 Vitaceae Forest-grape Vitis riparia 16 22 24 20.7 Cistaceae False heather Hudsonta tomentosa Cornaceae Red osier dogwood Cornus stolonitfera 12 17 16.5 Ericaceac Bearberry Arctostaphylos uva-uret 22 7 22 16.8 Compositae Tansy Tanavetum huronense 27 27.0
Cyperaceae Spike rush Eleocharis palustris 14 14.0 Bulrush Scirpus americanus 23 23.0 Great bulrush Scirpus acutus 17 17 17.0 Juncaceae ie Ul bs Juncus balticus 9 4 20 | 10 13.0 Liliaceae False Solomon's seal Smilacina stellata 28 24 23 25.0
Salicaceae
Balsam-poplar
Populus balsamifera 15 15.0 Cottonwood
Populus deltoides 22 |, 12 17.0 Sandbar-willow
Salix interior 26 20 23.3 Heart-leaved willow
Salix cordata 27 21 23.5
Betulaceae Speckled alder Alnus rugosa 15.0 Cruciferae Pepper-grass 28 |. 28.0
2. This number is the average of scores for that individual species from all locations where it was encountered. Interpretation of indexes are: Excellent 7 to 18; Good:19 to 30 (see also Table 1).
pepper-grass, wild rose, sand cherry, forest-grape, and tansy. Most plants were observed in heterogeneous stands with no pronounced dominance by an individual species.
Species most effective as sand accumulators have a low-growth profile with minor vertical stratification. Species exemplifying this growth habit include most grasses, juniper, creeping cedar, rush, false Solomon's seal, silver-weed, beach-pea, bearberry, and tansy.
Plants common to both literature and vegetative surveys were: wild rye, prairie sandreed, reed canary grass, wheat-grass, heart- leaved willow, sand cherry, red osier dogwood, balsam poplar, rush, bearberry, juniper (Juntperus communts), and silver-weed.
Land alteration has proved essential for controlling shore and bank erosion in many areas of the Great Lakes. Near Kewaunee, Wisconsin, for example, seepage contributes to bank failure along Lake Michigan. The Soil Conservation Service has successfully installed a deep tile line to intercept seepage and conduct the underground water to Lake Michigan. The banks were reshaped to an approximate slope of 2:1 and the soil was seeded with a mixture of crown vetch and fescue to control surface run- off. Similar dewatering has been effective in urban and rural areas. The work is costly, especially on high banks. In time, if seeding has successfully stabilized soil on the banks, native plant species invade and become established along with planted species.
Clay with glacial overburden containing sand and gravel lenses can be effectively dewatered provided there is a discharge outlet to dis- pose of the intercepted surface and seepage water. Because of high cost, dewatering must be carefully evaluated.
The critical factor for success in this type of stabilization is effective dewatering of the soil and establishing of vegetative cover to prevent surface erosion.
An example of a Lake Michigan shore modification is shown in Figure 11. The site was in Racine County about 3 miles north of Racine, Wisconsin. Rock was used for shoreline protection to minimize erosion of the embankment. The rough steep bank was graded to a more gentle slope and was seeded to control surface erosion. This shore front mod- ification requires a soil that is not subject to seepage so severe that it causes bank failure. Loam soil is best for this type of reclamation. The best vegetative growth is obtained by topdressing with fertilizer and irrigating. Where a specific type of vegetation is desired, weed control may also be required. This shore front renovation requires constant management to maintain a turf appearance.
