Wisconsin Coastal GIS Applications Project

A Resource Guide for Great Lakes Coastal Hazards in Wisconsin

David A. Hart
University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute

This resource guide seeks to consolidate information about natural hazards affecting the Great Lakes coast in Wisconsin. It includes general information and links to other sites about techniques to manage or mitigate coastal hazards and strategies developed by government institutions to address coastal hazards in Wisconsin. It is designed to be a "living document" that can be updated and expanded as conditions change and more information becomes available.

Disclaimer. The resource guide was originally completed in September 1997 as part of an Independent Work class (URPL 999) in the Urban and Regional Planning Department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison under the direction of Prof. Stephen Born. As of this time, the resource guide has not undergone extensive peer review. I welcome any comments, critiques, or suggestions for improvements or additions. Please contact me by email at dahart *at* wisc.edu or by phone at (608) 262-6515.

Contents

Coastal Hazards on the Great Lakes

The Wisconsin Coastal Management Program has characterized three primary types of natural hazards affecting the state's Great Lakes shore. These are:

The hazards associated with living along the shores of the Great Lakes tend to appear in cycles. One illustration is bluff erosion, which is more likely to occur during storm events that coincide with periods of high water levels in the Great Lakes. Awareness of coastal hazards seems to ebb and flow in cycles too. Coastal property owners are acutely aware of hazards during periods of high water levels and especially right after a damaging storm or a bluff failure, but this awareness fades over time as the threat to coastal property diminishes.

This period of heightened awareness is an opportune time to address coastal hazards issues, at least from the standpoint of public perception. Water levels in the Great Lakes, however, are currently on the low end of their range. The last period of significantly higher lake levels was during 1996-98. The previous period of high lake levels was 1985-86, which resulted in $16 million of documented damage to public facilities alone (WCMP 1992, p. 85).

Vulnerability to Bluff Erosion in Wisconsin

Many areas of the Wisconsin Great Lakes coast are vulnerable to bluff erosion. In general, the erodible sections of the Lake Michigan shore are from the Illinois state line to the Sturgeon Bay Canal in Door County and northeastern Brown County on Green Bay. Along the remainder of the Lake Michigan shore, bluff erosion is limited to smaller segments of bays and clay banks. On the Lake Superior shore, bluff erosion is more localized. Vulnerability is highest along the high clay bluffs running from Bark Point in Bayfield County to Wisconsin Point in Douglas County and from Iron County to the White River in Ashland County (Springman and Born 1979, pp. 6-11).

Vulnerability to Coastal Flooding in Wisconsin

Coastal flooding is a serious issues along two low-lying sections of the Lake Michigan shore: southern Kenosha County and the western shore of Green Bay from the City of Green Bay to the Michigan state line (WCMP 1992, Addendum p. 1).

Variable Lake Levels

Water levels in the Great Lakes fluctuate on both a seasonal and long-term basis. On a seasonal basis, the lowest levels are during the winter when much of the precipitation is held on land as snow and ice. The highest seasonal levels are during the summer. Long-term variation of lake levels depends on precipitation and evaporation trends in the Great Lakes watershed. The water volume of the Great Lakes is large and outflow from natural outlets is limited. Flow regulation structures exist in Lakes Ontario, Michigan and Superior, but their influence is limited by their size and the need to regulate water levels for multiple interests including shipping. Lake levels rise when net water supply exceeds outflow and above average lake levels can persist for extended periods even after the conditions that caused them have ended. Table 1 shows characteristics of recent high lake levels in Lake Michigan and Table 2 shows characteristics of recent low lake levels.

Table 1. Recent Lake Michigan High Lake Level Periods

High Lake Level Periods

Peak Monthly Average

Peak Month

1996-1998

177.19 m

July 1997

1983-1987

177.50 m

October 1986

1972-1976

177.32 m

July 1974

1952-1953

177.28 m

August 1952

Source: COE, Detroit District

Table 2. Recent Lake Michigan Low Lake Level Periods

Low Lake Level Periods

Peak Monthly Average

Peak Month

1999-present

175.87 m (provisional)

February 2000

1963-1968

175.67 m

March 1964

1932-1938

175.67 m

Feb/Mar 1934

Source: COE, Detroit District

Links

Managing Coastal Hazards

The following methods for coastal erosion hazard reduction were listed in the 1990 report by the National Research Council titled Managing Coastal Erosion.

