557 6e&l£OW0Y 
 
 IL6of ILLINOIS GEOLOGICAL 
 
 1993-3 v J SURVEY LIBRARY 
 
 AUG. 3 1993 
 
 ILLINOIS PILOT EROSION-RATE DATA STUDY 
 
 Michael J. Chrzastowski 
 
 Anne L. Erdmann 
 
 Christopher J. Stohr 
 
 and 
 
 Paul D. Terpstra 
 
 Illinois State Geological Survey 
 
 615 East Peabody Drive 
 Champaign, Illinois 61820-6964 
 
 Submitted to: 
 
 Federal Emergency Management Agency 
 
 Office of Risk Assessment 
 
 Federal Insurance Administration 
 
 Washington, D.C. 
 
 Final Contract Report for: 
 
 FEMA Assistance Award No. EMW-91-K-357! 
 
 Report 1 of 2 
 
 Illinois State Geological Survey 
 Open File Series 1993-3 
 
 January 1993 
 
ll^l^/fS^TE GEOLOGICAL 
 
ILLINOIS PILOT EROSION-RATE DATA STUDY 
 
 Michael J. Chrzastowski 
 
 Anne L. Erdmann 
 
 Christopher J. Stohr 
 
 and 
 
 Paul D. Terpstra 
 
 Illinois State Geological Survey 
 
 615 East Peabody Drive 
 Champaign, Illinois 61820-6964 
 
 Submitted to: >£? 
 
 * 
 
 p°> 
 
 Federal Emergency Management Agency <P a^* 
 
 Office of Risk Assessment . ^> <$* <g> 
 
 Washington, D.C. ^^x^ O" 
 
 Federal Insurance Administration ^ <^ 
 
 /i> 
 
 V ^ ^ 
 
 Final Contract Report for: 
 
 FEMA Assistance Award No. EMW-91-K-3575 
 
 Report 1 of 2 
 
 Accompanies Report 2 entitled: 
 
 Inventor/ of Federal and State Historical Maps, Charts, and Vertical Aerial Photographs 
 
 Applicable to Erosion-Rate Studies Along the Illinois Coast of Lake Michigan 
 
 By: Michael J. Chrzastowski and Molly E. Read 
 
 Illinois State Geological Survey 
 Open File Series 1993-3 
 
 Michael J. Chrzastowski, Ph.D. 
 Principal Investigator 
 
 January 1993 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
 
 This study documents the source materials, equipment, procedures, and time 
 allocations necessary to conduct a compilation of historical coastal change for 
 determination of probable erosion rates along a Great Lakes coast. This is a pilot study 
 conducted for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Office of Risk 
 Assessment. The purpose is to assist FEMA in the design and implementation of 
 future projects to map historical coastal changes that may be required pending 
 modification to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). This report (Report 1 of 
 2) is accompanied by a second report that inventories federal and state historical 
 maps, charts, and vertical aerial photographs applicable to future erosion-rate studies 
 along the Illinois coast. 
 
 The study area is the Lake Michigan coast of Lake County, Illinois. Along this 26-mile 
 coast of beach-ridge plain and bluffs, five one-mile corridors were selected for 
 documenting historical shoreline and bluff line changes. Data sources consisted of: 1 ) 
 two sets of survey field sheets at 1 :20,000 nominal scale prepared by the U.S. Lake 
 Survey (USLS) for the years 1 872-73 and 1 909-1 1 ; and 2) two sets of vertical aerial 
 photographs at 1 :1 2,000 and 1 :1 4,400 nominal scale collected by private contractor 
 and the State of Illinois for the years 1947 and 1987. The historical shoreline and 
 bluffline data were registered to U.S. Geological Survey 1:24,000-scale Digital Line 
 Graphs. All work was computer-assisted using a Geographic Information System. A 
 stereoplotter was used to correct for the relief displacement on the aerial photographs. 
 
 Two databases documenting coastal change result from this study. One is a Historical 
 Shoreline Location Database created by digitizing, combining, and storing historical and 
 recent shorelines and blufflines. The other is a Historical Shoreline and Positional 
 Change Database created by measuring spatial differences along transects spaced 1 50 
 feet apart that intercept the historical shorelines and blufflines. The documentation of 
 time invested in the various tasks of this study indicates that the major effort was in 
 the selection and checking of ground control points for the maps. USLS field sheets 
 had substantial mapping inaccuracies that required a significant time investment to 
 obtain acceptable registration. Aerial photographs provided a more accurate data 
 source, but considerable time was needed in the photograph setup for use with the 
 stereoplotter, and great care was needed in the delineation of the bluffline. The 
 primary recommendation from this study is that future studies allow for adequate time 
 investment to establish a network of ground control points. 
 
 1 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (REPORT 1) 
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
 
 PART 1 
 
 INTRODUCTION 9 
 
 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 9 
 
 PREVIOUS STUDIES 12 
 
 Previous Shoreline Change Studies 12 
 
 Previous Bluffline Change Studies 12 
 
 PART 2 
 STUDY AREA 
 
 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 14 
 
 LOCATION 14 
 
 COASTAL GEOLOGY 15 
 
 General 15 
 
 Zion Beach-Ridge Plain 17 
 
 Lake Border Moraines Bluff Coast 20 
 
 WAVE CLIMATE AND LITTORAL PROCESSES 22 
 
 DATUMS FOR LAKE LEVEL 24 
 
 Historical Datums 24 
 
 Establishment of IGLD 1 985 25 
 
 Lake-Level Datums and Shoreline Mapping 27 
 
 LAKE-LEVEL FLUCTUATIONS 27 
 
 CORRIDORS FOR THE EROSION-RATE STUDY 30 
 
 Corridor 1 
 Corridor 2 
 Corridor 3 
 Corridor 4 
 Corridor 5 
 
 North Point 30 
 
 Waukegan Harbor 31 
 
 Lake Bluff 31 
 
 Lake Forest 32 
 
 Highland Park 32 
 
 PART 3 
 DOCUMENTATION 
 
 OF SPECIFIC STUDY TASKS 39 
 
 TASK 1: COLLECTION AND DIGITIZING OF SHORELINE DATA TO 
 
 CREATE THE HISTORICAL SHORELINE LOCATION 
 
 DATABASE 39 
 
 DATA SOURCES 39 
 
 Historical Maps 39 
 
 Aerial Photographs 45 
 
 Lake Levels Corresponding to Data Sources 46 
 
 EQUIPMENT FOR ANALYSIS OF HISTORICAL MAPS 47 
 
 Hardware 47 
 
 Software 51 
 
 DATA REVIEW AND PREPARATION 51 
 
 Scale Determination 51 
 
 Control Point Selection 52 
 
Table of Contents (Report 1 , continued) 
 
 Control Point Stability Determination 54 
 
 Creation of Additional Control Points 58 
 
 MAP AND AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH REGISTRATION AND DIGITIZING . . 61 
 
 Selection of a Registration 61 
 
 Digitizing 66 
 
 DATA EDITING 67 
 
 Rubber Sheeting 68 
 
 Misalignments 70 
 
 POTENTIAL SOURCES OF ERRORS 73 
 
 Data Sources 73 
 
 Equipment 77 
 
 Procedures 77 
 
 TOTAL ACCEPTABLE ERROR 82 
 
 TASK 2: STORING AND ACCESSING HISTORICAL SHORELINE 
 
 LOCATION DATA 84 
 
 DESCRIPTION OF PLOTFILES 84 
 
 TASK 3: GENERATION OF SHORELINE TRANSECT DATA FOR 
 
 CREATION OF THE HISTORICAL SHORELINE 
 
 POSITIONAL CHANGE DATABASE 85 
 
 TRANSECT GENERATION 85 
 
 Creation of Transects 85 
 
 Intersection of Transects with Shorelines 87 
 
 TASK 4: STORING AND ACCESSING THE HISTORICAL 
 
 SHORELINE POSITIONAL CHANGE DATABASE 90 
 
 TASK 5: SOURCE MAP RECONNAISSANCE STUDY 91 
 
 TASK 6: ACCURACY ASSESSMENT OF THE U.S. LAKE SURVEY 
 
 FIELD SHEETS 92 
 
 TASK 7: TIME ITEMIZATION 98 
 
 PART 4 
 
 DISCUSSION 102 
 
 ADJUSTING SHORELINE POSITIONS TO A COMMON DATUM 105 
 
 FRAMEWORK FOR INTERPRETING COASTAL EROSION RATES 114 
 
 Coastal Storms 114 
 
 Human Influence 116 
 
 PART 5 
 
 RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUMMARY 119 
 
 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE FEMA-SUPPORTED 
 
 LAKE MICHIGAN EROSION-RATE STUDIES 119 
 
 SUMMARY 1 32 
 
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 135 
 
 REFERENCES CITED 1 36 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2012 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 
 
 http://archive.org/details/illinoispiloter9331chrz 
 
Table of Contents (Report 1 , continued) 
 
 APPENDIX A: 
 
 OFFICES FROM WHICH DATA SOURCES WERE OBTAINED 142 
 
 APPENDIX B: 
 
 GROUND CONTROL POINTS FOR HISTORICAL MAPS 143 
 
 APPENDIX C: 
 
 U.S. LAKE SURVEY MAP COVERAGE FOR EACH CORRIDOR 154 
 
 APPENDIX D: 
 
 ADJUSTMENTS FOR RELATIVE ORIENTATION OF STEREOMODEL . . 165 
 
 APPENDIX E: 
 
 GROUND CONTROL POINTS FOR HISTORICAL MAPS 166 
 
 APPENDIX F: 
 
 GROUND CONTROL POINTS FOR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS 169 
 
 APPENDIX G: 
 
 ANNOTATED LIST OF ARC/INFO COMMANDS 172 
 
 APPENDIX H: 
 
 CONTROL POINTS FOR RUBBER SHEETING 180 
 
 APPENDIX I: 
 
 PLOTFILES COMPRISING THE HISTORICAL LOCATION DATABASE . . 191 
 
 APPENDIX J: 
 
 COMPUTER PROGRAMS USED IN DATABASE GENERATION 200 
 
 APPENDIX K: 
 
 HISTORICAL SHORELINE POSITIONAL CHANGE DATABASE 203 
 
 4 
 
LIST OF FIGURES (REPORT 1) 
 
 Figure 1 . Map of the Illinois coast of Lake Michigan showing municipality 
 
 and county boundaries 10 
 
 Figure 2. Map of the Lake County coast showing extent of municipalities, 
 military reservations, state park land, and coverage by U.S. 
 Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic maps 16 
 
 Figure 3. Division of the Lake County coast into two coastal geomorphic 
 
 settings 18 
 
 Historical range of lake-level change in Lake Michigan 29 
 
 Location and designation of the five one-mile wide corridors 
 along the Lake County coast for which erosion-rate data were 
 generated 33 
 
 Map of Corridor 1 (North Point) and location of ground control 
 points for registration of vertical aerial photographs 34 
 
 Map of Corridor 2 (Waukegan Harbor) and ground control points 
 
 for registration of vertical aerial photographs 35 
 
 Map of Corridor 3 (Lake Bluff) and ground control points for 
 registration of vertical aerial photographs 36 
 
 Map of Corridor 4 (Lake Forest) and ground control points for 
 registration of vertical aerial photographs 37 
 
 Map of Corridor 5 (Highland Park) and ground control points for 
 registration of vertical aerial photographs 38 
 
 Sketch map of bluffs and ravines in Corridor 5, Highland Park. . 79 
 
 Transect geometry used to generate the Historical Shoreline 
 Positional Change Database 88 
 
 Figure 1 3. Yearly average lake levels for Lake Michigan 1 860 to 1 991 with 
 times of government reports, newspaper articles, and scientific 
 papers concerning erosion along the Illinois lakeshore 115 
 
 Figure 
 
 4. 
 
 Figure 
 
 5. 
 
 Figure 
 
 6. 
 
 Figure 
 
 7. 
 
 Figure 
 
 8. 
 
 Figure 
 
 9. 
 
 Figure 
 
 10. 
 
 Figure 
 
 11. 
 
 Figure 
 
 12. 
 
LIST OF TABLES {REPORT 1) 
 
 Table 1 . Shoreline lengths along Lake County municipalities, state park 
 
 land, and U.S. military reservations 15 
 
 Table 2. Conversion table for common datums used for lake levels and 
 
 coastal elevations along the Illinois shore of Lake Michigan. ... 26 
 
 Table 3. Documentation of U.S. Lake Survey field sheets for 1872 and 
 
 1873 43 
 
 Table 4. Documentation of U.S. Lake Survey field sheets for 1 909-1 91 1 
 
 and 1910-1911 44 
 
 Table 5. Documentation of 1947 and 1987 aerial photographs 45 
 
 Table 6. Summary of lake elevations for each of the data sources and lake 
 level differences relative to Lakes Michigan-Huron Low Water 
 Datum and 1 900-1 990 Lakes Michigan-Huron monthly mean lake 
 level 47 
 
 Table 7. Comparison of nominal and measured historical map scales. ... 52 
 
 Table 8. Range and dispersion in the distribution of paired-point 
 measurement differences for the U.S. Lake Survey 1 872-73 field 
 sheets and the most recent USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle 94 
 
 Table 9. Range and dispersion in the distribution of paired-point 
 
 measurement differences for the U.S. Lake Survey 1 909-1 1 field 
 sheets and the most recent USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles. ... 95 
 
 Table 10. Summary of time investments per task and per payroll title .... 99 
 
 Table 1 1 . Comparison of time necessary for completion of digital shoreline 
 
 data sets using historical maps and aerial photographs 101 
 
 Table 12. Example shoreline translations needed to adjust shoreline 
 
 positions to a common datum 107 
 
 Table 13. Comparison of 1872 to 1910 and 1910 to 1946-1947 shoreline 
 changes documented along survey ranges by the U.S. Army 
 Corps of Engineers (1953) and shoreline changes along nearest 
 corresponding transect from this study 111 
 
 Table 14. Comparison of 1872 to 1910 and 1910 to 1946-1947 annual 
 shoreline changes documented along survey ranges by the U.S. 
 Army Corps of Engineers (1953) and shoreline changes along 
 nearest corresponding transect from this study 112 
 
 6 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (REPORT 2) 
 
 INTRODUCTION 1 
 
 SOURCE AGENCIES FOR HISTORICAL MAPS AND CHARTS 2 
 
 Federal Agencies 2 
 
 State Agencies 6 
 
 Other Sources 6 
 
 SOURCE AGENCIES FOR VERTICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS 7 
 
 Federal Agencies 7 
 
 State Agencies 8 
 
 Private Firms 9 
 
 TECHNIQUES USED IN HISTORICAL TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING 10 
 
 TECHNIQUES USED IN VERTICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY 11 
 
 OBTAINING HISTORICAL MAPS AND CHARTS 13 
 
 OBTAINING VERTICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS 13 
 
 ACCURACY ASSESSMENT OF MAPS, CHARTS AND 
 
 VERTICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS 14 
 
 Historical Maps and Charts 14 
 
 Vertical Aerial Photographs 15 
 
 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DATA SOURCES IN EROSION RATE 
 
 STUDIES ALONG THE ILLINOIS COAST . . 15 
 
 OVERVIEW OF APPENDICES CONTENT AND FORMAT 18 
 
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 18 
 
 REFERENCES CITED 19 
 
 APPENDIX A: 
 
 SOURCES FOR OBTAINING HISTORICAL MAPS AND CHARTS . 20 
 APPENDIX B: 
 
 SOURCES FOR OBTAINING VERTICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS 23 
 APPENDIX C: 
 
 TOPOGRAPHIC AND HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY FIELD SHEETS . 26 
 APPENDIX D: 
 
 NAUTICAL CHARTS 42 
 
 APPENDIX E: 
 
 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 7.5-MINUTE QUADRANGLES 53 
 
 APPENDIX F: 
 
 VERTICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS 
 
 (Scale Greater Than or Equal to 1:24,000) 61 
 
LIST OF TABLES (REPORT 2) 
 
 Table 1 . Years of survey sheets for federal harbor projects (partial listing) 
 and years of U.S. Lake Survey topographic and hydrographic 
 surveys for the Illinois coast 4 
 
 Table 2. Years of published topographic maps and nautical charts for the 
 
 Illinois coast prepared by federal agencies 5 
 
 Table 3. Years for which federal agencies have collected vertical aerial 
 
 photographs for the Illinois coast of Lake Michigan 8 
 
 Table 4. Years for which state agencies have collected vertical aerial 
 
 photographs for the Illinois coast of Lake Michigan 9 
 
 Table 5. Years of private sector collection of vertical aerial photographs 
 
 for the Illinois coast of Lake Michigan 10 
 
 8 
 
PART 1 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 
 
 The Lake Michigan coast, and the Great Lakes coasts in general, are subject to erosion 
 and accretion caused by natural and human-induced processes. This report describes 
 a pilot study to compile erosion-rate data for several segments along the Lake Michigan 
 coast in Lake County, Illinois (Fig. 1). The pilot study provides a framework to assist 
 the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in planning for future erosion-rate 
 studies that may be needed along U.S. coastal areas as a result of proposed reforms 
 to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Concurrent with this study in Illinois, 
 other pilot studies were sponsored by FEMA in 1 991 and 1 992 along U.S. ocean and 
 estuarine coasts in New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, Louisiana and Oregon. In contrast 
 with these other states, the Illinois pilot study is the only one focused on the coastal 
 settings and coastal dynamics unique to the Great Lakes. 
 
 The purpose of this study is to document the source materials, equipment, procedures, 
 and time allocations necessary to conduct a compilation of historical coastal-erosion 
 rates. Two separate databases for documenting historical shoreline locations and 
 position changes for the Lake Michigan coast of Lake County, Illinois were created. 
 These databases are: 
 
 1 ) Historical Shoreline Location Database: created by digitizing, combining, 
 and storing historical and recent shorelines and bluf flines from historical 
 maps and vertical aerial photographs. 
 
WISCONSIN 
 ILUNOIS 
 
 nois Beach 
 State Park 
 
 COQKCOUNfY 
 
 100 mi 
 
 62 km 
 
 LAKE MICHIGAN 
 
 ■GmwBmzmQmmsm 
 
 :: f ;.;.;.;. ;.; .;.;.;.; .; .; i; ii T ;.;.;.;...;.;.;.;.;.;.; l ::::::-; 
 
 Figure 1 . Map of the Illinois coast of Lake Michigan showing municipality and 
 
 county boundaries. 
 
 10 
 
2) Historical Shoreline Positional Change Database: created by measuring 
 
 spatial differences along transects that intercept the historical and 
 recent shorelines and blufflines. 
 
 The federal, state, and university offices from which data sources were obtained are 
 identified in Appendix A. 
 
 This report is accompanied by a second report (Report 2) which is an inventory of data 
 sources that could be used in future erosion-rate data studies. This second report is 
 titled: "Inventory of Federal and State Historical Maps, Charts, and Vertical Aerial 
 Photographs Applicable to Erosion-Rate Studies Along the Illinois Coast of Lake 
 Michigan" (Chrzastowski and Read, 1993). 
 
 Although this study creates detailed databases of shoreline and bluffline positions, the 
 focus of this pilot study has been documentation of methods in the database creation 
 and not database quality control. This is not considered a definitive study of erosion 
 rates along this reach of the Illinois coast for three reasons. First, historical shoreline 
 changes have been evaluated for the lake levels that existed at the time of the 
 mapping or the aerial photography without any adjustment of these shorelines to a 
 common lake-level datum. Second, historical bluffline positions were in part evaluated 
 with early historical maps which have major map inaccuracies as well as some 
 ambiguity concerning the position of the change in slope defining the crest of the bluff. 
 Third, the shoreline and bluffline positional change data are presented in an appendix 
 in raw form, awaiting transect-by-transect data screening and database statistical 
 analysis by FEMA. 
 
 11 
 
PREVIOUS STUDIES 
 
 The mapping component of this study has two elements. One is the mapping and 
 comparison of historical shoreline positions; the other is mapping and comparison of 
 historical bluffline positions. Previous studies along the Lake County coast have 
 addressed both. This study differs from the previous work in that the emphasis here 
 has been the first intensive use of a Geographic Information System (GIS) in the 
 compilation and processing of shoreline and bluffline map data. 
 
 Previous Shoreline Change Studies 
 Historical shorelines along the Lake County coast have been compiled by the U.S. 
 Army Corps of Engineers (1953) at a scale of 1 :30,000 for four surveys completed in 
 1872-73, 1909-11, 1937-38, and 1946-47, for a total span of 74 years. An 
 important aspect of that shoreline documentation is that shorelines were plotted and 
 compared after adjustment to a common reference of Low Water Datum (LWD), also 
 known as chart datum. Thus absolute erosion and accretion rates were measured 
 independent of any shoreline translation caused by different lake levels at the time of 
 the surveys. The accompanying report summarized calculated recession (and 
 accretion) rates for 20 range lines along the Lake County coast at average spacing of 
 about one mile. These erosion and accretion rates are compared with selected rates 
 calculated for this study beginning on page 1 09. In another study, Lake County annual 
 shorelines for each of the four years 1952 through 1955 were mapped by the State 
 of Illinois, Division of Waterways (1958) with an accompanying report summarizing 
 erosion and accretion rates for that study period. 
 
 Previous Bluffline Change Studies 
 Bluff recession along the Lake County coast was first discussed in detail by Atwood 
 
 12 
 
and Goldthwait (1908). Bluff recession was mapped and recession rates were 
 calculated by Lineback (1974), and Berg and Collinson (1976). Larsen (1973) 
 examined temporal variation in bluff recession in relation to lake-level fluctuations. In 
 a more recent study, Jibson et al. (1990; 1992) and Jibson and Staude (1992) 
 completed mapping of bluff recession and calculation of bluff-recession rates over a 
 50-year period by comparison of 1:14,400-scale aerial photographs from 1937 and 
 1987. Characteristics of the bluffs relative to engineering and foundation concerns 
 were studied by DuMontelle (1974) and DuMontelle et al. (1975). Roy (1986) 
 developed a computer simulation model for erosion of the Illinois coastal bluffs. The 
 bluff recession rates calculated by Jibson and his colleagues are compared with 
 selected rates calculated for this study beginning on page 113. 
 
 13 
 
PART 2 
 
 STUDY AREA 
 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 
 
 LOCATION 
 
 The Lake Michigan coast of Lake County, Illinois extends about 26 miles in a generally 
 north-south orientation from the Illinois-Wisconsin state line south to the Lake County- 
 Cook County line (Fig. 1). This is about 41 percent of the total Illinois lakeshore. 
 Seven municipalities have shoreline along this coast, and from north to south these 
 are: Zion; Waukegan; North Chicago; Lake Bluff; Lake Forest; Highwood; and Highland 
 Park. Winthrop Harbor is an additional municipality within the coastal zone but it lacks 
 any lakeshore frontage. Table 1 lists the shoreline lengths within the various political 
 units of the Lake County coast. The Lake County coast is covered by three U.S. 
 Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles: Zion; Waukegan; and Highland 
 Park (Fig. 2). 
 
 Land ownership and use along the Lake County coast is both private and public. 
 Private residential property only occurs along the coast within three of the seven 
 municipalities. These are Lake Bluff, Lake Forest, and Highland Park. The shoreline 
 within Zion, Waukegan, and North Chicago consists of municipal parkland and 
 commercial/industrial land. The limited shoreline of Highwood is entirely along a 
 municipal water works; the city proper is landward of Highland Park (Fig. 1). State 
 coastal lands extend along the North and South Units of Illinois Beach State Park; 
 federal coastal lands extend along the two U.S. military installations of Naval Training 
 Center, Great Lakes (U.S. Navy) and Fort Sheridan (U.S. Army). 
 
 14 
 
Table 1 . Shoreline lengths along Lake County municipalities, state park 
 land, and U.S. military reservations. Listed from north to south. 
 
 Lakeshore Political or Administrative Unit 
 
 Shoreline 
 (statute miles) 
 
 % Total 
 
 Lake County 
 
 Shoreline 
 
 Illinois Beach State Park 
 (North and South units) 
 
 6.4 
 
 25.0 
 
 Zion 
 
 0.8 
 
 3.1 
 
 Waukegan 
 
 4.1 
 
 16.0 
 
 North Chicago 
 
 1.4 
 
 5.5 
 
 Naval Training Center, Great Lakes 
 (U.S. Navy) 
 
 1.3 
 
 5.1 
 
 Lake Bluff 
 
 2.6 
 
 10.2 
 
 Lake Forest 
 
 3.2 
 
 12.5 
 
 Fort Sheridan 
 (U.S. Army) 
 
 1.6 
 
 6.2 
 
 Highwood 
 
 0.1 
 
 0.4 
 
 Highland Park 
 
 4.1 
 
 16.0 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 25.6 
 
 100.0 
 
 Illinois has not adopted a federally approved Coastal Zone Management (CZM) 
 program. Coastal regulatory functions along the Illinois coast are administered by the 
 Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) Division of Water Resources, and the U.S. 
 Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District. 
 
 COASTAL GEOLOGY 
 
 General 
 
 The sediments, stratigraphy, and geomorphology of the Lake County coast reflect both 
 glacial processes that formed the lake margin and basin, and coastal processes that 
 
 15 
 
87°52'30' 
 
 sy'Ms'oo 1 
 
 Ker^haCounty_^ 
 Lake County 
 
 Gook County 
 
 Zk>n 
 
 W^ 
 
 / 
 
 Waukegan 
 
 Illinois 
 
 Beach 
 
 State 
 
 Park 
 
 Wjsconsin 
 Illinois 
 
 Zion 
 Quadrangle 
 
 LAKE MICHIGAN 
 
 42°22'30" 
 
 Waukegan 
 Quadrangle 
 
 42°15 , 00 1 
 
 Highland Park 
 Quadrangle 
 
 
 
 L 
 
 N 
 
 _i i i i_ 
 
 st mi 
 
 10 
 _i km 
 
 Figure 2. Map of the Lake County coast showing extent of municipalities, military 
 
 reservations, state park land, and coverage by U.S. Geological Survey 
 7.5-minute topographic maps. 
 
 16 
 
modified it. The beach and nearshore deposits consist of sand and gravelly sand that 
 forms a lens extending along the coast in a narrow band. This lens pinches out about 
 1500 feet offshore (Shabica et a/., 1991). Lakeward of this coastal sand the lake 
 bottom is glacial till that is either exposed or has a patchy veneer of sand and gravel. 
 The bathymetry of the nearshore and offshore zones along the Lake County coast 
 consists of a rather uniform, gently sloping lake bottom. At a distance of one mile 
 offshore, depths range from 25 to 30 feet. No shoals or lake-bottom irregularities are 
 present that might cause variations in the wave energy impinging along the shore. 
 Greatest wave energy corresponds to the greatest fetch which is in a north- 
 northeasterly direction along the long axis of Lake Michigan (Fig. 1). As a result, net 
 littoral transport along the Lake County coast is southward. 
 
 Although all of the Lake County coast was an erosional bluff coast through much of 
 late Wisconsinan and early to mid-Holocene time, evidence from radiocarbon dating of 
 basal peats from coastal marshes indicate that extensive beach-ridge plain accretion 
 occurred along the northern part of the county lakeshore during the previous 4000 
 years (Larsen, 1 985). As a result, the Lake County coast now consists of two coastal 
 geomorphic settings: 
 
 1 ) Zion beach-ridge plain: a low-lying accretion plain in the northern part 
 of the county, and 
 
 2) Lake Border Moraines bluff coast: a high-relief coast in the central and 
 southern parts of the county. 
 
 These two geomorphic settings, delineated in Figure 3, are described in the following 
 two sections. 
 
 Zion Beach-Ridae Plain 
 
 From the Illinois-Wisconsin state line south for 1 2 miles to North Chicago, the shoreline 
 
 17 
 
Lake County fp-nj-j 
 
 Rebel 
 Coastal 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 Illinois 
 
 Beach-Ridge Plain 
 
 Net Erosion 
 
 Beach-Ridge Plain 
 Net Accretion 
 
 Zion 
 
 Beach-Ridge 
 
 Plain 
 
 LAKE MICHIGAN 
 
 Lake Border Moraines 
 Bluff Coast 
 
 Hlgbvto >d 
 
 take County 
 Cook County 
 
 
 
 L 
 
 N 
 
 st mi 
 
 10 
 _i km 
 
 Net littoral transport 
 
 Figure 3. Division of the Lake County coast into two coastal geomorphic settings. 
 
 18 
 
is along an extensive beach-ridge plain. The northern limit of the plain is about 8 miles 
 north of the state line near Kenosha, Wisconsin. Within Illinois the plain has an area 
 of nearly nine square miles and a maximum width of about one mile. Most of the 
 Illinois part of the plain is within the North and South Units of Illinois Beach State Park. 
 This accretion plain consists of low-lying sand ridges and inter-ridge swales of coastal 
 wetlands. Crest elevations along the ridges and dunes are about 1 to 15 feet above 
 mean lake level. The only reach of coastline in Illinois free of any shore-defense 
 structures occurs along 2.6 miles of shoreline in the South Unit of the state park. 
 
 This beach-ridge plain consists mainly of gravelly sand, but also includes sand, silt, 
 clay and organic-rich sediments. In coast-perpendicular cross section the plain is 
 lenticular with a maximum thickness of 30 to 35 feet along the shoreline, and thinning 
 both landward and lakeward (Fraser and Hester, 1974). 
 
 Radiocarbon dating of inter-ridge basal peats indicates that beach-ridge accretion 
 advanced southward across the Illinois-Wisconsin state line about 3700 BP (Larsen, 
 1985). The accretion occurred lakeward of formerly coastal bluffs that are now 
 abandoned along the western margin of the plain (Fig. 3). The southward migration 
 of the plain is occurring in a "tank-tread" fashion in that sediment is eroded from the 
 northern (updrift) reach, transported down coast, and deposited along the southern 
 (downdrift) reach. In the northern part of the beach-ridge plain, relict beach ridges are 
 truncated by the modern shoreline, indicating that net erosion has occurred. To the 
 south, in the northern part of the South Unit of Illinois Beach State Park, relict beach 
 ridges are tangential to the present-day shoreline, indicating accretion. The transition 
 zone between net erosion and net accretion is thus presently located in the northern 
 part of the state park's South Unit. 
 
 19 
 
Since the late 1800s, the most severe coastal erosion documented along the Illinois 
 coast has occurred along the northern reach of the beach-ridge plain, particularly within 
 one-half to one mile south of the Illinois-Wisconsin state line. Examination of historical 
 shorelines dating from 1 872 shows that the long-term annual recession rate just south 
 of the state line has averaged about 10 feet/year (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 
 1953; State of Illinois Division of Waterways, 1958; Jennings, 1990). In 1989, 
 following construction of North Point Marina, recession along a lakefill/feeder beach 
 along this reach totalled nearly 200 feet which is the most rapid annual recession of 
 shoreline ever documented on the Illinois coast (Terpstra and Chrzastowski, 1992). 
 
 In terms of area and volume, the greatest human-induced accretion of littoral sediment 
 along the Illinois coast has occurred along the southern end of the beach-ridge plain 
 at Waukegan. Beginning in the late 1800s, construction of jetties for the entrance 
 channel to Waukegan Harbor formed a near-total barrier to net southerly littoral 
 transport. A fillet began to form soon after construction of the jetties, and the fillet 
 area and volume increased as several generations of jetty extension occurred (Bottin, 
 1 988). At present a shoreline offset of 2300 feet occurs between the updrift (north) 
 and downdrift (south) sides of the harbor entrance (Fig. 3). 
 
 Lake Border Moraines Bluff Coast 
 For approximately 13.6 miles from North Chicago southward to the southern limit of 
 Lake County, the coast is along bluffs of the Lake Border Morainic Complex. This 
 complex consists of end moraines formed during recession of the Lake Michigan ice 
 lobe about 1 4,500 to 1 4,000 B.P. The curvilinear trend of the coast parallels the axes 
 of the moraines. Most of the bluff coast borders the Highland Park Moraine, but the 
 northern reach at North Chicago borders the younger Zion City Moraine (Willman and 
 Lineback, 1970). The bluffs are cut by a series of V-shaped ravines extending up to 
 
 20 
 
one mile landward with the heads of the ravines near the crest of the Highland Park 
 Moraine. Intermittent streams along these ravines are the primary surface drainage 
 east of the moraine crest into Lake Michigan. 
 
 Bluff heights average about 72 feet above mean lake level, but reach a maximum 
 height of 88 feet above mean lake level at Highland Park. Bluff materials are primarily 
 a clay glacial till, but include beds of glacial-lacustrine deposits (Clark and Rudloff, 
 1990). Average composition of the bluff materials is 10% sand, 42% silt, and 48% 
 clay (Lineback, 1974). The dominance of fine-grained sediments allows steep bluff 
 faces to develop, ranging from 25 degrees to nearly vertical. Because of the 
 predominantly fine-grained composition of the bluffs, only about 10% of the eroded 
 bluff sediment is maintained as beach material. The remainder of the eroded sediment 
 is rapidly transported away from the beach and nearshore zone to the offshore area. 
 
 Prior to urban development, the coastal bluffs were nearly all erosional, providing a 
 sediment source to the beaches and littoral stream (Atwood and Goldthwait, 1908). 
 Bluff recession resulted from both wave-induced erosion along the bluff toe and slope 
 failures not directly due to wave erosion. Such slope failures were induced by 
 inhomogeneity within the bluff materials and ground-water fluctuations in zones where 
 coarse materials overlie fine-grained materials of low permeability. 
 
 In order to reduce the effects of coastal erosion, numerous shore-defense structures 
 have been constructed along the bluff coast. The earliest and most abundant of these 
 are groins. Two or more generations of groins have been built, with construction 
 beginning in the 1 800s or 1 890s. Today a nearly continuous groin field extends from 
 the harbor at Naval Training Center, Great Lakes south to the southern limit of Lake 
 County. Aerial photographs from 1991 record a total of 243 groins along this 1 1.6- 
 
 21 
 
mile reach, an average of 21 groins per mile. Most of these groins are constructed of 
 steel sheetpile. Some earlier-generation wooden structures remain but these are 
 typically in a deteriorated state. Shore-parallel defense structures such as revetments 
 and bulkheads commonly defend the bluff toes. 
 
 WAVE CLIMATE AND LITTORAL PROCESSES 
 
 Waves are the principal erosion agent along the Illinois lakeshore. Along this coast and 
 the Great Lakes coast in general, wave magnitude is limited by fetch. The Illinois 
 lakeshore has its greatest fetch (about 300 miles) toward the north-northeast. Waves 
 from the northeast quadrant have the greatest energy and net influence along the 
 Illinois coast. 
 
 The Illinois lakeshore does not experience the strength or duration of tropical and 
 extratropical storms that impact the U.S. ocean coasts. The typically rapid eastward 
 track of low-pressure systems limits the duration of winds blowing across the lake 
 surface, and for any given storm high wave conditions generally last only one or two 
 days. The strongest and most frequent storm waves along the Illinois coast occur in 
 late spring and early fall . 
 
 Wave observations along the Illinois coast indicate that for any given year, average 
 wave height is 1.5 to 2 feet, maximum wave height is typically about 8 feet, and 
 extreme waves rarely exceed 10 to 12 feet. The average wave period is 4.0 seconds 
 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1953). 
 
 Seiches can result from atmospheric pressure differences along the axis of the lake. 
 Although seiches generally involve no more than a surge in lake level, if these waves 
 
 22 
 
are extreme and move rapidly along the coast, they have the potential of causing rapid 
 and severe shore erosion and property damage. For example, a seiche reaching a 
 height of 10 feet impacted the Chicago lakeshore in June 1954 resulting in shore 
 damage and loss of life (Ewing et al., 1954). 
 
 Net littoral transport along the Illinois coast is southward. An exception occurs on the 
 south side of large coastal structures where a localized shadow effect on northerly 
 waves results in net northward transport. Although recent data on littoral transport 
 are lacking, based on data from 1872, 1910, and 1946, the U.S. Army Corps of 
 Engineers (1953) estimated transport along the beach-ridge plain coast at 90,000 
 cubic yards per year (cu yd/yr), and along the bluff coast at 57,000 cu yd/yr. The 
 transport rate of 90,000 cu yd/yr is likely a reasonable estimate along much of the 
 present-day beach-ridge plain because present conditions are much as they were 
 during the period studied by the Corps. However, along much of the Lake County bluff 
 coast present-day transport rates are likely less than 57,000 cu yd/yr and locally 
 possibly less than half this rate, since in recent decades coastal engineering has 
 restricted the supply and transport of littoral sediment. 
 
 During winter months, littoral processes can be affected by a nearshore ice complex 
 that may or may not form depending on the degree and persistence of sub-freezing 
 weather. This ice can protect the beach from wave impact, but the lakeward face of 
 the ice can act as an ephemeral seawall causing downward deflection of wave energy 
 and erosion of the lake floor. Wave-thrusted ice can cause damage to shore structures 
 and induce erosion along beaches and bluff toes. In addition, when breakup of the ice 
 complex occurs, sediment incorporated in the ice by wave action can be transported 
 by ice rafting. Recent studies along the Illinois coast have shown that the 
 development and dissipation of the nearshore ice complex is a factor in the net loss of 
 
 23 
 
sediment from the littoral zone (Reimnitz et al., 1991; Barnes et al., 1992a, 1992b; 
 Kempema et al., 1992a, 1992b). Along reaches of minimal annual littoral transport, 
 this process of sediment loss may be quantitatively significant, but additional studies 
 are needed to fully evaluate the net impact. 
 
 DATUMS FOR LAKE LEVEL 
 
 Although Lake Michigan and Lake Huron are considered separate lakes, they function 
 hydraulically as a single lake of common elevation connected by the Straits of 
 Mackinac. Thus the phrase "Lakes Michigan-Huron" is commonly used in reference 
 to the lake elevations, and a single mean elevation, seasonal variation, and chart datum 
 are applicable to both lakes. 
 
 Historical Datums 
 Several datum changes have occurred throughout the history of monitoring lake levels 
 in the Great Lakes. Early records of Lakes Michigan-Huron lake levels were referred 
 to local datums or were relative to the so-called "High Water of 1838" which was an 
 extreme high lake level experienced in all the Great Lakes. Datums were later 
 established for low waters of 1 903 and 1 909. After expansion of level surveys in the 
 eastern U.S., in 1935 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers established a system of 
 datums for the Great Lakes referenced to Mean Tide New York (MTNY 1935). For 
 bathymetric surveys and chart production, a Lakes Michigan-Huron Low Water Datum 
 (LWD) or "chart datum" was established at +578.50 feet MTNY (1935). 
 
 The datums of 1 903, 1 909, and 1 935 were abandoned in the late 1 950s and 1 960s 
 in favor of the International Great Lakes Datum 1 955 (IGLD 1 955). IGLD 1 955 was 
 established by agreement of the United States and Canadian Coordinating Committee 
 
 24 
 
on Great Lakes Basic Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data. IGLD 1 955 was the first single 
 vertical reference to be used by both countries for all the Great Lakes and connecting 
 waterways. The reference zero point was at Father Point (Pointe-au-P&re), Quebec on 
 the St. Lawrence estuary. At the time IGLD 1955 was established, it was recognized 
 that this datum would need to be revised periodically because of isostatic adjustments 
 still occurring in the Great Lakes region. IGLD 1 955 was the datum used through the 
 end of 1991. 
 
 Establishment of IGLD 1985 
 As of January 1, 1992, the datum for Great Lakes water levels is IGLD 1985. The 
 datum year 1985 is the central year of the period 1982-1988 during which level data 
 were collected for the datum revision. For IGLD 1 985, a new reference zero point was 
 established at Rimouski, Quebec on the St. Lawrence estuary. This location is 
 approximately four miles west of the former reference at Father Point. 
 
 The elevation of Lakes Michigan-Huron LWD is +576.80 feet IGLD 1955 and 
 + 577.50 feet IGLD 1 985 . The adjustment for Lakes Michigan-Huron LWD from IGLD 
 1955 to IGLD 1985 is thus +0.70 feet. IGLD 1985 does not change water levels 
 established for flood insurance purposes since these elevations are referenced to 
 National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929 (NGVD 1929). However, when the North 
 American Vertical Datum 1 988 (NAVD 1 988) is implemented, it will supersede NGVD 
 1929, and elevations referenced to NGVD 1929 will be revised. 
 
 Table 2 shows common datums used on the Illinois lakeshore and corrections between 
 datums. IGLD elevations are the present standard for lake-level statistics compiled and 
 reported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National 
 Ocean Service (NOAA-NOS) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. LWD is the 
 
 25 
 
CD 
 O 
 
 
 TO 
 CM 
 TO 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 •<* 
 
 
 
 
 .C 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 O 
 
 *~; 
 
 «— 
 
 <* 
 
 ^t 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 CO 
 O 
 
 
 Q 
 > 
 
 + 
 
 cm 
 
 + 
 
 CO 
 
 in 
 
 cm' 
 
 CO 
 
 in 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 ■ 
 
 i ■ 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 CD 
 
 .c 
 
 
 CD 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 + 
 
 + 
 
 
 
 
 E 
 
 4-> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *J 
 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 TO 
 
 
 TO 
 
 co 
 ft 
 
 co 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 <* 
 
 
 co 
 
 a 
 
 
 C 
 
 o 
 
 
 r-» 
 
 ^ 
 
 in 
 
 in 
 
 o 
 
 i 
 
 * 
 
 "co 
 
 
 (0 
 CO 
 
 
 CO 
 
 + 
 
 + 
 
 00 
 
 in 
 
 CN 
 CO 
 
 in 
 
 6 
 
 + 
 
 ■ 
 
 6 
 
 + 
 
 o 
 
 +3 
 
 -* CD 
 
 
 c 
 o 
 
 
 1> 
 
 
 
 + 
 
 + 
 
 
 
 
 o > 
 
 
 '!—. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 >- o 
 
 
 (0 
 
 > 
 
 
 in 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CD 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 ill 
 
 
 CD 
 
 
 TO 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 *fr 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 T— 
 
 r^ 
 
 ^; 
 
 in 
 
 in 
 
 
 o 
 
 <* 
 
 m CD JS 
 
 
 "co 
 
 *•> 
 
 ^j 
 
 >- 
 
 ,-' 
 
 CN 
 
 00 
 
 CM 
 
 i 
 i 
 
 o 
 
 c> 
 
 v »CD 
 
 
 CO 
 CD 
 O 
 U 
 
 CD 
 CD 
 
 2 
 1- 
 2 
 
 + 
 
 + 
 
 in 
 
 + 
 
 CO 
 
 in 
 
 + 
 
 
 
 + 
 
 C CO § 
 
 £ C ~ 
 
 
 C 
 
 E 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ CD JO 
 «> CD Z 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 CO 
 
 CN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 II 5 II 
 
 
 CD 
 > 
 
 _CD 
 
 ■4-" 
 
 CO 
 
 Q 
 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 > » Q 
 Z _i > 
 
 
 CO 
 O 
 
 in 
 
 o 
 
 ■ 
 ■ 
 
 in 
 
 CM 
 
 in 
 
 CM 
 
 cm" 
 
 
 CD 
 J* 
 
 o 
 
 -4— ' 
 
 I 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 + 
 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 - CO CD 
 
 52z 
 
 
 4_/ 
 
 O 
 
 in 
 
 in 
 
 
 in 
 
 in 
 
 in 
 
 
 _C0 
 
 a- 
 
 
 l 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 l 
 
 1 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 CD 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ha 
 
 o 
 
 > 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 »4— 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "O 
 
 (J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 co 
 
 
 ^V 
 
 CD 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 E 
 
 O co 
 
 E 
 
 3 
 
 K 
 
 o 
 
 00 
 
 in 
 
 
 o 
 
 in 
 
 in 
 
 ■■. 
 