Reforming and vegetating the beach at Hamlin State Park, New York, on Lake Ontario (Fig. 10) was successful. A high sandbank was re- shaped to a 1:12 slope to reduce erosion by dissipating wave energy. The beach and its adjacent recreational area were vegetated to control surface erosion. Since this shoreline modification was for recreation,
30
Figure 11. Reformation of rough bank (above) and landscaping of shoreline (below). (Courtesy of Soil Conservation Service. )
3]
a species able to withstand frequent mowing was used. This type of vegetation requires constant management. Unfortunately, not all soils are adapted for this type of erosion control. Coarse sands are well adapted, while silt and clay soils are not; their very fine particles are easily moved by water.
c. Vegetation in Combination with Structures. During the field survey, three structures were observed that were successful, in com- bination with vegetation, in controlling shoreline erosion. The structures were located on Lakes Superior, Michigan, and Erie, and were of three different types: riprap, seawall with groin, and jetty.
Near the state highway at Herbster, Wisconsin, on Lake Superior, riprap was installed to abate bank erosion. The riprap has stabilized the bank against wave action; a well-established vegetative cover has decreased the runoff rate.
Another structure that is successful in controlling bank erosion is a concrete seawall and groin at the Kenilworth, Illinois, Public Water Works on Lake Michigan (Fig. 7). Lake level increases here have greatly reduced a private beach that fronted the seawall, but the wall is very effective in dissipating wave energy. The dense and well- established vegetation behind the wall successfully prevents surface runoff erosion on the bank.
On Lake Erie, at Ashtabula, Ohio, a jetty (Fig. 9) has effectively dampened wave action so that a pool has formed between the shore and the structure itself. The quieter pool area is a desirable habitat for reed, which in turn provides aquatic habitat and enhances the aesthetic quality of the shore.
V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Attempts to establish vegetation on the shores of the Great Lakes, particularly Lakes Erie and Ontario, for erosion abatement are not ex- pected to be successful without structural wave dampening, and often, land reforming. After wave force has been reduced and the shoreline stabilized by use of structural methods, vegetation can be established to further stabilize the soil, and thus reduce surface erosion resulting from runoff. If vegetation is to be established to dampen waves and to limit inland wave penetration, some reforming to develop a gradual slope of the foreshore is desirable and may be feasible in places.
Establishment and maintenance of an effective vegetative cover on sandy areas will require fertilizing and irrigating, and continuous maintenance will be necessary. The vegetation selected must be com- patible with the land use, particularly if the area has public access. Before any attempt is made to stabilize the sand with vegetation, the effect of seepage must be evaluated to determine if dewatering is needed for a firm sand-clay interface.
32
The principal use of yegetation on the Great Lakes shores is to abate surface erosion caused by runoff or wind. Plants found frequently during the survey are false Solomon's seal, wild rye, and sand cherry. Information on surface erosion and the various techniques for its con- trol (dewatering, slope grading, sand stabilization) are available from the Soil Conservation Service or the County Agriculture Extension Agent.
Further research on use of aquatic plants for erosion abatement on the Great Lakes shores is not recommended because open shoreline conditions are not favorable for the growth_and maintenance of introduced submergent and emergent plants.
33
LITERATURE CITED
BRATER, E.F., and SEIBEL, E., ''An Engineering Study of Great Lakes Shore Erosion in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan," Department of Natural Re- sources, Michigan Water Resources Commission, Lansing, Mich., 1973.
CARTER, C.H., "Natural and Manmade Features Affecting the Ohio Shore of Lake Erie,'' Guidebook No. 1, Division of Geological Survey, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Columbus, Ohio, 1973.
COWLES, H.C., ''The Ecological Relations of the Vegetation on the Sand Dunes of Lake Michigan," Botantcal Gazette, Vol. 27, 1899, pp. 95-117; 167-202; 281-308; 361-391.
DAUBENMIRE, R., Plant Communtttes - A Textbook in Plant Synecology, Harper and Row, New York, 1968, pp. 3-24; 123-234.
EDMINSTER, F.C., "Streambank Plantings for Erosion Control in the North- east,'' U.S. Department of Agriculture Leaflet No. 258, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1949.
HACK, J.T., "Dunes of the Western Navajo Country," Geographical Review, Volks Sl yelo4iaippe240=265.