Shoreline Engineering

Building and Land Use Management The following approaches to damage reduction from shore erosion were identified in the 1979 report titled Wisconsin's Shore Erosion Plan: An Appraisal of Options and Strategies authored by Springman and Born:

Those alternatives identified as structural or remedial approaches to damage reduction include:

Those alternatives identified as non-structural or preventative approaches to damage reduction include: Springman and Born 1979. pp. 41,57,77-106.

Links

Institutions Addressing Great Lakes Coastal Hazards in Wisconsin

NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1451-1464) requires that federal agencies conducting activities within a state's coastal zone comply to the maximum extent practicable with an approved state coastal zone program (Emmer and Calvert 1992, p. 26). The NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) has review and oversight responsibility over the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program.

Links



Federal Emergency Management Agency

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for the administration of the National Flood Insurance Program (42 U.S.C. 4001-4128) and emergency response in the case of natural disasters. To participate in the NFIP, communities must satisfy FEMA's regulations for floodplain management. Through the NFIP, FEMA works with the state and local governments to reduce damages in floodprone areas (Emmer and Calvert 1992, p. 25).

FEMA Coastal Erosion Impact Study
Most FEMA floodplain mapping covers hazard areas associated with riverine settings. Areas that have a one percent chance of flooding or greater are designated as an "A-zone" on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). In coastal settings, an additional designation is made on FIRMs, termed the "V-zone". This is where damage may be caused by wave action from high velocity wind storms. At present, the NFIP does not cover gradual erosion, but does cover losses due to storm events. If a structure falls victim to coastal erosion on a non-storm day, the losses are not covered. The NFIP also does not apply in situations where a loss is expected soon, but has not yet occurred (termed an "imminent loss"), although such losses were covered under the Upton/Jones program from 1988 to 1995. (Crowell, 1997, p. 24).

As a result of the passage of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act (NFRIA) of 1994, FEMA is required to submit a report to Congress that evaluates the economic impact of erosion and erosion mapping on coastal communities and on the NFIP. The study must meet the following requirements: (1) determine coastal communities prone to erosion, estimate the number of flood insurance claims that are attributable to erosion, and "map a statistically valid and representative number of communities with erosion hazard areas throughout the United States (three 10 mile sections of Racine, Ozaukee, and Manitowoc Counties are included in the Wisconsin section); (2) "assess the full economic impact of erosion on the National Flood Insurance Fund; and (3) "determine the costs and benefits of expenditures necessary from the National Flood Insurance Fund to complete mapping of erosion hazard areas." (Crowell, 1997, p. 25).

The study is divided into three phases and the final report must be submitted to Congress in 1999. Phase I covers mapping of erosion hazard areas, determining 60-year erosion hazard areas (EHAs) in a representative sample of communities. Phase II inventories structures located within the 60-year EHA, as well as current and projected flood zones. Phase III is the economic impact analysis of erosion and erosion mapping to be conducted by a "private independent entity."

Links



U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) achieves its regulatory authority from the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C.A. 401-406) and the Clean Water Act, Section 404 (33 U.S.C.A. 1251-1376). Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act prohibits the unauthorized obstruction of any navigable waters of the United States. Alterations include the excavation from or depositing of materials in navigable waters or other actions that affect the course, location, condition, or capacity of navigable water (Emmer and Calvert 1992, pp. 15-16).

COE Lake Michigan Potential Damages Study
In 1996, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District and the Waterways Experiment Station initiated a study of potential damages along the coastlines of Lake Michigan. The study objectives as indicated from the notes of the kickoff meeting held November 20-21, 1996 are as follows:

The study scope from the November 1996 meeting notes are as follows: The draft task list for the Potential Damages Study as of January 1997 is as follows: Links

Wisconsin Coastal Management Program

The WCMP is administratively housed in the Wisconsin Department of Administration, Division of Energy and Intergovernmental Relations. The WCMP carries out a networked form of management, with reliance on coordination of existing agencies and institutions to improve coastal policy development and regulation. This contrasts with state coastal management agencies with broad powers to enforce regulations such as the California Coastal Commission. The WCMP relies on grants to local governments, technical assistance and information dissemination to carry out its mission (Born and Miller, 1988).

