Evaluation of potential use of vegetation for erosion abatement along the Great Lakes shoreline

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 =
{