INTERNATIONAL GREAT LAKES LEVELS BOARD, ''Regulation of Great Lakes Water Levels, Report to the International Joint Commission," Chicago, I11., Dec. 1973, pp. 31-49; 243-252.
INTERNATIONAL GREAT LAKES LEVELS BOARD, Regulattons of Great Lakes Water Levels, A Summary Report 1974, R.B.T. Printing, Ltd., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 1974, pp. 16-17.
LAMSON, F., and SCRIBNER, B., U.S.D.A. Yearbook for 1894, U.S. Govern- ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1894, pp. 421-436; 580.
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, ''Shoreline Management, Classification Scheme for Public Waters,"' Supplementary Report No. 1, Division of Waters, Soils and Minerals, St. Paul, Minn., 197la.
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, ''Shoreland Management, Elements and Explanation of the Shoreland Rules and Regulations,"' Supplementary Report No. 2, Division of Waters, Soils and Minerals, St. Paul, Minn., 1971b.
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, "Preliminary Estimate of Erosion on Accretion Along the Ohio Shore of Lake Erie and Critical Erosion Areas,'' Technical Report No. 8, Division of Geological Survey, Columbus, Ohio, 1961.
34
PARKER, K.W., and WOODHEAD, P.V., "What's Your Range Condition,"' American Cattle Producers, Nov. 1944.
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE, "Building, Planting, and Maintaining Coastal Sand Dunes,"' Conservation Information No. 32, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Hyattsville, Md., 1966.
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE, "Mulching for Erosion Control on Newly Shaped Slopes,'' U.S.D.A. SCS M-2430-226, U.S. Department of Agri- culture, Portland, Ore., 1969.
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE, "Sources of Planting Stock and Seed of Conservation Plants Used in the Northeast - 1974 § 75," U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture Northeast Technical Service Center, Upper Darby, Pa., Feb. 1974.
U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DIVISION, NORTH CENTRAL, "Great Lakes Region Inventory Report, National Shoreline Study," Chicago, I11., Aug 1971.
U.S. ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, "National Shoreline Study, Shore Manage- ment Guidelines,'' Washington, D.C., 197la.
U.S. ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, "National Shoreline Study, Shore Protec- tion Guidelines,' Washington, D.C., 1971b.