The WCMP lists the following as its primary objectives:

Program oversight is provided by the Wisconsin Coastal Management Council, whose 15 members are appointed by the Governor. The majority of funding for the WCMP is provided by the U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, under the auspices of the National Coastal Zone Management Program.

Links



Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) is responsible for implementing state and federal laws that protect and enhance Wisconsin's natural resources (Wisconsin Blue Book 1995-1996 p. 478). Specific functions related to Great Lakes coastal hazards include floodplain management and shoreland zoning regulations. WDNR is the agency that implements most of the WCMP's enforceable policies.

Links



Wisconsin Emergency Management

The mission statement of Wisconsin Emergency Management (WEM) is "to utilize effective planning, training, and coordination to continually develop the mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery capabilities of the State and its subdivisions for emergencies resulting from all hazards." The organizational structure of WEM includes a Natural Disaster Program, which oversees hazards analysis, natural disaster standard operating procedures, hazards response and recovery checklists for county emergency management directors, and guidelines for assessing and documenting disaster damage. Hazard mitigation, defined as any actions taken to eliminate or reduce the long-term risk to human life and property from hazards, is an important component of WEM (WEM Home Page).

Links



Regional Planning Commissions

Regional Planning Commissions advise local units of government on the planning and delivery of public services to the citizens of a defined region, and they must prepare and adopt master plans for the physical development of the regions they serve. Regional planning provides a way to discuss problems that transcend local government boundaries and can offer joint solutions that could not be achieved without intergovernmental cooperation (Wisconsin Blue Book 1995-1996, p.552).

Links



Local Governments

A total of 15 counties border on the Great Lakes in Wisconsin. Coastal counties account for 19 percent of the area of the state, yet make up 39 percent of the population. Coastal counties range from very sparsely populated to highly urban.

The Great Lakes coast in Wisconsin can be divided into three sections based on population density characteristics. The southern four counties (Kenosha, Racine, Milwaukee, and Ozaukee) have the greatest population density at 1,218 people per square mile. Much of the southeast Wisconsin coast is part of the urban corridor which stretches between Milwaukee and Chicago. The southern counties contain the coastal cities of Milwaukee, Racine, Kenosha, Cudahy, Oak Creek, Mequon, St. Francis, and Port Washington.

The northern section of the Lake Michigan coast contains seven counties (Sheboygan, Manitowoc, Kewaunee, Door, Brown, Oconto, and Marinette) and has a moderate population density of 101 people per square mile. The section includes the coastal cities of Green Bay, Sheboygan, Manitowoc, Marinette, Two Rivers, Sturgeon Bay, Oconto, Algoma, and Kewaunee. Much of the shoreline fronts Green Bay. Door County possesses the most extensive Great Lakes shoreline in Wisconsin at 240 miles.

The Lake Superior coast includes four counties (Iron, Ashland, Bayfield, and Douglas). The population density is notably less than in the Lake Michigan counties at 17 people per square mile. The shore is less developed and includes the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, the Brule River State Forest, the Bad River Indian Reservation, the Red Cliff Indian Reservation, and county forest in Bayfield and Iron Counties. This section includes the cities of Superior, Ashland, Washburn, and Bayfield (Hart et al 1995, p. 391).

Links

Lake Superior Coastal Counties

Lake Michigan Coastal Counties

Wisconsin Coastal Hazards Plans and Strategies

Springman/Born Report

This report was prepared "to serve as the basis for public policy formulation" regarding shore erosion in Wisconsin.
The Table of Contents is as follows: The Springman/Born report identifies the following factors influencing the development and implementation of damage reduction strategies: Springman and Born recognized that key factors affecting shore erosion are changing and that there are missing data, but that local officials must base decisions on the best available data. They recommended systematic and continuous monitoring of land use and erosion hazards along the coast. Several research investigations were suggested, including: identification of potential problems caused by protection devices; inventory of sand generation areas; review of erosion mitigation techniques along medium to high bluffs; and improved decision-making tools for damage reduction planning. Interstate coordination and cooperation was suggested as a means to better understand impacts near state boundaries and to promote more efficient and effective multi-state data collection efforts (Springman and Born 1979. pp 108-111).