 D 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 r^ 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 <t 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 00 
 
 *-> 
 CO 
 
 E 
 
 3 
 
 
 r* 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 1 
 
 l>. 
 
 r^ 
 
 r-« 
 
 T3 
 
 
 
 in 
 
 in 
 
 
 
 in 
 
 in 
 
 in 
 
 4-> 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 CO 2 
 CD 
 
 la. 
 
 CO 
 
 "D 
 
 C 
 
 o 
 
 E 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "io ® 
 
 -J CO 
 
 tS E ^ 
 
 E ^52 
 
 3 CD O 
 
 in 
 
 00 
 TO 
 
 Q 
 _j 
 CD 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 O 
 
 Table 2. Conversion table for com 
 of Lake Michigan. 
 
 
 d 
 
 + 
 
 • 
 ■ 
 
 in 
 
 in 
 
 + 
 
 in 
 
 00 
 
 in 
 
 + 
 
 CM 
 
 ■ 
 
 CM 
 i 
 
 q 
 
 CM 
 
 ■ 
 
 S. 2-c 
 
 CD co .E 5 
 - Q I 
 
 E t - 
 
 ii° 
 
 H ii ^ 
 
 Q Q ^ 
 
 CO 
 
 E 
 
 c 
 o 
 
 la. 
 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 v 01 c 
 
 CO C 1= 
 
 Q "to — 
 
 CD UJ tl 
 
 ■-* co o 
 > a o 
 
 1 C5- 1 
 _l O O 
 
 ■4-> 
 
 °Eo 
 
 r < C 
 T . «D 
 
 E co a? 
 
 in 
 in 
 
 TO 
 
 O 
 
 _i 
 CD 
 
 
 o 
 r^ 
 
 6 
 
 ■ 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 CD 
 
 r^ 
 in 
 
 + 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 O 
 CO 
 
 in 
 
 + 
 
 O 
 
 • 
 
 CO 
 
 <* 
 
 i 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 E 
 
 CO 
 
 Q 
 
 C 
 CD 
 
 > 
 
 b 
 
 CD 
 CD 
 
 *»— 
 
 C 
 
 in 
 in 
 
 TO 
 
 Q 
 
 _i 
 
 CD 
 
 in 
 
 00 
 TO 
 
 Q 
 _i 
 CD 
 
 Q 
 
 2 
 
 X 
 
 o 
 
 in 
 
 CO 
 TO 
 
 Z 
 2 
 
 CM 
 TO 
 
 _l 
 CO 
 
 5 
 
 TO 
 CM 
 TO 
 
 o 
 > 
 
 CD 
 
 Z 
 
 co • c: 
 
 TOD CD 
 
 Stj o 
 
 CO <D *= 
 CD.E 5 
 
 jQuj 
 
 ^ CM CO 
 
 26 
 
standard datum for bathymetric surveys conducted by federal and most state agencies, 
 although lakeshore municipalities may conduct bathymetric surveys referenced to their 
 municipal datums. 
 
 Lake-Level Datums and Shoreline Mapping 
 One difficulty in comparing shoreline mapping along the Illinois shore of Lake Michigan 
 is that no specific lake level or datum is universally used as a shoreline reference. 
 There is no recognized Mean High Water (MHW) as occurs on the U.S. Atlantic Ocean 
 or Gulf of Mexico coasts. 
 
 The MHW line is the shoreline reference on ocean-coast historical shoreline maps by 
 the U.S. Coast Survey and U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (Shalowitz, 1964). 
 Although the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers defines an Ordinary High Water Mark 
 (OHWM) for the Great Lakes, this is for regulatory functions and is not used as a 
 shoreline mapping datum. 
 
 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps note the approximate mean lake 
 elevation of 580 feet (NGVD 1929) and provide selected depth contours referenced 
 to LWD, but the shoreline has no specific datum reference. NOAA-NOS nautical charts 
 have depths referenced to LWD, but also have no specific datum reference for the 
 shoreline. 
 
 LAKE-LEVEL FLUCTUATIONS 
 
 Translations in shoreline position occur on the Illinois coast on varied time scales due 
 to fluctuations in lake level. Yearly, seasonal and monthly lake-level fluctuations are 
 caused by changes in the water budget. The annual fluctuation in lake level for Lakes 
 
 27 
 
Michigan-Huron is about one foot with high water in summer and low water in winter. 
 On time scales of days and hours, seiches occur that are caused by atmospheric 
 pressure differences across the lake, and storm surges occur as strong and persistent 
 winds force waters to accumulate along the coast. A potential extreme storm surge 
 in southern Lake Michigan has been determined to be 1.7 feet (U.S. Army Corps of 
 Engineers, 1978). 
 
 Regular monitoring and documentation of lake level by federal agencies began in 1 860 
 with the U.S. Lake Survey. Lake levels along the Illinois and southern Wisconsin coast 
 are currently monitored by NOAA-NOS gauges at Calumet Harbor, Illinois (Station No. 
 7044) and Milwaukee, Wisconsin (Station No. 7057). The Lake County coast is 
 approximately midway between these gauges. For the Calumet Harbor gauge, the 
 record high monthly mean lake level of 581.80 ft (IGLD 1955) occurred in October 
 1986; the record low monthly mean of 575.41 ft (IGLD 1955) occurred in February 
 1964 (Fig. 4). This is a historical extreme range of 6.39 ft in lake-level change. 
 Unofficial lake-level observations on Lakes Michigan-Huron date to about 1800 (U.S. 
 Deep Waterways Commission, 1897). The High Water of 1838 reached an 
 approximate elevation of 582.99 ft (IGLD 1955). A comparison of the High Water of 
 1 838 and the historical record low water in 1 964 gives an extreme range of recorded 
 lake-level variation of 7.58 ft. 
 
 Although for practical purposes the Lake Michigan coast is considered tideless, both 
 solar and lunar tides have been recorded in southern Lake Michigan with a combined 
 effect less than two inches (U.S. Army Corps Engineers, 1953). 
 
 28 
 
IGLD 
 1985 
 
 584 
 
 583 
 
 582 
 
 581 
 
 579 
 
 578 
 
 577 
 
 576 
 
 575 
 
 IGLD 
 1955 
 
 583 
 
 582 
 
 581 
 
 580 — 
 
 579 
 
 578 
 
 577 — 
 
 576 
 
 575 
 
 J 
 
 t / 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 J 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 t 
 
 t 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 
 0) 
 
 
 8 
 
 CO 
 
 3 
 
 
 — 
 
 CO 
 
 
 m 
 
 (0 
 
 IS 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 r i 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 s 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 I I 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Unofficial Record High 
 
 So called "High Water of 1838" 1 
 
 Record High 
 
 Monthly Mean 
 October 1986^ 
 
 Lakes Michigan - Huron 
 Average Monthly Mean 
 Lake Level 1900 - 1990 S 
 
 Lakes Michigan - Huron 
 Low Water Datum (Chart Datum) 
 576.80 feet (IGLD 1955) 
 577.50 feet (IGLD 1985) 
 
 Record Low 
 Monthly Mean 
 February 1964 
 
 1 
 
 U.S. Deep Waterways Commission, (1897) 
 
 NOAA, National Ocean Service; record for gauge at Calumet Harbor, Illinois 
 
 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Monthly Bulletin of Lake Levels for the Great Lakes 
 
 Figure 4. Historical range of lake-level change in Lake Michigan. 
 
 29 
 
CORRIDORS FOR THE EROSION-RATE STUDY 
 
 Along the 26 miles of Lake County coast, five one-mile long corridors were selected 
 for the erosion-rate study (Fig. 5). The five corridors were selected to cover the range 
 of variability along the Lake County coast in terms of differing rates and direction of 
 shoreline change, effects of coastal engineering, and bluff recession rates. 
 
 This section describes the coastal characteristics of each corridor. Figures 6 through 
 10 are maps of each of the five corridors showing locations of the upland control 
 points used in the registration of vertical aerial photographs for each corridor. Maps 
 showing location of the control points used in registering the historical maps are 
 included in Appendix B. 
 
 Corridor 1 : North Point USGS 7.5' Zion Quadrangle 
 
 This corridor extends one mile southward from the Illinois-Wisconsin state line 
 and lies entirely within the erosional reach of the Zion beach-ridge plain. 
 Coastal erosion was a major problem for the residential community of Spring 
 Bluff which formerly occupied this lakeshore. Despite various attempts at shore 
 defense, this community was abandoned in the late 1970s, and the State of 
 Illinois acquired the land. The historical shoreline changes along this corridor 
 reveal the most persistent and severe historical shoreline recession on the 
 Illinois lakeshore. The coastal erosion was one impetus for construction of the 
 North Point Marina. Construction of this state-owned, 1 500-slip marina began 
 in 1987. The marina basin straddles the pre-construction shoreline and was 
 formed by a combination of excavating into the beach and backshore and 
 building shore-attached, rubble-mound breakwaters into the nearshore. 
 
 30 
 
Corridor 2: Waukeqan Harbor USGS 7.5' Waukegan Quadrangle 
 
 This corridor straddles the jetties defending the entrance to Waukegan Harbor. 
 This is a deep-water, federally maintained harbor with an entrance-channel 
 controlling depth of 23 to 25 feet. The corridor is mainly along the accretionary 
 southern reach of the Zion beach-ridge plain. The natural accretionary trends 
 have been augmented by littoral sediment entrapment against the channel- 
 entrance north jetty. This total to near-total barrier to the net southerly littoral 
 transport has resulted in the greatest human-induced coastal accretion on the 
 Lake Michigan coast. Although the historical shoreline changes are 
 progradational rather than recessional, this area offers the opportunity to 
 evaluate mapping procedures along a reach having a low-slope foreshore 
 (-1:60). This low slope has resulted in pronounced shoreline changes on 
 various time scales, both by entrapment of littoral sediment and by shoreline 
 translations caused by fluctuations in lake level. 
 
 Corridor 3: Lake Bluff USGS 7.5' Waukegan Quadrangle 
 
 This corridor is the northernmost of the three selected corridors along the bluff 
 coast of central and southern Lake County. The corridor is on the south 
 (downdrift) side of the harbor for Naval Training Center, Great Lakes. The 
 harbor is formed by shore-attached, concrete breakwaters that extend 2300 
 feet lakeward of the pre-construction shoreline. Since their construction in 
 1923, the breakwaters have formed a total to near-total barrier to littoral 
 transport. This corridor was chosen because it is part of a coastal reach that 
 had natural rates of bluff recession in the late 1 800s and early 1 900s. Extreme 
 erosion in the mid-1 900s followed the breakwater construction and subsequent 
 littoral sediment starvation. The coast has had little to no recession in the late 
 1 900s due to construction of shore-defense structures. 
 
 31 
 
Corridor 4: Lake Forest USGS 7.5' Highland Park Quadrangle 
 
 This corridor is located at the southern end of the shoreline within the City of 
 Lake Forest and adjoins the northern limit of Fort Sheridan. The last major 
 stretch of undefended coastal bluffs on the Illinois coast is present in the 
 southern part of this corridor along the Lake Forest Nature Preserve. Here 
 shoreline and bluffline recession have been unaffected by local coastal 
 engineering throughout the entire time period covered by this study. Modes of 
 slope failure that have occurred here include creep, earthflows, debris falls, and 
 slumps. The northern part of the corridor consists of an engineered coast along 
 residential lakeshore properties, and is typical of most of the Lake County coast 
 extending northward to Waukegan. This corridor reflects this contrast between 
 the entirely engineered northern reach and the entirely undefended southern 
 reach. 
 
 Corridor 5: Highland Park USGS 7.5' Highland Park Quadrangle 
 
 The Highland Park corridor is within the reach of the highest bluffs along the 
 Illinois coast. These bluffs are as much as 88 feet above mean lake level in the 
 northern part of the corridor. The corridor is dominated by residential lakeshore 
 property which is typical of nearly all the Lake County coast south of Fort 
 Sheridan. Defense structures are common along the shoreline and/or at the 
 bluff toe. An essentially continuous groin field extends along the corridor. 
 
 32 
 
Lake County 
 
 Quadrangle 
 
 Waukegan Harbor 
 
 WJsconsin 
 
 Illinois 
 
 LAKE MICHIGAN 
 
 Waukegan 
 Quadrangle 
 
 N 
 
 Highland Park 
 Quadrangle 
 
 UksGounty 
 Qqok County 
 
 Highland Park 
 
 
 st mi 
 
 10 
 _i km 
 
 Figure 5. Location and designation of the five one-mile wide corridors along the 
 
 Lake County coast for which erosion-rate data were generated. The 
 limits of U.S. Geological Survey quadrangles are shown for reference. 
 
 33 
 
xTrtdent 
 Harbor 
 
 {presently Prafrle 
 
 xJx^Go^'Malha) 
 
 Wisc^n^J^o^ha^SQvi^ 
 
 Illinois 
 
 r ^rdStreerR 
 
 ff&i&E^ffiS 
 
 l« 
 
 is 
 
 *Q 
 
 Former tamnluntty 
 of Spring 6luK 
 
 Main Street 
 
 WINTHROF 
 
 |HARSQjR|: 
 
 ditch 
 
 Present boundary of 
 II li nois Beach State Park 
 
 
 
 •:u- 
 
 ssl; 
 
 
 
 ^amp: 
 
 LOGAN 
 
 LAKE MICHIGAN 
 
 ..tt&JPQ Shoreline 
 & £ 3*m / as of 1991 
 
 CORRIDOR 1 : 
 NORTH POINT 
 
 O CONTROL POINTS FOR 
 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS 
 
 LAKE MICHIGAN 
 
 N 
 
 Figure 6. Map of Corridor 1 (North Point) and location of ground control points for 
 
 registration of vertical aerial photographs. Inset map shows present 
 coast with inclusion of North Point Marina. 
 
 34 
 
Figure 7. Map of Corridor 2 (Waukegan Harbor) and ground control points for 
 
 registration of vertical aerial photographs. 
 
 35 
 
Figure 8. Map of Corridor 3 (Lake Bluff) and ground control points for registration 
 
 of vertical aerial photographs. 
 
 36 
 
LAKE MICHIGAN 
 
 1 km 
 
 _i 
 
 st mi 
 
 CORRIDOR 4: 
 LAKE FOREST 
 
 O CONTROL POINTS FOR 
 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS 
 
 FORT 
 SHERIDAN 
 
 HIGHLAND PARK 
 
 N 
 
 HIGHWOOD 
 
 Figure 9. Map of Corridor 4 (Lake Forest) and ground control points for 
 
 registration of vertical aerial photographs. 
 
 37 
 
HomgyrydAyg 
 
 Dserftotd ftoad ffli 
 
 LAKE MICHIGAN 
 
 CONTROL POINTS FOR AERIAL 
 PHOTOGRAPHS 
 
 CORRIDOR 5: 
 HIGHLAND PARK 
 
 WiQHLANDPARK 
 
 Figure 10. Map of Corridor 5 (Highland Park) and ground control points for 
 registration of vertical aerial photographs. 
 
 38 
 
PART 3 
 
 DOCUMENTATION 
 OF SPECIFIC STUDY TASKS 
 
 TASK 1 : COLLECTION AND DIGITIZING OF SHORELINE DATA TO CREATE THE 
 
 HISTORICAL SHORELINE LOCATION DATABASE 
 
 DATA SOURCES 
 
 The data sources for historical shoreline and bluffline locations consisted of two 
 historical map data sets and two vertical aerial photograph data sets, as required by 
 the study. Information on the offices from which these data sources were obtained 
 is included in Appendix A. This study also required data sets to be spaced temporally 
 at approximately 35- to 60-year intervals. The selected data sets meet this 
 requirement. The temporal spacing is the following: 
 
 Dates of Successive Temporal Spacing 
 Data Sources in Years 
 
 1872-73/1909-11 37 
 
 1910-11 / 1947 37 
 
 1947/1987 40 
 
 Historical Maps 
 The earliest topographic and hydrographic surveys along the Illinois coast were 
 completed in the early 1800s by the U.S. Army Topographical Engineers. Mapping 
 was limited to areas where the U.S. Army was planning or building shore structures 
 for harbors of refuge. Many of these maps appear in the annual reports of the Chief 
 
 39 
 
of Engineers and in Congressional records (e.g., U.S. Congress, 1839). 
 
 The first surveys covering a broad extent of the Illinois coast were done by the U.S. 
 Lake Survey. This agency was established in 1841 as a distinct Great Lakes 
 topographic and hydrographic survey unit within the U.S. Army and grew out of the 
 Corps of Topographical Engineers (Woodford, 1991). For over 100 years the U.S. 
 Lake Survey (USLS) performed surveys and produced nautical charts for the Great 
 Lakes, as the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey did for the U.S. ocean coasts. The 
 USLS headquarters in Detroit, Michigan existed until October 1970 when this was 
 redesignated the U.S. Lake Center, removed from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 
 and placed within the National Ocean Survey of NOAA 1 . The U.S. Lake Center 
 operated as a NOAA-NOS office until it was closed in March 1976. Since 1976 all 
 functions of the former U.S. Lake Center have been incorporated into the NOAA-NOS 
 offices in Rockville, Maryland. 
 
 Earliest USLS mapping for the Lake County, Illinois coast was conducted in 1872 on 
 the northernmost Illinois shore for a distance 4.3 miles south of the Illinois-Wisconsin 
 state line. Surveys from this point southward for the remainder of Lake County are 
 dated 1 873. Although two different years are given to these different field sheets, for 
 simplicity these are here commonly referred to as the 1872 survey. The next USLS 
 field sheets along the Lake County coast are dated 1909-11 and 1910-11. For 
 simplicity these are here commonly referred to as the 1910 survey which is the mid- 
 year of the three survey years. This use of 1872 and 1910 is consistent with the 
 shorthand designation previously used in reports by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
 (1953) and the State of Illinois Division of Waterways (1958). When specific field 
 
 ^he National Ocean Survey was renamed the National Ocean Service in 1 983. Throughout the remainder 
 of this report, the name National Ocean Service is used for times both prior and subsequent to 1983. 
 
 40 
 
sheets are referred to, the specific sheet date(s) are used. 
 
 Both the 1872 and 1910 USLS field sheets show bathymetry, shoreline, and 
 topographic features similar in format to "T sheets" and "H sheets" prepared for the 
 ocean coasts by the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (USC&GS). The USLS field 
 procedures changed with time, but the early topographic surveys were completed with 
 theodolites, stadia rods, and plane table alidades; hydrographic surveys were done 
 with sextants for horizontal control and lead lines for soundings. Field procedures for 
 the USLS surveys are discussed in a report by the U.S. Engineer Department (1873). 
 The field season was typically five months in length from May through September 
 (Woodward, 1991). 
 
 The 1 872 and 1910 surveys were used in this study as the two sources for historical 
 shoreline and bluffline map data. Stable base (bromide) copies of the field sheets were 
 purchased from NOAA-NOS Hydrographic Surveys Branch, Data Control Section 
 located in Rockville, Maryland. According to that office, no known Descriptive Reports 
 exist to accompany these USLS surveys as accompany USC&GS and NOS surveys. 
 
 The identification numbers originally given to these field sheets by the USLS still 
 appear on the sheets and begin with the number "1" followed by a hyphen and a 
 three-digit number. These maps are presently indexed by NOAA-NOS Data Control 
 Section as beginning with the letter "I". This alpha-identification is thus comparable 
 to the indexing "T" for topographic and "H" for hydrographic used by the USC&GS. 
 For consistency with present NOAA-NOS indexing, these USLS maps are here referred 
 to with a letter "I" in the registration number. 
 
 Three sheets were needed for each of the two surveys (six sheets total) to provide 
 
 41 
 
total coverage of the coast of Lake County, Illinois. Tables 3 and 4 provide 
 documentation for the sheets of the two surveys. Reproductions of the field sheet 
 coverage for each data set for each of the five corridors are provided in Appendix C. 
 A general description of these sheets follows. 
 
 7572 and 1873 U.S. Lake Survey Field Sheets 
 
 The 1872 and 1873 surveys include upland land use and land cover for distances 
 inland ranging from about 0.5 to 1 .5 miles. Soundings from lead-line surveys extend 
 along shore-normal and shore-oblique track lines up to 1.5 miles offshore and a 
 maximum depth of about 30 feet. All depths are referenced to the lake level at the 
 time of the survey. Notes were added to the sheets by the Corps of Engineers on April 
 16,1 947 indicating that the lake level at the time of the survey was 580.9 feet above 
 Mean Tide New York (MTNY 1 935). This is 2.4 feet above Low Water Datum. Along 
 the bluff coast unlabeled topographic contours apparently have a 20-foot contour 
 interval. The sheets have no geographic grid, but include one magnetic meridian and 
 one true meridian. 
 
 1909- 1 1 and 1910-11 U.S. Lake Survey Field Sheets 
 
 The 1909-11 and 1910-11 surveys include upland land use and land cover for a 
 distance of about 0.5 to 1 mile inland. Soundings extend along shore-parallel track 
 lines up to 7.5 miles offshore and a maximum depth of 80 to 133 feet depending on 
 the sheet number. Nearshore bathymetric data from the 1 872 and 1 873 surveys are 
 included for comparison. All depths are corrected to Lakes Michigan-Huron Low Water 
 Datum (578.5 feet MTNY 1935). Land elevations are shown in 10-foot contour 
 intervals above the elevation of Lake Michigan. Geographic grid is referenced to U.S. 
 Standard Datum. 
 
 42 
 
Table 3. Documentation of U.S. Lake Survey field sheets for 1872 and 
 
 1873 
 
 
 Field Sheet No.: 1-521 
 
 MaD Title: 
 
 Survey of the Northern and Northwest Lakes West Shore 
 
 
 of Lake Michigan From Azimuth Station II North of Kenosha 
 
 
 to Azimuth Station IV South of Kenosha 
 
 MaD Date: 
 
 1872 (drawn 1873) 
 
 Scale: 
 
 1:20,000 (nominal) 
 
 In Charqe: 
 
 Brevet Major-Gen. Cyrus B. Comstock, U.S. Corps of 
 
 
 Engineers 
 
 Surveyor: 
 
 Henry Custer, Asst. U.S. Lake Survey 
 
 Map Limits: 
 
 North of Kenosha, Wisconsin to 4.3 miles south of the 
 
 
 Illinois-Wisconsin state line. 
 
 Field Sheet No.: I-552 
 
 Map Title: 
 
 Survey of the Northern and Northwestern Lakes West 
 
 
 Shore of Lake Michigan From Shore Station 81 (South of 
 
 
 Azimuth Station VI) to Azimuth Station VII South 
 
 MaD Date: 
 
 1873 
 
 Scale: 
 
 1:20,000 (nominal) 
 
 In Charqe: 
 
 Brevet Major-Gen. Cyrus B. Comstock, U.S. Corps of 
 
 
 Engineers 
 
 Survevor: 
 
 Henry Custer, Asst. U.S. Lake Survey 
 
 Mao Limits: 
 
 Fort Sheridan area south to Wilmette 
 
 Field Sheet No.: I-553 
 
 MaD Title: 
 
 Survey of the Northern and Northwest Lakes West Shore 
 
 
 of Lake Michigan From Azimuth Station IV South to 
 
 
 Azimuth Station VI South 
 
 MaD Date: 
 
 1873 
 
 Scale: 
 
 1:20,000 (nominal) 
 
 In Charae: 
 
 Brevet Major-Gen. Cyrus B. Comstock, U.S. Corps of 
 
 
 Engineers 
 
 Survevor: 
 
 Henry Custer, Asst. U.S. Lake Survey 
 
 MaD Limits: 
 
 From 4.3 miles south of the Illinois-Wisconsin state line 
 
 
 south to the Fort Sheridan area. 
 
 43 
 
Table 4. Documentation of U.S. Lake Survey field sheets for 1909-191 1 
 
 and 1910-1911. 
 
 Field Sheet No.: 1-1195 
 
 Map Title: Survey of the Northern and Northwestern Lakes Sheet No. 
 
 1 - West Shore of Lake Michigan 
 Map Date: 1910-1911 
 Scale: 1 :20,000 (nominal) 
 
 In Charge: Lt. Colonel Charles S. Riche, Corps of Engineers U.S. Army 
 Mao Limits: Fort Sheridan area south to Winnetka (Cook Co.) 
 
 Field Sheet No.: 1-1196 
 
 Mao Title: Survey of the Northern and Northwestern Lakes Sheet No. 
 
 2 - West Shore of Lake Michigan South of Waukegan, III. 
 Mao Date: 1910-1911 
 Scale: 1:20,000 (nominal) 
 
 In Charge: Lt. Colonel Charles S. Riche, Corps of Engineers U.S. Army 
 Map Limits: 4.6 miles south of the Illinois-Wisconsin state line south to 
 
 the Fort Sheridan area 
 
 Field Sheet No. : 1-1197 
 
 Map Title: Survey of the Northern and Northwestern Lakes Sheet No. 
 
 3 - West Shore of Lake Michigan South of Kenosha, Wise. 
 Mao Date: 1909-1911 
 Scale: 1:20,000 (nominal) 
 
 In Charge: Lt. Colonel Charles S. Riche, Corps of Engineers U.S. Army 
 Map Limits: North of Kenosha, Wisconsin to 4.6 miles south of the 
 
 Illinois-Wisconsin state line 
 
 44 
 
Aerial Photographs 
 Two data sets of aerial photographs from 1947 and 1987 were used in this study. 
 Both sets of aerial photographs were collected with metric cameras, and were both 
 flown coast-parallel along the Lake Michigan shoreline. Table 5 provides 
 documentation of the aerial photographs used in this study. 
 
 Table 5. Documentation of 1947 and 1987 aerial photographs used as 
 
 data sources 
 
 
 1 947 Aerial Photographs 
 
 
 Source: 
 
 Unspecified private contractor 
 
 
 (assumed to be Chicago Aerial Survey) 
 
 Flight Date: 
 
 April 3, 1947 
 
 Nominal Scale: 
 
 1:12,000 
 
 Project I.D.: 
 
 (None specified) 
 
 Roll I.D.: 
 
 BES-1 
 
 Frames Used: 
 
 21 through 66 
 
 Film Size: 
 
 9 inch 
 
 Film Type: 
 
 Black and white positive prints 
 
 Fiducial Marks: 
 
 4 
 
 1 987 Aerial Photographs 
 
 
 Source: 
 
 Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) 
 
 Flight Date: 
 
 March 17, 1987 
 
 Nominal Scale: 
 
 1:14,400 
 
 Project I.D.: 
 
 R-3510ST 
 
 Roll I.D.: 
 
 (None specified) 
 
 Frames Used: 
 
 403 through 434 
 
 Film Size: 
 
 9 inch 
 
 Film Type: 
 
 Black and white positive prints 
 
 Fiducial Marks: 
 
 8 
 
 45 
 
Lake Levels Corresponding to Data Sources 
 
 Shoreline positions for the different data sources are dependent on the lake levels at 
 the time of mapping or aerial photography. Lake levels at the time of the 1872 and 
 1873 surveys are indicated by notes on the field sheets. For the 1 909-1 1 and 1910- 
 1 1 surveys, we computed lake levels by taking an average for the five-month field 
 season (May through September) for each of the three years of records of monthly 
 mean lake levels at the lake-level gauges at Milwaukee, Wisconsin and Calumet Harbor, 
 Illinois. The lake levels for the days of the aerial photographs were computed by 
 averaging mean daily lake levels from these two gauges. 
 
 Table 6 lists the lake levels for the data sources and the differences relative to Low 
 Water Datum and 1 900-1 990 Lakes Michigan-Huron monthly mean lake levels. These 
 lake levels are presented here for complete documentation. These data were not used 
 for any translations of shoreline position to adjust shorelines to a common datum. The 
 1 947 photographs record a lake level closest to Low Water Datum (LWD) of any of the 
 four data sets. The 1987 photographs were collected at a time of high lake level, as 
 lake level was declining from the record high monthly mean of 581.80 feet (IGLD 
 1955) recorded at Calumet Harbor, Illinois in October 1986. 
 
 46 
 
Table 6. Summary of lake elevations for each of the data sources and lake 
 level differences relative to Lakes Michigan-Huron Low Water 
 Datum and 1900-1990 Lakes Michigan-Huron monthly mean lake 
 level. All elevations are given in feet. 
 
 Years of Mapping 
 
 Lake Level 
 IGLD 1955 
 
 Elevation Difference 
 Above ( + ) or Below 
 (-) Low Water 
 Datum 
 
 576.80 (IGLD 1955) 
 
 Elevation Difference 
 
 Above ( + ) or Below 
 
 (-) 1900-1990 
 
 Monthly Mean Lake 
 
 Level 
 
 578.34 (IGLD 1955) 
 
 1872, 1873 
 
 579. 20 1 
 
 + 2.40 
 
 + 0.86 
 
 1909, 1910, 1911 
 
 578.47 2 
 
 + 1.67 
 
 + 0.13 
 
 1947 
 
 577. 75 3 
 
 + 0.95 
 
 -0.59 
 
 1987 
 
 580. 55 3 
 
 + 3.75 
 
 + 2.21 
 
 1 Based on lake level notes added to the 1872 and 1873 U.S. Lake Survey maps by Corps of 
 Engineers (April 16, 1947). 
 
 2 Average of monthly means for Milwaukee and Calumet Harbor gauges for five months May 
 through September 1909, 1910, and 1911. 
 
 3 Average of daily means for Milwaukee and Calumet Harbor gauges for the day of photography. 
 
 EQUIPMENT FOR ANALYSIS OF HISTORICAL MAPS AND AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS 
 
 NOTE: Use of specific hardware and software product names is for informational purposes only and does 
 not constitute an endorsement by the Illinois State Geological Survey. 
 
 Hardware 
 A Geographic Information System (GIS) was used to store, access, manage, and 
 analyze the historical map and aerial photograph data for this study. The initial 
 hardware platform was a PRIME 9955 minicomputer linked to Tektronix 4207-series 
 graphics terminals. Map editing, transect generation and datafile production were done 
 on Sun Sparcstation IPC and IPX workstations. 
 
 47 
 
Historical Maps 
 
 Data entry for the historical maps was done by digitizing them on a CalComp 9500 24- 
 inch by 36-inch digitizing board linked initially to the PRIME 9955 computer and later 
 to the Sun IPC workstation. In a few instances a Bausch and Lomb Zoom Transfer 
 Scope (ZTS; Model ZT4-H) was used to optically transfer faintly marked bluff contours 
 from high-resolution but fragile original paper historical maps to bromide copies at 
 slightly different scales from the originals. 
 
 Aerial Photographs 
 
 Data entry for the aerial photographs was done using nine-inch photographic prints and 
 a Zeiss Stereotope stereoplotter to correct for radial and relief displacement. 
 
 A stereoplotter is an instrument designed to achieve a planimetrically correct map 
 using the horizontal (X- and Y- axis) measurements of a pair of photographs called a 
 stereopair. The procedure involves mounting a stereopair on the stereoplotter so that 
 each photograph can be observed by one eye to achieve the 3-D effect called a 
 stereomodel (Raasveldt, 1956). A conventional stereoplotter reconstructs the position 
 and attitude of a pair of photographs to make a stereomodel. Every point on the 
 stereomodel is in the "correct" horizontal position relative to surrounding points, i.e., 
 it is planimetrically correct. Accurate horizontal positions are then determined by 
 compensating for the parallax of the two photographs. 
 
 The stereoplotter was connected to a custom-made pantograph that supported a 
 keypad above a GTCO Digi-Pad Super L Series digitizing board linked to the Prime 
 9955 minicomputer. By exaggerating the stereomodel positions (as translated to the 
 cursor on the digitizing board) 2.5 times, the precision of digitizing is increased from 
 that obtained directly with the 9-inch prints. 
 
 48 
 
Error in the operator-stereoplotter device was measured through repeated 
 measurements of control points on the stereomodels. The repeatability of 
 measurements varied for each stereomodel but was found to be within a few feet. 
 
 In order to achieve the required vertical perspective, it was necessary to adjust the 
 stereopair to the stereoplotter in order to reconstruct the relative positions of the 
 photographs at the time each was exposed. Because wind velocity and direction 
 change with time and location, both the altitude and the attitude of the aircraft vary 
 at the time of exposure. Deviations in attitude from straight and level flight are called 
 X-tilt (rotation about the longitudinal axis of the aircraft fuselage) and Y-tilt (rotation 
 about the axis which passes through the aircraft's wings), and these tilts cause 
 changes of scale in a stereomodel. The portion of the stereomodel which has an 
 upward Y-tilt has a smaller scale than the portion which is relatively lower. A 
 photograph having excessive tilt is not a true vertical aerial photograph but an oblique 
 aerial photograph. To obtain accurate coordinate measurements, the X-tilt and the Y- 
 tilt must be adjusted so that the stereomodel has a vertical orientation. This will allow 
 for the creation of a planimetric map, i.e., one which has a constant scale throughout 
 the map and minimal distortion. 
 
 A "floating mark" can be placed on the three-dimensional stereomodel by placing 
 identical marks (usually a dot) on the exact same location on each photo. A slight shift 
 in location of the marks on the photographs causes the mark to "float" above or below 
 the stereomodel. The difference in the location of the marks on the photographs is 
 caused by parallax, the difference in the position and attitude of the camera at the time 
 of the exposures. 
 
 The adjustment to remove the effects of X-tilt and Y-tilt was done on the Zeiss 
 
 49 
 
Stereotope by shifting, tilting, or rotating one photograph of the pair according to the 
 procedure described below: 
 
 1 ) Use the fiducial marks to identify the principal point (fiducial center) of 
 each photograph. 
 
 2) Use a stereoscope and a relative orientation of the stereopair to identify 
 the conjugate principal point (the principal point of the adjacent aerial 
 photograph) for each photograph. 
 
 3) Align the principal points and their conjugates in order to mark the 
 flightline of the photographs. 
 
 4) Align the photographs along the X-axis plates on the stereoplotter. 
 Fasten one of the photographs to the plate. 
 
 5) Adjust the second photograph along the X-axis to achieve stereoscopic 
 viewing. 
 
 6) Check for stereoscopic perception throughout the stereomodel. 
 
 7) Follow the procedure in the Stereotope Manual for adjustment for X-tilt 
 and Y-tilt. 
 
 8) Record the adjustments for X-tilt and Y-tilt. 
 
 The stereoplotter was used for all bluffline mapping, but subsequent checking of the 
 data set required revision of the bluffline in Corridors 4 and 5 with a pocket 
 stereoscope to improve map accuracy. 
 
 Appendix D shows the X-tilt and Y-tilt adjustments made for each stereomodel. All 
 are within a range of adjustment which indicates that the aerial photographs used are 
 near vertical and have minimal X-tilt and Y-tilt. 
 
 50 
 
Software 
 
 The software used for the study was ARC/INFO, a GIS package developed by 
 Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI), with headquarters in Redlands, 
 California. As the name indicates, ARC/INFO consists of two components, ARC and 
 INFO. ARC utilizes a data model that allows representation of geographic elements 
 (displayed as points, lines, or polygons) in either a raster-based or a vector-based 
 format. The vector-based mode of ARC was used to compile, manipulate, and store 
 the graphic components of map and aerial photograph information, in this case the 
 locations of the historical shorelines, blufflines, transects, and associated cultural 
 features used as ground control. INFO is relational database management software 
 that was used to create and maintain descriptive tabular information associated with 
 the map and photograph features, such as shoreline dates, transect code numbers, and 
 coordinates of line intersections. INFO's programming capabilities were used to 
 manipulate the data to generate the Historical Shoreline Positional Database and report 
 it in an easily accessible format (Task 4). 
 
 Initial map and aerial photograph digitizing and editing were carried out on the PRIME 
 platform using ARC/INFO Rev. 5.0. Most of the editing and all transect generation and 
 database production were carried out on the Sun platform using ARC/INFO Rev. 6.0. 
 
 DATA REVIEW AND PREPARATION 
 
 Scale Determination 
 Historical Maps 
 
 The scale of each U.S. Lake Survey field sheet was determined by measuring the scale 
 bar located on each map and calculating the actual scale represented by that bar. The 
 
 51 ILLINOIS GEOLOGICAL 
 
 SURVEY LIBRARY 
 
 AUG. 3 1993 
 
results of the scale determination are shown in Table 7. It should be noted that these 
 measured scales are applicable only to the particular set of bromide copies received 
 from NOAA-NOS for this study. Other sets of bromides produced at different times 
 may have different scales. 
 
 Table 7. Comparison of nominal and measured historical map scales. 
 
 U.S.Lake Survey Field Sheet 
 
 Nominal scale 
 
 Measured scale 
 
 1-521 (1872) 
 
 1:20,000 
 
 1:20,160 
 
 I-552 (1873) 
 
 1:20,000 
 
 1:20,124 
 
 I-553 (1873) 
 
 1:20,000 
 
 1:20,124 
 
 1-1195 (1910-11) 
 
 1:20,000 
 
 1:20,064 
 
 1-1196 (1910-11) 
 
 1:20,000 
 
 1:20,136 
 
 1-1197 (1909-11) 
 
 1:20,000 
 
 1:19,932 
 
 Aerial Photographs 
 
 For the aerial photographs, the nominal scale was 1 :1 2,000 for the 1 947 photographs 
 and 1:14,400 for the 1987 photographs. Because scale varies continuously over a 
 photograph, according to both ground relief and distance from the principal point, the 
 nominal scale was checked by measuring distances between road intersections on 
 selected photographs in different locations and computing a mean measured scale. 
 The mean measured scale of the 1947 photographs was 1:11,840, and the mean 
 measured scale of the 1987 photographs was 1:13,320. 
 
 Control Point Selection 
 Historical Maps 
 
 Selection of ground control points common to the historical maps and the 1:24,000 
 digital line graph (DLG) maps is the primary requirement for accurate registration of the 
 
 52 
 
historical maps to the digital base maps. Ideally, ground control points represent 
 precisely the same location on both the historical maps and DLG base maps. However, 
 both the 1 872 and 1910 historical maps show only narrow strips of land ranging from 
 about 0.5 to 1 .5 miles landward of the shoreline, and as a result the number of land- 
 based features available as control points is limited, especially in areas of sparse 
 development. The major land-based features on these maps are roads, railroads, and 
 the topographic contours delineating ravines. Additionally, both sets of historical maps 
 identify points that were apparently used in the horizontal control for the topographic 
 and hydrographic surveys, but because no location information occurs on the maps, 
 and Descriptive Reports were not available, these points could not be used in map 
 registrations. The primary features used as control points on the historical maps were 
 road intersections and occasionally railroad crossings and bridges. In a few areas of 
 particularly scarce cultural features, it was necessary to create control points at 
 arbitrary locations using the procedure described beginning on page 58. 
 
 A erial Photographs 
 
 Ground control points were selected for orienting common points on the stereomodel 
 to the USGS 1 :24,000 digital line graph (DLG) base maps. Wherever possible, control 
 points were selected that were also used in registration of the historical maps, but 
 additional control points were selected as well. All ground control points selected for 
 the aerial photographs were road intersections. In some cases, the centerlines of roads 
 were readily visible on the aerial photographs as dark lines formed by adjoining 
 concrete slabs, but in other cases centerline positions were visually estimated. Roads 
 which intersect at right angles were selected where possible, because these 
 intersections qualify as well-defined points. It was assumed that the centerpoints of 
 road intersections were unchanged since 1 947. 
 
 53 
 
Although ground control points should ideally be distributed peripherally to the area of 
 interest, a lack of major coastal structures or other offshore subaerial features 
 precluded control points lakeward of the shoreline. Where possible, ground control 
 points were located near the bluffline and along the center of the flightline in an effort 
 to minimize the error near the bluffline. 
 
 Control Point Stability Determination 
 Historical Maps 
 
 The ideal control point is one which has not changed position with time, and is 
 represented as a point feature at the scale of both the base map and the map from 
 which data are collected. On the base maps, road intersections are represented as 
 points, because roads were digitized by their centerlines. On the historical maps, 
 however, roads are represented as double lines, requiring point intersections to be 
 constructed by visually determining the intersection of the road centerlines. Where 
 bridges and railroad crossings were used as control points (in areas where road 
 intersections were scarce), corresponding source map points were also visually 
 determined. 
 
 Since DLG maps contain centerline road intersections that conform to U.S. National 
 Map Accuracy Standards (Ellis, 1978), it was decided to use road intersections as 
 ground control points wherever possible. In both 1872 and 1910, however, much of 
 the Lake County coastal area was rural. Dirt roads were common and thus not strictly 
 fixed in location or configuration. Although many modern-day roads closely follow the 
 route of these earlier roads, others do not. Also, road intersections are subject to 
 displacement as roads are widened, straightened, or otherwise altered. Therefore, the 
 stability of each intersection selected as a possible ground control point had to be 
 demonstrated before it could be used. The procedure used to determine the stability 
 
 54 
 
of potential control points is described below. The term "intersection" is used in 
 discussing the procedure, but it is applicable to and was used for railroad crossings and 
 bridges as well. 
 
 1 ) Identify potential ground control points common to the historical map 
 and DLG base map. In areas of long-term development, such as 
 Corridor 2 in Waukegan, this was straightforward since the basic road 
 grid present today already existed in 1873. In areas more sparsely 
 developed, such as Corridor 3 in 1873, road geometries and relative 
 positions were used to produce a list of candidate road intersections and 
 other control points. 
 
 2) Measure the distance from the Chicago and North Western Railroad 
 tracks to each proposed intersection on the historical map. Since this 
 railroad runs approximately north-south through most of Lake County, 
 most distances were measured along east-west lines. Where the 
 railroad bearing deviated significantly from north-south, such as in 
 Corridor 5, distances were measured perpendicular to the railroad. The 
 Chicago and North Western Railroad was the major stable cultural 
 feature throughout the study area, and was therefore used for the initial 
 determination of control point stability. However, this feature leads to 
 some uncertainty because it is shown as a single track on most of the 
 historical maps, as a double track on the current USGS paper 7.5-minute 
 topographic maps, and as a single line on the DLG maps. According to 
 information supplied by the Chicago and North Western Railroad, the 
 first track was laid in 1854 and is presently the easternmost track. A 
 second track, laid immediately west of the first one, was constructed 
 sometime between 1 854 and 1 904, within the right-of-way limits of the 
 
 55 
 
original track. Due to this ambiguity in age of construction, and the 
 representation of the tracks as a single line on the DLG base maps, 
 wherever a double track was present, the midpoint between the two 
 tracks was used as the measuring point. 
 