U.S. CONGRESS, "Berrien County, Michigan, Beach Erosion Control Study," HD No. 336, 85th Congress, 2nd Session, Washington, D.C., 1958.
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, ''Low Cost Shore Protection for the Great Lakes," Research Publication No. 3, Engineering Research Institute, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1959.
WEAVER, J.E., and CLEMENTS, F.E., Plant Ecology, McGraw-Hill, New York, OSS ppee ll AWOL e255).
35
ney aie
dup gcn* L279 GL-L *ou dwig¢n* €0ZOL
(9981309) (setias) *zoyjne jutof S°q*r S3tmMpny “IT “eTIFL “I “seanjonaqs Teqseog °*¢ *squeTg *y ‘“Sasueyo euTTetoYs *E¢ ‘sayeyT Jeeag *Z ‘“uOTSOIe eA0US ‘{
*uOT}Oe BAEM aTaAaS jo esneoeq Setoys jJsoW B3uoTe SeT[O1}UOD uoTsOte eTqej TNs Jou sie suUOTe syueTd 3ey} peutwiejep sem RT “*SeyeT Jee15) ay. JO setoYSs BuoTe ae uofFsotle 94} TeqTe OF *seanjzonNAz,s YITM uOoTJeUTqUOD UT XO sUOTe IaYITe
‘TetTjuejod yzZTM sjuetTd auTTetoys saqenyteas pue saeTsTqiUuept Apnqs stuy
“ce-e *d :Aydex80tTqrg (SL-£ *ou zaded snosueTpToosty *1oqUeD) YoIeasey SutrseuTsuq Teqseog *s*n) ‘snT {Tt *d c¢ "CL6L ‘1eqUeD YyOTRasay But~raeuTSugq Teqseog “sn ‘*eA *aTOATeg 3104 *3TMpny ‘a*r pue TTeH “T°A Aq SautTpTezoys sayeT Jeezy ayy SuoTe JUoUlezeqe UoTSOIe TOF uoT}eIa30A Fo asn [eT JUa}Od Jo UoTIeENTeAq “T°A “DLPH
duwigcn* £29 GL-£ *ou dupgcgn* £020L
(39813uU0)) (Setres) *zougne jutol ‘°q*r S3tmpny “II “eTITL *I *seanqonazqs Teqseop °*¢ *squeTd “7 ‘“‘sadueyo euTTetoys *¢ “*saye] 3ee19 *Z *UuoTSOTe eA0YS *|
*uOTJOe BAPM BTeAeS JO asneoeq setoys Jsow BuoTe sieTTO1}UOD UOTSOXe eTqeyTNS Jou 91e sUOTe squeTd Jey} poutwzejep sem JI ‘“sayeT 2ee1D Vy] Jo sezoys BuoTe e7e1 uofSOI® ay ToeqzTe OF fSaanjoOnzIs YIM UOTIeUTQUOD UT AO sUOCTe IayiTe
*Tetquejod yz~TM sjuetd suTpTetoys sajzenTeAe pue seTyTiuept Apnjs sty
*ce-ve °d :hydeaSoTTqrg (GL-L °*ou azeded snoaueTTeosTy *ZaquaQ yoIeasey BuTrseuT3uq Teqseop *s*n) “SNTTT “d cE “G/6[ ‘eqUeD YOTeEeSeYy ZuTAseuTZuq [Te 3seoD *s*n f*eA *‘apOATeg 310g “3EMpnyT *a*’r pue TTeH “T°A Aq SauTTeroYs saye] JeeID 9yW ZuoTe JUewe,eqe uoTsOta AOF uoTIe}JeTeA Fo Bsn TeT}UeJod Fo uoTIeENTeAY “T'A “TTPH
—
dw gcn* £09 GL=£ [ou dwjgcn* £020L
(J9e1}uU09) (settas) *zoyjne jupfof **q'r “3TMpnyT “Tl “eTaFL °I ‘“seanqonaqs [Teqseop °*¢ *sJUPTd *h ‘*Sadueyo eUTTeIOYUS *¢ ‘“SayeyT yeetH *Z “‘uoTSOITs aeTOUS *|