Finally, the report ends with a series of questions about alternative actions in three broad policy areas: improving the state and local framework for regulating protective structures; adopting a state policy regarding structural measures and defining the state assistance role; and determining what nonstructural strategies to pursue. Many of these questions are still relevant now (perhaps even more relevant, given the current high water levels), nearly 20 years after the release of the plan. The questions are as follows:

Improving the Regulatory Framework

State Structural Policy and Role Nonstructural Strategies Source: Springman and Born 1979, pp. 107-113

WCMP Needs Assessment and Multi-Year Strategy (1993-1997)

This document was submitted to the NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. It includes sections on a number of national coastal management priority issues, including natural hazards. The contents of the natural hazards section is as follows: OCRM requested that WCMP answer a series of additional questions regarding the natural hazards section. The response of the Natural Hazards Work Group was included as an addendum to the Needs Assessment and Multi-Year Strategy. The questions centered on the following topics: The final question posed in the addendum asks "If Wisconsin attempts to improve its management of coastal hazards, what will be the most most important factor in meeting this goal?" The key factor stated was improved information about coastal hazards. Without detailed information, the effectiveness of a coastal hazards management program would be undermined.

Source: Wisconsin Coastal Management Program 1992, pp. 85-97, Addendum

During the period covered by this needs assessment, WCMP undertook three major studies to provide better information about coastal hazards. They include:

Inventory of Development
The inventory of development was completed by Prof. William Niedzwiedz at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay. The inventory assesses coastal development between 1978 and 1992. Aerial photographs from the Corps of Engineers were utilized to collect information on buildings on buildings, land use, and shoreline protection structures within 1000 feet of the coast. Information was collected on acetates for each PLSS section and then summarized by township and county in individual reports for each coastal county (WCMP Recession Rate Study RFP, 1995).

Bluff Stability Update
Updates to a bluff stability study were undertaken in the late 1970s by Professors Tuncer Edil and David Mickelson of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The updates were conducted by SEWRPC and Bay-Lake RPC with technical help from Professors Edil and Mickelson. The study area consists of the southern seven Lake Michigan counties in Wisconsin. The study utilized geologic field techniques and comparisons between current and 20-year old oblique aerial photos to examine the same 40 study reaches used in the 1977 study. Information gathered includes projected recession lines, recession rates, beach width, soil parameters, slope geometry, and lake bed composition (WCMP Recession Rate Study RFP, 1995).

Recession Rate Study
A study of recession rates using state-of-the-art photogrammetric methods was undertaken by the consultant team of SEH/Baker. The study covered 10-mile sections of the coast in Racine, Ozaukee, and Manitowoc Counties. The study was designed to update and improve the accuracy of earlier recession rate studies, test new recession rate methods on a variety of coastlines. Recession setbacks were forecasted for 30 and 60-year periods using a combination of stable bluff angles and projected recession. Several data sets were incorporated into a GIS format, including: 1992/1995 orthophotos, 1952/1956 orthophotos, digital elevation models, the inventory of development, baseline and transects, major roads, political subdivisions, and 30 and 60 year recession lines (SEH/Baker 1997, pp. 1-3).

WCMP Needs Assessment and Multi-Year Strategy (1997-2001)

This document was submitted to the NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. It includes sections on a number of national coastal management priority issues, including natural hazards. The contents of the natural hazards section is as follows: Source: Wisconsin Coastal Management Program 1997, pp. 35-44

WCMP Needs Assessment and Multi-Year Strategy (2002-2006)