 3) Measure the distance from the railroad to each proposed intersection on 
 the DLG base map. Two methods of doing this were possible: using 
 the ARC/INFO "DISTANCE" command to determine the distance on the 
 computer screen between the two points, or measuring with an 
 engineer's scale on the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles, from 
 which the DLGs are derived. The DISTANCE command did not result in 
 precisely reproducible measurements, and repetitions of the DISTANCE 
 command resulted in measurements that differed by 50 feet or more. 
 In contrast, measuring distances with an engineer's scale, especially by 
 the same individual, were reproducible to 0.01 inch, which is 20 feet on 
 the 1 :24,000 quadrangle maps. For this reason, an engineer's scale 
 was used for measurements of distance from the railroad to a proposed 
 control point. 
 
 4) Convert the measured map distance (in inches) to ground distances (in 
 feet). Measured values were multiplied by 2000 for the 1 :24,000 map 
 measurements, and by the appropriate scales listed in Table 7 for each 
 historical map. 
 
 5) Compare the two values. If the values differed from each other by 20 
 feet or less and/or 1 percent or less, the points were defined to be 
 stable. 
 
 Percent lateral movement was defined as: 
 
 \D -DA 
 
 ' m £!_ x 100 
 
 V* m +D d )/2 
 
 56 
 
where: 
 
 D m = distance from stable feature to proposed control point on 
 
 historical map 
 D d = distance from stable feature to proposed control point on DLG 
 
 base. 
 
 The 20-foot requirement was selected for two reasons. First, 20 feet 
 is the accuracy limit to which measurements on the map with an 
 engineer's scale were reproducible. Second, 20 feet is the limiting root- 
 mean-square (RMS) error for planimetric coordinates for 1 ;24,000 maps, 
 according to the American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote 
 Sensing's Interim Accuracy Standards for Large Scale Maps (ASPRS, 
 1989). The 1% criterion was added to prevent widely spaced stable 
 points from being rejected due to paper shrinkage or expansion. 
 6) Check the stable points relative to each other. Once stable ground 
 control points were determined by measuring from the railroad, a further 
 check on the points was done by measuring their distances from each 
 other. The same stability criterion was applied to these distances. This 
 was particularly useful in areas where the railroad consisted of multiple 
 tracks (such as Corridor 2 in Waukegan), or where the tracks were 
 difficult to distinguish on the historical maps. 
 
 Potential ground control points that met all the stability criteria were defined as stable 
 and were used as registration-testing points. These are listed in Appendix E. 
 
 Aerial Photographs 
 
 Although care was exercised in control point selection, specific tests for stability were 
 not conducted for the aerial photographs for two reasons: 
 
 1 ) Photography is not subject to surveying and mapping errors. 
 
 57 
 
2) The aerial photographs were considerably more recent than the historical 
 
 maps, and therefore the photographs were more likely to conform to the 
 
 DLG base maps as far as locations of road intersections and other 
 
 cultural features were concerned. 
 
 Appendix F shows that 4 to 5 horizontal control points were used for each 
 
 stereomodel. A minimum of 2 control points appeared in successive stereomodels and 
 
 frequently one common control point was used in three successive stereomodels 
 
 thereby adding to the overall accuracy of the mapping. 
 
 Creation of Additional Control Points 
 Occasionally, when working with the historical maps, it was necessary to create 
 additional control points to obtain a usable registration because of the scarcity of 
 cultural features. Frequently this was done by extending a straight line so that it 
 crossed a different non-parallel linear feature where no intersection between the two 
 features actually existed. An example is extending a road centerline to intersect a 
 railroad line that the road does not actually cross. 
 
 Examples of less straightforward control point creation methods are presented below. 
 Such procedures were not necessary for the aerial photographs, because they 
 contained an adequate amount of data for registration. 
 
 In Corridor 3 in 1873, a problem arose in registering the historical maps when not 
 enough stable cultural points could be located to achieve an acceptable registration. 
 In particular, two ground control points were created for the 1873 corridor 3 map by 
 two different techniques, described below. The associated Arcedit commands used 
 are listed in Appendix G. 
 
 58 
 
Creation of control point at extension of Sheridan Road and Chicago and North 
 Western Railroad tracks. This ground control point was created with the following 
 steps: 
 
 1 ) Add extension of Sheridan Road south so that it crosses the Chicago 
 and North Western Railroad tracks south of 1 8th Street in the town of 
 North Chicago. Use the longest straight-line segment of Sheridan Road 
 to determine the bearing of the extension. 
 
 2) Create a node at the intersection of the Sheridan Road extension and the 
 railroad tracks. 
 
 3) Measure the angle between the Sheridan Road extension and the 
 railroad tracks on the USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle. The same angle 
 must be formed by the addition of the arc extending Sheridan Road on 
 the digital map. This angle was 30 degrees, so the southern segment 
 of the extension, south of the newly created intersection, was rotated 
 30 degrees clockwise using the newly created node as a pivot point. If 
 this rotation results in the expected alignment of the Sheridan Road 
 extension with the railroad tracks, as it did in this case, the newly 
 created node is in the correct location and can be used as a ground 
 control point. If the rotation does not result in an alignment of the two 
 features, the amount and direction of deviation of the rotated segment 
 from the railroad tracks will indicate the direction along the tracks in 
 which the new node on the extension arc should be shifted, and the 
 procedure is repeated until alignment occurs. A tic is then added at the 
 node location. 
 
 59 
 
Creation of control point at bridge along Chicago and North Western Railroad tracks. 
 A second ground control point was added at the railroad bridge over a ravine west of 
 the intersection of Sheridan Road and Clark Avenue, North Chicago. The creation of 
 this point was necessary because the stream flowing in this ravine is ephemeral, and 
 therefore not mapped on the DLG base map, even though it was clearly mapped on the 
 1873 historical map. The point was created on the digital base map using the 
 following steps: 
 
 1) Three distinct intersections near the bridge were identified: Illinois 
 Route 1 37 and the Chicago and North Western Railroad tracks; Sheridan 
 Road and Farragut Avenue; and 12th Avenue and Missouri Street. 
 Points were added at each of these intersections. 
 
 2) The distance in inches was measured from the bridge to each of the 
 three intersections on the USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle. The distance 
 was converted to feet and the resulting number was added to each of 
 the Y coordinates of the points on the intersections on the digital map. 
 Three new points were then added to the digital map with the new X-Y 
 coordinates. This resulted in a point north of each of the intersection 
 points at a distance equal to that of the bridge from the corresponding 
 intersection. 
 
 3) A circle was then drawn through each of the newly created points using 
 the corresponding intersection point as the circle center. Each circle, 
 then, had as its radius the distance from the intersection to the bridge. 
 This resulted in three circles, each containing the unmapped bridge 
 somewhere on its circumference. 
 
 If this procedure is carried out precisely, the three circles thus drawn will meet in a 
 single point, and that point becomes the new control point. More realistically, a small 
 
 60 
 
triangle is created where the three circumferences intersect. In this case, the 
 maximum distance across the small triangle was about 8 feet, less than the 0.01 inch 
 (20 feet) minimum resolution achievable on the USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles on 
 which the distance measuring was performed. The railroad tracks passed through this 
 small triangle, and so the control point was added along the tracks midway between 
 the two legs of the triangle intersected by the tracks. 
 
 Similar procedures were also used in corridor 4 on the 1910 maps. Since corridor 4 
 was located on two different historical maps, each with its own scale, each part had 
 to be digitized separately, and stable ground control points had to be located for each 
 part. The southern part of the corridor had sparsely distributed cultural features, and 
 so the three-circles method of adding points was used for establishing a ground control 
 point at a bridge on Westleigh Road for this part of the corridor. 
 
 It should be emphasized that decisions on adding ground control points and refinement 
 of the methods described above must be made on a case-by-case basis. Although it 
 is preferable to use ground control points that are present on all maps for registration 
 purposes, when historical maps with limited cultural features are all that is available, 
 these point creation methods can be extremely useful in adding ground control. 
 
 MAP AND AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH REGISTRATION AND DIGITIZING 
 
 Selection of a Registration 
 Data collection consisted of converting the analog-format data of a conventional map 
 or aerial photograph to digital format for use on a computer. Once a satisfactory set 
 of stable ground control points has been established, the historical maps and aerial 
 
 61 
 
photographs must be registered to the digital base maps to collect the data. Selecting 
 an appropriate set of registration points from the available ground control points is a 
 critical step in the process of data collection, because an unsatisfactory registration 
 can result in mislocated data. 
 
 The general procedure in registering a historical map or aerial photograph was: 
 
 1) All satisfactory ground control points on the historical map or 
 stereomodel to be digitized were identified and marked. The larger the 
 number of available control points, the more flexibility there will be for 
 deleting points associated with unsatisfactory registrations. 
 
 2) A new coverage was created based on tics from the DLG base maps. 
 
 3) A tic was added to the coverage corresponding to each of the ground 
 control points determined to be stable. The tic addition procedure was 
 done as precisely as possible by zooming in closely on the background 
 DLG base map to the road intersection or other point feature 
 representing the ground control point. 
 
 4) The newly added tics were saved into the coverage. 
 
 5) The map or stereomodel was registered on the digitizing board using 
 four or five selected tics spaced as widely apart as possible. Because 
 of the scarcity of cultural features on most of the historical maps and 
 the difficulty of locating stable control points, only four tics were used 
 on each of the maps. Stereomodels were registered with either four or 
 five points. A previous study has shown that the number of ground 
 control points does not significantly affect X and Y coordinate 
 positioning (Underwood and Anders, 1991). 
 
 6) The root-mean-square (RMS) error (computed in board inches and map 
 feet) and the X and Y scales computed for the registration were 
 
 62 
 
recorded. The RMS error is a measure of the goodness of fit of the 
 historical map or stereomodel with the digital base map, and is 
 determined by calculating the deviation between the control point 
 locations in the source map or photograph from those in the output 
 coverage. RMS error is defined as the square root of the average of the 
 squared discrepancies. 
 
 RMSE = 
 
 > 
 
 i di 
 
 N 
 
 where: 
 
 RMSE = root mean square error 
 
 d = discrepancy between same point on base map and 
 
 stereomodel 
 j = identification number of the control point 
 
 N = number of control points. 
 
 A perfect fit between the base map and the historical map or 
 stereomodel would have an RMS error of 0.000 feet. The larger 
 the error, the worse the fit. 
 7) The registration was examined to determine whether it was satisfactory. 
 According to the ASPRS Interim Accuracy Standards for Large Scale 
 Maps (ASPRS, 1989), the limiting RMS error for planimetric coordinate 
 conversion for 1 :24,000-scale maps (the scale from which the DLG base 
 maps were digitized) is 20 feet. The value of the RMS error in map feet 
 should be less than this number. In addition, the computed X and Y 
 scales of the map should match the measured scale of the source map 
 or photograph as closely as possible. The X and Y scales should also 
 
 63 
 
closely match each other unless there is substantial reason to believe 
 the source map has undergone shrinkage or expansion in one dimension 
 only or that not all tilt has been removed from a stereomodel. 
 
 In some cases it was not possible to achieve both an acceptable X and 
 
 Y scale and an acceptably low RMS error in the same registration. In 
 such cases, the registration resulting in the best X and Y scales was 
 used for digitizing. If no registration could be found in which the X and 
 
 Y scales matched each other and the calculated map scale, a 
 registration was chosen in which the X scale matched the calculated 
 map scale as closely as possible, in preference to one in which the Y 
 scale matched. This was done because in most of Lake County, the 
 shoreline is oriented roughly north-south (the Y direction), and so any 
 deviations in X scale from the calculated map scale affect the 
 positioning of the shoreline in an east-west direction more seriously than 
 any deviations in Y scale. Since erosion occurs in an approximately 
 shore-perpendicular direction, misplacement of the shore in this direction 
 must be minimized, and this was done by matching the calculated map 
 X scale as closely as possible. 
 
 8) If the registration data appeared satisfactory, a few key roads were 
 digitized (preferably streets passing through control points) or other 
 linear features common to the DLG base map and the source map or 
 aerial photograph to test how well they matched. Such features were 
 digitized in widely scattered portions of the map or aerial photograph. 
 
 9) If no significant distortion or displacement was evident in the lines 
 digitized from the test registration, the registration was considered 
 satisfactory and the digitizing proceeded. If distortion or displacement 
 
 64 
 
was evident in the test lines, then another set of tics was selected for 
 registration, and steps 5 through 8 were repeated. 
 
 Historical Maps 
 
 Of all available stable ground control points, the ultimate selection of those used for 
 digitizing a particular segment of the map was based on the following criteria: 
 
 1 ) A set of four points yielding a scale close to that measured for the map 
 in both north-south and east-west directions. 
 
 2) A set of four points yielding a low RMS error. 
 
 3) A set of four points with a good geographic distribution with respect to 
 the segment of the map to be digitized, i.e., as widely distributed as 
 possible without being a great distance outside the area to be digitized. 
 Where possible, two points north of the corridor and two south of it 
 were used. 
 
 4) A set of four points defining a quadrilateral without a re-entrant angle 
 (i.e., no interior angle greater than 180 degrees). 
 
 In all cases but one (Corridor 5, 1 873), the selected registration had an RMS error less 
 than 20 feet. In that particular case, a 22-foot RMS error was accepted because the 
 X and Y scales matched the calculated map scale and each other far better than other 
 attempted registrations. Appendix E lists the four ground control points used for each 
 registration of historical maps, their associated X and Y scales, and their RMS errors 
 in both board inches and map feet. 
 
 Aerial Photographs 
 
 The stereomodels for the 1947 aerial photographs had RMS errors ranging from 4 to 
 
 65 
 
19 feet. The stereomodels for the 1987 aerial photographs had RMS errors ranging 
 from 3 to 1 9 feet. The maximum RMS error for both the 1 947 and 1 987 photographs 
 of 1 9 feet is within the ASPRS Interim Accuracy Standard of 20 feet. Appendix F lists 
 the ground control points and RMS errors, in board inches and map feet, for 
 registration of control points on the stereomodels to the same points on the DLG base 
 maps. 
 
 Digitizing 
 Structures 
 
 Shore structures are not included as part of the digital database. Although it was 
 possible to identify shore-perpendicular structures on the aerial photographs such as 
 groins, jetties, and shore-attached breakwaters, it was not possible to adequately and 
 thoroughly identify shore-parallel structures along the beach or at the bluff toe on 
 either the 1947 or 1987 photographs. Many structures at the bluff toe were 
 completely obscured by the vegetation canopy. Many stone and concrete structures 
 along the beach lacked sufficient reflective contrast on the black and white 
 photographs to be distinguished from beach sand. Many more structures than were 
 distinguishable on the photographs were known to be present, based on examination 
 of low-angle oblique color photographs on file at the Illinois State Geological Survey 
 (ISGS), and previous ISGS mapping of coastal structures along the Illinois coast (Illinois 
 State Geological Survey, 1988). Rather than document an incomplete set of 
 structures that might be misinterpreted as complete, no structures are included in the 
 database. 
 
 Historical Maps 
 
 In conjunction with the digitizing procedure, historical maps were simultaneously 
 interpreted for a) bluffline, b) shoreline, and c) road centerlines. 
 
 66 
 
Digitizing of the features of interest was accomplished by tracing them with a 
 crosshairs-type 16-button cursor. Digitizing was done using a point-by-point method, 
 in which each point on the feature is specifically entered by pressing a button on the 
 cursor, rather than by a continuous pen-type tracing method. The minimum resolution 
 of points entered was approximately 0.01 inch. Shorelines, blufflines, and centerlines 
 of roads were digitized. It was important to digitize as many streets and roads as 
 possible so that any necessary adjustments of the digital map could be made. 
 
 Aerial Photographs 
 
 For the northern two corridors (Corridor 1, North Point, and Corridor 2, Waukegan 
 Harbor), shorelines and road centerlines were digitized from single sets of 1947 and 
 1 987 aerial photographs (i.e., not stereopairs) using the digitizing board rather than the 
 stereoplotter. Stereopairs were not used since no bluffs occur near the shore in these 
 corridors, and so the correction for relief displacement provided by stereopairs was not 
 required. The procedure for digitizing from the aerial photographs for these two 
 corridors follows the procedure outlined for the historical maps rather than the 
 procedure described below for the aerial photographs. 
 
 For the stereomodels, shorelines and blufflines were digitized from the stereomodel. 
 Adjustment of the "floating mark" on the stereoplotter was used to compensate for 
 displacement of features on the photographs caused by the relief between the 
 shoreline and bluffline. 
 
 DATA EDITING 
 
 After registration and digitizing, processing of the digitized maps was carried out to 
 improve the quality of the coverages. Two types of processing took place, rubber 
 
 67 
 
sheeting and correction of feature misalignments. The procedures used to edit the 
 digitized maps are not dependent on the type of data source, so this section does not 
 distinguish between historical maps and aerial photographs. 
 
 Rubber Sheeting 
 
 Rubber sheeting is the process of adjusting a digital map for distortions that may occur 
 in the digitized source maps. Such distortions may be a result of imperfect 
 registration, inadequate source data, and distortion of the map medium, among other 
 causes. Rubber sheeting corrects for these distortions through the geometric 
 adjustment of coordinates. During rubber sheeting, the coverage is differentially 
 stretched, as lines and points are moved using a piecewise transformation that 
 preserves straight lines (ESRI, 1991). Rubber sheeting requires a set of deformation 
 vectors called links that define how the coverage is to be transformed. The tail of 
 each link vector is attached to a point on the map to be rubber sheeted (in this case 
 the historical map and aerial photograph coverages), and the head of the vector is 
 attached to a point on the reference map (in this case the digital line graphs). During 
 the adjustment procedure, the points at the tails of the link vectors are brought into 
 coincidence with the points at the heads of the links. 
 
 Selection of the points to be used in defining the link vectors is therefore as important 
 as selecting the points used for the initial ground control. Improper selection of links 
 can cause serious misalignment of coverage features. Link vector points, like ground 
 control points, must represent features on the ground that have not moved over time. 
 Also, they ideally must be point features (rather than lines or polygons) at the scale of 
 both the source map and the reference map to which rubber sheeting is to occur. 
 
 The main features used as links in this study were road intersections. Intersections 
 
 68 
 
being considered as link vector endpoints on the historical maps were checked for 
 stability by measuring their distance from known stable features such as the Chicago 
 and North Western Railroad. (See the complete discussion of criteria for stability in the 
 section on Control Point Stability Determination beginning on page 54.) 
 
 Each corridor was examined individually for each year to determine the need for rubber 
 sheeting. After stable points were determined, the distance between the digitized 
 stable point and the corresponding point on the DLG base map was measured. If the 
 distance exceeded the U.S. National Map Accuracy Standard for 1 :24,000-scale maps 
 of 40 feet (Ellis, 1978), a link connecting the two points was added for rubber 
 sheeting. If the distance was less than 40 feet, no link was added. For some corridors 
 in some years, all digitized stable points fell within 40 feet of their DLG counterparts, 
 and so for these coverages, no rubber sheeting was performed. 
 
 Appendix H contains a list of all intersections considered and used as link-vector 
 endpoints. The ARC/INFO commands used to perform the rubber sheeting are listed 
 in Appendix G. 
 
 Considerations associated with rubber sheeting 
 
 During the rubber sheeting process, several items were noted regarding this method 
 of map adjustment. These are discussed below. 
 
 1 ) For accurate rubber sheeting, an adequate number of road intersections 
 must have been digitized from the source map or aerial photograph. An 
 inadequate number of digitized intersections precluded accurate rubber 
 sheeting in Corridor 2 (1947) and Corridor 3 (1947 and 1987). 
 
 2) The effects of rubber sheeting must be carefully examined by comparing 
 the adjusted map to the unadjusted map. In some cases, rubber 
 
 69 
 
sheeting may actually increase the overall displacement of features on 
 the source map with respect to those on the base map, even though it 
 improves the match between particular points. 
 3) At boundaries between adjacent source maps or photographs, it is 
 recommended that rubber sheeting of each map or photograph take 
 place before the adjacent coverages are spliced. In this way, each map 
 can be adjusted independently using the nearest available rubber 
 sheeting points, and when adjacent maps are joined, the misalignment 
 should be reduced. 
 
 Misalignments 
 Where shorelines or blufflines of two adjacent coverages met or overlapped, they never 
 matched each other exactly. The mismatches or offsets were as small as one or two 
 feet or as large as 200 feet. The method used in editing the misalignments was 
 dependent on whether the mismatch was greater than or less than the U.S. National 
 Map Accuracy Standard of 40 feet (Ellis, 1978). 
 
 In cases where the misalignment was less than five feet or where the features to be 
 aligned crossed each other, the splicing was done by simply snapping the nodes 
 together at an approximate midpoint between them and deleting any overlapping 
 vertices. An example of such a minor misalignment was noted in the pair of 1987 
 aerial photography coverages for Corridor 1 . 
 
 In cases where the misalignment was greater than five feet but less than the U.S. 
 National Map Accuracy Standard of 40 feet, the shorelines were spliced together with 
 the following procedure: 
 
 1 ) Locate the midpoint of the suture zone in the shore-parallel dimension. 
 
 70 
 
2) Add a temporary arc through that point in a shore-perpendicular 
 orientation. 
 
 3) Split each of the two dangling shoreline arcs where they intersect the 
 temporary arc. 
 
 4) Locate the midpoint of the temporary arc between the two shoreline 
 segments, and add a temporary label at that point. This label will be the 
 future location of the node common to both shoreline segments. 
 
 5) Delete the dangling arcs and the temporary arc. 
 
 6) Move the endpoint nodes of each of the two shoreline arcs to the 
 temporary label so that they snap together at that location. 
 
 7) Move the adjacent vertices of each shoreline arc in the same direction 
 that its endpoint node was moved but a smaller distance. Repeat the 
 vertex-moving procedure with vertices farther from the splice node, 
 gradually decreasing the move distance to zero while moving away from 
 the splice point in both directions so that a reasonably straight shoreline 
 results. 
 
 8) Delete the temporary label. 
 
 In those cases where the misalignment was greater than 40 feet, each situation was 
 examined on a case-by-case basis. In each case, the maps on both sides of the gap 
 were examined in an effort to find a reason for the existence of the mismatch. The 
 solution of the problem sometimes involved a re-registration and redigitizing of one or 
 both of the maps. 
 
 Some misalignments occurred as a result of avoidable registration errors. A particularly 
 striking example of such a misalignment was found between the two coverages 
 digitized from adjacent sheets of the 1873 historical map in Corridor 4. Examination 
 
 71 
 
of the two mismatching coverages revealed that the southern one had a reasonably 
 good match with the DLG base map, but the northern one showed a westward 
 displacement of the streets with respect to those of the base map. A test coverage 
 was then created from the five available tics on the unsatisfactory coverage, and 
 several possible registrations were tested. The elimination of one of the five tics 
 resulted in a significantly better registration with respect to consistency of scale than 
 any of the registrations which included that particular tic. When the location of that 
 tic, at Scott Street and McKinley Road, was examined on both historical and modern 
 maps, it was found that McKinley Road had been moved eastward about 80 feet with 
 respect to the nearby Chicago and North Western Railroad, which it parallels. The 
 misalignment of shorelines apparently resulted from an error in the X-scale of the map 
 caused by the relocation of the intersection represented by the offending tic. Because 
 of the clustered nature of the tics, a fairly small error in the vicinity of the cluster of 
 tics rapidly multiplied with increased distance from the cluster of tics. It is likely that 
 this is how an 80-foot relocation of a road just north of downtown Lake Forest became 
 a 200-foot shoreline displacement a couple of miles farther south. Adequate 
 determination of control point stability before registration would have eliminated the 
 necessity of redigitizing the cover. 
 
 Another type of misalignment which can exceed the U.S. National Map Accuracy 
 Standard can be caused by mapping error on the historical maps. An example of such 
 a mapping error occurs in the southernmost portion of the shoreline of the 1910-1 1 
 Field Sheet No. 1-1196 in Corridor 4, where the mouth of the large ravine just north of 
 Westleigh Road has been misplaced on the field sheet to the south by about 250 feet 
 with respect to all other years mapped and the DLG base maps. This ravine 
 misplacement resulted in an approximate 60-foot eastward displacement of the 
 shoreline and bluffline in the southern 1000 feet of the corridor after the map was 
 
 72 
 
digitized. To repair the mismatched features in this area, each of the arcs to be edited 
 was split about 1000 feet north of the suture zone. The southern segment of each arc 
 was then rotated into alignment with its counterpart on the south side of the suture 
 zone, with the new node at the splitting point used as the pivot point in each case. 
 The angle of rotation necessary to correct the 60-foot displacement was 3.0 degrees 
 clockwise. 
 
 A procedure for error checking of the data after completion of the editing process was 
 to superimpose data from different years and check for temporal trends of shoreline 
 and bluffline position. Any lakeward shift of the bluffline identified a location where 
 the digital data were checked for possible poor registration or other problems. 
 
 POTENTIAL SOURCES OF ERRORS 
 
 A number of potential sources of error may apply to the creation of this erosion-rate 
 database. Some of these errors are associated specifically with the data sources being 
 used, while others are associated with the equipment or procedures used. These 
 potential sources of error or ambiguity are discussed below. 
 
 Data Sources 
 DLG base maps 
 
 The 1 :24,000 DLG base maps may themselves contain digitizing errors. Small errors 
 at intersections used for control points may adversely affect registration and rubber 
 sheeting. An example of such an error was noted on the DLG base map for the 7.5- 
 minute Highland Park Quadrangle at the intersection of Sheridan Road and Roger 
 Williams Avenue. On the DLG this intersection was offset about 1 2 feet west from 
 its position on the paper copy of the quadrangle. The control point at this intersection 
 
 73 
 
therefore had to be shifted 1 2 feet east to account for this offset. 
 
 Historical Maps 
 
 Map shrinkage and expansion. Paper copies of maps may shrink or expand with time, 
 changing the scale of the original map. Therefore, all source maps used should be on 
 stable-base materials, such as bromide prints or mylar. However, since bromides or 
 mylar copies are simply derived from photographic reproductions of the original paper 
 maps, they will replicate any distortion present on those maps before they were 
 photographed for reproduction. An effect of such distortion is shown in Table 7. 
 Although the nominal scale of each of the six sheets used in the study was 1 :20,000, 
 the measured scales ranged from 1:19,932 to 1:20,160. 
 
 Map inaccuracies. Since the U.S. Lake Survey field sheets were primarily intended to 
 show hydrography, not all land features were mapped with maximum precision. 
 Comparison of the historical maps with modern maps identified some inaccuracies on 
 both 1872 and 1910 maps such as misplaced ravines and roads that were either 
 mismapped or subsequently moved. An example of a mismapped ravine that required 
 significant adjustment of map features is described on page 72. Additionally, the 
 potential for change in position of roads, railroads, bridges, and any other cultural 
 features that might be used as control points requires careful checking for position 
 consistency between historical map data sets and modern maps. An example of a 
 mismapped or relocated road that significantly affected map registration is discussed 
 on page 71. 
 
 Mapping dates. Since no descriptive reports were available for the U.S. Lake Survey 
 field sheets, the exact month and even the exact year of the surveys was not known. 
 This is a particular problem when the map date is given as a range such as 1 909-1 9 1 1 
 
 74 
 
for U.S. Lake Survey field sheet 1-1197. Accurate calculation of the amounts of 
 shoreline translation required to adjust shoreline positions to a common datum was 
 therefore impossible. (See the section Adjusting Shoreline Positions to a Common 
 Datum, page 105, for a complete discussion of this issue.) 
 
 Scarcity of control points. The historical maps contained few cultural features in rural 
 areas, and acceptable ground control points were difficult to locate. In some cases, 
 it was necessary to create control points where none existed. The section Creation 
 of Ground Control Points, page 58, discusses this procedure. The creation of a 
 control point by one of the methods discussed in that section will generally result in 
 less accuracy for position of that control point than if it were a feature represented on 
 both the historical map and the base map. 
 
 Map registration. It was noted during the registration and digitizing procedure for the 
 historical maps that some combinations of control points resulted in what appeared to 
 be excellent map registrations as far as RMS error was concerned. However, the X 
 and Y scales associated with these low RMS errors differed significantly from the 
 calculated map scale or from each other, and maps digitized using such registrations 
 showed poor alignment of roads and other cultural features. Improvement in position 
 of such features, and presumably of the shoreline and bluffline as well, could be 
 achieved by using registrations that had more acceptable X and Y scales but higher 
 RMS errors. 
 
 Aerial Photographs 
 
 Photographic resolution. Although the scale of the 1 947 aerial photographs is slightly 
 greater than that of the 1987 photographs, the 1987 photographs have better 
 resolution, which can be attributed to improved film quality and more sophisticated 
 
 75 
 
camera systems. Control points and landforms are therefore considered to be located 
 with more precision on the 1987 photographs. 
 
 Determination of bluff line. Blufflines are not always well defined, and consequently 
 each stereoplotter operator can digitize the bluffline according to his/her own bias and 
 judgement. Digitizing the bluffline requires judgement in designating where the 
 relatively flat upland plain ceases and the bluff face begins. The change in slope at the 
 bluffline can be transitional, and the rate of change in slope can vary from place to 
 place. In addition, trees and other vegetation along the bluff can obscure the true 
 bluffline. If the outline of the tree canopy is digitized by mistake, the result is a 
 crenulated bluffline, segments of which may be positioned lakeward of the actual 
 position. Finally, shadows were a particular problem in delineating the bluffline where 
 the ground and vegetation were completely darkened. If the bluff face is in shadow, 
 it is difficult to see the structures on the bluff face. The accuracy of the delineation 
 of the true bluffline is dependent on operator skill and discretion, and on the quality of 
 the aerial photographs. 
 
 Determination of shoreline. Some error occurs in digitizing the shoreline because of 
 waves observable in both the 1947 and 1987 aerial photographs. Digitizing the 
 shoreline requires the operator to make a judgement as to the extent of the swash 
 zone across the beach. The shoreline was digitized at the lower limit of the swash 
 zone which was an approximation of a still-water interface. Additionally, shadows 
 often obscured delineation of the shoreline where wet beach sand and the lake water 
 both appeared dark. Where the bluff face was in shadow and the shoreline was 
 adjacent to the bluff toe, it was occasionally difficult to delineate the shoreline. As 
 with determination of the bluffline, the accuracy of the delineation of the shoreline is 
 dependent on operator skill and discretion, and on the quality of the photographs. 
 
 76 
 
Shore structures. Light-colored shore structures such as riprap and concrete and 
 quarry stone revetments are difficult to distinguish from beach sand on black and white 
 photographs due to the lack of contrast in reflectivity. 
 
 Equipment 
 Hardware 
 
 Use of custom-modified stereoplotter. This study used a Zeiss Stereotope 
 stereoplotter that was custom-modified by the Illinois State Geological Survey to be 
 used with a digitizing board linked to a computer platform. One component of the 
 equipment was a custom-made pantograph that has several mechanical parts that are 
 potential sources of error as in any mechanical device. The use of this custom- 
 modified equipment introduces some level of error, since quality mechanical linkages 
 were not available, and the range of error was not determined. 
 
 Software 
 
 Error in ARC/INFO Rev. 6.0 software. Although this did not finally contribute to error 
 in the project results, a bug in the node-attributing capabilities of ARC/INFO Rev. 6.0 
 caused several days of delay as the problem was first identified and then bypassed by 
 development of alternate procedures. The bug caused the internal record numbers of 
 transect arcs and nodes to be rearranged each time the BUILD NODE command was 
 executed. This resulted in erroneous endpoint coordinates for many of the transects. 
 According to ESRI, Inc., makers of ARC/INFO, this bug has been fixed in ARC/INFO 
 Rev. 6.1. 
 
 Procedures 
 Coastal versus non-coastal bluffs. Some of the bluff recession recorded was due to 
 fluvial processes as a result of a stream traversing a ravine instead of or in addition to 
 
 77 
 
erosion by wave action. A distinction thus needs to be made among coastal bluffs, 
 which are influenced by wave action, non-coastal bluffs, which are free of wave action 
 and influenced primarily by fluvial processes, and bluffs influenced by both wave and 
 fluvial processes. In areas where ravines intersected the coast in an approximately 
 perpendicular orientation, these non-coastal bluffs along the ravines could be easily 
 identified and their transect intercepts eliminated from the data set. However, in 
 some cases ravines intersected the coast approximately tangential to it, and in such 
 cases it could not be determined from the data sets whether fluvial or coastal 
 processes were dominant for a given bluff. An example from Corridor 5 is shown in 
 Figure 1 1 ; the transects that intersect this bluff are transects 51 9-522 in Appendix K. 
 Where the bluff was clearly fluvially controlled, as when a transect ran directly into a 
 ravine, the symbol ## * is used in the data tables in Appendix K and on the 
 accompanying diskette. In cases where a coastal component may be present, the 
 actual intercept is given, but it must be emphasized that the possibility of a fluvial 
 component of bluff erosion in situations such as these must be considered on an 
 individual basis. In some cases it may not be possible to determine the relative effects 
 of fluvial and/or coastal processes without field examination. 
 
 Digitizing inaccuracies. If cultural features are digitized inaccurately, the quality of the 
 rubber sheeting will be unacceptable. Likewise, careful placing of tics at control points 
 is important to achieving an acceptable registration. 
 
 RMS error as a measure of map accuracy. Limiting RMS error is not an accurate 
 predictor of digital map accuracy because of geometric error propagation as one moves 
 away from the center of the group of registration points. This is especially true when 
 tics are tightly clustered. An example of such error propagation is described on page 
 71 . It is important for tics to bracket the area to be digitized, and for digitizing to be 
 
 78 
 
42"t1'N 
 
 From USQS Highland Park 
 
 7.5-Minute Quadrangle 
 
 1963 (P.R. 1972,1980) 
 
 Lake Michigan 
 
 Zone of Coastal 
 
 and Fluvial 
 
 Bluff Erosion 
 
 Contour Irttervtf 25 f*rt: 
 National: Q^odatic Vartjctf Datum of 1929. 
 
 500 
 
 1000::: 
 
 _^J:teet 
 
 Scatt:1;5,000 
 
 Figure 1 1 . Sketch map of bluffs and ravines in Corridor 5, Highland Park. The large 
 ravine with a tangential approach to the coast provides an example of 
 where the transect grid will intercept sections of the bluff face that may 
 be influenced more by fluvial erosional processes rather than wave- 
 induced erosion. 
 
 79 
 
limited to the area of tics used for the registration. 
 
 Operator error. Although modern digitizers are accurate, the visual acuity and eye- 
 hand coordination of the digitizer operator can limit the accuracy of the digital maps 
 produced. Operators must use great care and skill, but it is generally accepted that 
 digitizer and tracing errors are random and are dampened when averaged over finite 
 distances of shoreline (Underwood and Anders, 1991). 
 
 Problems in digitizing aerial photographs. Because this was a pilot study, some work 
 needed to be repeated in order to account for and correct problems identified after a 
 "first round" of work with the aerial photographs. Problems identified after the original 
 work was performed included: 
 
 1 ) Inadequate positioning of tics relative to the DLG base maps. The 
 hardware and software used for this study allows for increasingly more 
 detailed (though progressively less precise) viewing of coverages by a 
 zooming-in process. Positioning of ground control points during the tic- 
 addition process was affected by the degree of zooming in. In 
 particular, more precise placement of tics was possible using the 
 zooming-in feature built into the ARC/INFO software than was possible 
 using the zooming-in feature of the Sun platform. Ground control points 
 could be placed to the nearest foot of their corresponding base map 
 intersections by using the software zoom. 
 
 2) Computed scale not recorded during registration. Initially, the 
 importance of recording the X and Y scales as calculated by the 
 computer during the aerial photograph registration process was not 
 
 80 
 
recognized. However, as the project proceeded, it became clear that 
 low RMS error alone was insufficient to insure a high-quality digitized 
 product. This is an important issue related to digitizing, and is further 
 discussed beginning on page 63. 
 
 3) Insufficient numbers of measured scales from the aerial photographs. 
 In order to judge the computed X and Y scales discussed above, they 
 must be compared to the actual scale as calculated from the 
 photographs themselves. Since scale varies from photograph to 
 photograph within a given flight series, and even within any particular 
 photograph itself, it is important to measure scale on each photograph 
 in several places. If the range in measured scale on a given photograph 
 is large, it may be more appropriate to compare the computed X and Y 
 scales to the value measured for the actual area in which digitizing is 
 occurring, rather than to some average for the entire photograph. 
 
 4) Digitizing insufficient numbers of roads. The importance of digitizing a 
 sufficient number of roads cannot be overemphasized. Digitizing roads 
 serves two purposes. First, the roads can be used to check the quality 
 of the registration while digitizing is in progress. Second, in the data 
 editing phase, roads can provide control intersections for link vector 
 endpoints used in rubber sheeting. Without an adequate number of 
 digitized roads, rubber sheeting cannot be performed, and there is little 
 or no check on the quality of the digitizing as it is taking place. In 
 Corridor 2 (1947) and Corridor 3 (1947 and 1987), an insufficient 
 number of digitized roads precluded rubber sheeting, even though in the 
 case of Corridor 3 (1987), for example, an approximately 115-foot 
 
 81 
 
offset of one road relative to the DLG base map indicated that 
 adjustment or redigitizing should have taken place. 
 
 5) Problems in determining bluffline position. As previously discussed, 
 
 determining the position of the blufflines during digitizing from aerial 
 photographs requires considerable judgement by the operator. Since 
 there were three operators, there were three different interpretations of 
 bluffline position. If more than one person is to digitize blufflines, a 
 check should be done on consistency of interpretation among the 
 various individuals who will be performing this task. 
 
 Due to the problems listed above, the original work with the aerial photographs 
 resulted in digital maps that were judged to be of insufficient quality to be used in the 
 pilot study. Therefore, for Corridor 4 and Corridor 5, the aerial photographs for both 
 1947 and 1987 were re-interpreted for bluffline position using a pocket stereoscope 
 and were redigitized, with care being taken to account for all of the factors listed 
 above. The results presented in Appendix K are from these redigitized photographs. 
 
 TOTAL ACCEPTABLE ERROR 
 
 To quantify historical shoreline change rates with a minimum of error, it is necessary 
 for the shoreline change to be large or for the time interval between data sources to 
 be large (Crowell eta/., 1991; Underwood and Anders, 1991). Errors are cumulative, 
 with each map or aerial photograph used as a data source having its own associated 
 error. Since total acceptable error is difficult to quantify due to the large number of 
 potential sources of error, it was estimated in this study by examining a comparison 
 of the digital shorelines that resulted from the work. 
 
 82 
 
When blufflines of different temporal spacing are compared, any temporal lakeward 
 shift in bluffline position is clearly a mapping error since a bluff position can only be 
 either stable through time (no erosion) or translate landward (erosion). The option of 
 a translation lakeward (accretion) has no basis in terms of natural processes. 
 Measurement of temporal lakeward shift of the bluffline is here used as a measure of 
 acceptable error. Corridor 5 is selected for this analysis since this corridor was 
 mapped most rigorously and has the best data set registration of the five corridors. 
 In a comparison of bluffline positions for each of the four data sets for this corridor, 
 the maximum temporal lakeward translation is 32 feet between the 1910 historical 
 map and the 1947 aerial photographs, considering only bluffs that clearly have no 
 fluvial component. This distance is less than the U.S. National Map Accuracy Standard 
 of 40 feet for 1 :24,000-scale mapping (Ellis, 1978). Thus this is considered an 
 acceptable error. 
 
 83 
 
TASK 2: STORING AND ACCESSING HISTORICALSHORELINE LOCATION DATA 
 
 DESCRIPTION OF PLOTFILES 
 
 The historical location database was generated and stored using the Arcplot module 
 of ARC/INFO (Rev. 6.0). Plotfiles of the database are included on a 3.5-inch diskette 
 provided with this report. Plots of the shoreline and bluffline maps are included in 
 Appendix I. Each of the historical shorelines and blufflines is identified by a unique 
 color and/or symbol. The oldest and most recent data are shown in black and red 
 respectively as described in the project requirements. The years and corresponding 
 color/symbols are: 
 
 Year 
 
 Color 
 
 Svmbol 
 
 1872, 1873 
 
 Black 
 
 Dashed Line 
 
 1909-11, 1910-11 
 
 Green 
 
 Solid Line 
 
 1947 
 
 Blue 
 
 Solid Line 
 
 1987 
 
 Red 
 
 Solid Line 
 
 84 
 
TASK 3: GENERATION OF SHORELINE TRANSECT DATA FOR CREATION OF 
 
 THE HISTORICAL SHORELINE POSITIONAL CHANGE DATABASE 
 
 TRANSECT GENERATION 
 
 In order to generate the shoreline and bluff line positional data, a transect program was 
 executed on the Historical Shoreline Location Database. The transect generation 
 procedure and program are discussed below. Specific ARC/INFO commands used to 
 carry out the procedure are given in Appendix G. Although the transect generation 
 process was carried out on both shoreline and bluffline data, for simplicity the term 
 "shoreline" is used below to refer to both data sets. 
 
 Creation of Transects 
 
 A baseline, or spine, was digitized approximately parallel to the shoreline in each of the 
 five study corridors. This baseline was located about one mile lakeward of the most 
 lakeward shoreline. The line was added at the graphics terminal by using the terminal 
 crosshairs to determine the starting and ending points of a line approximately parallel 
 to the shoreline. 
 
 The first transect line was generated by creating a copy of the baseline and rotating 
 it 90 degrees clockwise, so that it was perpendicular to the original baseline and 
 therefore approximately perpendicular to the shorelines. The first transect was located 
 perpendicular to the north end of each study corridor. Once this transect was 
 generated, the spine arc was no longer needed, and so it was deleted from the 
 coverage. At this point the northernmost transect arc was renumbered using the 
 
 85 
 
BUILD LINE command in the Arc module of ARC/INFO so that the internal numbering 
 of the transect arcs, represented by the ARC/INFO item $RECNO would be preserved. 
 This assigned the internal Arc number $RECNO = 1 to the northernmost transect and 
 created an arc attribute table. An attribute table was also created for the nodes of the 
 initial transect arc by using the BUILD NODE command. These attribute tables were 
 set up to contain transect codes and years and all transect-shoreline intercept data. 
 
 The remaining transect lines were generated by creating a sequence of parallel copies 
 of the original transect line, 1 50 feet apart. Although the Statement of Work for this 
 contract notes on page 5 that transects should be spaced 50 meters apart (164.05 
 feet), subsequent discussions with the contract Project Officer determined that the 
 preferred transect spacing is 1 50 feet. 
 
 During this procedure, the command LIST was issued at regular intervals to insure that 
 the internal number $RECNO and internal coverage number < COVER ># were being 
 incremented by one for each successive arc. (This command was used frequently 
 because of the presence of the software bug discussed on page 77, 86, and would not 
 otherwise normally be necessary.) After all transects were generated, the $RECNO 
 and < COVER ># numbers were 1-35 from north to south. 
 
 The items CODE and YEAR were added to the arc and node attribute tables of the 
 transect coverage and given the appropriate values. The item CODE contained the 
 transect number, which followed the numbering scheme listed below. 
 
 86 
 
Corridor Transect numbers 
 
 1 101-135 
 
 2 201-235 
 
 3 301-335 
 
 4 401-435 
 
 5 501-535 
 
 The transects and the nodes at their endpoints were attributed in Arcedit. Following 
 attributing, each arc and node contained the proper code and year in its respective 
 attribute table. The coverages were then rebuilt as line coverages. 
 