*uOTJOe BABM |VIZAVS JO asneoeq seioys }sOW 3u0Te SAeT[OI.UOD UuoTSOIe eTqez TNS Jou sie suOTe sjuetTd Jey} peuTmiejep sem qT ‘soyeT JeaIN JY JO SeTOYS BuoTe aqjer uoOTSOIa ay} AJ9eITe OF *SsainjzoOnIA4s YITM uoTJeUTqUOD UT ZO sUOTe AZYITe
‘TetTquejod yITM sjueTd auTTeroys sajenTeas pue seTjTjuept Apnqjs sty
*ce-ve *d :AydessotT qtg (GL-£ *ou teded snosuetTeostyy *ZajueD) yoIeesey BZuTiesuTsuq TeqyseoD *s*n) “SNTTT “d cE “GL6, S29qU9D YOTRVSey BuTAveuTSUq TeJseoD *s*n S*eA *ijToATeg 310g *3tmMpny *q'r pue [TTeH “T°A Aq SautTezoys seyeT qeeIry 942 SuoTe Jueuejzeqe uoTSOIa 1OJ uoT}eJeB9A Fo Vsn TeTJUsjod Jo uoTIeENTeAY “T°A ‘TTPH
dujg¢n* L279 GL-£ “ou duigcn* €0ZOL
(79e1}uU0D) (SseTties) *zougne qufof S*q*r “3EmMpny “Il “e8TIFL *] “Seanqzonags Teqseop) °G *squeTd *f ‘sadueyo auTTetoys *¢ “*SeyeT WeeID *Z “UuoTSOIe eA0YS *|
*uoTJ9e BARPM BTeAVS JO asneoeq sezoys jsow BSuoTe SAexTTOAJUOD UOoTSOZS aTqeqtns Jou sie suOTe squetd Jey} peutwtejep sem qT “Saye eeID ey Jo saroys BuoTe o3e1 uoTsoie 9y} ATeqTe 07 ‘seanjJONAAS YITM uOTJeUTQqUOD UT IO sUCTe 19Y4ITe
*TeTquejod yIIM squetd ouTTetoys sejenTeAs pue setzTjuept Apnys sTyL
*ce-ve *d :Aydeazs0tT ata (GL-£ *ou zeded snosueTTsosTW *zojueD YyorResey BuTAseuTSuq Teqseog *s*n) “snNTTT “d cE “GL6| ‘eqUeD YyoIResey BuTAeeuTZuq TeIseoD *Ss'N *°eA *atoaTeg J10q *3tMpny ‘a'r pue TTeH “1°A Aq SouTTezo0ys sexe] 2ee1D 9y ZuoTe Juowe,eqe uoTSOIs OZ UOTIeIeS3eA FO asn TeTJUe}od jo uoTIeNTeAg “T°A ‘TT®H
ai
ih
Pay, }
du gcn* £729 Gilmer! dujgcn* €072OL
(3981309) (setias) *zoyjne jufof S*q*r S8tmpny "IT “eTIFL *I ‘*seanqonaqys Teqseog °C *squeTd °y ‘“Sesueyo suTTetOYS *E¢ ‘seyYeT JeeID *Z ‘UOTSOIe eTOUS *{
*uOT}JOB BAEM |aTaAaS jo esneoeq setoys }sow B3uoTe SleTTO1jUuOD uoTsOie eTqej{ns Jou aie suUOCTe squeTd 3ey} peufwiejzep SEM AT ‘“SayeT JeeIN |YR JO SatOYS BuoTe aje1r uofsois 9y} 1eqTe 02 *seinjzoNAzASs YIM UOTJeUTqUOD UT IO d|UOTe AayRTS
*‘TeTqjuejod yITM sjuetTd auTTetoys sajenteas pue setzpjuept Apnqs stu
“se-ve *d :Aydeazsott arg (GL-£ ‘ou zeded snoauetpTeosty *lojueD YOIResey BuTAeeutsugq Teqyseop *s*n) “snT TT “d c¢ "C/6| ‘1e}UeD YyOTeaseYy BuTrseuT3uq [Teqseog “stn ‘*eA *‘ayOATeg 310g *STMpny “q*r pue TTeH “T°A Aq SautTetzoys sayeT qeea9 ay} SuoTe Juoulezeqe UoTSOTe 1OFZ uoT}e}e3eA Fo asn TeTJUejJOd Fo uoTIeNTeA “T'A “TTPH
dup gcgn* L279 GL-£ *ou dui g¢n* €07OL
(3981309) (satites) *zougne qutol ‘S*q*r S3TMpny “II “eTITL °I “seanjqonazqs Teqseop °*¢ *squeTd *y ‘*‘sa8ueyo suTTetousg *¢ “seyeT JeeayN °*Z “*uoTSOISe eA0YS “|