For the next five years, the WCMP will focus on further developing the program to deal effectively and consistently with coastal hazards. The three-pronged strategy has been developed in response to the identified needs, and includes:
  1. expansion of improved technical tools and methodologies for information handling in coastal areas beyond pilot counties (i.e., methods, maps, data and new technologies, including GIS);
  2. an education and outreach component;
  3. an enhanced institutional framework and partnerships for potential regulatory changes. The Strategy takes into account that the current low lake levels provide an opportunity to consolidate planning efforts without having an imminent threat and a crisis mood. It also aims at filling data gaps in specific issues (such as confirmation of lakebed erosion) and devoting balanced attention to coastal areas in both Lake Michigan and Lake Superior. It also considers the new information available on the likelihood that protective structures might have a shorter life span than previously estimated and consequently emphasizes the development of mitigation plans and urban vulnerability assessments. The Strategy also seeks to gain support for the changes incorporated into the current model ordinance. These changes consist primarily of technical specifications for the identification of hazard areas using site specific information, such as planning horizon, source of recession rate and slope stability information, and additional safety provisions due to the fact that new houses built near the shoreland are larger than before making it difficult to relocate them in case of imminent threats. The Strategy builds on the solid partnerships developed in the past few years through the Coastal Hazards Work Group.
Source: Wisconsin Coastal Management Program 2001, pp. 5-16

WCMP Needs Assessment and Multi-Year Strategy (2006-2010)

The Work Plan for the Natural Hazards 2006-2010 multi-year strategy entails three parts. These steps will overlap in time over the next five years:
  1. Expansion of technical tools and technology transfer The WCMP will develop technical tools and methodologies and make the tools available to municipalities and individuals. The state will work to continue developing GIS and Web-based tools for coastal erosion, and will continue to update recession rates. In addition to developing the technology, the WCMP will work to ensure that the technology is transferred to users, such as regional planning commissions, municipalities, and individual property owners.
  2. Education and outreach Education and outreach are important components of the natural hazards strategy. In a 2004 evaluation, NOAA described a continued focus on natural hazards education as “crucial to effect change, especially in areas where development has not encroached on sensitive areas, where lives and property may be in danger, and where development may cause degradation of resources.” The WCMP will develop education and outreach efforts in several ways. Distribution of technology and information that the WCMP has already developed will provide one means of educating the public. Distribution of reports to local officials, libraries, and landowners will help to educate coastal stakeholders. The WCMP will continue to develop coastal erosion education via the Web. Finally, the WCMP will develop workshops for coastal stakeholders.
  3. Coordination with municipalities and agencies The WCMP will continue to provide technical assistance to coastal communities. This will include helping communities to develop defensible policies, including setback ordinances. Related to that, the WCMP will continue to promote adoption of a model setback ordinance beyond pilot communities. Furthermore, the WCMP will continue seeking ways to implement coastal hazard guidance into existing and developing policies. Such efforts will require coordination with other agencies, such as the Department of Natural Resources, regional planning commissions, and Wisconsin Emergency Management.
Source: Wisconsin Coastal Management Program 2006, pp. 9-20

In summary, the focus of the 93-97 needs assessment was data collection on coastal hazards, while the focus of the 97-00 needs assessment is update, integration, and dissemination of that information, as well as changes in the regulatory framework for managing coastal hazards.

Future Directions

Coastal Natural Hazards Information Needs

Information needs as presented by Phil Keillor to the COE Lake Michigan Potential Damages Study - Plan of Study Workshop - January 22-24, 1997. A Great Lakes Coastal Hazards Mitigation Workshop sponsored by NOAA/OCRM and FEMA was held from August 24-26, 1997 in Traverse City, Michigan. The purpose of the meeting was to encourage interaction between coastal management, floodplain management, and emergency management staff in the Great Lakes states in the development and implementation of a coastal hazards mitigation strategy. Important topics discussed at this meeting include: As the FEMA coastal erosion study and the COE potential damages study are completed, it will be important to develop mechanisms to integrate the products into state and local government coastal hazards information systems.

References/Bibliographies

Born, Stephen M. and Allen H. Miller. 1988. "Assessing Networked Coastal Zone Management Programs." Coastal Management 16:229-243.

Crowell, Mark. 1997. "Coastal Erosion and the National Flood Insurance Program." Shore and Beach (January 1997): 24-26.

Emmer, Rod and Linda Calvert. 1992. Federal, State, and Local Environmental Regulatory and Review Responsibilities within the Pontchartrain Basin: Louisiana Prepared for the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation. March 1992.

Hart, David, Bernard J. Niemann, Jr., Stephen J. Ventura, and Allen H. Miller. 1995. "Support for Development of Coastal GIS Applications in Wisconsin." GIS/LIS '95 Proceedings Vol. 1, pp. 388-398.