 Intersection of Transects with Shorelines 
 Copies of the master transect coverages were made for each shoreline coverage for 
 the intersection process. The copies were brought into each of the corridor shoreline 
 coverages to produce the intersections of the transect lines with the shorelines. The 
 Arcedit commands used for this procedure are given in Appendix G, and the geometry 
 of the transects and shoreline is shown in Figure 12. Following the intersection 
 procedure, all shoreline segments and all transect arc segments west of the shoreline 
 were deleted. Each remaining transect segment then had a length equal to the 
 distance between the spine-transect intercept and a new node at the shoreline-transect 
 intercept. These new nodes were attributed with the appropriate shoreline year and 
 transect code number. The X and Y coordinates of each node were added to the node 
 attribute table so that the node at the east (lakeward) end of each transect contained 
 the coordinates of the spine-transect intersection, and the node at the west end 
 contained the coordinates of the shoreline-transect intersection. A list of the 
 coordinates from the INFO node attribute table was output as an ASCII file, which was 
 projected from the Lambert conformal conic projection into latitude and longitude in 
 
 87 
 
Intersection of Transects with Shorelines 
 
 G-' 
 
 N 
 
 ©-'■ 
 
 Onshore -*- 
 
 Offshore 
 
 Arcs deleted after intersecting o Nodes deleted after intersecting 
 
 Arcs remaining after intersecting • Nodes remaining after intersecting 
 
 Figure 1 2. Transect geometry used to generate the Historical Shoreline Positional 
 Change Database. The transects were constructed from a spine (i.e., 
 a baseline) located approximately one mile lakeward of and parallel to 
 the shoreline. 
 
 88 
 
the degrees-minutes-seconds format. The projected latitude-longitude coordinates 
 were then imported back into INFO. 
 
 The shoreline year, transect code number, and coordinates of the spine-transect and 
 shoreline-transect intercepts were input into an INFO program that combined the data 
 from the arc and node attribute tables and output them in the required format. This 
 program is listed in Appendix J. 
 
 89 
 
TASK 4: STORING AND ACCESSING THE HISTORICAL SHORELINE POSITIONAL 
 
 CHANGE DATABASE 
 
 After creation on the Sun platform, the Historical Shoreline Positional Change Database 
 was transferred to 3.5-inch diskettes in ASCII format. DOS emulator software (DOS 
 Windows 1 .0) was used to export the data from the Unix-based Sun platform to ASCII 
 files that could be sorted and edited on DOS-based personal computers. Appendix K 
 lists the Historical Shoreline Positional Change Database after it was imported to 
 WordPerfect 5.1 and sorted by transect code and year, and further text editing was 
 carried out. It should be noted that the original database on the diskette 
 accompanying this report is in raw ASCII format and did not have this text editing 
 performed. 
 
 The database is sorted geographically from the northernmost transect to the 
 southernmost transect. For each transect, the four shorelines or blufflines are listed 
 chronologically from earliest to most recent. An example of the Appendix K format for 
 Corridor 1 is shown below. 
 
 Transect Latitude and Longitude 
 Code of Spine-Transect Intersect 
 
 101 42°29'39.90" -87°46'47.97" 
 
 101 42°29'39.90" -87°46'47.97" 
 
 101 42°29'39.90" -87°46'47.97" 
 
 101 42°29'39.90" -87°46'47.97" 
 
 102 42°29'38.43" -87°46'47.68" 
 102 42°29'38.43" -87°46'47.68" 
 102 42°29'38.43" -87°46'47.68" 
 102 42°29'38.43" -87°46'47.68" 
 
 135 42°28'49.86" -87°46'38.08" 
 
 135 42°28'49.86" -87°46'38.08" 
 
 135 42°28'49.86" -87°46'38.08" 
 
 135 42°28'49.86" -87°46'38.08" 
 
 
 Distance 
 
 Latitude and Longitude 
 
 Year(s) 
 
 (feet) 
 
 of Transect-Shoreline Intersect 
 
 1872 
 
 5,410.53 
 
 42°29'32.12" 
 
 -87°47'59.70" 
 
 1909-11 
 
 5,748.00 
 
 42°29'31.65" 
 
 -87°48'04.17" 
 
 1947 
 
 6,017.21 
 
 42°29'31.25" 
 
 -87°48'07.73" 
 
 1987 
 
 6,503.25 
 
 42°29'30.56" 
 
 -87°48'14.18" 
 
 1872 
 
 5,383.69 
 
 42°29'30.70" 
 
 -87°47'59.05" 
 
 1909-11 
 
 5,735.92 
 
 42°29'30.18" 
 
 -87°48'03.71" 
 
 1947 
 
 6,025.80 
 
 42°29'29.77" 
 
 -87°48'07.55" 
 
 1987 
 
 6,520.47 
 
 42°29'29.06" 
 
 -87°48'14.11" 
 
 1872 
 
 5,162.45 
 
 42°28'42.45" 
 
 -87°47'46.50" 
 
 1909-11 
 
 5,592.48 
 
 42°28'41 .83" 
 
 -87°47'52.19" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,628.48 
 
 42°28'41 .78" 
 
 -87°47'52.68" 
 
 1987 
 
 6.215.10 
 
 42°28'40.93" 
 
 -87°48'00.45" 
 
 90 
 
TASK 5: SOURCE MAP RECONNAISSANCE STUDY 
 
 An inventory was completed of historical and recent field sheets, maps, charts, and 
 vertical aerial photographs applicable to creation of an erosion-rate database for the 
 Illinois coast of Lake Michigan. The inventory and supporting discussion are included 
 in an accompanying report (Report 2) titled "Inventory of Federal and State Historical 
 Maps, Charts, and Vertical Aerial Photographs Applicable to Erosion-Rate Studies 
 Along the Illinois Coast of Lake Michigan." A complete citation of this report is given 
 under References Cited (Chrzastowski and Read, 1993). 
 
 91 
 
TASK 6: ACCURACY ASSESSMENT OF THE U.S. LAKE SURVEY FIELD SHEETS 
 
 The procedure used for checking registration control points on the U.S. Lake Survey 
 field sheets provides a means to make a semi-quantitative assessment of the accuracy 
 of these maps. This procedure involved selecting pairs of points (such as road 
 intersections and railroad crossings) common to the bromide copies of the field sheets 
 and the paper copies of the most recent corresponding USGS 7.5-minute topographic 
 quadrangles. Distances between points were measured in map inches and multiplied 
 by the map scale to yield ground feet distances for the field sheets and USGS maps, 
 which were compared. This is a shorthand and purely office-based procedure to 
 assess the map accuracy. A formal accuracy assessment of the USLS field sheets 
 would require comparing distances between control points on the field sheets directly 
 against distances between corresponding points on the ground as measured by 
 electronic distance meter or a global positioning system. 
 
 A limitation of this accuracy assessment is that it is only based on point measurements 
 in the vicinity of the corridors used in this study and is not a general assessment 
 across any one of the field sheets. In addition, this assessment does not distinguish 
 between field sheets, but rather, groups these for an overall assessment of the 1 872- 
 73 and 1 909-1 1 mapping. Another important limitation is that it is assumed that the 
 USGS quadrangles document true position, and thus any differences in the paired-point 
 measurements reflect map inaccuracies solely in the field sheets. This assumption 
 dismisses inherent and acceptable inaccuracies in the USGS quadrangles, since the 
 
 92 
 
location of well-defined points on the USGS maps such as intersections of roads, 
 railroads, and bridges are only positioned within the requirements of U.S. National Map 
 Accuracy Standards for 1 :24,000-scale maps. These standards allow 90% of such 
 points to be mapped within 40 feet of their actual position (Ellis, 1978). 
 
 Tables 8 and 9 summarize results of the paired-point measuring test for the 1872-73 
 and 1909-11 field sheets. The variable map accuracy of the field sheets is 
 demonstrated in these summaries. Comparison of some pairs of points results in 
 essentially equivalent distance measurements on the two maps. Other point pairs 
 compared result in distance differences of tens to hundreds of feet, even exceeding 
 1 ,000 feet. However, such extremes cannot be assumed to be gross mapping errors 
 since they may reflect changes in road locations. The best way to determine if a 
 feature has moved is through extensive historical research. If it can be documented 
 that a feature has moved, that point should not be part of an accuracy evaluation. 
 
 The breakdown by corridor has the advantage of demonstrating how the historical map 
 accuracies can vary locally. Present-day maps have a rather uniform accuracy across 
 the map sheet because of photogrammetric control. Such is not the case with 
 historical maps. Some areas of good ground control could be mapped more accurately 
 than those with minimal control. Map areas that had to be bridged between areas of 
 better control are areas of apparent lesser map accuracy. For example, for the 1 872- 
 73 maps the measurement differences in the vicinity of Corridor 3 are greater than for 
 all other corridors. At the time of the 1872-73 mapping this corridor was a coastal 
 area of minimal development, and therefore the number of road intersections available 
 for measurement is limited. In contrast, the distribution of measurement differences 
 in Corridor 2 has the smallest range and dispersion because of the large number of 
 street intersections and the stability of the road grid in the downtown Waukegan area. 
 
 93 
 
Table 8. Range and dispersion in the distribution of paired-point 
 measurement differences for the U.S. Lake Survey 1872-73 field 
 sheets and the most recent USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle. 
 
 
 Corridor 
 1 
 
 Corridor 
 2 
 
 Corridor 
 3 
 
 Corridor 
 4 
 
 Corridor 
 5 
 
 Number of pairs of 
 intersections measured 
 
 21 
 
 79 
 
 44 
 
 106 
 
 70 
 
 Minimum difference 
 between measurement 
 on USLS field sheet 
 and USGS quadrangle 
 (feet) 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 Maximum difference 
 between measurement 
 on USLS field sheet 
 and USGS quadrangle 
 (feet) 
 
 267 
 
 113 
 
 1585 
 
 1000 
 
 281 
 
 Mean difference 
 (feet) 
 
 72 
 
 41 
 
 149 
 
 50 
 
 60 
 
 Standard deviation 
 (feet) 
 
 81 
 
 29 
 
 314 
 
 108 
 
 54 
 
 50th percentile value 
 (median difference) 
 (feet) 
 
 42 
 
 34 
 
 56 
 
 31 
 
 48 
 
 90th percentile value 
 (feet) 
 
 219 
 
 82 
 
 165 
 
 78 
 
 122 
 
 In addition, most of these intersections are right-angle intersections. This allows for 
 greater precision in measurements than the oblique intersections used as control in the 
 more rural settings of corridors 3, 4, and 5. 
 
 It might be expected that the 1909-11 maps would generally have greater map 
 accuracy due to better ground control and improvements in surveying equipment and 
 techniques. A comparison of the measurement statistics for each corridor for each 
 
 94 
 
Table 9. Range and dispersion in the distribution of paired-point 
 measurement differences for the U.S. Lake Survey 1909-11 field 
 sheets and the most recent USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles. 
 
 
 Corridor 
 1 
 
 Corridor 
 2 
 
 Corridor 
 3 
 
 Corridor 
 4 1 
 
 Corridor 
 5 
 
 Number of pairs of 
 intersections measured 
 
 25 
 
 78 
 
 51 
 
 118 
 
 152 
 
 Minimum difference 
 between measurement 
 on USLS field sheet 
 and USGS quadrangle 
 (feet) 
 
 6 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 Maximum difference 
 between measurement 
 on USLS field sheet 
 and USGS quadrangle 
 (feet) 
 
 179 
 
 151 
 
 140 
 
 352 
 
 115 
 
 Mean difference 
 (feet) 
 
 60 
 
 46 
 
 39 
 
 56 
 
 29 
 
 Standard deviation 
 (feet) 
 
 57 
 
 32 
 
 30 
 
 61 
 
 23 
 
 50th percentile value 
 (median difference) 
 (feet) 
 
 26 
 
 39 
 
 23 
 
 43 
 
 28 
 
 90th percentile value 
 (feet) 
 
 133 
 
 87 
 
 76 
 
 98 
 
 58 
 
 The numbers given for Corridor 4 are averages of the numbers for the northern part of the corridor, on field 
 sheet 1-1 1 96, and the southern part of the corridor, on field sheet 1-1 1 95. The number of pairs of measured 
 intersections given is the sum for both parts. 
 
 survey set shows that the 1909-11 maps have somewhat smaller measurement 
 differences, which might reflect greater map accuracy. However, the difference in 
 accuracy between these two maps is not statistically significant. It should also be 
 noted that where minimal numbers of cultural features had been mapped, it could not 
 be determined whether apparent map inaccuracies were due to actual mapping errors 
 or to the lack of ground control. 
 
 95 
 
The question arises as to how these USLS field sheets fare when compared to U.S. 
 National Map Accuracy Standards (NMAS). To correctly evaluate this would require 
 comparing locations and distances of well-defined points on the USLS field sheets with 
 ground survey data. This comparison to measurements on a paper map does not 
 constitute a valid test, but nevertheless, the comparison provides a general evaluation. 
 
 Strict requirements exist to meet NMAS (Ellis, 1978). As previously stated, for maps 
 at scales of 1:24,000 or greater, 90% of all tested well-defined points need to be 
 located on the map within 40 feet of their true location. Tables 8 and 9 list the 90th 
 percentile values of the measurement differences for each of the corridors (highlighted 
 in the tables). The 90th percentile value is the measured distance that is exceeded by 
 1 0% of the points. For the corridors on the 1 872-73 field sheets, the 90th percentile 
 values range from 78 to 21 9 feet with an average value of 1 33 feet; for the 1 909-1 1 
 field sheets the range is 58 to 1 33 feet with an average of 90 feet. These differences 
 are so great that even considering the potential 40-foot position inaccuracy of points 
 on the USGS maps, more than 40 feet of position error can be attributed solely to the 
 field sheets. 
 
 It should be noted that this semi-quantitative assessment of source map accuracy was 
 carried out using points that were selected for the purpose of ground control, not for 
 the purpose of assessing map accuracy. If points are to be selected specifically and 
 only for accuracy assessment, then the following criteria for point selection would 
 apply: 
 
 1) Select points distributed as widely over the map as possible. 
 
 2) Select the same number of points for each map. 
 
 3) Select points in the following sequence of reliability, from most to least 
 reliable: 
 
 96 
 
Control points marked on the map or described in Descriptive 
 
 Reports. 
 
 Railroad track crossings and intersections. 
 
 Road intersections. 
 
 Corners of prominent buildings. 
 
 Bridges. 
 
 This assessment substantiates why difficulties occurred and should be expected in 
 attempting to register these field sheets to a DLG base map. The map inaccuracies of 
 the USLS field sheets are a factor that would prevent or complicate a single 
 registration from being used for digitizing across an entire field sheet. 
 
 97 
 
TASK 7: TIME ITEMIZATION 
 
 The time study reported here is for all work completed between January 1 , 1 992 and 
 August 31,1 992. The official completion date of the contract was October 31,1 992. 
 The months of September and October 1992 were a designated review period for the 
 final report. An early phase of the contract agreement was conducted from April 
 through December 1991, but none of that time is reported here since it was not 
 documented by the original Principal Investigator. 
 
 Six staff members were assigned to this study. During the project, staff kept logs of 
 tasks performed and total time invested. Table 1 summarizes these time investments 
 per task per payroll title. The summary includes efforts on both the erosion-rate pilot 
 study reported here, and the accompanying inventory of historical maps, charts, and 
 aerial photographs applicable to erosion-rate studies (Chrzastowski and Read, 1993). 
 The total time investment for all tasks was 1 498 hours which is 37.5 work weeks (9.4 
 months). 
 
 Much work on the inventory of historical maps, charts, and aerial photographs was 
 completed by a Junior Supportive Scientist. Major efforts on this inventory by this 
 person are reflected in the large amount of time expended on source data collection, 
 and report writeup (i.e., inventory preparation). This person also had significant time 
 investment in operational activities such as contacting and obtaining data from source 
 agencies. 
 
 98 
 
Table 10. Summary of time investments per task and per payroll title for the 
 erosion data study. 
 
 PAYROLL 
 TITLES 
 
 TASKS 
 
 ASSOCIATE 
 
 PROFESSIONAL 
 
 SCIENTIST 
 
 (2) B 
 
 ASSISTANT 
 PROFESSIONAL 
 SCIENTIST 
 (1) 
 
 ASSISTANT 
 SUPPORTIVE 
 SCIENTIST 
 (1) 
 
 JUNIOR 
 SUPPORTIVE 
 SCIENTIST 
 (1) 
 
 TECHNICAL 
 ASSISTANT 
 
 (1) 
 
 TOTAL 
 HOURS 
 (PER TASK) 
 
 SOURCE DATA 
 COLLECTION 
 
 9 b 
 
 1.5 
 
 
 
 81 
 
 3.5 
 
 95 
 
 SOURCE DATA 
 REVIEW & 
 PREPARATION 
 (AERIAL 
 PHOTOGRAPHS) 
 
 2 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 14.5 
 
 25.5 
 
 SOURCE DATA 
 REVIEW & 
 PREPARATION 
 (HISTORICAL 
 MAPS) 
 
 1 
 
 33 
 
 42 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 83 
 
 SHORELINE 
 DIGITIZING 
 (AERIAL 
 PHOTOGRAPHS) 
 
 47 
 
 6 
 
 9 
 
 20 
 
 38 
 
 120 
 
 SHORELINE 
 DIGITIZING 
 (HISTORICAL 
 MAPS) 
 
 
 
 32 
 
 40 
 
 
 
 
 
 72 
 
 DATA 
 PROCESSING 
 
 31 
 
 50 
 
 31 
 
 
 
 
 
 112 
 
 SETUP & 
 EXECUTION OF 
 TRANSECT 
 PROGRAM 
 
 
 
 70.5 
 
 65 
 
 
 
 
 
 135.5 
 
 TRAINING 
 
 28 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 8 
 
 12 
 
 56 
 
 OPERATIONAL 
 ACTIVITIES 
 
 10.5 
 
 10 
 
 8 
 
 22 
 
 5.5 
 
 56 
 
 REPORT 
 WRITEUP 
 
 273.5 
 
 95 
 
 67 
 
 265 
 
 42.5 
 
 743 
 
 TOTAL HOURS 
 (PER PAYROLL 
 TITLE) 
 
 402 
 
 308 
 
 269 
 
 396 
 
 123 
 
 1498 
 
 a-number of staff at specified payroll level 
 b-ali values are rounded to 0.5 hour increments 
 
 99 
 
The task of greatest time investment for both the erosion-rate study and inventory was 
 report writing (743 hours). This largely reflects this being a pilot study and the need 
 for the erosion-rate study to thoroughly document procedures. 
 
 A total of 135.5 hours was spent on the transect program. The time investment is 
 anomalously high for this task because it results from working around a "bug" in the 
 ARC/INFO software used for the transect generation. It is estimated that this task 
 could have been completed in about half the time if not for this computer software 
 problem. 
 
 Registration and digitizing of aerial photographs required 1 20 hours, but only required 
 72 hours for the historical maps. The greater time for the aerial photographs reflects 
 the greater number of stereoplotter setups and registrations needed per shoreline reach 
 as compared to the maps. 
 
 Source data review and preparation includes the time invested in the selection and 
 checking of ground control points. The much greater time spent on historical maps (83 
 hours) compared to the aerial photography (25.5 hours) relates to the difficulties 
 encountered in obtaining satisfactory control points on the historical maps which have 
 various map inaccuracies. 
 
 The total time investment for staff members to be trained and/or train was 56 hours. 
 Most of this time involved training in use of the stereoplotter. Operational activities 
 totaling 56 hours included progress meetings, correspondence, computer systems 
 consultation, and other intermittent, short-term activities peripheral to the primary 
 focus of the computer-assisted mapping. 
 
 100 
 
An example of the time needed per shoreline mile to proceed from initial preparation 
 of a U.S. Lake Survey field sheet or aerial photograph to a final digital shoreline or 
 bluffline data set is summarized here for Corridor 5 (Highland Park). This corridor is 
 selected as an example because it reflects the time investment needed to obtain the 
 best registration of source map to base map that was achieved in this study. For both 
 the historical maps and aerial photographs, work can be divided into three broad 
 categories: 1) selecting and checking ground control points; 2) registration and 
 digitizing; and 3) editing. Table 1 1 summarizes the time in hours and percent time per 
 operation for work on these two data sources for Corridor 5. Total time spent with 
 the historical maps was 24 hours, and with the aerial photographs 40 hours. The 
 greater time investment for the aerial photographs (1 .6 times greater) was the general 
 rule because of the additional stereoscope setups and registrations compared to the 
 historical maps. For Corridor 5, three setups and registrations were required compared 
 to one registration for the historical map. The time working with the aerial 
 photographs includes the work done with a pocket stereoscope. 
 
 Table 1 1 . Comparison of time necessary for completion of digital shoreline 
 data sets using historical maps and aerial photographs, Corridor 5. 
 
 Historical Maps Operations 
 
 Time (hours) 
 
 % Total Time 
 
 1 ) Selecting and Checking Ground Control Points 
 
 13 
 
 55 
 
 2) Registration and Digitizing 
 
 5 
 
 20 
 
 3) Editing 
 
 6 
 
 25 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 24 
 
 100 
 
 Aerial Photographs Operations 
 
 Time (hours) 
 
 % Total Time 
 
 1 ) Selecting Ground Control Points 
 
 3 
 
 7.5 
 
 2) Registration and Digitizing 
 
 32 
 
 80 
 
 3) Editing 
 
 5 
 
 12.5 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 40 
 
 100 
 
 101 
 
PART 4 
 DISCUSSION 
 
 The data compiled in this study must be interpreted and applied with consideration for 
 factors such as natural and human processes influencing the erosion rate and 
 refinements that could have been done but were beyond the scope of this study. The 
 following discussion focuses on four important factors that affect data interpretation 
 and application: 
 
 1 ) Comparison of corridor data quality; 
 
 2) Adjustment of shorelines to a common datum; 
 
 3) Comparison of results with previous studies; 
 
 4) Framework for interpreting coastal erosion rates. 
 
 COMPARISON OF CORRIDOR DATA QUALITY 
 
 Five one-mile long corridors illustrating the varied geomorphic settings along the Lake 
 County coast were selected for this study. Slightly different mapping procedures were 
 used in each corridor because of differences in corridor characteristics. For example, 
 in Corridors 1 and 2, aerial photographs were not digitized with a stereoplotter because 
 low-relief topography did not require parallax correction. Data quality in each corridor 
 was affected by number and distribution of ground control points, quality of 
 registration, type and number of features digitized, and the degree of rubber sheeting. 
 The following briefly summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of the data sets for 
 each of the corridors. 
 
 102 
 
Corridor 1 : North Point 
 
 Since this corridor is on the beach-ridge plain, it lacks coastal bluffs, and thus did not 
 require use of the stereoplotter for digitizing from the aerial photographs. Shorelines 
 were digitized directly from single aerial photographs. Because this was an area of 
 limited cultural development in 1872 and 1910, ground control points are not 
 numerous on the historical maps, but any errors in the digital mapping are small 
 compared to the extreme rate of shoreline erosion. The shoreline change database 
 documents the erosional trend, but since the shorelines are not corrected to a common 
 datum, the magnitudes of the temporal changes are in part influenced by differences 
 in lake level. 
 
 Corridor 2: Waukeqan Harbor 
 
 As was the case for Corridor 1 , the beach-ridge plain setting of this corridor precluded 
 need for use of the stereoplotter, and shorelines were digitized directly from single 
 aerial photographs. The abundance of road intersections in nearby Waukegan provided 
 numerous ground control points for all four data sources. The database documents 
 the temporal trend of shoreline accretion, although since shorelines are not corrected 
 to a common datum, the absolute positions of the shorelines are affected by 
 differences in lake level. As in Corridor 1, the rate of shoreline change is large 
 compared to errors that may have occurred in the digital mapping. 
 
 Corridor 3: Lake Bluff 
 
 Of the five corridors mapped, Corridor 3 is clearly the least satisfactory database. The 
 corridor illustrates the problems that can occur if insufficient ground control exists for 
 the historical maps, and if an insufficient number of street intersections and other 
 control points are digitized from the aerial photographs. One problem in the database 
 is that in some cases younger blufflines are lakeward of older ones. The database for 
 
 103 
 
this corridor has no geologic significance and should not be used in any application to 
 erosion rates. The database for this corridor demonstrates that if ground control is not 
 adequately used, the shoreline change maps are meaningless. 
 
 Corridor 4: Lake Forest 
 
 This corridor presented several problems, including errors on the source maps, 
 inadequate ground control, and difficulty in matching features from adjacent map 
 sheets that joined within the corridor. These problems were somewhat resolved after 
 careful comparison of the source maps with modern maps and several repeated efforts 
 in selecting stable ground control points. Discrepancies in the bluffline positions 
 mapped with the stereoplotter made it necessary to replot the bluffline with the aid of 
 a stereoscope and digitize it from single aerial photographs. Since all ground control 
 was located at an elevation near that of the bluff crest, the problem of relief 
 displacement was alleviated. With the same registration, additional road intersections 
 were digitized for use in rubber sheeting. As a result, map accuracy was improved, 
 although the 1910 bluff line continued to be located landward (west) of its actual 
 position as a result of the error described on page 71. The database created for this 
 corridor is considered to be of higher quality than that for Corridor 3. 
 
 Corridor 5: Highland Park 
 
 As was the case for Corridor 4, this corridor also initially presented several problems. 
 After digitizing with the stereoplotter, bluff lines were reinterpreted using a stereoscope 
 and redigitized from single aerial photographs. Additional roads were added to assist 
 in control for rubber sheeting. The large number of ground control points available for 
 this corridor and the careful reinterpretation of the bluffline resulted in a database that 
 is considered the highest quality achieved in this study. There are still localized errors 
 in bluffline position with younger blufflines lakeward of older ones, but none by as 
 
 104 
 
much as the NMAS of 40 feet. Statistical analysis of the database for Corridor 5 can 
 provide valid erosional trends applicable to this coastal reach. 
 
 ADJUSTING SHORELINE POSITIONS TO A COMMON DATUM 
 
 Shorelines in this study were digitized as they appeared on the U.S. Lake Survey field 
 sheets and on the aerial photographs. The lake levels and differences in lake level for 
 the four data sources are summarized in Table 6. It was beyond the scope of this 
 study to adjust the shorelines for each of these four data sources to a common lake 
 level, but for accurate documentation of temporal shoreline changes, such adjustment 
 would be necessary. This section provides examples of the amount of translation in 
 shoreline position that would be necessary for each of the corridors. 
 
 Along shore structures such as breakwaters, bulkheads, revetments, and riprap, 
 differences in lake level have little effect on shoreline position since the structures 
 present a vertical or near-vertical slope. However, the lateral translation of the 
 shoreline along a sandy beach can be significant at different lake levels depending on 
 the slope of the foreshore and upper shoreface. 
 
 Foreshore slopes at selected profile locations along the Illinois lakeshore have been 
 tabulated by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (1953; p. 22) based on 1 946 profiling 
 along established ranges previously surveyed in 1872 and 1909-1 1. Although more 
 recent data may exist for specific sites, the Corps of Engineers study is the only 
 regional compilation to date. 
 
 The Waukegan Harbor corridor (Corridor 2) is a special case because of its accretionary 
 history, but considering the other four corridors, the Corps of Engineers report on 
 
 105 
 
foreshore slopes for a total of six profiles that are either within the corridors used in 
 this study or are within one mile of the corridor borders. Two profiles are applicable 
 to Corridor 1 on the beach-ridge plain, with foreshore slopes of 1:20 along Range 1, 
 at the state line, and 1:31 along Range 2, located about 2600 feet south of the 
 corridor. The average of these slopes, 1 :26, is used here as representative of Corridor 
 1. Along the bluff coast a slope of 1:20 is recorded for Range 13 which is located 
 within Corridor 3. A slope of 1:22 occurs along Range 15 located one mile north of 
 Corridor 4; a slope of 1:14 occurs along Range 18 located three-quarters of a mile 
 north of Corridor 5. The average of these two foreshore slopes (1 : 18) is here used as 
 representative of the bluff coast for Corridors 4 and 5. 
 
 The Waukegan Harbor corridor has low foreshore slopes resulting from the extensive 
 fine sand accretion that has occurred updrift of the harbor jetties. A slope of 1 :68 
 occurs along Range 8 on the updrift side of the northernmost jetty. This slope is used 
 for the 1 909-1 1 , 1 947, and 1 987 calculations. A slope of 1 :29 is used for the 1 872 
 mapping since at this time the beach and nearshore had yet to be influenced by the 
 Waukegan Harbor jetties. The 1:29 slope is taken from a profile on the beach-ridge 
 plain (Range 5) located two miles north of the corridor which is assumed to be a 
 representative southern beach-ridge plain foreshore slope unaffected by shore 
 structures. 
 
 By using lake levels at the time of the surveys and the Corps of Engineers foreshore 
 slopes, a first-approximation calculation can be made of the amount of translation 
 needed to adjust the shoreline positions to a common datum. Table 12 lists the 
 translations required to adjust the shoreline for each of the survey years for each of 
 the corridors to the elevation of the Lakes Michigan-Huron 1 900-1 990 monthly mean 
 lake level, and also to the elevation of the Lakes Michigan-Huron Low Water Datum 
 
 106 
 
o 
 
 CO 
 CO 
 
 o 
 o 
 co 
 
 0) 
 
 JC 
 
 o 
 
 E 
 
 3 
 
 4-1 
 
 TO 
 
 ■o 
 
 c 
 o 
 
 E 
 
 E 
 o 
 u 
 
 CO 
 
 c 
 o 
 
 V; 
 'w 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 a) 
 
 _c 
 
 "55 
 
 b. 
 o 
 
 (0 
 
 *-> 
 
 u 
 
 •O 3 
 
 «©* 
 OQ 
 
 "O a) 
 
 •a ro 
 
 ©■£ 
 
 eo o 
 
 it 
 
 to 
 
 c > 
 ro a> 
 
 i_ — 
 
 "© 
 
 ® > 
 i = 
 
 X ° 
 
 ujE 
 
 — T3T3 
 
 tfc. »- ro ro 
 
 o a) > > 
 
 c c *2 c- > 2 
 
 ©•c o^ =>-* c 
 
 -c «2 >Q „ 
 
 co£ q II ll 
 
 l- I + 
 
 "55 © 
 
 -■£c5> 2oo^lo 
 
 ■St" 
 .32 
 
 W 
 
 £<£ «— TOTO 
 
 <u CD a) a> > > 
 ho5 i + 
 
 fl) © w (V) +J 
 
 > ° .!£■ >*- -^ 
 
 Js O c a) ^fnS 
 ro>^ ^ ro^ 
 
 © 
 
 > 
 
 ©505 
 
 nn 
 © 
 
 o 
 
 'C 
 
 o 
 u 
 
 ©"53'POf5 
 
 ^ > ©_|L£> 
 (0 (1) <D(nO) 
 
 CM 
 
 _© 
 
 © 
 
 C > 
 
 © > © 
 1- £ <D 
 O 3>- 
 
 TtCDOCNCM 
 
 CN CD CO CO CO 
 CDCD****^* 
 
 O 
 <* 
 
 CM 
 
 + 
 
 ^■05 cm in in 
 cM^t'r^iriiri 
 
 CMCMt-«-*- 
 
 l l l l l 
 
 CO 
 CO 
 
 
 
 + 
 
 cocooooco 
 
 CMCMCMt-*- 
 
 -O x. 
 
 X *- 
 
 mw - ~ <-> © 
 
 f 3 © ©.C 
 
 b to-*.* a 
 °> © ro— 
 
 Z>_j_jX 
 
 »-CMCO^-lO 
 
 CM 
 
 o 
 
 CM 
 
 co 
 10 
 
 CO 
 
 r>. 
 
 I 
 
 CM 
 CO 
 
 ^^ 
 
 co"f2codo 
 co rococo 
 
 1,111 
 
 co 
 
 00 00 co co co 
 
 COCOCMCMCM 
 
 + + + + + 
 
 CO 
 
 d 
 1 
 
 cocoococo 
 
 CM CD CM t- 
 
 S3 *. 
 
 X *- 
 
 ** «-< TO 
 
 £&§§? 
 
 f 3 © © 
 °> TO TO~ 
 
 i-CMCO'tfLO 
 
 06 
 10 
 
 05 
 
 o 
 
 C7> 
 
 r>.coo»-< 
 
 Tt^-05r»r^ 
 
 CM CO »-»-i- 
 
 l l 1 1 1 
 
 10 
 
 CO 
 
 d 
 
 + 
 
 co«-co t o<o 
 lod^dd 
 
 + + + + + 
 
 CO 
 
 10 
 d 
 
 1 
 
 COCOOCOCO 
 
 CM CD CM «- 
 
 JO * 
 
 T »- 
 
 *j^ *-< © 
 
 ft O)^ o c 
 1- 3 © © 
 
 j=> ro ro~ 
 Z>_i_il 
 
 ■ cm co ^l- 10 
 
 10 
 in 
 
 05 
 
 lOOoiOlO 
 
 r^^ior^r» 
 co 10 rococo 
 
 1^1 1 1 
 
 10 
 
 co 
 
 + 
 
 IO CO CM CO CO 
 
 r^d^toSoJ 
 10 10 ^t co co 
 
 n 1 1 
 
 1 
 
 CM 
 CM 
 
 + 
 
 cocoococo 
 
 CMCDCMt-*- 
 
 JO ^ 
 
 x *- 
 
 <-> *-> ro 
 
 J©CQU.J 
 f 3 © ©JI 
 
 t ro^^ q 
 °> ro ro— 1 
 Z>_i_ll 
 
 • cm co ^- 10 
 
 in 
 in 
 
 d 
 00 
 in 
 
 00 
 co 
 
 co ^ 
 
 •- o 
 
 — -O 
 
 1- 1- 
 
 o, ro 
 
 < I 
 
 E 
 
 © ro 
 
 2 1 
 
 © ro 
 
 * c 
 
 o c 
 
 u 
 
 TO 
 
 c 
 
 TO 
 
 (0 
 
 w 
 © 
 © 
 
 c 
 "5 
 
 c 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 > 
 E 
 
 CO 
 
 > 
 
 © 
 _© 
 
 3 
 — '-Si 
 
 co ro 
 in o 
 
 <"> 
 !Z © 
 ~> 
 
 © (A 
 © 
 
 c © 
 
 o^ 
 w ro 
 9-o 
 OcM 
 
 >co 
 
 E^ 
 
 © 
 © 
 
 3 
 ro 
 
 TO 2 
 
 © -S 
 
 "D TO 
 
 O = 
 
 o <- 
 
 s I 
 
 *- ra 
 
 r- O 
 
 5 "i 
 
 «— TO 
 
 C 
 TO 
 
 CO ° 
 
 s © 
 2 § 
 
 © a) 
 
 -Q (u 
 
 E -s 
 
 fi m 
 
 © -2 
 CO 
 
 3 
 
 o r 
 
 £ 2 
 
 *■> -^ 
 
 > 5 
 
 TO (J) 
 
 ^ ro 
 © 
 
 c 
 o 
 
 E 
 
 © 
 
 > 
 
 ro 
 
 ■o 
 
 c 
 ro 
 © 
 
 E 
 
 "»— H_ I4_ 
 
 CO © 
 
 - > 
 
 Egrj 
 
 LL |CW 
 
 1- CM 
 
 o 
 
 © ©I 
 
 cd a 
 
 TO U) £ 
 
 ©O © 
 > C > 
 
 '< = < 
 
 CO ^rt 
 
 107 
 
(LWD). In this exercise it is assumed that a single foreshore slope applies to the entire 
 corridor. This simplification ignores the fact that the foreshore and upper shoreface 
 slopes will adjust to varying degrees with changes in lake level (Hands, 1980). 
 
 Using the assumption of a single, uniform foreshore slope along each corridor, this 
 method of calculating shoreline translations demonstrates that mapped shoreline 
 positions may need to be shifted tens of feet and even hundreds of feet in order to be 
 adjusted to a common datum. 
 
 In this example case, both landward and lakeward translations are necessary to adjust 
 to Monthly Mean Lake Level. For the corridors other than the Waukegan Harbor 
 corridor, the range in required shoreline translation is 2.3 to 57.5 feet. To adjust to 
 LWD, translations for all data sets are lakeward and range from 1 7.1 to 97.5 feet. The 
 Waukegan Harbor corridor requires considerably larger adjustments of 1 50.3 feet and 
 228.8 feet for adjustment to Monthly Mean Lake Level and LWD, respectively. 
 
 These shoreline translations are computed based on a simplistic approach and are a 
 first approximation at best. If such shoreline translations were done as part of a 
 mapping effort, numerous closely spaced profile data would be needed along the entire 
 coastal reach being mapped to assure that the calculated translations account for 
 variations in the beach and nearshore morphology. Such profile data would be needed 
 for the time (or approximate time) of each map and aerial photograph. The effort 
 would clearly be major. Further, the translations would introduce errors in the analysis 
 of shoreline change. In some cases the amount of translation needed to achieve a 
 common datum may be much greater than the actual change in position between any 
 two data sources. 
 
 108 
 
This example case of shoreline translation is presented to emphasize two issues 
 concerning lake level that need to be addressed in the development of a reliable 
 database of erosion rates along the Illinois coast: 
 
 1 ) If shoreline change per se is the reference for monitoring coastal erosion, 
 the interdependence of lake level and shoreline position must be considered 
 when comparing shorelines at different lake levels. 
 
 2) If shorelines are compared at a common lake-level datum, a decision must 
 be made concerning what datum is preferred and how the shoreline translations 
 will be done for the various map and/or aerial photograph data sources. 
 
 When using published data on shoreline erosion/accretion history, it is important to 
 determine what the datum is for shoreline position. It is also important to be aware 
 that some previous work has ignored the issue of shoreline translation with lake level 
 change, and uncorrected erosion/accretion rates have been reported. 
 
 COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS STUDIES 
 
 Shoreline Change 
 Historical shoreline changes for Lake County were determined by the U.S. Army Corps 
 of Engineers (1953) by comparing shoreline positions mapped in 1872 and 1910 by 
 the U.S. Lake Survey, and shorelines mapped in 1946 by the Corps. The temporal 
 position differences and rates of change are reported for specific range lines 
 perpendicular to the Illinois coast that were first established for the 1 872-73 U.S. Lake 
 Survey hydrographic surveys and subsequently reoccupied. The shoreline positions 
 along each range line are reported based on shoreline adjustment to Low Water Datum 
 (LWD). In this section, the shoreline changes along the Corps of Engineers range lines 
 
 109 
 
are compared to the changes along the nearest corresponding transect from this study. 
 Two range lines occur within the Corridor 2 (Waukegan Harbor) boundaries and can 
 be compared to two transect lines. Each of the other corridors contain one range line 
 corresponding to one transect. Since this study does not have shorelines corrected to 
 LWD, comparison with the Corps data provides an evaluation of the difference 
 obtained for shoreline change with and without a datum adjustment. 
 
 Comparisons of the net shoreline changes and annual shoreline changes are 
 summarized in Tables 13 and 14. Two factors apply to interpreting these tables: 
 
 1) The Corps of Engineers mapped the shoreline in 1946 and this study 
 mapped the 1947 shoreline. 
 
 2) All values for accretion or erosion between data sets were rounded to 
 the nearest ten feet. 
 
 The trend of shoreline change {i.e., accretion or erosion) is the same in all cases except 
 for the 1910-1946/47 comparison for Corridor 3 in which the Corps reported 30 feet 
 of erosion and this study determined 10 feet of accretion. Other than for Corridor 2, 
 the differences range from 30 to 1 30 feet. Most of the differences (63%) are 40 feet 
 or less. The greatest difference occurs in comparison of Corridor 2. The low-slope 
 foreshore of this extensive accretion plain results in a large amount of lateral 
 translation of the shoreline with change in lake level. The large differences between 
 the studies, ranging from 90 to 300 feet, reflect the potential for extreme sensitivity 
 of this low-slope feature to even minor changes in lake level. 
 
 110 
 
Table 13. Comparison of 1872 to 1910 and 1910 to 1946-1947 shoreline 
 changes documented along survey ranges by the U.S. Army 
 Corps of Engineers (1953) and shoreline changes along nearest 
 corresponding transect from this study. 
 
 Corridors with Corresponding 
 USACE Range Number and 
 ISGS Transect Number 
 
 Shoreline Change in Feet 
 (E = erosion; A = accretion) 
 
 Corridor 1 : North Point 
 USACE Range 1 
 ISGS Transect 101 
 1872-1910 
 1910-1946/47 
 
 U.S. Army 
 Corps of 
 Engineers 
 (1953) 
 
 ISGS 
 (This Study) 
 
 Difference 
 (USACE-ISGS) 
 
 390 (E) 
 310 (E) 
 
 340 (E) 
 270 (E) 
 
 50 
 40 
 
 Corridor 2: Waukeaan Harbor 
 USACE Range 7 
 ISGS Transect 213 
 
 1872-1910 
 
 1910-1946/47 
 USACE Range 8 
 ISGS Transect 222 
 
 1872-1910 
 
 1910-1946/47 
 
 450 (A) 
 380 (A) 
 
 1 ,000 (A) 
 920 (A) 
 
 750 (A) 
 470 (A) 
 
 1,170 (A) 
 680 (A) 
 
 300 
 90 
 
 170 
 240 
 
 Corridor 3: Lake Bluff 
 USACE Range 13 
 ISGS Transect 314 
 1872-1910 
 1910-1946/47 
 
 220 (E) 
 30(E) 
 
 90(E) 
 10(A) 
 
 130 
 40 
 
 Corridor 4: Lake Forest 
 USACE Range 16 
 ISGS Transect 410 
 1872-1910 
 1910-1946/47 
 
 (No change) 
 (No change) 
 
 10(E) 
 30(E) 
 
 10 
 30 
 
 Corridor 5: Hiahland Park 
 USACE Range 19 
 ISGS Transect 518 
 1872-1910 
 1910-1946/47 
 
 20(E) 
 40 (A) 
 
 100(E) 
 70(A) 
 
 80 
 30 
 
 111 
 
Table 14. Comparison of 1872 to 1910 and 1910 to 1946-1947 annual 
 shoreline changes documented along survey ranges by the U.S. 
 Army Corps of Engineers (1953) and shoreline changes along 
 nearest corresponding transect from this study. 
 