*uOTJOe BAPM VIaAVS JO asneoeq seZoys sow BuOTe SLeTTOAJUOD UOTSOJe sTqeqJIns jou sie sUOTe squetTd Jey} poutuzajep sem JI “Saye T 3e9ID Vy Jo sazoys BuoTe a7e1 uofsorte oy} JoqTe 07 *Saanjonaqs YITM UoTJeUTQqUOD UT AO sUOTR AJayITe
‘Tetquejod yzTM squetd suTpTetoys sejenyteas pue setTyTiuept Apnqs sTyL
"ce-pe *d :AydeasotT qtg (GL-L °*ou zeded snosueTToostW *leque) Yyoreosey BuTAvouT3ug Teqseon *s*n) “sNTIT “d cE "G/6, ‘teaquUeQ YyoIeesey BupiseuT3ugq Teqseop “sn ‘S*eA *‘atoaTeg 3104 *3tmpny *a*r pue TTeH “T°A Aq ‘SauTTetoys seyeT Jeet 347 ZuoTe JUeweqzeqe uoTsOI9 AOFZ uoTIeIadeA Jo asn TeTjuejod jo uoTIeNTeAY “T°A “TLE
duwigcn* L£e9 GiZol, PO dup gcn* £0701
(99e1}uU0D) (settas)
*zoyjne jutof **q*r *8TMpny “IT “eTAFL “I “*Sseanqjonaqs Teqseon *¢ *squeTd *h ‘“‘sasueyo suTTetoOYS *¢ ‘sayeT Jee1D *Z “*UOTSOTa at0YS “|
*uofT}0e aAPM VTaABS Jo asneveq Satoys sow 3uoTe SAaTTOAJUOD uoTSOte aTqezTNs Jou vie ouoTe sjueTd 3ey} pouTmiejep sem RT ‘sayeT ee1D VY} JO sero0YS BuoTe ajer uoTSO1e 3Yy} T9zTe OF *S9INJONAAS YIFA UoTIeUTQUOD UT AO BsUOTe ABayITE
‘TeTqueqjod yy~M squetd suTTetoys saqenTeae pue satjstjuept Apnqs sty
*ce-ve *d :AydeasotT qt (GL-£ ‘ou aaded snoaue,TTeosty *Zojuep Yyoteesey BuTiesuTsuq TeqyseoD *s*n) “SNTTT *d cE “CL6L ‘19]Ua9g YOARaSey BuTIseuTSUq TeqseoD “sn f*eA *‘AjToATeg 3404 *3TMpny *a*r pue TTeH “T°A Aq SeutTeroys sayey Jeary ouq SuoTe Juswejzeqe uoTSOta 1OJZ uoTIeJeZeA Jo |asn TeTJUejod jo uoTJeENTeAY “T'A ‘TTPH
dujgcn* L279 GL£-L *ou dupgsn* €0ZOL
(9981300) (Settes) *zouqgne jupof *°q°r “SEMpny “TT “eTITL “TP ~seanjgonaqs Tegseop °¢ *squeTd *y ‘“saedueyo auTTeroyg “Eg “SeyeT yeeID *Z “uoOTSOTe eA0YS *|
*uOTJOP BAPM VIBAVS JO asneveq setoys ysouw SuoTe SAaT[OA}UOD UOTSOXAS eTqejtNs jou vie sUOTe squeTd jeu peutwzeqep sem QT ‘“soyeT 3e9ID |VyQ JO Saexzoys BuoTe 33e1 uoftsole oy} TaqTe 07 fseanjoNAJS YITM UOTJeUTQqUOD UT ATO |UOTe 13eYITe
*TeTquejod yIIM squetd suTTetoys seqjenyTeas pue seTyTjUepE Apnqjs sTyL
*ce-ve *d :hyders0TTqTE (GL-L *ou aeded snosueTTo0sTW ‘zajuaD Yyoreaesey BuTAeouT3uq TeIseog *s*n) “snTIT *d cE “CL6| ‘toque Yoreesey BuTAseuTSuq Teqseog *s*n ‘*eA *afoaTeg JA0g *3EMpny “a'r pue TTeH “T°A Aq SoutTezoys sayeT 3e2I19 943 ZuoTe JuseWeJeqe uoTSOIa AOFZ UOTIeIVZeA FO Bsn TeTJUejod jo uoTIeNTeAY rly Apa EH
an’ ite) ec Se ee
e — er i
ne
S “4, ) P A j o f = {