Keillor and Miller. 1987. Coastal Processes Workbook: Evaluating the Risks of Flooding and Erosion for Great Lakes Coastal Property. University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute.

Levels Reference Study Board. 1993. Levels Reference Study: Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin. Submitted to the International Joint Commission. March 31, 1993.

National Research Council. 1990. Managing Coastal Erosion. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

SEH/Baker. 1997. Lake Michigan Recession Rate Study-Final Report

Springman, Roger and Stephen M. Born. 1979. Wisconsin's Shore Erosion Plan: An Appraisal of Options and Strategies. Prepared for the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program. June 1979.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-North Central Division. 1978. Help Yourself: A Discussion of Erosion Problems on the Great Lakes and Alternative Methods of Shore Protection

Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau. 1995. State of Wisconsin 1995-1996 Blue Book.

Wisconsin Coastal Management Program. 1992. State of Wisconsin Coastal Management Program Needs Assessment and Multi-Year Strategy. Wisconsin Department of Administration. December 1, 1992.

Wisconsin Coastal Management Program. 1995. "1996 Natural Hazards Grant Solicitation - Request for Proposals." May 22, 1995.

Wisconsin Coastal Management Program. 1997. State of Wisconsin Coastal Management Program Needs Assessment and Multi-Year Strategy '97-'00. Section on Natural Hazards (pp 35-44). Wisconsin Department of Administration.

Wisconsin Coastal Management Program. 2001. State of Wisconsin Coastal Management Program Needs Assessment and Multi-Year Strategy 2002-2006. Section on Natural Hazards (pp 5-16). Wisconsin Department of Administration.

Wisconsin Coastal Management Program. 2006. State of Wisconsin Coastal Management Program Needs Assessment and Multi-Year Strategy 2006-2010. Section on Natural Hazards (pp 9-20). Wisconsin Department of Administration.

Additional Coastal Hazards Internet Resources

Great Lakes Levels and Hydrology Page (GLIN)
The National Marine and Coastal Geology Program (USGS)
Waterways Experiment Station - Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Home Page (COE)
Glossary of Coastal Engineering Terms (COE)
UW Sea Grant/LICGF Coastal GIS Applications Project (includes coastal erosion GIS training exercise)
Great Lakes Information Network
Coastal Services Center (NOAA)

Coastal Hazards Contacts

Federal Contacts

Josh Lott, Coastal Hazards Coordinator, NOAA-OCRM (301) 713-3155 ext. 178
Mark Crowell, Coastal Hazards, FEMA, (202) 646-3432
Duane Castaldi, Flood Hazard Mapping, FEMA-Region 5, (312) 575-3954
Scott Thieme, Hydraulics and Hydrology, COE-Detroit District (313) 226-6440

State Contacts

Michael Friis, Manager, Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, (608) 267-7982
Kathleen Angel, Coastal Hazards Coordinator, Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, (608) 267-7988
Gary Heinrichs, Floodplain Management, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, (608) 266-3093
Roxanne Gray, Hazard Mitigation Officer, Wisconsin Emergency Management, (608) 242-3211
Susan Boldt, Hazard Mitigation, Wisconsin Emergency Management, (608) 242-3214

Regional Contacts

Michael Hahn, Chief Environmental Engineer, Southeastern Wisconsin RPC, (262) 547-6722
Angela Pierce, Natural Resources Planner, Bay-Lake RPC, (920) 448-2820
Jason Laumann, Lake Superior Coastal Specialist, Northwest Wisconsin RPC, (715) 635-2197

University Contacts

Gene Clark, Coastal Engineering Specialist, UW Sea Grant, (715) 394-8472
David Hart, GIS Specialist, UW Sea Grant, (608) 262-6515
Tuncer Edil, Professor, UW-Madison Civil and Environmental Engineering, (608) 262-3225
David Mickelson, Professor Emeritus, UW-Madison Geology, (608) 262-7863
Chin Wu, Associate Professor, UW-Madison Civil and Environmental Engineering, (608) 263-3078

[Coastal GIS Applications Home] [LICGF Home] [UW Sea Grant Home]

Last modified by David Hart (dahart *at* wisc.edu) on July 2, 2007