 Corridors with Corresponding 
 USACE Range Number and 
 ISGS Transect Number 
 
 Average Annual Shoreline Change 1 in 
 Feet/Year 
 
 (E = erosion; A = accretion) 
 
 Corridor 1 : North Point 
 USACE Range 1 
 ISGS Transect 101 
 1872-1910 
 1910-1946/47 
 
 U.S. Army 
 Corps of 
 Engineers 
 (1953) 
 
 ISGS 
 (This Study) 
 
 Difference 
 (USACE-ISGS) 
 
 10.2 (E) 
 8.6 (E) 
 
 9.0 (E) 
 7.3 (E) 
 
 1.2 
 1.3 
 
 Corridor 2: Waukeaan Harbor 
 USACE Range 7 
 ISGS Transect 213 
 
 1872-1910 
 
 1910-1946/47 
 USACE Range 8 
 ISGS Transect 222 
 
 1872-1910 
 
 1910-1946/47 
 
 11.8 (A) 
 10.6 (A) 
 
 26.3 (A) 
 25.6 (A) 
 
 19.7 (A) 
 12.7(A) 
 
 30.8 (A) 
 18.4 (A) 
 
 7.9 
 2.1 
 
 4.5 
 7.2 
 
 Corridor 3: Lake Bluff 
 USACE Range 13 
 ISGS Transect 314 
 1872-1910 
 1910-1946/47 
 
 5.8 (E) 
 0.8 (E) 
 
 2.4 (E) 
 0.3 (A) 
 
 3.4 
 1.1 
 
 Corridor 4: Lake Forest 
 USACE Range 16 
 ISGS Transect 410 
 1872-1910 
 1910-1946/47 
 
 (No change) 
 (No change) 
 
 0.3 (E) 
 0.8 (E) 
 
 0.3 
 0.8 
 
 Corridor 5: Hiahland Park 
 USACE Range 19 
 ISGS Transect 518 
 1872-1910 
 1910-1946/47 
 
 0.5 (E) 
 1.1 (A) 
 
 2.6 (E) 
 1.9 (A) 
 
 2.1 
 0.8 
 
 1 For the 1910 to 1946/47 calculations, USACE data calculated to 1946, ISGS data calculated to 1947. 
 
 112 
 
These comparisons are a relative indicator of the error in the shoreline positions that 
 results when they are not adjusted to a common datum. The differences between 
 shoreline changes reported in this study and those reported by the Corps of Engineers 
 numbers are partly due to lack of datum adjustment. 
 
 Table 1 4 summarizes average annual shoreline changes. Other than for Corridor 2, the 
 differences in rate of change between the Corps of Engineers study and this study 
 range from 0.3 to 3.4 feet/year. Most of the differences (75%) are 1 .3 feet/year or 
 less. Again, the larger differences for Corridor 2 reflect the beach and nearshore 
 morphology. For all other corridors, these comparisons suggest that the data sets from 
 this study have annual rates of shoreline change within about 1 .5 feet/year of the rates 
 that would be computed if shorelines were adjusted to LWD. This difference may not 
 be significant for some applications, but given the accuracy requirements in a shoreline 
 change study such as this, this difference is probably unacceptable. Comparison of 
 shorelines at a common datum is mandatory for an accurate assessment and 
 quantification of shoreline change. 
 
 Bluff line Changes 
 As noted in this study and in previous studies of bluff recession along the Illinois coast, 
 rates of bluff recession are extremely variable over short time periods, and bluff 
 segments with high retreat rates can be located immediately adjacent to segments 
 with much lower rates. This complicates comparison with published work, because 
 the data for individual transects may not be reported, and proper comparison can only 
 be done with identically located transects and equivalent time frames. 
 
 Results for this study suggest some differences in rates of bluffline change compared 
 
 113 
 
to those reported in previous studies. For example, Jibson era/. (1992) compared 
 1872 to 1987 bluffline positions and reported an average recession rate for the bluff 
 coast of 0.62 feet per year. In this study, data from Corridors 4 and 5 give an average 
 rate of 1.01 feet/year over the same time period. Data for Corridor 3 are dismissed 
 because of inherent inaccuracies in the mapped bluffline position. Berg and Collinson's 
 (1 976) reported recession rates for specific transects best matched those of this study 
 in Corridor 4 along the Lake Forest Nature Preserve (transects 433 and 435, this 
 study). At this locality for the period 1947 to 1975, Berg and Collinson (1976) 
 reported a recession rate of 1 .01 feet/year. In this study, the calculated rate between 
 1947 and 1987 is 1 .81 feet/year. More thorough comparison of a greater number of 
 transects is necessary to adequately evaluate how various studies agree or disagree 
 with this one. 
 
 FRAMEWORK FOR INTERPRETING COASTAL EROSION RATES 
 
 Coastal Storms 
 No complete record of storm history has been compiled for the Illinois coast. The 
 record of coastal erosion in the popular press as well as in government reports and 
 scientific papers essentially parallels the history of high lake levels. Figure 1 3 shows 
 this correlation between lake level and publication of coastal erosion reports for 1860 
 through 1991. By only looking at the frequency and distribution of publications 
 concerning coastal erosion, the perception might be that the temporal clustering of 
 these publications is associated with a temporal clustering of greater storm intensity 
 or frequency. However, the correlation is with high lake levels rather than with storm 
 occurrences. Storm activity occurring during times of above-average lake level does 
 cause the greatest erosion of beaches and bluffs and damage to shore structures. 
 
 114 
 
582 
 
 In" 
 
 
 1 
 8hor»fci» NtTMl 
 
 <»ong Chicago 
 
 
 5 
 
 ' Exterwv* •rouon, 
 damage to «hor» 
 icvucfcjntt 
 
 in 
 
 
 waterfront 
 
 
 6 
 
 O) 
 
 
 
 
 Extaratv* «ro«ton 
 
 BMWV BfOMOn f 1 
 
 *" 581 
 D 
 
 _i 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 Hong »ncw-lnc»ana 
 3 *~ 
 
 —r— / 
 
 "5 580 
 
 
 
 Short arotion 
 
 from Chicago to 
 lincm • Indian* H. 
 
 BChnriWi •rotion A 
 during tai storms 1 \ 
 
 f\ '*■ 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 14 / \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 A Extoraive | \ 
 
 i 
 
 
 "o 
 
 
 
 
 
 •rosion dLrtng 1 1 
 
 l 
 
 
 $ 579 
 
 
 
 
 
 teJ MDfnw 
 
 r 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 
 J£ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 j 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 © 578 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 D) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CD 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 k_ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CD 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 § 577 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 >. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 a> 
 > 576 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 l 
 
 I , I 
 
 • I 
 
 , 1 ■ 1 
 
 _, | , 
 
 1860 
 
 1880 
 
 1900 
 
 1920 
 
 1940 
 
 1960 
 
 1980 
 
 2000 
 
 Year 
 
 Figure 13. Yearly average lake levels for Lake Michigan 1860 to 1991 with times 
 of government reports, newspaper articles, and scientific papers 
 concerning erosion along the Illinois lakeshore. Published reports of 
 erosion coincide with periods of high lake levels. 1: Ex. Doc, 47th 
 Cong. (1880); Ex. Doc. 36, 48th Cong. (1884), cited in Illinois Division 
 of Waterways (1958); 2: House Doc. 710, 65th Cong. (1917), cited in 
 Illinois Division of Waterways (1958); 3 and 4: newspaper accounts of 
 severe storms along the coast causing extensive erosion, cited in Illinois 
 Division of Waterways (1 958); 5: Illinois Division of Waterways (1 958), 
 Olson (1958); 6: Larsen (1973), Hester and Fraser (1973), Fraser and 
 Hester (1974); 7: Chicago Shoreline Protection Commission (1988). 
 Figure modified from Fraser et a/. (1990). 
 
 115 
 
However, at low lake levels storm energy has a greater effect on erosion across the 
 nearshore bottom. Erosion of this surface can cause a lower nearshore profile and a 
 steeper shoreface profile, which makes the coast more vulnerable to erosion during 
 subsequent times of high lake level. 
 
 The most recent extreme coastal storm occurred on February 8, 1987 when Lake 
 Michigan monthly lake levels were about 2.2 feet above long-term monthly average. 
 The high lake levels, a storm surge, and sustained northerly winds of 60 miles per hour 
 or more caused overtopping of shore structures, severe erosion, and extensive 
 structural damage. In Chicago alone, the cost of emergency repairs and cleanup 
 exceeded $2 million, and damage to the coastal infrastructure exceeded $1 million 
 (Chicago Shoreline Protection Commission, 1988). 
 
 Human Influence 
 Historical coastal erosion along the Lake County shore has been influenced by human 
 interference with the supply and transport of littoral sediments and resulting impact on 
 the littoral sediment budget. 
 
 In its natural setting, the Lake County coast was part of a continuous pathway for 
 littoral sediment transport that extended along the western shore of Lake Michigan 
 from near Sheboygan, Wisconsin southward to the Indiana shore. Shore structures 
 have formed total, near-total, or partial barriers to this littoral transport and segmented 
 the once-continuous littoral cell into numerous shorter-length cells. As a result, the 
 total volume of littoral sediment transported within any given cell is generally less than 
 what existed prior to the segmentation of the Lake County coast. Structural defenses 
 that have slowed the sediment influx from shore and bluff erosion have also 
 
 116 
 
contributed to the reduced sediment supply within these cells. The combined effects 
 of coastal defense and barriers to littoral transport has been that for any given segment 
 of Lake County coast, the influx and transport of littoral sediment is significantly less 
 than what existed prior to human influence. 
 
 The two major barriers to littoral transport along the Lake County coast are the jetties 
 for Waukegan Harbor and the shore-attached breakwaters for Naval Training Center, 
 Great Lakes. Reconnaissance jet-wash probing of the fillet at Waukegan suggests that 
 a total of approximately 1 2 million cubic yards has been trapped, depriving the 
 downdrift coast (Shabica and Pranschke, 1992). Data are lacking for the total 
 entrapment of littoral sediment at the Naval Training Center, but sufficient 
 accumulation has occurred to cause an updrift fillet and extensive shoaling across the 
 northern part of the harbor. Sediment entrapment at Waukegan Harbor and the Naval 
 Training Center has resulted in downdrift reduction in beach widths and reduced 
 volume of beach and nearshore sediments. 
 
 Comparison of 1975 and 1989 data from fathometer profiles and jet-wash probes of 
 sediment thickness show there has been a reduction in total thickness of beach and 
 nearshore sediments along the Lake County coast south of Fort Sheridan since 1975 
 (Shabica et a/., 1991). This net loss of sediment has significant implications for the 
 long-term stability of the coast: 
 
 1 ) Lack of an adequate beach and nearshore sand body could lead to erosion 
 across the underlying glacial-till surface. The resulting steepening of the 
 shoreface profile will in turn make the beaches and bluffs more vulnerable to 
 wave erosion. 
 
 2) Erosion across the glacial till may result in the undermining of shore-defense 
 
 117 
 
structures that have shallow footings in the till. Such undermining may cause 
 instability or damage to the shore-defense structures which could reduce their 
 effectiveness and lead to nearby shore and bluff erosion. 
 
 This deficit of littoral sediments may be a significant factor in future Lake County 
 coastal erosion unless the deficit is offset by proper mitigation. Although there have 
 been localized beach nourishment projects such as in 1991 at Forest Park Beach in 
 Lake Forest (Chrzastowski and Trask, 1992), at present there is no regional 
 nourishment or beach and nearshore sand-management program along the Lake County 
 shore south of Naval Training Center, Great Lakes. 
 
 The depletion of littoral sediments along the Lake County coast illustrates the type of 
 impact that can occur due to urbanization and coastal engineering along the bluff 
 coasts of the Great Lakes region. Coastal changes occurring along the bluffs, beaches, 
 and nearshore as a result of over 1 00 years of human activity are possibly only now 
 becoming significant. These processes will affect any comparisons using the historical 
 coastal change data, and will introduce an uncertainty in using historical trends to 
 project future trends. 
 
 118 
 
PART 5 
 
 RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUMMARY 
 
 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE FEMA-SUPPORTED 
 LAKE MICHIGAN EROSION-RATE STUDIES 
 
 The following recommendations would benefit future studies similar to this one. The 
 recommendations are grouped under ten major headings that represent different 
 components of such a study. These components are: 
 
 I Study Design 
 
 II Source Materials 
 IQ Field Investigations 
 
 IV Equipment 
 
 V Data Review and Preparation 
 
 VI Digitizing 
 
 VII Data Processing 
 Vm Errors 
 
 IX Data Reporting 
 
 X Study Applications 
 
 I - STUDY DESIGN 
 
 1) Literature review 
 
 Because shoreline change studies are a common focus of coastal research, it is 
 recommended that the first phase in future erosion-rate studies be a thorough literature 
 review of previous studies of coastal change and erosion rates in the area of interest. 
 Review of previous work may identify shortfalls that warrant improvement to meet 
 desired accuracy, or may document procedures that meet or exceed the accuracy 
 requirements. An example of the latter is the 1872 to 1910 shoreline change along 
 
 119 
 
the Lake County coast determined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1953), in 
 which shoreline comparisons were based on a common reference of Low Water Datum 
 (LWD). Such a datum correction was beyond the scope and time/cost resources of 
 this pilot study. Independent mapping specifically for FEMA should compare findings 
 with previous work to identify inconsistencies and/or provide verification. 
 
 2) Geologic Framework 
 
 Future studies such as this should not be viewed solely as a cartographic or 
 photogrammetric exercise. These studies should include spatial and temporal shoreline 
 and bluffline position comparisons combined with an evaluation of the local and 
 regional coastal geology and coastal processes. Each distinct geomorphic segment of 
 coast must be mapped on a case-by-case basis, with appreciation for the local coastal 
 geology and coastal processes that potentially affect the rate of translation of the 
 shoreline and bluffline. Local variations in erosion rates that might otherwise be 
 smoothed in the mapping process may actually have a geologic basis. Temporal 
 comparisons may document locally extreme rates of erosion that are due to rapid, 
 relatively short-lived adjustments to natural or human-induced coastal change, and 
 such erosion rates may not be valid for projection of future shoreline (or bluffline) 
 positions. A review of historical information will contribute some of this background, 
 but this review needs to be supplemented with an understanding of trends in coastal 
 processes and the local and regional shoreline responses to changes in coastal 
 dynamics. 
 
 3) Shoreline datum 
 
 Future FEMA-supported shoreline mapping along the Great Lakes coasts needs to 
 recognize the lack of a standard datum for shoreline mapping. This is an important 
 
 120 
 
difference between the Great Lakes and ocean coasts. Mean High Water (MHW) has 
 been the datum used in ocean-coast shoreline mapping by the U.S. Coast and Geodetic 
 Survey and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National 
 Ocean Service (NOS), but there is no comparable visually recognized reference along 
 the Great Lakes coasts. Early shoreline surveying along the Great Lakes mapped the 
 shoreline that was present at the time of the survey in part because there was no 
 record to which the range of lake-level change could be related. 
 
 The wide range in lake levels on various time scales complicates the use of a lake-level 
 datum. If a lake-level datum is used, translations will need to be performed on 
 shorelines from historical maps and aerial photographs, and these translations will 
 become sources of error in the mapping. It is recommended that FEMA erosion-rate 
 studies for the Lake Michigan coast consider using a reference independent of lake 
 level. Temporal translations in the bluffline could be the reference for coastal change 
 along high-relief coastal reaches. Temporal changes in the vegetation line could be the 
 reference along low-relief coastal reaches. If a lake-level dependent datum is used for 
 shoreline comparisons, the prime candidate in terms of available data is Low Water 
 Datum (LWD). The zero contour on LWD-corrected bathymetric maps, surveys and 
 profiles can then be used on the datum-corrected shoreline. 
 
 4) Establishing Ground Control 
 
 In the early stage of a study like this, the decision must be made as to how control 
 points will be established. Exact locations of physical and cultural features can be 
 determined by precision field surveying, but this is a time-consuming and costly 
 procedure. A relatively less costly and highly accurate method is to identify control 
 points by stereoscopic aerial photointerpretation with a stereoplotter and a few known 
 
 121 
 
ground control points for reference. Applying such a procedure to future erosion-rate 
 studies would be consistent with modern mapping methods, which use aerial 
 photographs and a stereoplotter in order to identify and precisely locate physical and 
 cultural features over large areas. To avoid duplication of efforts, it is recommended 
 that the appropriate offices of coastal municipalities and/or counties be contacted to 
 obtain ground control that may already have been established by these local 
 governments. 
 
 5) Project Staff Assignments 
 
 In allocating staff on a project of this nature, it is recommended that if more than one 
 person is to digitize from the source materials, work assignments be distributed by 
 geographical segments rather than by task. Continuity in effort by geographical 
 segment allows accuracy and consistency among different-year sources to be 
 constantly checked. Although this will require that each staff member be familiar with 
 each data capture technique, the resulting ongoing accuracy checks will result in 
 greater overall efficiency. 
 
 H - SOURCE MATERIALS 
 
 1) Stable-Base Materials 
 
 The use of stable-base materials such as bromide or mylar copies of historical maps 
 is mandatory in order to circumvent the problem of shrinkage and expansion that 
 occurs with other materials. Paper copy maps should be avoided. 
 
 2) Nautical Charts 
 
 Nautical charts are inappropriate as a source material for this work. This is true for 
 
 122 
 
both the charts published by the U.S. Lake Survey and the charts published 
 subsequently by NOAA, National Ocean Service. The topographic and hydrographic 
 data presented on these charts are derived from the topographic and hydrographic field 
 surveys conducted by the chart-producing agencies. These field sheets present the 
 survey data in greater detail and at larger scale than the nautical charts. The field 
 sheets thus supersede all nautical charts as source materials. If nautical charts are 
 referenced, it is important to recognize that the topographic and hydrographic data are 
 from the most recent surveys prior to the date of the chart, not from the date of the 
 chart edition itself. 
 
 3) Accuracy of Historical Maps vs. Aerial Photographs 
 
 If future coastal erosion-rate studies along Lake Michigan require incorporating regional 
 shoreline and bluffline position data from the late 1 800s and early 1 900s, the sole 
 source for this information is the U.S. Lake Survey field sheets. However, future 
 studies should consider whether the potential value of this information is outweighed 
 by inaccuracies in the location of land-based features and the extreme difficulty in 
 achieving an acceptable registration for these maps. The registration problem is 
 particularly critical for field sheets with areas of limited cultural development. 
 Although vertical aerial photographs are generally limited to the post-1 930s and 
 therefore cannot provide the long-term average that the field sheets can, the 
 information documented by photography does not have the accuracy limitations of the 
 historical maps, and the resulting erosion rates may be calculated with a higher degree 
 of confidence. 
 
 4) Project Emphasis on Historical Maps vs. Aerial Photographs 
 
 Topographic maps and field sheets can be used in conjunction with vertical aerial 
 
 123 
 
photographs but should not be used as substitutes. Maps are abstract representations 
 of the physical terrain, and consequently, digitizing from any topographic map 
 introduces errors based on the subjectivity inherent in contouring on the map. Further 
 error is introduced by the subjective identification of the bluffline on the map on the 
 basis of contour spacing. Vertical aerial photographs depict the terrain without bias 
 other than that of the optical-film system. 
 
 5) Temporal Factors in Selecting Aerial Photographs 
 
 Aerial photographs for vegetated bluff coasts should be selected from photographic 
 flights done in winter or early spring in order to minimize the degree to which the tree 
 canopy obscures the bluffline. If available, aerial photographs recorded when the bluff 
 face is illuminated by the sun should be selected to facilitate identification of structures 
 and delineation of the bluffline. 
 
 6) Supportive Aerial Photographs 
 
 If the same flight sequence of aerial photographs is available at different scales, large- 
 scale prints and enlargements should be used to provide supportive information. 
 Although digitizing from large-scale photographic prints is not possible with the 
 stereoplotter, enlargements can assist in identifying structures that may not be clearly 
 distinguishable on the smaller prints. In addition, features can be digitized directly from 
 single large-scale prints in areas of low relief, where relief displacement is minimal and 
 reduced horizontal accuracy is acceptable. Improved identification of natural and 
 physical features can be achieved by using color photographs from the same year or 
 a closely temporally spaced year. Color photographs can assist in identifying 
 structures that have low contrast on panchromatic prints. 
 
 124 
 
m - FIELD INVESTIGATIONS 
 
 1) Ground and/or Aerial Reconnaissance 
 
 Familiarity with the coastal reaches to be mapped will aid in making decisions in the 
 selection of ground control points, digitizing, rubber sheeting, and identifying data 
 errors indicated by anomalous trends in shoreline change. It is recommended that the 
 coastal areas to be mapped be inspected by ground reconnaissance, a low altitude 
 flight, and/or a study of historical aerial photographs. A flight would allow collection 
 of low-angle oblique photographs that could be referenced in the subsequent mapping 
 stages. Additional site-specific visits may be necessary where the map data raise 
 questions about bluff erosion processes or show anomalous temporal trends in 
 shoreline or bluffline change. 
 
 2) Use of Global Positioning System 
 
 As previously noted in item 1-4, the most efficient procedure for supplementing ground 
 control points is to use stereoscopic aerial photointerpretation. In areas of limited 
 cultural development, field surveying by optical and electronic techniques may be 
 necessary in order to improve the network of ground control points. However, a more 
 efficient procedure to cover a broad area and establish many control points would be 
 to use a portable receiver for the Global Positioning System (GPS). Relatively 
 inexpensive GPS equipment allows positions to be determined within about 50 feet. 
 Higher-quality GPS equipment allows locations to be determined with greater accuracy. 
 
 125 
 
IV - EQUIPMENT 
 
 1) Use of Stereoplotter 
 
 A stereoplotter compensates for the radial displacement that is inherent to all 
 photographs, as the instrument plots the correct position of the feature. This method 
 is preferable to using a projector or zoom transfer scope to transfer details from single 
 photographs to a base map. Modern stereoplotters can make measurements of a few 
 micrometers on a stereopair, increasing the precision of mapmaking. Analytical 
 stereoplotters have additional capabilities such as correction for camera lens distortion, 
 X-tilt, and Y-tilt. 
 
 V - DATA REVIEW AND PREPARATION 
 
 1) Selecting Ground Control Points 
 
 The selection of ground control points is probably the most critical step in achieving 
 a successful registration of source materials. A sufficient number and distribution of 
 ground control points should be selected to allow for several potential registrations to 
 be tested. Additionally, it must be verified that each point used for ground control is 
 a stable point that represents the same location on both the source map and the base 
 map. This process can be streamlined for maps by making paper or mylar copies of 
 data sources that are enlarged or reduced to a common scale. By overlaying these 
 copies, relocated roads, streams, and other features will stand out, as will mapping 
 errors. Points associated with such features can be eliminated early in the control 
 point selection process. Use of this method with aerial photographs is not 
 recommended because of parallax. 
 
 126 
 
2) Bluffline evaluation 
 
 Digitizing the bluffline requires judgement in designating where the relatively flat upland 
 plain ends and the bluff face begins. The change in slope can be transitional, and the 
 rate of change in slope can vary from place to place. Before digitizing begins on the 
 stereoplotter, overall bluffline morphology should be thoroughly reviewed by the 
 operator, and decisions should be made on how the bluffline will be defined. It is 
 recommended that for a given segment of coast, all bluffline interpretation be done by 
 the same operator. 
 
 VI - DIGITIZING 
 
 1) Root-Mean-Sauare (RMS) Error and Registration 
 
 The potential low correlation between low RMS error and an acceptable registration 
 should be kept in mind. Even if the RMS error is small, an unacceptable registration 
 may result if the computed scales in the X and Y directions do not match each other 
 as well as the scale of the source map. It is recommended that RMS error alone not 
 be used to measure quality of the registration or the quality of the resulting digital 
 product. 
 
 2) Use of Test Lines 
 
 For each registration that has acceptable map scales and meets RMS error 
 requirements, several test lines should be digitized. These test lines should include 
 roads or other features that appear on both source map and base map, so that their 
 alignment and degree of rotation can be checked. It is particularly important to digitize 
 roads that pass through all control points, including those not used in the registration 
 being tested. 
 
 127 
 
3) Digitizing Cultural Features 
 
 Once a registration has been selected, as many cultural features as possible should be 
 digitized. Particularly important are point features that will later be critical to the 
 rubber sheeting process, such as road intersections, railroad crossings, and bridges. 
 
 VII - DATA PROCESSING 
 
 1) Rubber Sheeting 
 
 Accuracy of the digital maps can be improved by rubber sheeting. However, points 
 used for link vectors between source maps and base maps should be checked for 
 positional stability using criteria that are equally as stringent as those used in selecting 
 ground control points. Following rubber sheeting, each adjusted map should be 
 carefully compared with its unadjusted version to identify possible areas of increased 
 misalignment. To reduce the degree of splicing necessary between adjacent digital 
 maps, the rubber sheeting process should be carried out before splicing. 
 
 2) Checking Transect Data 
 
 As the transect data that document shoreline and bluffline change are generated, they 
 should be checked immediately after output for errors in transect generation, 
 coordinate projection, data manipulation, or programming. Errors during these stages 
 are difficult to pinpoint without checking for accuracy after every step in the 
 processing. 
 
 3) Non-Coastal Factors in Bluff Erosion 
 
 In evaluating bluffline recession it is important to recognize that the recession may not 
 be directly dependent on wave-induced erosion that causes undercutting of the bluff 
 
 128 
 
toe. Bluffline recession may result from the interaction of ground water and bluff 
 materials. For example, a common form of bluffline recession along the Lake Michigan 
 coast is by landsliding where permeable sand layers overlie low-permeability clays. 
 Additionally, in areas where ravines approach the coast, it is important to recognize 
 that the position of some segments of the bluffline may be controlled by fluvial 
 processes rather than by coastal processes. Erroneous rates of coastal erosion will be 
 calculated if recession by other processes is included in the data set. 
 
 Vm - ERRORS 
 
 1) Systematic and Nonsvstematic Errors 
 
 Limitations in map accuracy must be recognized. Systematic and nonsystematic 
 errors, including unknown errors, are inherent in any mapping project. Systematic 
 errors include instrument bias and may be measurable using more precise equipment. 
 Operator bias is an example of nonsystematic error, which may be difficult if not 
 impossible to measure. Additionally, physical features such as bluff lines and shorelines 
 pose distinct mapping challenges, since identification is open to interpretation. 
 
 2) Maximum Acceptable Error 
 
 A standard for maximum acceptable error must be determined. However, given the 
 large number of sources of potential errors, the total error for any individual digital 
 product is difficult to quantify. Once the maximum acceptable error standard is 
 determined, any relative values of erosion or accretion that fall within this range should 
 not be considered significant in determining erosion rates. 
 
 129 
 
3) Accuracy Assessment 
 
 If determining source map accuracy is to be a part of future studies, points on the 
 maps must be selected with that purpose in mind. Extensive historical research will 
 usually be required to determine whether a source map point differing in location from 
 its base map counterpart represents a feature that has been relocated or one that has 
 been mismapped. Once this determination has been made, points associated with 
 features that have been relocated should be excluded from the accuracy assessment. 
 
 IX - DATA REPORTING 
 
 1) Reporting Transect Data 
 
 The data-reporting format as detailed in the contract specified that the distance 
 between the spine-transect intercept and the shore-transect intercept be given to the 
 nearest 0.01 foot. These numbers have therefore been reported in this format in 
 Appendix K. It is recommended, however, that any numbers to the right of the 
 decimal point in these distances be deleted, as their presence may erroneously imply 
 that they have significance. 
 
 2) Accuracy Statements 
 
 It is important to avoid overstating the accuracy of the erosion data, as this could lead 
 to the interpretation that the rates of erosion and accretion are more precisely 
 measured than is actually the case. In future studies, the distinction between precision 
 (increments of measurement) and accuracy (what the measurements actually 
 represent) must be made in the clearest possible terms. 
 
 130 
 
X - STUDY APPLICATIONS 
 
 In applying the results of this pilot study to other reaches of the U.S. Great Lakes 
 coasts, three qualifications need to be stated. 
 
 1) The approach in this study was to map one-mile long corridors rather 
 than continuous reaches of the coast as would be done in a regional 
 study. This corridor mapping impacts the time allocations of this study 
 for registration and digitizing of the maps and aerial photographs. The 
 time investment per one-mile corridor is likely greater than the per-mile 
 time investment that would be computed based on the incremental 
 division of time invested for registration and digitizing of several miles 
 of coast. 
 
 2) Much of Lake County is downdrift of two total to near-total barriers to 
 littoral transport (i.e., the Waukegan Harbor jetties and the breakwaters 
 forming the harbor at Naval Training Center, Great Lakes). The 
 downdrift starvation of the littoral stream due to entrapment by these 
 structures is a factor that has impacted historical coastal change. 
 
 3) Much of the residential coast of Lake County has been engineered for 
 a longer time than most of the rest of the Lake Michigan coast and has 
 been engineered to a greater degree. The higher degree of engineering 
 reflects the economic status of this lakeshore, which includes some of 
 the premier lakeshore residential real estate along the entire Lake 
 Michigan coast. 
 
 131 
 
SUMMARY 
 
 The purpose of this pilot study was to document the source materials, equipment, 
 procedures and time allocations necessary to conduct a compilation of historical 
 coastal erosion rates. Two databases were created, a Historical Shoreline Location 
 Database created by digitizing, combining, and storing historical and recent shorelines 
 and blufflines from historical maps and vertical aerial photographs, and a Historical 
 Shoreline Positional Change Database created by measuring spatial differences along 
 transects that intercept the historical and recent shorelines and blufflines. Data from 
 these two databases are included in this report in Appendix I and Appendix K. These 
 data also accompany this report on 3.5-inch diskettes to be used by the contracting 
 agency (FEMA, Office of Risk Assessment) in statistical analysis of erosion rates and 
 for the addition of new shoreline and bluffline data to the database at a later date. 
 
 This was the sole FEMA-sponsored pilot study along a Great Lakes coast. It differs 
 from concurrent pilot studies conducted along the U.S. ocean coasts in that its setting 
 and physical processes may not be directly comparable to those along the ocean 
 coasts. In particular, two key factors apply. 
 
 1 ) A large fluctuation in lake level has occurred during historical time. For the data 
 sets used in this study, the range in lake level is 2.8 feet. Shorelines recorded 
 on the historical maps and the aerial photographs are at four different lake 
 levels and thus record differences in shoreline position that are in part 
 independent of any erosion or accretion. 
 
 2) No standard datum exists for mapping shorelines along the Illinois coast, and 
 this study did not attempt to adjust shorelines to a common datum. The issue 
 of a shoreline reference will need to be addressed prior to future coastal change 
 mapping of this sort along the Illinois lakeshore. 
 
 132 
 
Applying the results of this study to other reaches of the Lake Michigan coast and to 
 the Great Lakes in general requires recognition of the characteristics specific to this 
 study area that may be less significant elsewhere. In particular, coastal development 
 has had a major impact on the coast of Lake County. Much of the county lakeshore 
 is downdrift of major barriers to littoral transport that have reduced the littoral 
 sediment supply along the downdrift coast. Historical coastal changes downdrift of 
 these barriers (Corridors 3,4, and 5 in this study) are in part directly related to this 
 human influence. In addition, essentially all of the southern half of the Lake County 
 coast is property within affluent municipalities. Most of this property has been 
 engineered to a higher degree than would occur along the majority of residential 
 property along the Lake Michigan coast. In general, because of its proximity to 
 Chicago and the economic status of the majority of the coastal residents, the history 
 of settlement and development and the degree of coastal engineering in Lake County 
 may be different from other comparable reaches of coastal bluffs in the Great Lakes 
 region. 
 
 One of the intentions of this study was to compare the use of historical maps to the 
 use of vertical aerial photography as data sources for such studies. The historical 
 maps selected for this study were 1 872-73 and 1 909-1 1 field sheets prepared by the 
 U.S. Lake Survey. The spatial inaccuracies in these field sheets required substantial 
 additional work to gain the desired map information as compared to use of the aerial 
 photographs. In particular, a major time investment was necessary in order to achieve 
 acceptable registration of these field sheets. In this study, less time and effort was 
 required to go from data source to digital map using the aerial photographs than using 
 either of the two sets of field sheets. 
 
 133 
 
Future studies should develop a rigorous procedure for selecting and testing the 
 adequacy of ground control points. The importance of ground control for the 
 registration of historical maps or aerial photographs to the base map and for the 
 subsequent rubber sheeting of the digital maps cannot be overstated. A network of 
 adequate ground control points should be established prior to any registration and 
 digitizing of historical maps or aerial photographs. Ground control for mapping is the 
 key to the most efficient and accurate completion of this type of coastal change 
 documentation. 
 
 134 
 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
 
 Funding for this study was in part provided by contractual agreement through the 
 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under FEMA Assistance Award No. 
 EMW-91-K-3575. Additional funding was provided by the Illinois State Geological 
 Survey (ISGS). Several ISGS staff provided assistance to this study. Sally L. Denhart 
 wrote the INFO program to compile the transect data. C. Brian Trask assisted in 
 tabulating data. Kathaleen M. O'Connor assisted in compiling time data for the 
 different work items. Nicholas P. Schneider completed the time study. Assisting In 
 digitizing were Jeffery C. Kraus and Molly E. Read. All illustrations for this report were 
 prepared by Molly E. Read. All plotfiles were created by Jeffery C. Kraus. Special 
 appreciation is extended to Donald R. Rich, Illinois Department of Transportation who 
 provided a review and evaluation of field survey records collected in an early phase of 
 this study. 
 
 The authors wish to acknowledge the initial efforts of both Charles W. Collinson, 
 Principal Geologist Emeritus, and James R. Jennings in the pre-project and early phases 
 of this study. Nicholas P. Schneider, Head of the ISGS Environmental Assessment 
 Section, is acknowledged for his managerial guidance through the completion of all 
 work presented in this report. 
 
 135 
 
REFERENCES CITED 
 
 American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 1989, ASPRS interim 
 accuracy standards for large-scale maps: Photogrammetric Engineering and 
 Remote Sensing, v. 55, pp. 1038-1040. 
 
 Atwood, W. W. and Goldthwait, J. W., 1908, Physical geography of the Evanston- 
 Waukegan region: State of Illinois, Department of Registration and Education, 
 Division of the State Geological Survey, Bull. No. 7, Urbana, Illinois, 102 p. 
 
 Barnes, P., Reimnitz. E., McCormick, M., and Kempema, E., 1992a, Coastal profile 
 modifications in winter related to lake ice, southern Lake Michigan: pp. 64-66 
 jn Folger, D. W., Colman, S. M., and Barnes, P. W. (eds.), Southern Lake 
 Michigan Coastal Erosion Study Workshop, February 4-6, 1992, USGS Center 
 for Coastal Geology, St. Petersburg, Florida, U.S. Geological Survey Open File 
 Report 92-324, 116 p. 
 
 Barnes, P., Reimnitz, E., and McCormick, M., 1 992b, Sediment content of offshore ice 
 in southern Lake Michigan 1991: pp. 67-68 m Folger, D. W., Colman, S. M., 
 and Barnes, P. W. (eds.), Southern Lake Michigan Coastal Erosion Study 
 Workshop, February 4-6, 1992, USGS Center for Coastal Geology, St. 
 Petersburg, Florida, U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 92-324, 1 16 p. 
 
 Berg, R. C. and Collinson, C, 1976, Bluff erosion, recession rates, and 
 volumetric losses on the Lake Michigan shore of Illinois: Environmental Geology 
 Note No. 67, Illinois State Geological Survey, Urbana, Illinois, 33 p. 
 
 Bottin, R. R. Jr., 1988, Case histories of Corps breakwater and jetty structures, 
 report 3, North Central Division: Technical Report REMR-CO-3, Department of 
 the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, 
 Mississippi, 433 p. 
 
 Chicago Shoreline Protection Commission, 1988, Recommendations for shoreline 
 protection and recreational enhancement, final report: City of Chicago, Office 
 of the Mayor, 52 p. plus 7 appendices. 
 
 Chrzastowski, M. J. and Read, M. E., 1993, Inventory of federal and state historical 
 maps, charts, and vertical aerial photographs applicable to erosion-rate studies 
 along the Illinois coast of Lake Michigan: Final contract report (Report 2 of 2) 
 for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Office of Risk 
 Assessment, FEMA Assistance Award No. EMW-91-K-3575, Illinois State 
 Geological Survey Open-File Series 1993-3, Champaign, Illinois, 115 p. 
 
 136 
 
Chrzastowski, M. J. and Trask, C. B., 1992, Review of the final report for the 1991 
 beach and nearshore monitoring program at Forest Park Beach, Lake Forest, 
 Illinois: Report submitted to Illinois Department of Transportation, Project No. 
 WR-091 18/SRA-190, Illinois State Geological Survey, Champaign, Illinois, 64 
 p. plus four appendices. 
 
 Clark, P. U., and Rudloff, G. A., 1990, Sedimentology and stratigraphy of late 
 Wisconsinan deposits, Lake Michigan bluffs, northern Illinois: pp. 29-41 in 
 Schneider, A. F. and Fraser, G. S. (eds.), Late Quaternary History of the Lake 
 Michigan Basin; Geological Society of America Special Paper 251, Boulder, 
 Colorado, 123 p. 
 
 Crowell, M., Leatherman, S. P., and Buckley, M. K., 1 991 , Historical shoreline change: 
 Error analysis and mapping accuracy: Journal of Coastal Research, v. 7, no. 
 3, pp. 839-852. 
 
 DuMontelle, P. B., 1974, Engineering geology of the Lake Michigan bluffs, Wilmette 
 to Waukegan, Illinois: pp. 31-32 in Collinson, C. and three others, (eds.), 
 Coastal Geology, Sedimentology, and Management, Chicago and the 
 Northshore; Illinois State Geological Survey Guidebook Series 1 2, 55 p. 
 
 DuMontelle, P.B., Stoffel, K. L., and Brossman, J. J., 1975, Foundation and earth 
 materials of the Lake Michigan till bluffs; preliminary report, Illinois Coastal 
 Zone Management Program: Illinois State Geological Survey, Champaign, 
 Illinois, 37 p. 
 
 Ellis, M.Y. (ed.), 1978, Coastal Mapping Handbook: U.S. Department of the Interior, 
 Geological Survey and U.S. Department of Commerce, National Ocean Survey, 
 U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 200 p. 
 
 Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., 1991, Editing coverages and tables 
 with Arcedit, ARC/INFO users guide rev. 6.0: Environmental Systems Research 
 Institute, Inc. (ESRI), Redlands, California, 272 p. plus three appendices. 
 
 Ewing, M., Press, F., and Donn, W. L., 1954, An explanation of the Lake Michigan 
 wave of 26 June 1954: Science, v. 120, pp. 684-686. 
 
 Fraser, G. S. and Hester, N. C, 1974, Sediment distribution in a beach ridge complex 
 and its application to artificial beach replenishment: Environmental Geology 
 Notes 67, Illinois State Geological Survey, Urbana, Illinois, 26 p. 
 
 Fraser, G. S., Larsen, C. E., and Hester, N. C, 1990, Climatic control of lake levels in 
 the Lake Michigan and Lake Huron basins: pp. 75-89, ]n Schneider, A. F. and 
 Fraser, G. S. (eds.), Late Quaternary history of the Lake Michigan basin, 
 Geological Society of America Special Paper 251, 123 pp. 
 
 137 
 
Hands, E. B., 1980, Prediction of shore retreat and nearshore profile adjustment to 
 rising water levels on the Great Lakes: Technical Report No 90-7, U. S. Army 
 Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, 
 119 p. 
 
 Hester, N. C. and Fraser, G. S., 1973, Sedimentology of a beach-ridge complex and 
 its significance in land-use planning: Environmental Geology Notes 63, Illinois 
 State Geological Survey, Urbana, Illinois, 24 p. 
 
 Illinois State Geological Survey, 1988, Coastal atlas, Illinois shore of Lake Michigan, 
 revised 1987-88: Contract report for Illinois Division of Water Resources 
 Obligation WR08819, Illinois State Geological Survey, Champaign, Illinois, 59 
 maps, approx. scale 1 :4800. 
 
 Jennings, J. R., 1 990, 1 50 year erosion history at a beach ridge and dune plain on the 
 Illinois Lake Michigan shore: Programs and Abstracts, International Association 
 of Great Lakes Research, 33rd Conference, p. 67. 
 
 Jibson, R. W., Odum, J. K. and Staude, J., 1992, Rates and processes of bluff 
 retreat along the Lake Michigan shoreline in Illinois: pp. 57-59 in Folger, D. W., 
 Colman, S. M. and Barnes, P. W. (eds.), Fourth Annual Southern Lake Michigan 
 Coastal Erosion Workshop, February 4-6, 1992, USGS Center for Coastal 
 Geology, St. Petersburg, Florida, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 92- 
 324, 116 p. 
 
 Jibson, R. W. and Staude, J., 1992, Bluff recession rates along the Lake Michigan 
 shoreline in Illinois: Bull. Assoc, of Engineering Geologists, v. 29, no. 2, pp. 
 103-117. 
 
 Jibson, R. W., Staude, J. and Reinhardt, J., 1 990, Coastal bluff retreat along the Lake 
 Michigan shoreline in Illinois and southern Wisconsin: pp. 32-41 ]n Barnes, P. 
 W. (ed.), Coastal Sedimentary Processes in Southern Lake Michigan: Their 
 Influence on Coastal Erosion; U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 90-295, 
 55 p. 
 
 Kempema, E. W., Barnes, P. W., Haines, J. W., and Reimnitz, E., 1992a, Anchor ice 
 formation and sediment transport in southern Lake Michigan: pp. 69-71 ]n 
 Folger, D. W., Colman, S. M. and Barnes, P. W. (eds.), Fourth Annual Southern 
 Lake Michigan Coastal Erosion Workshop, February 4-6, 1992, USGS Center 
 for Coastal Geology, St. Petersburg, Florida, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 
 Report 92-324, 1 1 6 p. 
 
 Kempema, E. W., Reimnitz, E., and Barnes, P. W., 1992b, Ice drift in southern Lake 
 Michigan based on surface drifter trajectories: pp. 72-74 jn Folger, D. W., 
 Colman, S. M. and Barnes, P. W. (eds.), Fourth Annual Southern Lake Michigan 
 
 138 
 
Coastal Erosion Workshop, February 4-6, 1992, USGS Center for Coastal 
 Geology, St. Petersburg, Florida, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 92- 
 324, 116 p. 
 
 Larsen, C. E., 1973, Prehistoric levels of Lake Michigan-Huron; Their potential in 
 shoreline planning, in Proceedings of 1973 Shoreland Planning Conference, 
 Chicago: Chicago, Lake Michigan Federation, 18 p. 
 
 Larsen, C. E., 1973, Variation in bluff recession in relation to lake level 
 fluctuations along the high bluff Illinois shore: Report prepared for the Illinois 
 Institute of Environmental Quality, IIEQ Doc. No. 73-14, Project No. 20.034, 
 Lake Michigan Federation, Chicago, Illinois, 73 p. 
 
 Larsen, C. E., 1985, A stratigraphic study of beach features on the southwestern 
 shore of Lake Michigan: new evidence of Holocene lake level fluctuations: 
 Environmental Geology Notes 1 1 2, Illinois State Geological Survey, Champaign, 
 Illinois, 31 p. 
 
 Lineback, J. A., 1974, Erosion of till bluffs: Wilmette to Waukegan: pp. 37-45 in 
 Collinson, C. and three others (eds.), Coastal Geology, Sedimentology, and 
 Management, Chicago and North Shore; Illinois State Geological Survey 
 Guidebook Series 12, Champaign, Illinois, 55 p. 
 
 National Ocean Service, undated, Great Lakes water levels, 1 860-1 985, monthly and 
 annual average elevations: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic 
 and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Rockville, Maryland, 
 260 p. 
 
 Olson, J. S., 1958, Rates of succession and soil development on southern Lake 
 Michigan sand dunes: Botanical Gazette, v. 119, p. 125-170. 
 
 Raasveldt, H. C, 1956, The stereomodel, how it is formed and deformed: 
 Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, v. 22, pp. 708-726. 
 
 Reimnitz, E., Hayden, E., McCormick, M., and Barnes, P., 1991, Preliminary 
 observations on coastal sediment loss through ice rafting in Lake Michigan: 
 Journal of Coastal Research, v. 7, no. 3, pp. 653-664. 
 
 Roy, S. D., 1986, Computer simulation model of coastal erosion on Lake Michigan: 
 unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois at Chicago, Department of 
 Geology, Chicago, Illinois, 379 p. 
 
 Shabica, C. W. and Pranschke, F. A., 1992, Survey of littoral drift sand deposits 
 along the Illinois shore of Lake Michigan: pp. 28-35 in Folger, D. F., Colman, 
 S. M., and Barnes, P. W. (eds.), Fourth Annual Southern Lake Michigan Coastal 
 
 139 
 
Erosion Workshop, February 4-6, 1992, USGS Center for Coastal Geology, St. 
 Petersburg, Florida, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 92-324, 1 16 p. 
 
 Shabica, C. W., Pranschke, F. A., and Chrzastowski, M. J., 1991, Survey of littoral 
 drift sand deposits along the Illinois shore of Lake Michigan from Fort Sheridan 
 to Evanston: Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant Program, Report IL-IN-SG-R-91-3, 
 Cooperative Extension Service, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1 5 
 P- 
 
 Shalowitz, A. L., 1964, Shore and sea boundaries, volume 2, interpretation and 
 use of Coast and Geodetic Survey data: U. S. Department of Commerce, U. 
 S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, Pub. 10-1, U. S. Government Printing Office, 
 Washington, D. C, 749 p. 
 
 State of Illinois Division of Waterways, 1958, Interim report for erosion control Illinois 
 shore of Lake Michigan: State of Illinois, Department of Public Works and 
 Buildings, Division of Waterways, Springfield, Illinois, 108 p., 27 plates, 12 
 exhibits (shoreline and profile changes). 
 
 Terpstra, P. D. and Chrzastowski, M. J., 1992, Geometric trends in the evolution of 
 a small log-spiral embayment on the Illinois shore of Lake Michigan: Journal of 
 Coastal Research, v. 8, no. 3, pp. 603-617. 
 
 Underwood, S. G. and Anders, F.J., 1 991 , Evaluation of the coastal features mapping 
 system for shoreline mapping: Technical Report CERC-9 1 -1 3, U.S. Army Corps 
 of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, 41 p. plus 
 one 4 p. appendix. 
 
 U.S. Army Corps Engineers, 1953, Illinois shore of Lake Michigan, beach erosion 
 control study: 83rd Congress, 1st Session, House Doc. 28, 137 p., 5 
 appendices. 
 
 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1978, Help yourself, a discussion of erosion problems 
 on the Great Lakes and alternative methods of shore protection: U.S. Army 
 Corps of Engineers North Central Division, Chicago, Illinois, 24 p. 
 
 U.S. Congress, 1839, Report on harbor improvements on Lake Michigan (by Captain 
 T. J. Cram, Captain Topographical Engineers): 26th Congress, 1st Session, 
 Senate Doc. No. 140, v. 4, ser. 357, pp. 16-22. 
 
 U.S. Deep Waterways Commission, 1897, Report of the U.S. Deep Waterways 
 Commission Prepared at Detroit Michigan, December 19-22, 1896: U.S. 
 Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 263 p., 26 pi. 
 
 140 
 
U.S. Engineer Department, 1 873, Instructions for chiefs of parties on the United States 
 Lake Survey: U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 
 
 U.S. Geological Survey, 1 980, Technical Instructions of the National Mapping Division: 
 Accuracy Specifications for Topographic Mapping: Chapter 1B4. 13 p. 
 
 U.S. Geological Survey, 1990, Digital line graphs from 1 :24,000-scale maps, data 
 users guide 1 (replacement for U.S. Geological Survey Circular 895): U.S. 
 Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, 107 p. 
 
 Willman, H. B. and Lineback, J. A., 1970, Surficial geology of the Chicago region: 
 Illinois State Geological Survey, Urbana, Illinois, (map) 1 sheet, scale 
 1:250,000. 
 
 Woodford, A. M., 1991, Charting the inland seas: A history of the U.S. Lake Survey: 
 U.S. Government Printing Office 1991/544-359, Washington, D.C 
 
 141 
 
APPENDIX A 
 OFFICES FROM WHICH DATA SOURCES WERE OBTAINED 
 
 HISTORICAL MAPS (U.S. Lake Survey "I" Sheets: bromide copies) 
 
 U.S. Department of Commerce 
 
 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 
 
 National Ocean Service (NOS) 
 
 Hydrographic Surveys Branch, N/CG243 
 
 Data Control Section 
 
 6001 Executive Blvd. 
 
 Rockville, Maryland 20852 
 
 Phone: (301)443-8408 
 
 FAX: (301)443-8459 
 
 Cost: As of October 1 992, $48.00 per bromide copy; five to six weeks 
 
 for delivery. 
 
 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS (1947: b&w. 9"x 9") 
 
 Map and Geography Library 
 
 418 Library, MC-522 
 
 1408 W. Gregory 
 
 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 
 
 Champaign, Illinois 61820 
 
 Phone: (217) 333-0827 
 
 FAX: (217)244-0398 
 
 Cost: No cost; photographs on loan under special agreement. 
 
 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS (1987: b&w, 9"x 9") 
 
 Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) 
 Aerial Surveys 
 
 2300 South Dirksen Parkway 
 Springfield, Illinois 62764 
 
 Phone: (217)782-7627 
 
 FAX: (217)782-1927 
 
 Cost: No cost to sister state agency; present (1992) cost for other 
 
 government and non-profit institutions is $7.20 per 9"x 9" 
 contact sheet. Approximately one week for delivery. 
 
 142 
 
APPENDIX B 
 GROUND CONTROL POINTS FOR HISTORICAL MAPS 
 
 Appendix B Explanation 
 
 This appendix is a series of maps showing the ground control points used for 
 registration of the 1872-73 and 1909-1911 U.S. Lake Survey field sheets. Road 
 intersections, railroad crossings, bridges, and other control points are indicated by 
 squares. Appendix E contains a listing of specific points used for each map, and gives 
 the RMS errors associated with each map registration. 
 
 143 
 
Appendix B (continued) 
 
 MAPI of 10 
 
 Match points MAP 2 of 10 
 
 144 
 
Appendix B (continued) 
 
 Match Points MAP 1 of 10 
 
 MAP 2 of 10 
 
 y\yyy.-y/.-y. : 
 
 17tH5f«t 
 
 -E3 
 
 :fii 
 
 * 
 
 Hinds Beach 
 
 ^StateiPark; x 
 
 (North Unit) 
 
 2 1st Street 
 
 ft ZION 
 
 i 
 
 El 
 
 -Ok- 
 
 Shlloh: Boulevard: 
 
 I 
 
 N 
 
 LAKE MICHIGAN 
 
 $ 
 
 If 
 
 29th Street 
 
 □ Control Points For 
 Historical Maps 
 
 ■y.y. 
 '■•>%:■ 
 
 W 
 
 WAUKEGAN 
 
 I 
 
 :!:•!•:•: 
 
 Illinois Beach 
 State Park 
 (South Unit) 
 
 D- 
 
 .5 
 
 st mi 
 
 L_i 
 
 J km 
 
 B 
 
 Match Points MAP 3 of 10 
 
 B' 
 
 145 
 
Appendix B (continued) 
 
 MAP 3 of 10 
 
 N 
 
 □ Control Points For 
 Historical Maps 
 
 LAKE MICHIGAN 
 
 Illinois Beaeh 
 State Park 
 (South Un'rt) 
 
 km 
 
 j st mi 
 
 Match Points MAP 4 of 10 
 
 146 
 
Appendix B (continued) 
 
 MAP 4 of 10 
 
 N 
 
 LAKE MICHIGAN 
 
 CORRIDOR 2: 
 WAUKEGAN HARBOR 
 
 □ Control Points For 
 Historical Maps 
 
 Match Points MAP 5 of 10 
 
 147 
 
Appendix B (continued) 
 
 Match Points MAP 4 of 10 
 
 D' 
 
 MAP 5 of 10 
 
 bertyStreetr^ 
 
 goutHAveriw- 
 
 WmtiE&M 
 
 10tt»:Stre>t 
 
 NORTH 
 CHICAGO 
 
 ,14tb:Streef: 
 
 16th Street 
 
 18th Street 
 
 N 
 
 Q Control Points For 
 Historical Maps 
 
 LAKE MICHIGAN 
 
 km 
 
 st mi 
 
 Naval Training Center, 
 Great Lakes 
 
 Match Points MAP 6 of 10 
 
 148 
 
Appendix B (continued) 
 
 Match Points MAP 5 of 10 
 
 MAP 6 Of 10 
 
 NORTH CHICAGO 
 
 22nd Street 
 
 LAKE MICHIGAN 
 
 CORRIDOR 3: 
 U\KE BLUFF 
 
 Q Control Points For 
 Historical Maps 
 
 1 
 
 km 
 
 st mi 
 
 149 
 
Appendix B (continued) 
 
 MAP 7 of 10 
 
 CORRIDOR 3: LAKE BLUFF 
 
 st mi 
 
 Q Control Points For 
 Historical Maps 
 
 LAKE MICHIGAN 
 
 , Match Points MAP 8 of 10 
 
 150 
 
Appendix B (continued) 
 
 MAP 8 of 10 
 
 km 
 
 st mi 
 
 LAKE MICHIGAN 
 
 CORRIDOR 4: 
 LAKE FOREST 
 
 □ Control Points For 
 Historical Maps 
 
 Old Elm Read 
 
 N 
 
 Match Points MAP 9 of 10 
 
 H H' 
 
 151 
 
Appendix B (continued) 
 
 H Match Points MAP 8 of 10 H' 
 
 MAP 9 of 10 
 
 .5 
 
 st mi 
 
 Q Control Points For 
 Historical Maps 
 
 LAKE MICHIGAN 
 
 CORRIDOR 5: 
 HIGHLANQvPARK 
 
 Match Points MAP 10 of 10 
 
 152 
 
Appendix B (continued) 
 
 MAP 10 of 10 
 
 153 
 
APPENDIX C 
 U.S. LAKE SURVEY MAP COVERAGE FOR EACH CORRIDOR 
 
 Appendix C Explanation 
 
 This appendix contains reproductions of the U.S. Lake Survey field sheets, with the 
 study corridors indicated. These are 1:1 reproductions made from bromide prints of 
 the field sheets. Handwritten numbers and words on the field sheets are notations 
 made on the bromide prints during this study for registration or reference. Horizontal 
 and vertical ruled lines on the 1 909-1 1 and 1910-1 1 field sheets are latitude-longitude 
 parallels and meridians corresponding to the U.S. Standard Datum. 
 
 The following lists the corridors and the U.S. Lake Survey field sheet numbers for the 
 survey years. 
 
 Corridor 1 : North Point 
 
 1872 Map 1-521 
 1909-11 Map 1-1197 
 
 Corridor 2: Waukeaan Harbor 
 
 1873 Map I-553 
 1910-11 Map 1-1196 
 
 Corridor 3: Lake Bluff 
 
 1873 Map I-553 
 
 1910-11 Map 1-1196 
 
 Corridor 4: Lake Forest 
 
 1873 Map I-553 
 
 1910-11 Maps 1-1195 and 1-1196 
 
 Corridor 5: Highland Park 
 
 1873 Mapl-552 
 
 1910-11 Map 1-1195 
 
 154 
 
Appendix C (continued) 
 
 Corridor 1 1872 
 U.S. Lake Survey Map 1-521 
 
 * '-I**?- * 
 
 >>x. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 is 
 
 2S 
 
 19 
 
 S/ Otiy 
 
 Pi 
 sly 
 Ao 
 
 iM 
 A 2 
 
 . .T o ft a 
 
 
 
 *■'•*£•'* V* T «s*^ 3* ~ ,£i 
 
 V <y r 4&»fe 
 
 >b 2:>. 
 
 1» 2*t 
 
 *>>\\ 
 
 I" 
 
 zs 
 
 ~$m 
 
 
 
 -fife 
 
 »."» if/»(i r 
 
 v. •» 
 
 tit 4 
 
 20 Au 
 
 29 
 
 Sl» 
 
 - 1* V- SM^ 
 
 Approximate Scales 
 
 155 
 
Appendix C (continued) 
 
 Corridor 1 1909-11 
 
 U.S. Lake Survey Map 1-1197 
 
 y-.-" r : 
 
 1- . ... 
 
 
 \ _ W1IH-.MI • i -- — ■ •* i 
 
 .- 'r 
 
 
 V ,-S' . 1,7- -. .. tM6lMCC«<M« MO C»I«Cli«« - 
 
 elevated • ,f| if'L- ~ ~ N.t . ■- ^ - - - - : - 
 painted '|?'J* J l|l , - •— -• --- ~ * '••'*"* v.- ." - 1 
 
 ~?M 1".; ~Vt'; ^ - 
 
 k. - » 
 
 i i 3000 FT 
 
 I I I I 
 
 ft4« 
 
 ae 
 
 2C 
 B« 
 
 27 
 27 
 
 N 
 
 
 L 
 
 0.5 ST Ml 
 
 Approximate Scales 
 
 156 
 
Appendix C (continued) 
 
 Corridor 2 1873 
 
 U.S. Lake Survey Map I-553 
 
 ^tv, .y>ivv ■■ l ^^r,-T -*--?<■--&/> $ r v „ •« ■■ - 
 
 
 i» i 
 in 
 
 if 
 
 ?1 
 
 Si 
 
 Approximate Scales 
 
 157 
 
Appendix C (continued) 
 
 Corridor 2 1910-11 
 
 U.S. Lake Survey Map 1-1196 
 
 Approximate Scales 
 
 158 
 
Appendix C (continued) 
 
 Corridor 3 1873 
 
 U.S. Lake Survey Map I-553 
 
 Approximate Scales 
 
 159 
 
Appendix C (continued) Corridor 3 1910-11 
 
 U.S. Lake Survey Map 1-1196 
 
 T. 
 
 
 h*M 
 
 ac 
 
 
 ° »/ 
 
 
 
 iO 
 
 W t 
 
 
 c« *»• p i*»K»» 24 t *»3» 
 
 
 It* ,7* 20^22 
 
 
 4<: 
 
 *• 
 
 a. 
 
 1 * 15 r is* a > 
 
 ■A : v i3< 1 2 ,4| 2if V. 22 i 
 
 :« «r« ! r z°i 
 
 ^J 
 
 i 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 
 47 
 
 2* 
 
 Approxlmme Scales 
 
 160 
 
Appendix c (continued) Corridor 4 1873 
 
 U.S. Lake Survey Map I-553 
 
 N I L 
 
 0.5 ST Ml 
 
 1 I I I 
 
 Approximate Scale* 
 
 161 
 
Appendix C 
 (continued) 
 
 Corridor 4 1910-11 
 U.S. Lake Survey Maps 1-1 1 95 and 1-1 1 96 
 
 Approximate Scales 
 
 162 
 
Appendix C (continued) 
 
 Corridor 5 1873 
 U.S. Lake Survey Map I-552 
 
 
 
 * V- -"^^ 
 
 
 «"•.»» i//n 
 
 
 to h. 
 
 4PH8S 
 
 Y.V^-Tii V ".1. "..'• * :•. '» *v« 
 
 
 
 si' A »r. -■•. 
 
 
 - -7* 
 
 " r " Sv-.->.w-»V*» 
 
 » . -7 "i .1 - %. v * 
 '■__ l V 
 
 ,&*'. ? 
 
 s^a* " »?^. ••..?;l.* Jl -vV -"«~ -1 1 » - 
 
 i ° 
 
 3000 FT 
 
 I I L 
 
 0.5 ST Ml 
 
 Approximate Scales 
 
 163 
 
Appendix C (continued) Corridor 5 1910-11 
 
 U.S. Lake Survey Map 1-1 1 95 
 
 Approximate Scales 
 
 164 
 
APPENDIX D 
 
 ADJUSTMENTS FOR RELATIVE ORIENTATION OF STEREOMODEL 
 
 Appendix D Explanation 
 
 This appendix is a listing of adjustments made on the Zeiss Stereotope stereoplotter 
 for internal orientation of each of the 1947 and 1987 aerial photograph stereomodels. 
 A, B, C, and D adjustments relate to the four corners of individual stereomodels. 
 
 1 947 Aerial Photogra 
 
 phs 
 
 
 
 
 
 Corridor 
 
 Aerial Photograph 
 Frame Numbers 
 
 A 
 Upper 
 Right 
 
 B 
 Lower 
 Right 
 
 C 
 
 Lower 
 
 Left 
 
 D 
 
 Upper 
 
 Left 
 
 Corridor 2 
 Waukegan Harbor 
 
 BES-1 -20/21 
 
 11.8 
 
 7.9 
 
 8.4 
 
 12.8 
 
 Corridor 3 
 Lake Bluff 
 
 BES-1 -28/29 
 
 11.3 
 
 9.2 
 
 10.3 
 
 10.0 
 
 BES-1 -29/30 
 
 19.1 
 
 12.0 
 
 10.4 
 
 11.2 
 
 Corridor 4 
 Lake Forest 
 
 BES-1 -34/35 
 
 10.7 
 
 11.5 
 
 10.1 
 
 8.9 
 
 BES-1 -35/36 
 
 10.4 
 
 6.9 
 
 10.8 
 
 8.3 
 
 BES-1 -36/37 
 
 4.6 
 
 4.8 
 
 6.6 
 
 6.2 
 
 Corridor 5 
 Highland Park 
 
 BES-1 -44/45 
 
 9.9 
 
 5.7 
 
 6.9 
 
 6.8 
 
 BES-1 -45/46 
 
 6.5 
 
 5.0 
 
 5.4 
 
 7.5 
 
 1 987 Aerial Photogra 
 
 phs 
 
 Corridor 
 
 Aerial Photograph 
 Frame Numbers 
 
 A 
 
 Upper 
 Right 
 
 B 
 Lower 
 Right 
 
 C 
 
 Lower 
 Left 
 
 D 
 
 Upper 
 
 Left 
 
 Corridor 3 
 Lake Bluff 
 
 R35 10-427/428 
 
 12.2 
 
 9.6 
 
 11.9 
 
 12.3 
 
 Corridor 4 
 Lake Forest 
 
 R3510-415/416 
 
 10.3 
 
 11.1 
 
 9.9 
 
 12.8 
 
 Corridor 5 
 Highland Park 
 
 R35 10-406/407 
 
 13.8 
 
 12.0 
 
 9.9 
 
 10.0 
 
 165 
 
APPENDIX E 
 GROUND CONTROL POINTS FOR HISTORICAL MAPS 
 
 Appendix E Explanation 
 
 This appendix is a listing of the ground control points used for registering the U.S. Lake 
 Survey field sheets, and their associated root-mean-square (RMS) errors. Map scale 
 is given in map feet per digitizing board inch. The locations of these ground control 
 points are shown in Appendix B. 
 
 Corridor 
 
 Intersections or other 
 
 Map scale 
 
 RMS 
 
 RMS 
 
 Year 
 
 features used for control 
 
 (X,Y) 
 
 error 
 
 error 
 
 
 points 
 
 
 (board 
 inches) 
 
 (map 
 feet) 
 
 Corridor 1 
 
 Sheridan Rd. - Russell Rd. 
 
 (1686, 1673) 
 
 0.009 
 
 15 
 
 North 
 
 Chicago and North Western 
 
 
 
 
 Point 
 
 Railroad tracks - Russell Rd. 
 
 
 
 
 1872 
 
 Sheridan Rd. - 9th St. 
 1 7th St. - Chicago and 
 
 North Western Railroad 
 
 tracks 
 
 
 
 
 Corridor 2 
 
 North Ave. - Glen Flora Ave. 
 
 (1687, 1677) 
 
 0.008 
 
 13 
 
 Waukegan 
 
 Chicago and North Western 
 
 
 
 
 Harbor 
 
 Railroad tracks - 
 
 
 
 
 1873 
 
 Greenwood Ave. 
 Utica St. - South Ave. 
 Julian St. - Hickory St. 
 
 
 
 
 Corridor 3 
 
 Lake Rd. - Spruce Ave. 
 
 (1642, 1677) 
 
 0.007 
 
 11 
 
 Lake Bluff 
 
 10th St. - Sheridan Rd. 
 
 
 
 
 1873 
 
 Chicago and North Western 
 Railroad tracks extension 
 south of Sheridan Rd. and 
 east of Argonne Dr. 
 
 Chicago and North Western 
 Railroad bridge west of 
 Clark Ave. 
 
 
 
 
 166 
 
Appendix E (continued) 
 
 Corridor 
 
 Intersections or other 
 
 Map scale 
 
 RMS 
 
 RMS 
 
 Year 
 
 features used for control 
 
 (X,Y) 
 
 error 
 
 error 
 
 
 points 
 
 
 (board 
 inches) 
 
 (map 
 feet) 
 
 Corridor 4 
 
 Lake Rd. - Spruce Ave. 
 
 (1683, 1686) 
 
 0.010 
 
 17 
 
 Lake 
 
 Washington Rd. - Illinois Rd. 
 
 
 
 
 Forest 
 
 Westleigh Rd. - Chicago and 
 
 
 
 
 1873 
 
 North Western Railroad 
 tracks 
 Deerpath Ave. - McKinley 
 Rd. 
 
 
 
 
 Corridor 5 
 
 Sheridan Rd. - Roger 
 
 (1674, 1675) 
 
 0.013 
 
 22 
 
 Highland 
 
 Williams Ave. 
 
 
 
 
 Park 
 
 Roger Williams Ave. - 
 
 
 
 
 1873 
 
 Judson Ave. - Dean Ave. 
 
 
 
 
 Vine Ave. - St. Johns Ave. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Vine Ave. - Egandale Rd. 
 
 
 
 
 Corridor 1 
 
 Sheridan Rd. - Russell Rd. 
 
 (1640, 1673) 
 
 0.007 
 
 11 
 
 North 
 
 Chicago and North Western 
 
 
 
 
 Point 
 
 Railroad tracks - Russell Rd. 
 
 
 
 
 1909-11 
 
 Sheridan Rd. - 29th St. 
 Chicago and North Western 
 Railroad tracks - 29th St. 
 
 
 
 
 Corridor 2 
 
 Genessee St. - Liberty St. 
 
 (1673, 1667) 
 
 0.003 
 
 6 
 
 Waukegan 
 
 North Ave. - Glen Flora Ave. 
 
 
 
 
 Harbor 
 
 Extension of Glen Flora Ave. 
 
 
 
 
 1910-11 
 
 - Chicago and 
 North Western Railroad 
 tracks 
 Northeast corner of 
 Waukegan Harbor north 
 breakwater (1904 
 segment) 
 
 
 
 
 Corridor 3 
 
 Walnut Ave. - North Ave. 
 
 (1674, 1666) 
 
 0.001 
 
 2 
 
 Lake Bluff 
 
 Farragut Ave. - Sampson St. 
 
 
 
 
 1910-11 
 
 Perry St. - Decatur Ave. 
 Scranton Ave. - Simpson 
 Ave. 
 
 
 
 
 167 
 
Appendix E (continued) 
 
 Corridor 
 
 Intersections or other 
 
 Map scale 
 
 RMS 
 
 RMS 
 
 Year 
 
 features used for control 
 
 (X,Y) 
 
 error 
 
 error 
 
 
 points 
 
 
 (board 
 inches) 
 
 (map 
 feet) 
 
 Corridor 4 
 
 Lake Rd. - Spruce Ave. 
 
 (1683, 1686) 
 
 0.010 
 
 17 
 
 Lake 
 
 Lake Rd. - Spring Ln. 
 
 
 
 
 Forest 
 
 Illinois Rd. - Stonegate Rd. 
 
 
 
 
 North part 
 
 Illinois Rd. - Washington 
 
 
 
 
 1910-11 
 
 Circle 
 
 
 
 
 Corridor 4 
 
 Westleigh Rd. - Chicago and 
 
 (1660, 1661) 
 
 0.006 
 
 9 
 
 Lake 
 
 North Western Railroad 
 
 
 
 
 Forest 
 
 tracks 
 
 
 
 
 South part 
 
 Bridge on Westleigh Rd. 
 
 
 
 
 1910-11 
 
 west of McCormick Dr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 McArthur Loop - Leonard 
 
 Wood Ave. 
 Lyster Rd. - Whistler Rd. 
 
 
 
 
 Corridor 5 
 
 Laurel Ave. - Linden Ave. 
 
 (1663, 1663) 
 
 0.003 
 
 6 
 
 Highland 
 
 Beech St. - Sheridan Rd. 
 
 
 
 
 Park 
 
 Vine Ave. - St. Johns Ave. 
 
 
 
 
 1910-11 
 
 Vine Ave. - Egandale Rd. 
 
 
 
 
 168 
 
APPENDIX F 
 
 GROUND CONTROL POINTS FOR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS 
 
 Appendix F Explanation 
 
 This appendix is a listing of the ground control points used for registering aerial 
 photographs, and their associated root-mean-square (RMS) errors in digitizing board 
 inches and map feet. The locations of these points are shown on the maps in Figures 
 6 through 10. 
 
 Corridor 
 
 Aerial 
 
 Intersections used for control 
 
 RMS 
 
 RMS 
 
 Year 
 
 photograph 
 
 points 
 
 error 
 
 error 
 
 
 frame 
 
 
 (board 
 
 (map 
 
 
 numbers 
 
 
 in.) 
 
 ft.) 
 
 Corridor 1 
 
 BES-1-47 
 
 Unnamed intersection 
 
 0.007 
 
 7 
 
 North Point 
 
 
 approx. 1600' north of IL- 
 
 
 
 1947 
 
 
 Wl state line and 4300' 
 east of Wl Hwy. 32 
 
 3rd St. - Sheridan Rd. 
 
 3rd St. - Oakdale Ave. 
 
 Main St. - Laurie Ave. 
 
 
 
 Corridor 2 
 
 BES-1 -20/21 
 
 South Ave. - Market St. 
 
 0.006 
 
 6 
 
 Waukegan 
 
 
 McKinley St. - Utica St. 
 
 
 
 Harbor 
 
 
 Belvidere Rd. - County St. 
 
 
 
 1947 
 
 
 Madison St. - Spring St. 
 Madison St. - West St. 
 
 
 
 Corridor 3 
 
 BES-1 -28/29 
 
 5th St. - G St. 
 
 0.022 
 
 9 
 
 Lake Bluff 
 
 
 Decatur Ave. - Fisher Rd. 
 
 
 
 North part 
 
 
 Dewey Ave. - Paul Jones St. 
 
 
 
 1947 
 
 
 A St. - 8th St. 
 
 Shore Acres Rd. - rd. approx. 
 500' south of Eastway Rd. 
 
 
 
 Corridor 3 
 
 BES-1 -29/30 
 
 Sheridan Rd. - Arden Shore 
 
 0.022 
 
 9 
 
 Lake Bluff 
 
 
 Rd. South 
 
 
 
 South part 
 
 
 Arden Shore Rd. - Arden 
 
 
 
 1947 
 
 
 Shore Rd. South 
 Shore Acres Rd. - rd. approx. 
 
 1 600' south of Eastway Rd. 
 Shore Acres Rd. - rd. approx. 
 
 500' south of Eastway Rd. 
 
 
 
 169 
 
Appendix F (continued) 
 
 Corridor 
 
 Aerial 
 
 Intersections used for control 
 
 RMS 
 
 RMS 
 
 Year 
 
 photograph 
 
 points 
 
 error 
 
 error 
 
 
 frame 
 
 
 (board 
 
 (map 
 
 
 numbers 
 
 
 in.) 
 
 ft.) 
 
 Corridor 4 
 
 BES-1-36 
 
 Northmoor Rd. - Sheridan Rd. 
 
 0.004 
 
 4 
 
 Lake Forest 
 
 
 McArthur Loop - Leonard 
 
 
 
 1947 
 
 
 Wood Ave. 
 
 
 
 
 12th Rd. - Haley Army 
 
 
 
 
 
 Heliport access rd. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Illinois Rd. - Stonegate Rd. 
 
 
 
 Corridor 5 
 
 BES-1-45 
 
 Crescent Ct. - Prospect Ave. 
 
 0.001 
 
 2 
 
 Highland 
 
 
 Laurel Ave. - McGovern St. 
 
 
 
 Park 
 
 
 Homewood Ave. - Midlothian 
 
 
 
 North part 
 
 
 Ave. 
 
 
 
 1947 
 
 
 Linden Ave. - Maple Ave. 
 
 
 
 Corridor 5 
 
 BES-1-46 
 
 Cedar Ave. - Wildwood Ln. 
 
 0.010 
 
 10 
 
 Highland 
 
 
 Judson Ave. - Ava St. 
 
 
 
 Park 
 
 
 Beech St. - Sheridan Rd. 
 
 
 
 South part 
 
 
 Lincoln Ave. - Glencoe Ave. 
 
 
 
 1947 
 
 
 
 
 
 Corridor 1 
 
 R3510-456 
 
 Unnamed intersection 
 
 0.006 
 
 6 
 
 North Point 
 
 
 approx. 1 600' north of IL- 
 
 
 
 North part 
 
 
 Wl state line and 4300' 
 
 
 
 1987 
 
 
 east of Wl Hwy. 32 
 3rd St. - Oakdale Ave. 
 Irene St. - Steven St. 
 Main St. - Rd. approx. 1000' 
 
 west of Irene St. 
 
 
 
 Corridor 1 
 
 R35 10-454 
 
 Irene St. - Steven St. 
 
 0.012 
 
 5 
 
 North Point 
 
 
 Main St. - Rd. approx. 1000' 
 
 
 
 South part 
 
 
 west of Irene St. 
 
 
 
 1987 
 
 
 Vista Rd. bridge over Dead 
 
 Dog Ditch 
 Lake Shore Rd. bridge over 
 
 Dead Dog Ditch 
 
 
 
 170 
 
Appendix F (continued) 
 
 Corridor 
 
 Aerial 
 
 Intersections used for control 
 
 RMS 
 
 RMS 
 
 Year 
 
 photograph 
 
 points 
 
 error 
 
 error 
 
 
 frame 
 
 
 (board 
 
 (map 
 
 
 numbers 
 
 
 in.) 
 
 ft.) 
 
 Corridor 2 
 
 R35 10-435 
 
 Unnamed intersection 
 
 0.006 
 
 6 
 
 Waukegan 
 
 
 approx. 1000' north of Sea 
 
 
 
 Harbor 
 
 
 Horse Dr. and 2800' east of 
 
 
 
 1987 
 
 
 Pershing Rd. 
 Cory Ave - Genessee St. 
 Northwest St. - Madison Rd. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Liberty St. - Sheridan Rd. 
 
 
 
 Corridor 3 
 
 R3510- 
 
 Unnamed intersection of two 
 
 0.040 
 
 19 
 
 Lake Bluff 
 
 427/428 
 
 private roads, approx. 
 
 
 
 1987 
 
 
 2100' east of Sheridan Rd. 
 
 and 1 300' north of Blodgett , 
 
 Ave. 
 Sheridan Rd. - private rd. 
 
 approx. 1 500' north of 
 
 Blodgett Ave. 
 Sheridan Rd. - Arden Shore 
 
 Rd. South 
 4th Ave. - Ohio St. 
 Shore Acres Rd. - rd. approx. 
 
 1600' south of Eastway Rd. 
 
 
 
 Corridor 4 
 
 R3510-416 
 
 Northmoor Rd. - Sheridan Rd. 
 
 0.002 
 
 2 
 
 Lake Forest 
 
 
 Maplewood Rd. - Mayflower Rd. 
 
 
 
 North part 
 
 
 McCormick Dr. - Turicum Rd. 
 
 
 
 1987 
 
 
 Westleigh Rd. - Circle Ln. 
 
 
 
 Corridor 4 
 
 R3510-415 
 
 Northmoor Rd. - Sheridan Rd. 
 
 0.011 
 
 12 
 
 Lake Forest 
 
 
 McCormick Dr. - Rockefeller Rd. 
 
 
 
 South part 
 
 
 McCormick Dr. - Turicum Rd. 
 
 
 
 1987 
 
 
 Westleigh Rd. - Circle Ln. 
 
 
 
 Corridor 5 
 
 R35 10-407 
 
 Linden Ave. - Sheridan Rd. 
 
 0.006 
 
 7 
 
 Highland 
 
 
 Beech St. - Sheridan Rd. 
 
 
 
 Park 
 
 
 Beech St. - Wade St. 
 
 
 
 1987 
 
 
 Laurel Ave. - Lake Ave. 
 (west intersection) 
 
 
 
 171 
 
APPENDIX G 
 
 ANNOTATED LIST OF ARC/INFO COMMANDS 
 
 Appendix G Explanation 
 
 This appendix is an annotated list of the specific ARC/INFO commands that were used 
 to carry out the procedures described in Part 3 of the report text. Unless otherwise 
 indicated, all commands listed are commands used within the Arcedit module of 
 ARC/INFO. Commands used within the Arc module of ARC/INFO are preceded by the 
 notation (Arc). Commands used within the INFO module are preceded by the notation 
 (INFO). Basic commands such as DRAW and MAPEXTENT have not been listed. It 
 should also be noted that although these procedures were carried out for both 
 shorelines and blufflines, for simplicity the term "shoreline" is used in the discussion 
 that follows. 
 
 CREATION OF NEW GROUND CONTROL POINTS (page 58) 
 
 Commands for adding a tic at the extension of Sheridan Road and the Chicaao and 
 North Western Railroad tracks. Corridor 3. 
 
 EDITFEATURE ARC 
 ADD 
 INTERSECT ALL 
 
 Establishes arcs as the feature to be added. 
 
 Adds the extension. 
 
 Indicates that nodes are to be created 
 wherever arcs cross. 
 
 SELECT 
 
 Selects either the railroad track arc or the 
 Sheridan Road arc. 
 
 MOVE 
 
 The arc is not actually going to be moved, 
 but this "pseudo move", in which the arc is 
 selected, creates a node at the 
 intersection. 
 
 SELECT 
 
 SETANGLE -30 
 
 Selects southern arc segment. 
 
 Sets the rotation angle to be 30 degrees. 
 The negative sign indicates a clockwise 
 rotation. 
 
 172 
 
Appendix G (continued) 
 
 ROTATE 
 
 Rotates the arc into position coincident 
 with the railroad tracks, with the 
 intersection as the pivot point. 
 
 Commands for adding a tic at the intersection of the Chicago and North Western 
 Railroad tracks and the ephemeral stream located west of Sheridan Road and Clark 
 Avenue. Corridor 3. 
 
 EDITFEATURE LABEL 
 
 ADD 
 
 EDITFEATURE LABEL 
 
 COORDINATE KEYBOARD 
 
 EDITFEATURE ARC 
 ARCTYPE CIRCLE 
 ADD 
 
 Indicates that points, or labels, are the 
 feature to be added. 
 
 Adds points at each of the three 
 intersections. The X-Y coordinates of each 
 point, in feet, were recorded during the add 
 process. 
 
 Establishes that points, or labels, will be 
 added. 
 
 Adds circumference points at the keyboard 
 using the calculated coordinates. 
 
 Indicates that arcs will be added. 
 
 Indicates that circles will be added. 
 
 Adds circles using the center and 
 circumference points. 
 
 RUBBER SHEETING (page 68) 
 
 Commands to establish coverage to be rubber sheeted 
 
 EDITCOVERAGE coverage 
 
 DRAWENVIRONMENT ARC 
 NODE LINK 
 
 NODESNAP CLOSEST 
 
 Establishes the coverage to be rubber 
 sheeted (historical map or aerial photograph 
 coverage). 
 
 Draws lines, their intersections, 
 and the link vectors which will be added. 
 
 Forces nodes (line intersections) to remain 
 constant in position unless specifically 
 
 173 
 
EDITFEATURE LINK 
 
 Appendix G (continued) 
 
 moved by the rubber sheeting procedure. 
 
 Indicates that links are the feature to be 
 edited or added. 
 
 Commands to establish reference coverage 
 SNAPCOVERAGE dlgcoverage 
 
 SNAPPING CLOSEST 50 
 
 BACKCOVERAGE dlgcoverage 
 
 BACKENVIRONMENT ARC 
 
 LINKFEATURE NODE NODE 
 
 Commands for adding links 
 ADD 
 
 Commands for rubber sheeting 
 LIMITADJUST BOX 
 
 ADJUST 
 
 Establishes the DLG coverage as the digital 
 reference map to which the historical 
 coverage will be rubber sheeted 
 ("snapped"). 
 
 Searches within a radius of 50 feet for the 
 snapping feature. 
 
 Puts the snapping coverage on the screen 
 where it can be seen. 
 
 Draws snap coverage lines. 
 
 Indicates that nodes (road intersections) on 
 the historical coverage will be linked, or 
 snapped to, nodes (road intersections) on 
 the DLG reference maps. 
 
 Allows addition of links. By establishing 
 LINKFEATURE NODE NODE, only vector 
 endpoints coincident with nodes are 
 allowed to be added. 
 
 Establishes a zero-adjustment box around 
 those features to be rubber sheeted. 
 
 Performs the actual rubber sheeting 
 operations. 
 
 174 
 
Appendix G (continued) 
 GENERATION OF TRANSECTS (page 85) 
 
 Commands to establish baseline 
 
 EDITFEATURE ARC 
 
 ADD 
 
 Indicates that arcs (lines) are the feature to 
 be edited or added. 
 
 Adds the new arc. 
 
 Commands to establish first transect line 
 SELECT baseline-arc 
 COPY PARALLEL 
 
 SETANGLE -90 
 
 ROTATE 
 
 SELECT baseline-arc 
 
 DELETE 
 
 (Arc) BUILD < transects > LINE 
 
 Selects the digitized baseline arc. 
 
 Generates the first transect in a position 
 coincident with the baseline arc. 
 
 Sets the rotation angle at 90 degrees 
 clockwise. 
 
 Rotates the first transect 90 degrees into 
 its correct position, using the north end as 
 a pivot point. 
 
 Selects the baseline arc. 
 
 Deletes the baseline arc. 
 
 Renumbers the arcs so that the 
 northernmost transect has $RECNO = 1; 
 creates an arc attribute table (.AAT). 
 
 (Arc) BUILD < transects > NODE Creates a node attribute table (.NAT). 
 
 Commands to establish additional transect lines 
 
 SELECT first-transect-arc Selects the first transect. 
 
 COPY PARALLEL 1 50 
 
 Makes a copy of the selected transect 
 parallel and 1 50 feet to the south of the 
 first one; this is the second transect, and it 
 becomes the next selected arc 
 
 175 
 
Appendix G (continued) 
 
 automatically. 
 
 COPY PARALLEL 1 50 Creates the third transect 1 50 feet south 
 
 of the second transect. 
 
 Repeat until all transects are generated (35 transects per one-mile corridor). 
 
 Commands for attributing transects 
 
 (Arc) ADDITEM transects.AAT Adds the item CODE to the arc attribute 
 transects. AAT CODE 3 3 i table (AAT) of the transects coverage, with 
 
 input and output width 3 characters each, 
 and defined as an integer item ("i"). 
 
 (Arc) ADDITEM transects.AAT Adds the item YEAR to the AAT of the 
 
 transects.AAT YEAR 4 4 i transects coverage, with input and output 
 
 width 4 characters each, and defined as an 
 integer item. 
 
 (Arc) ADDITEM transects. NAT As above, but adds CODE to the node 
 transects. NAT CODE 3 3 i attribute table (.NAT). 
 
 (Arc) ADDITEM transects.NAT Adds YEAR to the NAT. 
 transects. NAT YEAR 4 4 i 
 
 Commands to add transects to shoreline/bluffline coverage 
 
 EDITCOVERAGE < transects > Selects transect coverage to edit. 
 
 EDITFEATURE ARC Indicates that arcs will be edited and 
 
 added. 
 
 CALCULATE YEAR = year Calculates the item YEAR to be equal for 
 
 the shoreline year being intersected. 
 
 INTERSECT ALL Indicates that the arc that will be added to 
 
 the transect coverage (the shoreline) will 
 be intersected with pre-existing coverage 
 arcs (the transects). 
 
 GET shorelinecover Brings in the shoreline arc, determining 
 
 176 
 
Appendix G (continued) 
 
 SELECT BOX 
 
 DELETE 
 
 EDITFEATURE NODE 
 SELECT BOX 
 
 DELETE 
 
 each shoreline-transect intersection as the 
 shoreline is copied in. 
 
 Selects all arcs lying entirely inside a box 
 that is drawn around the arcs to be 
 deleted. (See Figure 12 for a diagram of 
 which arcs are deleted in this step.) 
 
 Deletes the arcs. 
 
 Sets nodes as the feature to be deleted. 
 
 Selects all nodes lying entirely inside a box 
 that is drawn around the nodes to be 
 deleted. (See Figure 12 for a diagram of 
 which nodes are deleted in this step.) 
 
 Deletes the nodes. 
 
 Commands for attributing transects 
 EDITCOVERAGE transectcover 
 EDITFEATURE ARC 
 SELECT ALL 
 CALCULATE YEAR = year 
 
 Selects transects to edit. 
 
 Sets arcs as the feature to attribute. 
 
 Selects all arcs. 
 
 Calculates the .AAT item YEAR equal to 
 the year of the shoreline. 
 
 CALCULATE CODE = $RECNO + Calculates the .AAT item CODE equal to 
 100 (200, 300, 400, 500) the $RECNO (which is numbered from 1 to 
 
 35) plus the appropriate number for the 
 corridor being edited. 
 
 EDITFEATURE NODE 
 
 SELECT BOX 
 
 CALCULATE YEAR = year 
 
 Sets nodes as the feature to attribute. 
 
 Selects all nodes inside a box that is drawn 
 around the nodes of interest. (In Figure 
 1 2, these are the shoreline-transect nodes.) 
 
 Calculates the .NAT item YEAR equal to 
 
 177 
 
SELECT ALL 
 
 Appendix G (continued) 
 
 the year of the shoreline. 
 Selects all nodes. 
 
 CALCULATE CODE = ARC# 
 + 100 (200, 300,400, 500) 
 
 Calculates the .NAT item CODE equal to the 
 the ARC# (which is numbered from 1 to 
 35) plus the appropriate number for the 
 corridor being edited. 
 
 Preparing the transect coverages and associated files for input into program 
 
 (Arc) BUILD transectcover LINE Builds the coverage as a line coverage. 
 
 (Arc) ADDXY transectcover NODE Adds the X and Y coordinates of each node 
 
 to the coverage .NAT. These items are 
 named X-COORD and Y-COORD. 
 
 (Arc) ADDITEM Adds the item RECNO to the transect 
 
 transectcover. NAT coverage .NAT, defined as an 8-character 
 
 transectcover. NAT RECNO 8 8 i integer item. 
 
 (INFO) SELECT 
 transectcover . NAT 
 
 (INFO) CALCULATE RECNO = 
 $RECNO 
 
 (INFO) OUTPUT transectfile 
 
 (INFO) PRINT X-COORD, 
 Y-COORD 
 
 (Arc) &RUN LAM-GEO.AML 
 transectfile 
 
 Selects the node attribute table. 
 
 Calculates the added .NAT item RECNO to 
 be equal to the internal item $RECNO. 
 
 Opens a new output file, into which the X- 
 Y coordinates of the nodes will be put. 
 
 The values of the X and Y coordinates are 
 output into the transect file. 
 
 Runs a small AML (Arc Macro Language) 
 program, given in Appendix J, to convert 
 the X-Y coordinates in Lambert feet to 
 latitude and longitude in degrees-minutes- 
 seconds format. Outputs the file 
 transect. geo. 
 
 178 
 
Appendix G (continued) 
 
 (INFO) DEFINE file.DEG 
 
 (INFO) BLANK, 2, 2, C 
 (INFO) Y, 12, 12, C 
 (INFO) BLANK2, 3, 3, C 
 (INFO) X, 12, 12, C 
 
 Defines a new INFO file to contain the 
 projected coordinates. 
 
 Sets up the INFO file to contain the X and 
 Y coordinates separated by blank fields. X 
 and Y are switched in this step so that 
 latitude (Y in the Lambert projection) will 
 be presented before longitude. 
 
 (INFO) GET transect.geo COPY 
 ASCII 
 
 Places the X and Y coordinates, in latitude 
 and longitude, into file.deg. 
 
 (Arc) ADDITEM file.DEG file.DEG Adds the item RECNO to the latitude- 
 
 RECNO 8 8 i 
 
 longitude file. This will be the relate item 
 for this file. 
 
 (INFO) SELECT file.DEG 
 
 Selects the latitude-longitude file. 
 
 (INFO) CALCULATE RECNO = 
 $RECNO 
 
 Calculates the added item RECNO to be 
 equal to the internal item $RECNO. 
 
 CHANGE transectprogram 
 
 RUN transectprogram 
 
 Enters edit mode to allow insertion of 
 correct filenames. The program was edited 
 and re-run for each shoreline and bluffline 
 coverage. 
 
 Runs the transect program with all related 
 datafiles. 
 
 179 
 
APPENDIX H 
 
 CONTROL POINTS FOR RUBBER SHEETING 
 
 Appendix H Explanation 
 
 This appendix lists intersections used as link-vector endpoints for rubber sheeted 
 corridors. All intersections tested for stability are listed. Intersections used for rubber 
 sheeting (links 40 feet or longer) are highlighted. If no intersections are highlighted, 
 rubber sheeting was not performed for that corridor for that year. 
 
 Corridor 1: North Point, 1872. 
 
 Link intersection 
 
 Link length 
 (feet) 
 
 Russell Rd. - Chicago and North 
 Western Railroad tracks 
 
 19.1 
 
 1 7th St. - Chicago and North Western 
 Railroad tracks 
 
 8.4 
 
 Sheridan Rd. - 9th St. 
 
 18.7 
 
 Russell Rd. - Sheridan Rd. 
 
 14.5 
 
 
 Corridor 1 : North Point, 1 909-1 1 . 
 
 Link intersection 
 
 Link length 
 (feet) 
 
 Russell Rd. - Chicago and North 
 Western Railroad tracks 
 
 11.2 
 
 1 7th St. - Chicago and North Western 
 Railroad tracks 
 
 39.0 
 
 Russell Rd. - Sheridan Rd. 
 
 15.7 
 
 Main St. - Chicago and North Western 
 
 62.9 
 
 Railroad tracks 
 
 
 Sheridan Rd. - 29th St. 
 
 20.8 
 
 29th St. - Chicago and North Western 
 Railroad tracks 
 
 21.4 
 
 180 
 
Appendix H (continued) 
 
 Corridor 1 : North Point, 1 947 
 
 Link intersection 
 
 Link length 
 (feet) 
 
 3rd St. - Oakdale Ave. 
 
 19.2 
 
 3rd St. - Sheridan Rd. 
 
 8.9 
 
 Main St. - Sheridan Rd. 
 
 7.0 
 
 Main St. - Franklin Ave. 
 
 8.5 
 
 Main St. - Lake Shore Rd. 
 
 13.5 
 
 Sheridan Rd. - Russell Rd. 
 
 25.2 
 
 
 Corridor 1: North Point, 1987 
 
 Link intersection 
 
 Link length 
 (feet) 
 
 Unnamed intersection approx. 1 600' 
 north of IL-WI state line and 4300' east 
 of Wl Hwy. 32 
 
 5.5 
 
 3rd St. - Oakdale Ave. 
 
 25.0 
 
 Irene St. - Steven St. 
 
 11.1 
 
 Main St. - Rd. approx. 1000' west of 
 Irene St. 
 
 27.4 
 
 181 
 
Appendix H (continued) 
 
 Corridor 2: Waukegan Harbor, 1873. 
 
 Link intersection 
 
 Link length 
 (feet) 
 
 North Ave. - Glen Flora Ave. 
 
 23.1 
 
 Sheridan Rd. - Glen Flora Ave. 
 
 46.2 
 
 Utica St. - South Ave. 
 
 12.2 
 
 10th St. -Sheridan Rd. 
 
 85.6 
 
 
 
 Genessee St. - Clayton St. 
 
 55.0 
 
 Julian St. - Hickory St. 
 
 17.7 
 
 Genessee St. - Liberty St. 
 
 20.1 
 
 Greenwood Ave. - North Ave. 
 
 54.8 
 
 Extension of Greenwood Ave. - 
 Chicago and North Western Railroad 
 tracks 
 
 16.3 
 
 Northwest St. - Julian St. 
 
 14.2 
 
 Utica St. - Julian St. 
 
 25.9 
 
 Franklin St. - County St. 
 
 56.2 
 
 Franklin St. - North Ave. (south 
 intersection) 
 
 16.0 
 
 Utica St. - Madison St. 
 
 27.9 
 
 Clayton St. - County St. 
 
 25.0 
 
 Cory Ave. - Sheridan Rd. 
 
 81.6 
 
 Cory Ave. - North Ave. 
 
 32.0 
 
 Cory Ave. - County St. 
 
 45.7 
 
 Julian St. - Genessee St. 
 
 59.7 
 
 Porter St. - Ash St. 
 
 38.0 
 
 182 
 
Appendix H (continued) 
 
 Corridor 2: Waukegan Harbor, 1910-11. 
 
 Link intersection 
 
 Link length 
 (feet) 
 
 North Ave. - Glen Flora Ave. 
 
 23.0 
 
 Sheridan Rd. - Glen Flora Ave. 
 
 31.9 
 
 Utica St. - South Ave. 
 
 19.6 
 
 Genessee St. - Clayton St. 
 
 10.8 
 
 Julian St. - Hickory St. 
 
 24.4 
 
 Genessee St. - Liberty St. 
 
 18.5 
 
 Greenwood Ave. - Chicago and North 
 Western Railroad tracks 
 
 12.7 
 
 County St. - Washington St. 
 
 29.7 
 
 Corridor 2: Waukegan Harbor, 1947. Not enough roads were digitized in the corridor 
 for rubber sheeting. See text, page 81 , for discussion. 
 
 Corridor 2: Waukegan Harbor, 1987 
 
 Link intersection 
 
 Link length 
 (feet) 
 
 
 62.8 
 
 black intersection on atlas map 
 
 12.9 
 
 Northwest St. - Madison St. 
 
 37.2 
 
 Madison St. -Pershing Rd. 
 
 51.1 
 
 Liberty St. - Sheridan Rd. 
 
 16.5 
 
 183 
 
Appendix H (continued) 
 
 Corridor 3: Lake Bluff, 1873. 
 
 Link intersection 
 
 Link length 
 (feet) 
 
 10th St. - Sheridan Rd. 
 
 20.4 
 
 Lake Rd. - Spruce Ave. 
 
 21.9 
 
 Extension of Blodgett Ave. - Chicago 
 and North Western Railroad tracks 
 
 144.4 
 
 
 Corridor 3: Lake Bluff, 1910-11. 
 
 Link intersection 
 
 Link length 
 (feet) 
 
 Farragut Ave. - Sampson Rd. 
 
 1.3 
 
 Perry St. - Decatur Ave. 
 
 8.4 
 
 Dewey Ave. - Perry St. 
 
 14.8 
 
 Walnut Ave. - North Ave. 
 
 14.9 
 
 Maple Ave. - Scranton Ave. 
 
 20.4 
 
 Lake Rd. - Spruce Ave. 
 
 106.7 
 
 Scranton Ave. - Simpson Ave. 
 
 17.4 
 
 Scranton Ave. - Sunrise Ave. 
 
 11.4 
 
 Prospect Ave. - Evanston Ave. 
 
 30.0 
 
 Corridor 3: Lake Bluff, 1947. No roads were digitized in the corridor, so no rubber 
 sheeting was possible. See text, page 81, for discussion. 
 
 Corridor 3: Lake Bluff, 1987. Not enough roads were digitized in the corridor for 
 rubber sheeting. See text, page 81 , for discussion. 
 
 184 
 
Appendix H (continued) 
 
 Corridor 4: Lake Forest, 1873. 
 
 Link intersection 
 
 Link length 
 (feet) 
 
 Maplewood Rd. - Sheridan Rd. 
 
 41.5 
 
 Deerpath Ave. -Washington Rd. 
 
 45.5 
 
 Deerpath Ave. - McKinley Rd. 
 
 14.3 
 
 Westminster Ave. - Woodbine PI. 
 
 25.2 
 
 Woodland Rd. - Elm Tree Rd. 
 
 25.0 
 
 Illinois Rd. - Oakwood Ave. 
 
 15.9 
 
 Deerpath Ave. - Bank Ln. 
 
 16.4 
 
 Lake Rd. - Westminster Ave. 
 
 36.1 
 
 Illinois Rd. - McKinley Rd. 
 
 19.8 
 
 Illinois Rd. - Washington Circle 
 
 28.2 
 
 Rosemary Rd. - Washington Rd. 
 
 56.0 
 
 Illinois Rd. - Sheridan Rd. 
 
 45.5 
 
 Sheridan Rd. -Green Briar Ln. 
 
 53.2 
 
 Lake Rd. - Spruce Ave. 
 
 11.6 
 
 185 
 
Appendix H (continued) 
 
 Corridor 4: Lake Forest, 1910-11 
 
 Link intersection 
 
 Link length 
 (feet) 
 
 Lake Rd. - Spruce Ave. 
 
 13.9 
 
 Deerpath Ave. - Chicago and North 
 Western Railroad tracks 
 
 49.6 
 
 Illinois Rd. - Washington Rd. 
 
 4.9 
 
 Lake Rd. - Spring Ln. 
 
 28.9 
 
 Illinois Rd. - Stonegate Rd. 
 
 17.0 
 
 Western Ave. - Ryan Place 
 
 57.5 
 
 Sheridan Rd. - Westleigh Rd. 
 
 48.2 
 
 Westleigh Rd. - Chicago and North 
 Western Railroad tracks 
 
 16.4 
 
 McArthur Loop - Leonard Wood Ave. 
 
 36.1 
 
 Whistler Rd. - Lyster Rd. 
 
 17.0 
 
 Nicholson Rd. - George Bell Rd. 
 
 50.2 
 
 186 
 
Appendix H (continued) 
 
 Corridor 4: Lake Forest, 1 947 
 
 Link intersection 
 
 Link length 
 (feet) 
 
 George Bell Rd. - 12th Rd. 
 
 13.2 
 
 12th Rd. - Haley Army Heliport access 
 rd. 
 
 14.7 
 
 George Bell Rd. - Vattman Rd. 
 
 16.5 
 
 Westleigh Rd. - Walden Ln. (eastern 
 intersection) 
 
 22.1 
 
 Northmoor Rd. - Sheridan Rd. 
 
 11.9 
 
 Maywood Rd. - Highview Terrace 
 
 27.2 
 
 Greenview Place - Winston Rd. 
 
 29.4 
 
 Wooded Ln. - Green Briar Ln. 
 
 15.6 
 
 Illinois Rd. - Mayflower Rd. 
 
 25.4 
 
 McCaskey Rd. - Burkhardt Rd. 
 
 25.2 
 
 Illinois Rd. - Stonegate Rd. 
 
 15.4 
 
 
 Corridor 4: Lake Forest, 1987 
 
 Link intersection 
 
 Link length 
 (feet) 
 
 Greenview Place - Winston Rd. 
 
 26.0 
 
 Northmoor Rd. - Sheridan Rd. 
 
 11.9 
 
 Illinois Rd. - Mayflower Rd. 
 
 23.9 
 
 McCormick Dr. - Turicum Rd. 
 
 9.7 
 
 Maplewood Rd. - Mayflower Rd. 
 
 36.7 
 
 Maplewood Rd. - Sheridan Rd. 
 
 36.5 
 
 Westleigh Rd. - Circle Ln. 
 
 13.1 
 
 187 
 
Appendix H (continued) 
 
 Corridor 5: Highland Park, 1873 
 
 Link intersection 
 
 Link length 
 (feet) 
 
 Roger Williams Ave. - Dean Ave. - 
 Judson Ave. 
 
 28.4 
 
 St. Johns Ave. - Vine Ave. 
 
 23.5 
 
 Laurel Ave. - Prospect Ave, 
 
 48.8 
 
 Elm Place - Linden Ave. 
 
 49.5 
 
 Roger Williams Ave. - Sheridan Rd. 
 
 25.6 
 
 Roger Williams Ave. - Rice St. 
 
 3.5 
 
 Vine Ave. - Egandale Rd. 
 
 48.2 
 
 Linden Ave. - Ravine Dr. 
 
 49.9 
 
 188 
 
Appendix H (continued) 
 
 Corridor 5: Highland Park, 1910-11 
 
 Link intersection 
 
 Link length 
 (feet) 
 
 Roger Williams Ave. - Dean Ave. - 
 Judson Ave. 
 
 37.2 
 
 Laurel Ave. - Linden Ave. 
 
 18.5 
 
 St. Johns Ave. - Vine Ave. 
 
 24.2 
 
 
 
 Vine Ave. - Sheridan Rd. 
 
 42.8 
 
 Ravine Dr. - Sheridan Rd. 
 
 24.1 
 
 Lincoln Ave. - Linden Ave. 
 
 34.1 
 
 Beech St. - Sheridan Rd. 
 
 7.7 
 
 Beech St. - Wade St. 
 
 8.0 
 
 Lincoln Ave. - Ridgewood Dr. 
 
 28.2 
 
 Waverly Rd. - Sheridan Rd. (north 
 intersection) 
 
 15.5 
 
 Forest Ave. - Sheridan Rd. 
 
 24.6 
 
 Ravine Dr. - Forest Ave. 
 
 27.3 
 
 Hazel Ave. - Linden Ave. 
 
 20.4 
 
 Lake Ave. - Prospect Ave. 
 
 28.6 
 
 Laurel Ave. - Dale Ave. 
 
 6.8 
 
 Orchard Ln. - St. Johns Ave. 
 
 38.9 
 
 Waukegan Ave. - Temple Ave. 
 
 32.1 
 
 Vine Ave. - Egandale Rd. 
 
 18.4 
 
 189 
 
Appendix H (continued) 
 
 Corridor 5: Highland Park, 1947 (Northern portion) 
 
 Link intersection 
 
 Link length (feet) 
 
 Waverly Rd. - Sheridan Rd. (south int.) 
 
 31.2 
 
 Forest Ave. - Sheridan Rd. 
 
 38.6 
 
 Forest Ave. - Lincoln Ave. 
 
 27.8 
 
 Linden Ave. - Sheridan Rd. 
 
 24.8 
 
 Ravine Dr. - Forest Ave. 
 
 14.7 
 
 Ravine Dr. - Linden Ave. 
 
 11.6 
 
 Lake Ave. - Laurel Ave. 
 
 16.2 
 
 Laurel Ave. - Linden Ave. 
 
 5.8 
 
 
 Corridor 5: Highland Park, 1947 (Southern portion) 
 
 Link intersection 
 
 Link length (feet) 
 
 Forest Ave. - Beech St. 
 
 19.0 
 
 Roger Williams Ave. - Rice St. 
 
 15.9 
 
 
 Corridor 5: Highland Park, 1987 
 
 Link intersection 
 
 Link length (feet) 
 
 Linden Ave. - Sheridan Rd. 
 
 9.2 
 
 Forest Ave. - Sheridan Rd. 
 
 19.9 
 
 Beech St. - Sheridan Rd. 
 
 17.4 
 
 Beech St. - Wade St. 
 
 12.8 
 
 Linden Ave. - Cedar Ave. 
 
 16.6 
 
 Prospect Ave. - Forest Ave. 
 
 8.4 
 
 Laurel Ave. - Lake Rd. 
 
 6.0 
 
 190 
 
APPENDIX I 
 PLOTFILES COMPRISING THE HISTORICAL LOCATION DATABASE 
 
 Appendix I Explanation 
 
 This appendix contains the plotfiles that comprise the Historical Location Database. 
 The database was generated and stored using the Arcplot module of ARC/INFO Rev. 
 6.0. These plotfiles are also supplied on a 3.5-inch diskette accompanying this report. 
 
 Each of the historical shorelines and blufflines is identified by a unique color and 
 symbol. The oldest and most recent data are shown in black and red respectively as 
 described in the project requirements. The years and corresponding color symbols are: 
 
 Year 
 
 Color 
 
 Svmbol 
 
 1872, 1873 
 
 Black 
 
 Dashed Line 
 
 1909-11, 1910-11 
 
 Green 
 
 Solid Line 
 
 1947 
 
 Blue 
 
 Solid Line 
 
 1987 
 
 Red 
 
 Solid Line 
 
 191 
 
Appendix I (continued) 
 
 CORRIDOR 1: 
 NORTH POINT 
 
 LAKE M1CH1QAK 
 
 EXPLANATION 
 
 872 SHORELINE 
 
 1909-11 SHORELINE 
 
 947 SHORELINE 
 
 987 SHORELINE 
 
 N 
 
 1500 
 
 i_ 
 
 192 
 
Appendix I (continued) 
 
 193 
 
Appendix I (continued) 
 
 CORRIDOR 3: 
 LAKE BLUFF 
 
 LOT U1CHIQJIN 
 
 EXPLANATION 
 
 873 SHORELINE 
 
 1910-11 SHORELINE 
 
 947 SHORELINE 
 
 987 SHORELINE 
 
 N 
 
 1500 
 
 i 
 
 3000ft 
 
 194 
 
Appendix I (continued) 
 
 \ \ l 
 \ \ ' ■ 
 \ \ * \ 
 \ V \ 
 
 CORRIDOR 4: 
 
 \ V \ 
 
 \ V \ 
 
 \ V i 
 
 )\ 1 
 I ( \ 
 
 V \ M 
 
 \ v\ 
 
 \ \ v 
 \ \\ v 
 \ \ v 
 \ \ v 
 \ \ * 
 
 LAKE FOREST 
 
 \ a v 
 \ % K 
 
 \\ 
 
 V 
 
 \ \ 
 \ \ 
 
 \V\ LAKE MICHIGAN 
 
 \ \ \ 
 \ \ \\ 
 \ \ a 
 \ \ \\ 
 
 \ \ A 
 \ \ A 
 
 \ \ i 
 \ \ ' \ 
 \ / ' \ 
 \ / \ 1 
 
 M v 
 I M 
 \ '] 
 
 EXPLANATION 
 
 l) ' 
 1\ V 
 \\ P 
 \\\ I 
 
 \l ' 
 \\ ' 
 \ V 
 \ \ 
 
 \ A 
 \ \ 
 
 \ V 
 
 I \\ \ 
 
 \ \\ \ 
 
 I vl 
 
 \ v\ 
 
 1873 SHORELINE 
 
 \ \l x 
 \ \ x 
 \ \ v 
 \ U * 
 \ \\ v 
 
 1910-11 SHORELINE 
 
 \ \l ' 
 \ 1 \ v 
 \ \ \ v 
 \ \ \ v 
 \ 1 \ ^ 
 
 1947 SHORELINE 
 
 \ i \ \ 
 \ 1 [J \ 
 \ \ \ ' 
 \\ \ ' 
 
 1987 SHORELINE 
 
 \\ \ \ 
 \\ \ v 
 \ J ( 
 \ \ l 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 / \ s 
 / \ ( 
 
 \ \ 
 
 i 
 
 J 
 
 1500 
 
 3000ft 
 
 
 
 
 195 
 
Appendix I (continued) 
 
 EXPLANATION 
 
 --- 1873 SHORELINE 
 — 1910-11 SHORELINE 
 1947 SHORELINE 
 1987 SHORELINE 
 
 N 
 
 CORRIDOR 5: 
 HIGHLAND PARK 
 
 600 
 
 3000ft 
 
 i 
 
 196 
 
Appendix I (continued) 
 
 CORRIDOR 3: 
 LAKE BLUFF 
 
 LAKE MICHIGAN 
 
 EXPLANATION 
 
 1873 BLUFFLINE 
 1910-1 1 BLUFFLINE 
 
 947 BLUFFLINE 
 
 987 BLUFFLINE 
 
 N 
 
 600 
 
 i 
 
 3000ft 
 
 i 
 
 197 
 
Appendix I (continued) 
 
 EXPLANATION 
 
 — - 1873 BLUFFLINE 
 
 1910-11 BLUFFLINE 
 
 1947 BLUFFLINE 
 
 987 BLUFFLINE 
 
 N 
 
 600 
 
 i 
 
 CORRIDOR 4: 
 LAKE FOREST 
 
 LAKE MICHIGAN 
 
 198 
 
Appendix I (continued) 
 
 CORRIDOR 5: 
 HIGHLAND PARK 
 
 LAKE MICHIGAN 
 
 EXPLANATION 
 
 1873 BLUFFLINE 
 1910-11 BLUFFLINE 
 
 1947 BLUFFLINE 
 
 987 BLUFFLINE 
 
 N 
 
 1500 
 
 i 
 
 199 
 
APPENDIX J 
 
 COMPUTER PROGRAMS USED IN DATABASE GENERATION 
 
 Appendix J Explanation 
 
 This appendix contains the two programs used in generating the Historical Shoreline 
 Positional Change Database. The first program takes a file containing the X-Y 
 coordinates of the shoreline-transect and spine-transect interceptions, in Lambert feet, 
 and converts them to a file containing latitude-longitude coordinates in degrees- 
 minutes-seconds format. The program is written in Arc Macro Language (AMD, a 
 programming language specific to ARC/INFO. 
 
 The second program relates the arc attribute file, the node attribute file, and the 
 latitude-longitude coordinates of the nodes and outputs the shoreline locational data 
 in the required format. It is written using the INFO programming language. 
 
 Conversion program: Lambert feet to latitude and longitude 
 
 &args FILENAME 
 
 &echo &on 
 
 &ab &off 
 
 PROJECT FILE %FILENAME% %FILENAME%.GEO 
 
 INPUT 
 
 PROJECTION LAMBERT 
 
 UNITS FEET 
 
 PARAMETERS 
 
 33 00 00 
 
 45 00 00 
 
 -89 30 00 
 
 33 00 00 
 
 914400 
 
 
 
 OUTPUT 
 
 PROJECTION GEOGRAPHIC 
 
 UNITS DMS 
 
 PARAMETERS 
 
 END 
 
 &echo &off 
 
 &ab &on 
 
 &RETURN 
 
 200 
 
Appendix J (continued) 
 Transect data program: Compilation of transect data in required format 
 
 10000 PROGRAM SECTION ONE 
 
 10001 REM This program will select an .AAT file, relate the .NAT file to it, 
 
 10002 REM and relate to them a third file which contains the degree values 
 
 10003 REM for the location of the end nodes on the transect arcs. 
 
 10004 REM 
 
 10005 FORMAT $CHR1,1,C 
 
 10006 FORMAT $NUM2,2,I 
 
 10007 FORMAT $NUM3,2,I 
 
 10008 FORMAT $NUM4,2,I 
 
 10009 CALC $NUM4 = 60 
 
 10010 MOVE 'Y' TO $CHR1 
 
 10011 FC CREATE 2,132 
 
 10012 FC INIT 1,2 
 
 10013 REM Select the transect arc attribute file 
 
 10014 SEL SH1-1872.AAT 
 
 1001 5 REM Relate it to the transect node attribute file by CODE 
 
 10016 REL SH1-1872.NAT BY CODE 
 
 1 00 1 7 REM Relate both files to the file containing latitude-longitude node coordinates 
 
 10018 REM by the item RECNO 
 
 10019 REL SH1-72.DEG 2 BY $1 RECNO RO 
 
 10020 OUTPUT /FREE3/FEMA/SH1-72.0UT INIT 
 
 20000 PROGRAM SECTION TWO 
 
 20001 IF $CHR1 = 'Y' AND $NUM4 GE 60 
 
 20002 PRI " 
 
 20003 PRI TRAN LATITUDE LONGITUDE YEAR DISTANCE LATITUDE LONGITUDE' 
 
 20004 PRI ' ' 
 
 20005 CALC $NUM4 = 3 
 
 20006 ENDIF 
 
 20007 IF $CHR1 = 'Y' 
 
 20008 FC PUT 1,2,CODE 
 
 20009 FC PUT 1,35,YEAR 
 
 20010 FC PUT 1,41, LENGTH 
 
 20011 MOVE 'N' TO $CHR1 
 
 20012 CALC $NUM2 = 7 
 
 20013 CALC $NUM3 = 21 
 
 20014 ENDIF 
 
 20015 FC PUT 1,$NUM2,$2X 
 
 20016 FC PUT 1,$NUM3,$2Y 
 
 20017 CALC $NUM2 = 55 
 
 20018 CALC $NUM3 = 69 
 
 20019 NEXT 
 
 201 
 
Appendix J (continued) 
 
 Transect data program, continued 
 
 20020 CALC $NUM4 = $NUM4 + 
 
 20021 MOVE 'Y' TO $CHR1 
 
 20022 FC DUMP 
 
 20023 FC INIT 1,2 
 30000 PROGRAM END 
 
 202 
 
APPENDIX K 
 HISTORICAL SHORELINE POSITIONAL CHANGE DATABASE 
 
 Appendix K Explanation 
 
 This appendix is a listing of the Historical Shoreline Positional Change Database. The 
 database has been sorted and edited for clarity of presentation and is not a direct 
 printout of the data on the accompanying 3.5-inch diskette. Shoreline data are 
 presented first for Corridors 1 through 5, followed by bluffline data for Corridors 3 
 through 5. (Corridors 1 and 2 have no coastal bluffs.) Within each corridor, transects 
 are presented from north to south; within each transect, data are given from earliest 
 to most recent. 
 
 Where a transect intersected a bluff that was clearly influenced primarily by fluvial 
 rather than by coastal processes, such as where a transect entered a coast- 
 perpendicular ravine, the distance for that intercept was deleted and replaced by the 
 symbol *** in the bluffline data tables. Where there was some question as to 
 whether the intercepted bluffline was influenced predominantly by fluvial or by coastal 
 processes, the distance presented in the table was not changed. 
 
 It should be noted that for the bluffline data, some transects appear to intersect 
 ravines in some years but not in preceding and/or subsequent years. Reasons for this 
 include mismapped and unmapped ravines on the historical maps, and stereoplotter 
 operator interpretation in delineating ravines on the aerial photographs. 
 
 203 
 
Appendix K (continued) 
 
 SHORELINES FOR CORRIDOR 1 
 
 Transect Latitude and Longitude 
 
 
 Distance 
 
 Code 
 
 of Spine-Transect Intersect 
 
 Year(s) 
 
 (feet) 
 
 101 
 
 42°29'39.90" 
 
 -87°46'47.97" 
 
 1872 
 
 5,410.53 
 
 101 
 
 42°29'39.90" 
 
 -87°46'47.97" 
 
 1909-11 
 
 5,748.00 
 
 101 
 
 42°29'39.90" 
 
 -87°46'47.97" 
 
 1947 
 
 6,017.21 
 
 101 
 
 42°29'39.90" 
 
 -87°46'47.97" 
 
 1987 
 
 6,503.25 
 
 102 
 
 42°29'38.43" 
 
 -87°46'47.68" 
 
 1872 
 
 5,383.69 
 
 102 
 
 42°29'38.43" 
 
 -87°46'47.68" 
 
 1909-11 
 
 5,735.92 
 
 102 
 
 42°29'38.43" 
 
 -87°46'47.68" 
 
 1947 
 
 6,025.80 
 
 102 
 
 42°29'38.43" 
 
 -87°46'47.68" 
 
 1987 
 
 6,520.47 
 
 103 
 
 42°29'36.96" 
 
 -87°46'47.39" 
 
 1872 
 
 5,362.65 
 
 103 
 
 42°29'36.96" 
 
 -87°46'47.39" 
 
 1909-11 
 
 5,730.58 
 
 103 
 
 42°29'36.96" 
 
 -87°46'47.39" 
 
 1947 
 
 6,013.38 
 
 103 
 
 42°29'36.96" 
 
 -87°46'47.39" 
 
 1987 
 
 6,498.40 
 
 104 
 
 42°29'35.48" 
 
 -87°46'47.10" 
 
 1872 
 
 5,347.94 
 
 104 
 
 42°29'35.48" 
 
 -87°46'47.10" 
 
 1909-11 
 
 5,728.32 
 
 104 
 
 42°29 '35.48" 
 
 -87°46'47.10" 
 
 1947 
 
 6.000.97 
 
 104 
 
 42°29'35.48" 
 
 -87°46'47.10" 
 
 1987 
 
 6,480.69 
 
 105 
 
 42°29'34.01" 
 
 -87°46'46.81" 
 
 1872 
 
 5,341.61 
 
 105 
 
 42°29 '34.01" 
 
 -87°46'46.81" 
 
 1909-11 
 
 5,718.16 
 
 105 
 
 42°29 '34.01" 
 
 -87°46'46.81" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,980.46 
 
 105 
 
 42°29 '34.01" 
 
 -87°46'46.81" 
 
 1987 
 
 6,469.02 
 
 106 
 
 42°29'32.54" 
 
 -87°46'46.51" 
 
 1872 
 
 5,329.20 
 
 106 
 
 42°29'32.54" 
 
 -87°46'46.51" 
 
 1909-11 
 
 5,709.29 
 
 106 
 
 42°29'32.54" 
 
 -87°46'46.51" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,960.45 
 
 106 
 
 42°29'32.54" 
 
 -87°46'46.51" 
 
 1987 
 
 6,455.33 
 
 107 
 
 42°29'31.07" 
 
 -87°46'46.23" 
 
 1872 
 
 5,307.41 
 
 107 
 
 42°29'31.07" 
 
 -87°46'46.23" 
 
 1909-11 
 
 5,700.45 
 
 107 
 
 42°29'31.07" 
 
 -87°46'46.23" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,942.94 
 
 107 
 
 42°29 '3 1.07" 
 
 -87°46'46.23" 
 
 1987 
 
 6,414.81 
 
 108 
 
 42°29'29.60" 
 
 -87°46'45.93" 
 
 1872 
 
 5.275.23 
 
 108 
 
 42°29'29.60" 
 
 -87°46'45.93" 
 
 1909-11 
 
 5.692.77 
 
 108 
 
 42°29'29.60" 
 
 -87°46'45.93" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,929.25 
 
 108 
 
 42°29'29.60" 
 
 -87°46'45.93" 
 
 1987 
 
 6,379.05 
 
 109 
 
 42°29'28.13" 
 
 -87°46'45.65" 
 
 1872 
 
 5,257.72 
 
 109 
 
 42°29'28.13" 
 
 -87°46'45.65" 
 
 1909-11 
 
 5,675.34 
 
 109 
 
 42°29'28.13" 
 
 -87°46'45.65" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,895.06 
 
 109 
 
 42°29'28.13" 
 
 -87°46'45.65" 
 
 1987 
 
 6,343.58 
 
 Latitude and Longitude 
 of Transect-Shoreline Intersect 
 
 42°29'32.12" -87°47'59.70" 
 
 42°29'31 .65" -87°48'04.1 7" 
 
 42°29'31.25" -87°48'07.73" 
 
 42°29'30.56" -87°48'14.18" 
 
 42°29'30.70" -87°47'59.05" 
 
 42°29'30.18" -87°48'03.71" 
 
 42°29'29.77" -87°48'07.55" 
 
 42°29'29.06" -87°48*14.11" 
 
 42°29'29.25" -87°47'58.47" 
 
 42°29'28.72" -87°48'03.35" 
 
 42°29'28.32" -87°48'07.09" 
 
 42°29'27.62" -87°48'13.53" 
 
 42°29'27.80" -87°47'57.98" 
 
 42°29'27.25" -87°48'03.03" 
 
 42°29'26.86" -87°48'06.65" 
 
 42°29'26.17" -87°48'13.00" 
 
 42°29'26.34" -87°47'57.62" 
 
 42°29'25.80" -87°48'02.60" 
 
 42°29'25.42" -87°48'06.08" 
 
 42°29'24.71" -87°48'12.56" 
 
 42°29'24.89" -87°47'57.16" 
 
 42°29'24.34" -87°48'02.20" 
 
 42°29'23.97" -87°48'05.53" 
 
 42°29'23.27" -87°48' 12.09" 
 
 42°29'23.44" -87"47'56.58" 
 
 42°29'22.88" -87°48'01.78" 
 
 42"29'22.53" -87°48'05.00" 
 
 42°29'21.85" -87°48'11.25" 
 
 42°29'22.02" -87°47'55.85" 
 
 42°29'21.43" -87°48'01 .39" 
 
 42°29'21.08" -87°48'04.53" 
 
 42°29'20.43" -87°48'10.48" 
 
 42°29'20.58" -87°47'55.34" 
 
 42°29'19.97" -87°48'00.87" 
 
 42°29'19.65" -87"48'03.78" 
 
 42°29'19.01" -87°48'09.73" 
 
 204 
 
Appendix K (continued) 
 Shorelines for Corridor 1 (continued) 
 
 Transact Latitude and Longituda 
 Coda of Spine-Transect Intersect 
 
 110 
 
 42°29'26.65" 
 
 -87°46'45.35" 
 
 110 
 
 42°29'26.65" 
 
 -87 46'45.35" 
 
 110 
 
 42°29'26.65" 
 
 -87°46'45.35" 
 
 110 
 
 42°29'26.65" 
 
 -87°46'45.35" 
 
 111 
 
 42°29'25.18" 
 
 -87°46'45.07" 
 
 111 
 
 42°29'25.18" 
 
 -87°46'45.07" 
 
 111 
 
 42°29'25.18" 
 
 -87°46'45.07" 
 
 111 
 
 42°29'25.18" 
 
 -87°46'45.07" 
 
 112 
 
 42°29'23.71" 
 
 -87°46'44.77" 
 
 112 
 
 42°29 '23.71" 
 
 -87°46'44.77" 
 
 112 
 
 42°29'23.71" 
 
 -87°46'44.77" 
 
 112 
 
 42°29'23.71" 
 
 -87°46'44.77" 
 
 113 
 
 42°29'22.24" 
 
 -87°46'44.49" 
 
 113 
 
 42°29'22.24" 
 
 -87°46'44.49" 
 
 113 
 
 42°29'22.24" 
 
 -87°46'44.49" 
 
 113 
 
 42°29'22.24" 
 
 -87°46'44.49" 
 
 114 
 
 42°29'20.77" 
 
 -87°46'44.19" 
 
 114 
 
 42°29'20.77" 
 
 -87°46'44.19" 
 
 114 
 
 42°29'20.77" 
 
 -87°46'44.19" 
 
 114 
 
 42°29'20.77" 
 
 -87°46'44.19" 
 
 115 
 
 42°29'19.30" 
 
 -87°46'43.91" 
 
 115 
 
 42°29' 19.30" 
 
 -87°46*43.91" 
 
 115 
 
 42°29'19.30" 
 
 -87°46'43.91" 
 
 115 
 
 42°29'19.30" 
 
 -87°46'43.91" 
 
 116 
 
 42°29'17.82" 
 
 -87°46'43.61" 
 
 116 
 
 42°29'17.82" 
 
 -87°46'43.61" 
 
 116 
 
 42°29'17.82" 
 
 -87°46'43.61" 
 
 116 
 
 42°29'17.82" 
 
 -87°46'43.61" 
 
 117 
 
 42°29'16.35" 
 
 -87°46'43.32" 
 
 117 
 
 42°29'16.35" 
 
 -87°46'43.32" 
 
 117 
 
 42°29'16.35" 
 
 -87°46'43.32" 
 
 117 
 
 42°29' 16.35" 
 
 -87°46'43.32" 
 
 118 
 
 42°29' 14.88" 
 
 -87°46'43.03" 
 
 118 
 
 42°29' 14.88" 
 
 -87°46'43.03" 
 
 118 
 
 42°29' 14.88" 
 
 -87°46'43.03" 
 
 118 
 
 42°29'14.88" 
 
 -87"46'43.03" 
 
 119 
 
 42°29'13.41" 
 
 -87°46'42.73" 
 
 119 
 
 42°29'13.41" 
 
 -87°46'42.73" 
 
 119 
 
 42°29'13.41" 
 
 -87°46'42.73" 
 
 119 
 
 42°29'13.41" 
 
 -87°46'42.73" 
 
 Yaar(s) 
 
 1872 
 1909-11 
 1947 
 1987 
 
 1872 
 1909-11 
 1947 
 1987 
 
 1872 
 1909-11 
 1947 
 1987 
 
 1872 
 1909-11 
 1947 
 1987 
 
 1872 
 1909-11 
 1947 
 1987 
 
 1872 
 1909-11 
 1947 
 1987 
 
 1872 
 1909-11 
 1947 
 1987 
 
 1872 
 1909-11 
 1947 
 1987 
 
 1872 
 1909-11 
 1947 
 1987 
 
 1872 
 1909-11 
 1947 
 1987 
 
 Distance 
 (faat) 
 
 5.245.56 
 5,671.56 
 5,868.96 
 6,332.20 
 
 5,257.48 
 5,674.06 
 5,847.67 
 6,304.33 
 
 5,245.81 
 5,665.72 
 5,829.67 
 6,158.84 
 
 5,236.68 
 5,666.21 
 5,815.49 
 6,096.00 
 
 5,211.12 
 5,652.28 
 5,807.39 
 6,241.20 
 
 5,200.23 
 5,624.42 
 5,781.01 
 6,279.22 
 
 5,198.17 
 5,589.69 
 5,761.24 
 6,280.98 
 
 5,184.48 
 5.573.25 
 5.742.74 
 6,282.01 
 
 5,185.76 
 5,573.49 
 5.713.36 
 6,266.81 
 
 5,187.53 
 5,583.11 
 5,696.38 
 6,261.75 
 
 Latitude and Longituda 
 of Transact-Shoreline Intersect 
 
 42°29'19.12" -87°47'54.88" 
 
 42°29'18.51" -87°48'00.52" 
 
 42°29'18.23" -87°48'03.14" 
 
 42°29'17.56" -87°48'09.28" 
 
 42°29' 17.64" 
 42°29' 17.04" 
 42°29' 16.78" 
 42°29'16.12" 
 
 42°29'16.18" 
 42°29' 15.57" 
 42°29'15.34" 
 42°29' 14.86" 
 
 42°29' 14.72" 
 42°29'14.10" 
 42°29'13.88" 
 42°29'13.49" 
 
 -87°47'54.74" 
 -87°48'00.26" 
 -87°48'02.58" 
 -87°48'08.62" 
 
 -87°47'54.30" 
 -87°47'59.87" 
 -87°48'02.04" 
 -87°48'06.40" 
 
 -87°47'53.89" 
 -87°47'59.59" 
 -87°48'01.56" 
 -87°48'05.28" 
 
 42°29'13.28" -87°47'53.26" 
 
 42°29'12.65" -87°47'59.10" 
 
 42°29'12.43" -87°48'01.16" 
 
 42°29'11.80" -87°48'06.91" 
 
 42°29'11.83" -87°47'52.83" 
 
 42°29'11.22" -87°47'58.44" 
 
 42°29'10.99" -87°48'00.52" 
 
 42°29'10.28" -87°48'07.12" 
 
 42°29'10.36" -87°47'52.50" 
 42°29' 9.79" -87°47'57.70" 
 42°29'9.55" -87°47'59.97" 
 42°29' 8.80" -87°48'06.86" 
 
 42°29'8.91" -87°47'52.03" 
 42°29'8.35" -87 47'57.19" 
 42°29'8.10" -87°47'59.43" 
 42°29'7.33" -87°48'06.58" 
 
 42°29'7.43" -87°47'51.76" 
 42°29' 6.88" -87°47'56.89" 
 42°29' 6.67" -87°47'58.74" 
 42°29' 5.88" -87°48'06.08" 
 
 42°29'5.96" -87°47'51.49" 
 42°29'5.39" -87°47'56.73" 
 42°29'5.23" -87°47'58.23" 
 42°29'4.41" -87°48'05.73" 
 
 205 
 
Appendix K (continued) 
 Shorelines for Corridor 1 (continued) 
 
 Transect Latitude and Longitude 
 Code of Spine-Transect Intersect 
 
 120 
 
 42°29' 11.94" 
 
 -87 46'42.45 , 
 
 120 
 
 42°29'11.94" 
 
 -87 46'42.45' 
 
 120 
 
 42°29' 11.94" 
 
 -87°46'42.45' 
 
 120 
 
 42°29' 11.94" 
 
 -87°46'42.45' 
 
 121 
 
 42°29' 10.46" 
 
 -87 46'42.15' 
 
 121 
 
 42°29' 10.46" 
 
 -87 ,> 46'42.15 , 
 
 121 
 
 42°29' 10.46" 
 
 -87°46'42.15* 
 
 121 
 
 42°29' 10.46" 
 
 -87°46'42.15' 
 
 122 
 
 42°29' 8.99" 
 
 -87°46'41.87" 
 
 122 
 
 42°29' 8.99" 
 
 -87°46'41 .87" 
 
 122 
 
 42°29' 8.99" 
 
 -87°46'41.87" 
 
 122 
 
 42°29' 8.99" 
 
 -87°46'41 .87" 
 
 123 
 
 42°29' 7.52" 
 
 -87°46'41.57" 
 
 123 
 
 42°29' 7.52" 
 
 -87°46'41.57" 
 
 123 
 
 42°29' 7.52" 
 
 -87°46'41.57" 
 
 123 
 
 42°29' 7.52" 
 
 -87°46'41 .57" 
 
 124 
 
 42°29' 6.05" 
 
 -87°46'41 .28" 
 
 124 
 
 42°29' 6.05" 
 
 -87°46'41.28" 
 
 124 
 
 42°29' 6.05" 
 
 -87°46'41.28" 
 
 124 
 
 42°29' 6.05" 
 
 -87°46'41.28" 
 
 125 
 
 42°29' 4.58" 
 
 -87°46'40.99" 
 
 125 
 
 42°29' 4.58" 
 
 -87°46'40.99" 
 
 125 
 
 42°29' 4.58" 
 
 -87°46'40.99" 
 
 125 
 
 42°29' 4.58" 
 
 -87°46'40.99" 
 
 126 
 
 42°29' 3.11" 
 
 -87°46'40.70" 
 
 126 
 
 42°29* 3.11" 
 
 -87°46'40.70" 
 
 126 
 
 42°29'3.11" 
 
 -87°46'40.70" 
 
 126 
 
 42°29' 3.11" 
 
 -87°46'40.70" 
 
 127 
 
 42°29' 1.63" 
 
 -87°46'40.41 " 
 
 127 
 
 42°29' 1.63" 
 
 -87°46'40.41" 
 
 127 
 
 42°29' 1 .63" 
 
 -87°46'40.41" 
 
 127 
 
 42°29' 1.63" 
 
 -87°46'40.41" 
 
 128 
 
 42°29'0.16" 
 
 -87°46'40.12" 
 
 128 
 
 42°29'0.16" 
 
 -87°46'40.12" 
 
 128 
 
 42°29'0.16" 
 
 -87°46'40.12" 
 
 128 
 
 42°29'0.16" 
 
 -87°46'40.12" 
 
 129 
 
 42°28'58.69" 
 
 -87°46'39.82" 
 
 129 
 
 42°28'58.69" 
 
 -87°46'39.82" 
 
 129 
 
 42°28'58.69" 
 
 -87°46'39.82" 
 
 129 
 
 42°28'58.69" 
 
 -87°46'39.82" 
 
 Year(s) 
 
 1872 
 1909-11 
 1947 
 1987 
 
 1872 
 1909-11 
 1947 
 1987 
 
 1872 
 1909-11 
 1947 
 1987 
 
 1872 
 1909-11 
 1947 
 1987 
 
 1872 
 1909-11 
 1947 
 1987 
 
 1872 
 1909-11 
 1947 
 1987 
 
 1872 
 1909-11 
 1947 
 1987 
 
 1872 
 1909-11 
 1947 
 1987 
 
 1872 
 1909-11 
 1947 
 1987 
 
 1872 
 1909-11 
 1947 
 1987 
 
 Distance 
 (feet) 
 
 5.172.07 
 5.590.71 
 5,679.41 
 6,249.34 
 
 5,149.26 
 5,595.03 
 5,655.32 
 6,214.36 
 
 5,137.88 
 5,607.93 
 5,646.45 
 6,165.70 
 
 5,138.12 
 5,596.30 
 5,647.23 
 6.115.27 
 
 5,152.55 
 5,615.05 
 5,635.80 
 6,095.01 
 
 5.172.61 
 5.589.19 
 5.642.42 
 6,039.48 
 
 5.170.80 
 5,569.42 
 5,640.65 
 6,047.33 
 
 5,159.41 
 5.551.96 
 5,625.94 
 6,015.44 
 
 5,165.25 
 5,567.16 
 5,624.17 
 6.055.72 
 
 5.149.51 
 5.557.51 
 5,620.59 
 6,050.66 
 
 Latitude and Longitude 
 of Transect-Shoreline Intersect 
 
 42°29'4.51" -87°47'50.99" 
 42°29'3.91" -87°47'56.54" 
 42°29'3.78" -87°47'57.72" 
 42°29' 2.96" -87°48'05.27" 
 
 42°29'3.07" -87°47'50.40" 
 42°29'2.43" -87°47'56.31" 
 42°29'2.35" -87°47'57.1 1" 
 42°29'1.54" -87°48'04.51" 
 
 42°29'1.61" -87°47'49.96" 
 42°29'0.95" -87°47'56.18" 
 42°29'0.88" -87°47'56.69" 
 42°29'0.14" -87°48'03.59" 
 
 42°29'0.14" -87°47'49.67" 
 42°28'59.48" -87°47'55.74" 
 42°28'59.41" -87°47'56.42" 
 42°28'58.74" -87°48'02.62" 
 
 42°28'58.65" 
 42°28'57.98" 
 42°28'57.96" 
 42°28'57.30" 
 
 42°28'57.15" 
 42°28'56.56" 
 42°28'56.48" 
 42°28'55.91" 
 
 42°28'55.68" 
 42°28'55.11" 
 42°28'55.01" 
 42°28'54.43" 
 
 42°28'54.23" 
 42°28'53.67" 
 42°28'53.56" 
 42°28'53.00" 
 
 42°28'52.75" 
 42°28'52.17" 
 42°28'52.09" 
 42°28'51.46" 
 
 42°28'51 .30" 
 42°28'50.71" 
 42°28'50.63" 
 42°28'50.00" 
 
 -87°47'49.57" 
 -87°47'55.70" 
 -87°47'55.98" 
 -87°48'02.06" 
 
 -87°47'49.54" 
 -87°47'55.06" 
 -87°47'55.77" 
 -87°48'01.04" 
 
 -87°47'49.23" 
 -87°47'54.51" 
 -87°47'55.46" 
 -87°48'00.85" 
 
 -87°47'48.78" 
 -87°47'54.00" 
 -87°47'54.98" 
 -87°48'00.14" 
 
 -87°47'48.58" 
 -87°47'53.90" 
 -87°47'54.65" 
 -87°48'00.38" 
 
 -87°47'48.08" 
 -87°47'53.48" 
 -87°47'54.31" 
 -87°48'00.02" 
 
 206 
 
Appendix K (continued) 
 Shorelines for Corridor 1 (continued) 
 
 Transect Latitude and Longitude 
 
 
 Distance 
 
 Latitude and Longitude 
 
 Code 
 
 of Spine-Transect Intersect 
 
 Year(s) 
 
 (feet) 
 
 of Trarwect-Shoreline Intersec 
 
 130 
 
 42°28'57.22" 
 
 -87°46'39.54" 
 
 1872 
 
 5,143.71 
 
 42°28'49.83" 
 
 -87°47'47.70' 
 
 130 
 
 42°28'57.22" 
 
 -87°46'39.54" 
 
 1909-11 
 
 5,538.52 
 
 42°28'49.27" 
 
 -87°47'52.94' 
 
 130 
 
 42°28'57.22" 
 
 -87°46'39.54" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,627.21 
 
 42°28'49.14" 
 
 -87°47'54.1V 
 
 130 
 
 42°28'57.22" 
 
 -87°46'39.54" 
 
 1987 
 
 6,074.99 
 
 42°28'48.49" 
 
 -87°48'00.05' 
 
 131 
 
 42°28'55.75" 
 
 -87°46'39.24" 
 
 1872 
 
 5,151.81 
 
 42°28'48.35" 
 
 -87°47'47.53' 
 
 131 
 
 42°28'55.75" 
 
 -87°46'39.24" 
 
 1909-11 
 
 5,551.42 
 
 42°28'47.78" 
 
 -87°47'52.82' 
 
 131 
 
 42°28'55.75" 
 
 -87°46'39.24" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,620.35 
 
 42°28'47.68" 
 
 -87°47'53.73' 
 
 131 
 
 42°28'55.75" 
 
 -87°46'39.24" 
 
 1987 
 
 6,080.58 
 
 42°28'47.01" 
 
 ^^'Sg^' 
 
 132 
 
 42°28'54.28" 
 
 -87°46'38.96" 
 
 1872 
 
 5,150.04 
 
 42°28'46.88" 
 
 -87°47'47.20' 
 
 132 
 
 42°28'54.28" 
 
 -87°46'38.96" 
 
 1909-11 
 
 5,560.55 
 
 42°28'46.29" 
 
 -87°47'52.64' 
 
 132 
 
 42°28'54.28" 
 
 -87°46'38.96" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,612.25 
 
 42°28'46.22" 
 
 -87 47'53.33• 
 
 132 
 
 42°28'54.28" 
 
 -87°46'38.96" 
 
 1987 
 
 6,114.49 
 
 42°28'45.50" 
 
 -87°47'59.99' 
 
 133 
 
 42°28'52.80" 
 
 -87°46'38.66" 
 
 1872 
 
 5,151.32 
 
 42°28'45.41" 
 
 -87°47'46.93' 
 
 133 
 
 42°28'52.80" 
 
 -87°46'38.66" 
 
 1909-11 
 
 5,571.19 
 
 42°28'44.81" 
 
 -87 47'52.49• 
 
 133 
 
 42°28'52.80" 
 
 -87°46'38.66" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,604.65 
 
 42°28'44.76" 
 
 -87°47'52.94' 
 
 133 
 
 42°28'52.80" 
 
 -87°46'38.66" 
 
 1987 
 
 6,154.03 
 
 42°28'43.97" 
 
 -87 o 48'00.22 , 
 
 134 
 
 42°28'51.33" 
 
 -87°46'38.38" 
 
 1872 
 
 5,161.67 
 
 42°28'43.93" 
 
 -87°47'46.78' 
 
 134 
 
 42°28'51.33" 
 
 -87°46'38.38" 
 
 1909-11 
 
 5.587.43 
 
 42°28'43.31" 
 
 -87°47'52.42' 
 
 134 
 
 42°28'51.33" 
 
 -87°46'38.38" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,607.20 
 
 42°28'43.29" 
 
 -87 47'52.68 , 
 
 134 
 
 42°28'51.33" 
 
 -87°46'38.38" 
 
 1987 
 
 6,183.41 
 
 42°28'42.46" 
 
 -87°48 '00.32' 
 
 135 
 
 42°28'49.86" 
 
 -87°46'38.08" 
 
 1872 
 
 5,162.45 
 
 42°28'42.45" 
 
 -87°47'46.50' 
 
 135 
 
 42°28'49.86" 
 
 -87°46'38.08" 
 
 1909-11 
 
 5,592.48 
 
 42°28'41 .83" 
 
 -87°47'52.19* 
 
 135 
 
 42°28'49.86" 
 
 -87°46'38.08" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,628.48 
 
 42°28'41 .78" 
 
 -87°47'52.68' 
 
 135 
 
 42°28'49.86" 
 
 -87°46'38.08" 
 
 1987 
 
 6,215.10 
 
 42°28'40.93" 
 
 -87°48'00.45" 
 
 207 
 
Appendix K (continued) 
 
 SHORELINES FOR CORRIDOR 2 
 
 Transect Latitude and Longitude 
 
 
 Distance 
 
 Code 
 
 of Spine-Transect Intersect 
 
 Year(s) 
 
 (feet) 
 
 201 
 
 42°22'22.45" 
 
 -87°47'40.95" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,891.05 
 
 201 
 
 42°22'22.45" 
 
 -87°47'40.95" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,452.29 
 
 201 
 
 42°22'22.45" 
 
 -87°47'40.95" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,307.54 
 
 201 
 
 42°22'22.45" 
 
 -87°47'40.95" 
 
 1987 
 
 4,882.79 
 
 202 
 
 42°22'20.96" 
 
 -87°47'41 .00" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,975.30 
 
 202 
 
 42°22'20.96" 
 
 -87°47'41 .00" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,535.79 
 
 202 
 
 42°22'20.96" 
 
 -87°47'41 .00" 
 
 1947 
 
 5.363.04 
 
 202 
 
 42°22'20.96" 
 
 -87°47'41 .00" 
 
 1987 
 
 4,951.54 
 
 203 
 
 42°22'19.48" 
 
 -87°47'41 .05" 
 
 1873 
 
 6,049.30 
 
 203 
 
 42°22'19.48" 
 
 -87°47'41 .05" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,633.29 
 
 203 
 
 42°22'19.48" 
 
 -87°47'41.05" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,413.29 
 
 203 
 
 42°22'19.48" 
 
 -87°47'41.05" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,010.54 
 
 204 
 
 42°22' 17.99" 
 
 -87°47'41 .09" 
 
 1873 
 
 6,146.30 
 
 204 
 
 42°22'17.99" 
 
 -87°47'41 .09" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,693.04 
 
 204 
 
 42°22' 17.99" 
 
 -87°47'41.09" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,455.54 
 
 204 
 
 42°22'17.99" 
 
 -87°47'41 .09" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,068.04 
 
 205 
 
 42°22'16.50" 
 
 -87°47'41.14" 
 
 1873 
 
 6,223.30 
 
 205 
 
 42°22'16.50" 
 
 -87°47'41.14" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5.756.30 
 
 205 
 
 42°22'16.50" 
 
 -87°47'41.14" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,493.04 
 
 205 
 
 42°22'16.50" 
 
 -87°47'41.14" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,118.04 
 
 206 
 
 42°22' 15.02" 
 
 -87°47'41.19" 
 
 1873 
 
 6,302.55 
 
 206 
 
 42°22' 15.02" 
 
 -87°47'41.19" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5.817.05 
 
 206 
 
 42°22' 15.02" 
 
 -87°47'41.19" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,543.29 
 
 206 
 
 42°22' 15.02" 
 
 -87°47'41.19" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,172.29 
 
 207 
 
 42°22'13.53" 
 
 -87°47'41 .23" 
 
 1873 
 
 6,403.55 
 
 207 
 
 42°22'13.53" 
 
 -87°47'41 .23" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,881.05 
 
 207 
 
 42°22'13.53" 
 
 -87°47'41 .23" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,595.54 
 
 207 
 
 42°22'13.53" 
 
 -87°47'41.23" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,205.54 
 
 208 
 
 42°22' 12.04" 
 
 -87°47'41 .28" 
 
 1873 
 
 6,487.55 
 
 208 
 
 42°22' 12.04" 
 
 -87°47'41.28" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,931.80 
 
 208 
 
 42°22' 12.04" 
 
 -87°47'41 .28" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,636.30 
 
 208 
 
 42°22' 12.04" 
 
 -87°47'41.28" 
 
 1987 
 
 5.232.04 
 
 209 
 
 42°22' 10.55" 
 
 -87°47'41.32" 
 
 1873 
 
 6,561.55 
 
 209 
 
 42°22' 10.55" 
 
 -87°47'41 .32" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5.978.55 
 
 209 
 
 42°22'10.55" 
 
 -87°47'41.32" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,665.80 
 
 209 
 
 42°22' 10.55" 
 
 -87°47'41 .32" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,252.79 
 
 Latitude and Longitude 
 of Transect-Shoreline Intersect 
 
 42 22'23.79"-87°48'59.71 " 
 42°22'23.69"-87°48'53.86" 
 42°22'23.65"-87°48'51 .92" 
 42 22'23.55"-87 48'46.24" 
 
 42°22'22.32"-87°49'00.88" 
 42°22'22.22"-87°48'55.02" 
 42°22'22.17"-87°48'52.70" 
 42°22'22.09"-87°48'47.21 " 
 
 42°22'20.84"-87°49'01 .92" 
 42°22'20.75"-87°48'56.36" 
 42°22'20.71"-87°48'53.42" 
 42°22'20.61 "-87°48 '48 .03" 
 
 42°22'1 9.38"-87°49'03.27" 
 42°22'1 9.28"-87°48'57.20" 
 42°22'19.23"-87°48'54.03" 
 42°22'19.14"-87°48'48.85" 
 
 42°22'17.91"-87°49'04.34" 
 42 ffl 22'17.81"-87°48'58.10" 
 42°22'17.75"-87°48'54.58" 
 42°22'1 7.66"-87°48'49.57" 
 
 42°22'1 6.44"-87°49'05.45" 
 42°22'1 6.33"-87°48'58.96" 
 42°22'1 6.27"-87°48'55.30" 
 42°22'1 6.1 9"-87°48'50.34" 
 
 42°22'1 4.97"-87°49'06.83" 
 42°22'1 4.85"-87°48'59.85" 
 42°22'1 4.79"-87°48'56.03" 
 42°22'14.70"-87°48'50.82" 
 
 42°22'1 3.51 "-87°49'08.01 " 
 42°22'1 3.39"-87°49'00.57" 
 42°22'1 3.32"-87°48'56.63" 
 42 Q 22'1 3.23"-87°48'51 .23" 
 
 42°22'1 2.03"-87°49'09.05" 
 42°22'1 1 .91 "-87°49'01 .25" 
 42°22'1 1 .84"-87°48'57.07" 
 42°22'1 1 .74"-87°48'51 .55" 
 
 208 
 
Appendix K (continued) 
 Shorelines for Corridor 2 (continued) 
 
 Transect Latitude and Longitude 
 
 
 Distance 
 
 Code 
 
 of Spine-Transect Intersect 
 
 Year(s) 
 
 (feet) 
 
 210 
 
 42°22'09.07" 
 
 -87°47'41.37" 
 
 1873 
 
 6,643.05 
 
 210 
 
 42°22'09.07" 
 
 -87°47'41.37" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 6,015.80 
 
 210 
 
 42°22'09.07" 
 
 -87°47'41.37" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,687.80 
 
 210 
 
 42°22'09.07" 
 
 -87°47'41 .37" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,262.29 
 
 211 
 
 42°22'07.58" 
 
 -87°47'41 .42" 
 
 1873 
 
 6,721.56 
 
 211 
 
 42°22'07.58" 
 
 -87°47'41 .42" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 6,066.80 
 
 211 
 
 42°22'07.58" 
 
 -87°47'41 .42" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,699.55 
 
 211 
 
 42°22'07.58" 
 
 -87°47'41 .42" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,275.29 
 
 212 
 
 42°22'06.09" 
 
 -87°47'41 .46" 
 
 1873 
 
 6,815.06 
 
 212 
 
 42°22'06.09" 
 
 -87°47'41 .46" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 6,124.05 
 
 212 
 
 42°22'06.09" 
 
 -87°47'41 .46" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,689.30 
 
 212 
 
 42°22'06.09" 
 
 -87°47'41 .46" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,300.04 
 
 213 
 
 42°22'04.61" 
 
 -87°47'41.51" 
 
 1873 
 
 6,908.81 
 
 213 
 
 42°22'04.61" 
 
 -87°47'41.51" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 6,163.30 
 
 213 
 
 42°22'04.61" 
 
 -87°47'41.51" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,688.80 
 
 213 
 
 42°22'04.61" 
 
 -87°47'41.51" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,305.04 
 
 214 
 
 42°22'03.12" 
 
 -87°47'41 .55" 
 
 1873 
 
 7,000.06 
 
 214 
 
 42°22'03.12" 
 
 -87°47'41 .55" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 6,196.05 
 
 214 
 
 42°22'03.12" 
 
 -87°47'41 .55" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,696.80 
 
 214 
 
 42°22'03.12" 
 
 -87°47'41 .55" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,310.54 
 
 215 
 
 42°22'01.63" 
 
 -87°47'41 .60" 
 
 1873 
 
 7,070.81 
 
 215 
 
 42°22'01.63" 
 
 -87°47'41 .60" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 6.237.30 
 
 215 
 
 42°22'01.63" 
 
 -87°47'41 .60" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,696.05 
 
 215 
 
 42°22'01.63" 
 
 -87°47'41.60" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,329.79 
 
 216 
 
 42°22'00.15" 
 
 -87°47'41 .65" 
 
 1873 
 
 7.139.81 
 
 216 
 
 42°22'00.15" 
 
 -87°47'41.65" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 6,269.30 
 
 216 
 
 42°22'00.15" 
 
 -87°47'41.65" 
 
 1947 
 
 5.690.55 
 
 216 
 
 42°22'00.15" 
 
 -87°47'41 .65" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,339.79 
 
 217 
 
 42°21 '58.66" 
 
 -87°47'41 .69" 
 
 1873 
 
 7,208.31 
 
 217 
 
 42°21 '58.66" 
 
 -87°47'41 .69" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 6,295.55 
 
 217 
 
 42°21 '58.66" 
 
 -87°47'41 .69" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,677.05 
 
 217 
 
 42°21 '58.66" 
 
 -87°47'41 .69" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,307.54 
 
 218 
 
 42°21 '57.17" 
 
 -87°47'41 .74" 
 
 1873 
 
 7,266.81 
 
 218 
 
 42°21'57.17" 
 
 -87°47'41 .74" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 6,305.30 
 
 218 
 
 42°21 '57.17" 
 
 -87°47'41.74" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,645.05 
 
 218 
 
 42°21 '57.17" 
 
 -87°47'41.74" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,287.04 
 
 219 
 
 42°21 '55.68" 
 
 -87°47'41.78" 
 
 1873 
 
 7,319.56 
 
 219 
 
 42°21 '55.68" 
 
 -87°47'41 .78" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 6,313.05 
 
 219 
 
 42°21 '55.68" 
 
 -87°47'41.78" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,608.04 
 
 219 
 
 42°21 '55.68" 
 
 -87°47'41.78" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,316.04 
 
 Latitude and Longitude 
 
 of Transect -Shoreline Intersect 
 
 42 o 22'10.57"-87°49'10.18" 
 42°22'10.43"-87°49'01 .80" 
 42°22'10.36"-87°48'57.41" 
 42°22'10.26"-87°48'51 .72" 
 
 42°22'09.10"-87°49'11.27" 
 42°22'08.95"-87°49'02.52" 
 42°22'08.87"-87°48'57.61 " 
 42°22'08.77"-87°48'51 .94" 
 
 42°22'07.63"-87°49'1 2.57" 
 42°22'07.48"-87°49'03.33" 
 42 o 22'07.38"-87°48'57.51 " 
 42°22'07.29"-87°48'52.31 " 
 
 42°22'06.1 7"-87°49'1 3.87" 
 42°22'06.00"-87°49'03.90" 
 42°22'05.90"-87°48'57.56" 
 42°22'05.81"-87°48'52.43" 
 
 42 o 22'04.70"-87°49'1 5.13" 
 42°22'04.52"-87°49'04.38" 
 42°22'04.41 "-87°48'57.71 " 
 42°22'04.32"-87°48'52.55" 
 
 42°22'03.24"-87°49'16.13" 
 42°22'03 .04" -87°49'04.98" 
 42°22'02.92"-87°48'57.74" 
 42°22'02.84"-87°48'52.85" 
 
 42°22'01.76"-87°49'17.10" 
 42°22'01 .56"-87°49'05.46" 
 42°22'01 .44"-87°48'57.72" 
 42°22'01 .35"-87°48'53.04" 
 
 42°22'00.29"-87°49'18.06" 
 42 o 22'00.08"-87°49'05.85" 
 42°21 '59.95"-87°48'57.58" 
 42°21 '59.86"-87°48'52.65" 
 
 42°21 '58.81 "-87°49'18.88" 
 42°21 '58.59"-87°49'06.02" 
 42°21'58.45"-87°48'57.20" 
 42°21 '58.37"-87°48'52.42" 
 
 42°21 '57.34"-87°49'1 9.63" 
 42 o 21'57.11"-87 o 49'06.17" 
 42°21 '56.95"-87°48'56.74" 
 42°21 '56.89"-87°48'52.84" 
 
 209 
 
Appendix K (continued) 
 Shorelines for Corridor 2 (continued) 
 
 Transact Latitude and Longitude 
 
 
 Distance 
 
 Coda 
 
 of Spine-Transect Intersect 
 
 Yaar(s) 
 
 (faat) 
 
 220 
 
 42°21 '54.20" 
 
 -87°47'41.83" 
 
 1873 
 
 7,373.81 
 
 220 
 
 42°21 '54.20" 
 
 -87°47'41.83" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 6.318.05 
 
 220 
 
 42°21 '54.20" 
 
 -87°47'41 .83" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,578.79 
 
 220 
 
 42"21 '54.20" 
 
 -87°47'41 .83" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,290.54 
 
 221 
 
 42°21 '52.71" 
 
 -87°47'41.88" 
 
 1873 
 
 7,430.06 
 
 221 
 
 42°21 '52.71" 
 
 -87°47'41.88" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 6,310.80 
 
 221 
 
 42°21 '52.71" 
 
 -87°47'41.88" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,573.79 
 
 221 
 
 42°21 '52.71" 
 
 -87°47'41.88" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,328.04 
 
 222 
 
 42°21'51.22" 
 
 -87°47'41.92" 
 
 1873 
 
 7,479.56 
 
 222 
 
 42*21*51.22" 
 
 -87°47'41 .92" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 6,305.55 
 
 222 
 
 42°21'51.22" 
 
 -87°47'41 .92" 
 
 1947 
 
 5.621.79 
 
 222 
 
 42°21'51.22" 
 
 -87°47'41.92" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,368.29 
 
 223 
 
 42°21 '49.74" 
 
 -87°47'41 .97" 
 
 1873 
 
 7,512.81 
 
 223 
 
 42°21 '49.74" 
 
 -87°47'41 .97" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 6,294.80 
 
 223 
 
 42°21 '49.74" 
 
 -87°47'41.97" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,677.30 
 
 223 
 
 42°21 '49.74" 
 
 -87°47'41.97" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,563.79 
 
 224 
 
 42-21 '48.25" 
 
 -87°47'42.02" 
 
 1873 
 
 7,551.06 
 
 224 
 
 42°21 '48.25" 
 
 -87°47'42.02" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 6,295.55 
 
 224 
 
 42-21 '48.25" 
 
 -87°47'42.02" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,719.30 
 
 224 
 
 42-21 '48.25" 
 
 -87°47'42.02" 
 
 1987 
 
 5.675.80 
 
 225 
 
 42°21 '46.76" 
 
 -87°47'42.07" 
 
 1873 
 
 7,599.06 
 
 225 
 
 42-21 '46.76" 
 
 -87°47'42.07" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 6,275.55 
 
 225 
 
 42-21 '46.76" 
 
 -87°47'42.07" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,770.05 
 
 225 
 
 42*21 '46.76" 
 
 -87°47'42.07" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,762.55 
 
 226 
 
 42-21 '45.27" 
 
 -87°47'42.11" 
 
 1873 
 
 7,647.81 
 
 226 
 
 42-21 '45.27" 
 
 -87°47'42.11" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 6,256.55 
 
 226 
 
 42*21 '45.27" 
 
 -87°47'42.11" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,819.80 
 
 226 
 
 42°21 '45.27" 
 
 -87°47'42.11" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,871.80 
 
 227 
 
 42-21 '43.79" 
 
 -87°47'42.16" 
 
 1873 
 
 7,690.31 
 
 227 
 
 42-21 '43.79" 
 
 -87°47'42.16" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 6,238.05 
 
 227 
 
 42-21 '43.79" 
 
 -87°47'42.16" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,844.05 
 
 227 
 
 42-21 '43.79" 
 
 -87°47'42.16" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,945.05 
 
 228 
 
 42-21 '42.30" 
 
 -87°47'42.20" 
 
 1873 
 
 7,738.31 
 
 228 
 
 42-21 '42.30" 
 
 -87°47'42.20" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 6,219.05 
 
 228 
 
 42-21 '42.30" 
 
 -87°47'42.20" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,853.05 
 
 228 
 
 42-21 '42.30" 
 
 -87°47'42.20" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,960.80 
 
 229 
 
 42-21 '40.81" 
 
 -87°47'42.25" 
 
 1873 
 
 7,790.56 
 
 229 
 
 42°21 '40.81" 
 
 -87°47'42.25" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 6,205.30 
 
 229 
 
 42-21 '40.81" 
 
 -87°47'42.25" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,838.80 
 
 229 
 
 42°21 '40.81" 
 
 -87°47'42.25" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,927.30 
 
 Latitude and Longitude 
 
 of Transect -Shocefcne Intersect 
 
 42-21 '55.87"-87°49'20.40" 
 42-21 '55.62"-87°49'06.29" 
 42-21 '55.46"-87°48'56.41 " 
 42-21 '55.39"-87°48'52.56" 
 
 42-21 '54.39"-87°49'21 .20" 
 42-21 '54.1 3"-87°49'06.24" 
 42-21 '53.97"-87°48'56.39" 
 42-21 '53.91 "-87°48'53. 10" 
 
 42-21 '52.91 "-87°49'21 .91 " 
 42-21 '52.65"-87°49'06.21 " 
 42-21 '52.49"-87°48'57.07" 
 42-21 '52.43"-87°48'53.69" 
 
 42-21 '51 .43"-87°49'22.40" 
 42-21 '51 .1 6"-87°49'06.1 2" 
 42-21 '51 .02"-87°48'57.86" 
 42-21 '50.99"-87°48'56.34" 
 
 42-21 '49.96"-87°49'22.96" 
 42-21 '49.67"-87°49'06.1 7" 
 42-21 '49.54" -87°48'58.47" 
 42-21 '49.54"-87°48'57.89" 
 
 42-21 '48.48"-87°49'23.65" 
 42-21 '48.1 8"-87°49'05.95" 
 42-21 '48.07"-87°48'59. 20" 
 42-21 '48.07"-87°48'59.09" 
 
 42°21 '47.00"-87°49'24.34" 
 42°21 '46.69"-87°49'05.75" 
 42°21 '46.59"-87°48'59.90" 
 42-21 '46.60"-87°49'00.60" 
 
 42»21 '45.52"-87°49'24.95" 
 42-21 '45.20"-87°49'05.54" 
 42-21 '45.1 1 "-87°49'00.28" 
 42-21 '45.1 3"-87°49'01 .63" 
 
 42*21 *44.05"-87°49'25.64" 
 42°21 '43.71 "-87°49'05.33" 
 42*21 '43.62"-87°49*00.43" 
 42-21 '43.65"-87°49'01 .88" 
 
 42-21 '42.58"-87°49'26.39" 
 42-21 '42.22"-87°49'05. 19" 
 42-21 '42.1 3"-87°49'00.30" 
 42-21 '42.1 6"-87°49'01 .47" 
 
 210 
 
Appendix K (continued) 
 Shorelines for Corridor 2 (continued) 
 
 Transect Latitude and Longitude 
 
 
 Distance 
 
 Code 
 
 of Spine-Transect Intersect 
 
 Year(s) 
 
 (feet) 
 
 230 
 
 42°21 '39.33" 
 
 -87°47'42.30" 
 
 1873 
 
 7,825.56 
 
 230 
 
 42°21 '39.33" 
 
 -87°47'42.30" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 7,728.31 
 
 230 
 
 42°21 '39.33" 
 
 -87°47'42.30" 
 
 1947 
 
 7,713.56 
 
 230 
 
 42°21 '39.33" 
 
 -87°47'42.30" 
 
 1987 
 
 7,810.31 
 
 231 
 
 42°21 '37.84" 
 
 -87°47'42.34" 
 
 1873 
 
 7,837.56 
 
 231 
 
 42°21 '37.84" 
 
 -87°47'42.34" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 7,735.56 
 
 231 
 
 42°21 '37.84" 
 
 -87°47'42.34" 
 
 1947 
 
 7,692.31 
 
 231 
 
 42°21 '37.84" 
 
 -87°47'42.34" 
 
 1987 
 
 7,804.56 
 
 232 
 
 42°21 '36.35" 
 
 -87°47'42.39" 
 
 1873 
 
 7,850.06 
 
 232 
 
 42°21 '36.35" 
 
 -87°47'42.39" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 7,786.31 
 
 232 
 
 42°21 '36.35" 
 
 -87°47'42.39" 
 
 1947 
 
 7,674.81 
 
 232 
 
 42°21 '36.35" 
 
 -87°47'42.39" 
 
 1987 
 
 7,814.31 
 
 233 
 
 42°21 '34.87" 
 
 -87°47'42.42" 
 
 1873 
 
 7.855.56 
 
 233 
 
 42"21 '34.87" 
 
 -87°47'42.42" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 7,832.06 
 
 233 
 
 42°21 '34.87" 
 
 -87°47'42.42" 
 
 1947 
 
 7,700.56 
 
 233 
 
 42°21 '34.87" 
 
 -87°47'42.42" 
 
 1987 
 
 7,873.81 
 
 234 
 
 42°21 '33.38" 
 
 -87°47'42.48" 
 
 1873 
 
 7,858.56 
 
 234 
 
 42°21 '33.38" 
 
 -87°47'42.48" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 7,900.06 
 
 234 
 
 42°21 '33.38" 
 
 -87°47'42.48" 
 
 1947 
 
 7,687.06 
 
 234 
 
 42°21 '33.38" 
 
 -87°47'42.48" 
 
 1987 
 
 7,807.56 
 
 235 
 
 42°21 '3 1.89" 
 
 -87°47'42.53" 
 
 1873 
 
 7,853.56 
 
 235 
 
 42-21 '31. 89" 
 
 -87°47'42.53" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 7,931.57 
 
 235 
 
 42-21 '31. 89" 
 
 -87°47'42.53" 
 
 1947 
 
 7,909.31 
 
 235 
 
 42*21 '3 1.89" 
 
 -87°47'42.53" 
 
 1987 
 
 7.806.31 
 
 Latitude and Longitude 
 of Transect -Shoreline Intersect 
 
 42-21 '41. 10"-87°49'26.89" 
 42-21 '41 .07"-87°49'25.60" 
 42-21 '41 .07"-87°49'25.40" 
 42-21 '41 .09"-87°49'26.69" 
 
 42-21 '39.61 "-87°49'27.1 1 " 
 42-21 '39.58"-87°49'25.74" 
 42°21 '39.58"-87°49'25.1 5" 
 42°21 '39.61 "-87°49'26.66" 
 
 42-21 '38.1 3"-87°49'27.32" 
 42°21 '38.1 2"-87°49'26.46" 
 42°21 '38.09"-87°49'24.98" 
 42-21 '38.1 2"-87°49'26.83" 
 
 42-21 '36.64"-87°49'27.43" 
 42-21 '36.64" -87°49'27.1 1 " 
 42-21 '36.60"-87°49'25.36" 
 42-21 '36.64" -87°49'27.67" 
 
 42°21 '35.1 6"-87°49'27.52" 
 42°21 '35.1 6"-87°49'28.07" 
 42*21 '35.11 "-87-49*25.22" 
 42-21 '35.1 5"-87°49'26.84" 
 
 42-21 '33.67"-87°49'27.49" 
 42*21 '33.68"-87°49'28.54" 
 42-21 '33.68"-87°49'28.24" 
 42-21 '33.66"-87°49'26.87" 
 
 211 
 
Appendix K (continued) 
 
 SHORELINES FOR CORRIDOR 3 
 
 Transect Latitude and Longitude 
 
 
 Distance 
 
 Latitude and Longitude 
 
 Code 
 
 of Spine-Transect Intersect 
 
 Year 
 
 (feet) 
 
 of Transect -Shoreline Intersect 
 
 301 
 
 42°18'06.39" 
 
 -87°48'45.57" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,624.35 
 
 42°18'06.19" 
 
 -87°50'00.71" 
 
 301 
 
 42°18'06.39" 
 
 -87°48'45.57" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,694.87 
 
 42°18'06.19" 
 
 -87°50'01.64" 
 
 301 
 
 42°18'06.39" 
 
 -87°48'45.57" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,803.90 
 
 42°18'06.19" 
 
 -87°50'03.10" 
 
 301 
 
 42°18'06.39" 
 
 -87°48'45.57" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,723.88 
 
 42°18'06.19" 
 
 -87°50'02.03" 
 
 302 
 
 42°18'04.91" 
 
 -87°48'45.56" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,609.36 
 
 42°18'04.70" 
 
 -87°50'00.49" 
 
 302 
 
 42°18'04.91" 
 
 -87°48'45.56" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,681.37 
 
 42°18'04.71" 
 
 -87°50'01 .45" 
 
 302 
 
 42°18'04.91" 
 
 -87°48'45.56" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,802.65 
 
 42°18'04.70" 
 
 -87°50'03.08" 
 
 302 
 
 42°18'04.91" 
 
 -87°48'45.56" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,804.40 
 
 42°18'04.70" 
 
 -87°50'03.09" 
 
 303 
 
 42°18'03.42" 
 
 -87°48'45.55" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,594.85 
 
 42°18'03.22" 
 
 -87°50'00.28" 
 
 303 
 
 42°18'03.42" 
 
 -87°48'45.55" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,689.12 
 
 42°18'03.22" 
 
 -87°50'01 .55" 
 
 303 
 
 42°18'03.42" 
 
 -87°48'45.55" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,777.40 
 
 42°18'03.22" 
 
 -87°50'02.73" 
 
 303 
 
 42°18'03.42" 
 
 -87°48'45.55" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,809.40 
 
 42 o 18'03.21" 
 
 -87°50'03.16" 
 
 304 
 
 42°18'01.93" 
 
 -87°48'45.55" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,577.09 
 
 42°18'01.73" 
 
 -87°50'00.05" 
 
 304 
 
 42°18'01.93" 
 
 -87°48'45.55" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,686.37 
 
 42°18'01.73" 
 
 -87°50'01.51" 
 
 304 
 
 42°18'01.93" 
 
 -87°48'45.55" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,786.64 
 
 42°18'01.73" 
 
 -87°50'02.85" 
 
 304 
 
 42°18'01.93" 
 
 -87°48'45.55" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,802.90 
 
 42°18'01.72" 
 
 -87°50'03.06" 
 
 305 
 
 42°18'00.44" 
 
 -87°48'45.53" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,554.34 
 
 42°18'00.25" 
 
 -87°49'59.73" 
 
 305 
 
 42°18'00.44" 
 
 -87°48'45.53" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,677.37 
 
 42°18'00.24" 
 
 -87°50'01.37" 
 
 305 
 
 42°18'00.44" 
 
 -87°48'45.53" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,750.39 
 
 42°18'00.24" 
 
 -87°50'02.35" 
 
 305 
 
 42°18'00.44" 
 
 -87°48'45.53" 
 
 1987 
 
 5.773.64 
 
 42°18'00.24" 
 
 -87°50'02.67" 
 
 306 
 
 42°17'58.95" 
 
 -87°48'45.53" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,531.33 
 
 42°17'58.76" 
 
 -87°49'59.42" 
 
 306 
 
 42°17'58.95" 
 
 -87°48'45.53" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,657.86 
 
 42°17'58.76" 
 
 -87°50'01.12" 
 
 306 
 
 42°17'58.95" 
 
 -87°48'45.53" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,733.63 
 
 42°17'58.75" 
 
 -87°50'02.12" 
 
 306 
 
 42°17'58.95" 
 
 -87°48'45.53" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,745.88 
 
 42°17'58.76" 
 
 -87°50'02.29" 
 
 307 
 
 42°17'57.47" 
 
 -87°48'45.52" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,512.83 
 
 42°17'57.27" 
 
 -87°49'59.16" 
 
 307 
 
 42°17'57.47" 
 
 -87°48'45.52" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,637.61 
 
 42°17'57.27" 
 
 -87°50'00.83" 
 
 307 
 
 42°17'57.47" 
 
 -87°48'45.52" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,698.12 
 
 42°17'57.26" 
 
 -87°50'01.63" 
 
 307 
 
 42 <> 17'57.47" 
 
 -87°48'45.52" 
 
 1987 
 
 5.754.89 
 
 42°17'57.26" 
 
 -87°50'02.40" 
 
 308 
 
 42°17'55.98" 
 
 -87°48'45.51" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,493.57 
 
 42°17'55.78" 
 
 -87°49'58.91" 
 
 308 
 
 42°17'55.98" 
 
 -87°48'45.51" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,610.10 
 
 42°17'55.79" 
 
 -87°50'00.45" 
 
 308 
 
 42°17'55.98" 
 
 -87°48 '45.51" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,663.86 
 
 42°17'55.78" 
 
 -87°50'01.18" 
 
 308 
 
 42°17'55.98" 
 
 -87°48'45.51" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,734.38 
 
 42°17'55.78" 
 
 -87°50'02.11" 
 
 309 
 
 42°17'54.49" 
 
 -87°48'45.51" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,474.32 
 
 42°17'54.30" 
 
 -87°49'58.63" 
 
 309 
 
 42°17'54.49" 
 
 -87°48'45.51" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,579.85 
 
 42°17'54.29" 
 
 -87°50'00.05" 
 
 309 
 
 42°17'54.49" 
 
 -87°48'45.51" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,616.60 
 
 42°17'54.30" 
 
 -87°50'00.53" 
 
 309 
 
 42°17'54.49" 
 
 -87°48'45.51" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,687.37 
 
 42°17'54.29" 
 
 -87°50'01.48" 
 
 212 
 
Appendix K (continued) 
 Shorelines for Corridor 3 (continued) 
 
 Transect Latitude and Longitude 
 
 
 Distance 
 
 Code 
 
 of Spine-Transect Intersect 
 
 Year 
 
 (feet) 
 
 310 
 
 42°17'53.00" 
 
 -87°48'45.51" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,454.07 
 
 310 
 
 42°17'53.00" 
 
 -87°48'45.51" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,555.59 
 
 310 
 
 42°17'53.00" 
 
 -87°48'45.51" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,575.60 
 
 310 
 
 42°17'53.00" 
 
 -87°48'45.51" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,624.86 
 
 311 
 
 42°17'51.52" 
 
 -87°48'45.50" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,433.31 
 
 311 
 
 42°17'51.52" 
 
 -87°48'45.50" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5.535.08 
 
 311 
 
 42°17'51.52" 
 
 -87°48'45.50" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,541.08 
 
 311 
 
 42°17'51.52" 
 
 -87°48'45.50" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,543.58 
 
 312 
 
 42°17'50.03" 
 
 -87°48'45.49" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,420.05 
 
 312 
 
 42°17'50.03" 
 
 -87°48'45.49" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,515.58 
 
 312 
 
 42°17'50.03" 
 
 -87°48'45.49" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,539.08 
 
 312 
 
 42°17'50.03" 
 
 -87°48'45.49" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,543.08 
 
 313 
 
 42°17'48.54" 
 
 -87°48'45.48" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,407.05 
 
 313 
 
 42°17'48.54" 
 
 -87°48'45.48" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,503.08 
 
 313 
 
 42°17'48.54" 
 
 -87°48'45.48" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,499.82 
 
 313 
 
 42°17'48.54" 
 
 -87°48'45.48" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,550.59 
 
 314 
 
 42°17'47.05" 
 
 -87°48'45.47" 
 
 1873 
 
 5.397.05 
 
 314 
 
 42°17'47.05" 
 
 -87°48'45.47" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,490.57 
 
 314 
 
 42°17'47.05" 
 
 -87°48'45.47" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,447.31 
 
 314 
 
 42°17'47.05" 
 
 -87°48'45.47" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,547.34 
 
 315 
 
 42°17'45.56" 
 
 -87°48'45.47" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,386.55 
 
 315 
 
 42°17'45.56" 
 
 -87°48'45.47" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,474.07 
 
 315 
 
 42°17'45.56" 
 
 -87°48'45.47" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,412.30 
 
 315 
 
 42°17'45.56" 
 
 -87°48'45.47" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,636.86 
 
 316 
 
 42°17'44.08" 
 
 -87°48'45.46" 
 
 1873 
 
 5.369.80 
 
 316 
 
 42°17'44.08" 
 
 -87°48'45.46" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5.452.57 
 
 316 
 
 42°17'44.08" 
 
 -87°48'45.46" 
 
 1947 
 
 5.405.81 
 
 316 
 
 42°17'44.08" 
 
 -87°48'45.46" 
 
 1987 
 
 5.666.37 
 
 317 
 
 42°17'42.59" 
 
 -87°48'45.46" 
 
 1873 
 
 5.349.79 
 
 317 
 
 42°17'42.59" 
 
 -87°48'45.46" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5.431.31 
 
 317 
 
 42°17'42.59" 
 
 -87°48'45.46" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,420.31 
 
 317 
 
 42°17'42.59" 
 
 -87°48'45.46" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,681.37 
 
 318 
 
 42°17'41.10" 
 
 -87°48'45.44" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,329.54 
 
 318 
 
 42°17'41.10" 
 
 -87°48'45.44" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,409.80 
 
 318 
 
 42°17'41.10" 
 
 -87°48 '45.44" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,588.09 
 
 318 
 
 42°17'41.10" 
 
 -87°48'45.44" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,698.12 
 
 319 
 
 42°17'39.61" 
 
 -87°48'45.44" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,311.28 
 
 319 
 
 42°17'39.61" 
 
 -87°48'45.44" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5.387.80 
 
 319 
 
 42°17'39.61" 
 
 -87°48'45.44" 
 
 1947 
 
 5.585.09 
 
 319 
 
 42°17'39.61" 
 
 -87°48'45.44" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,701.12 
 
 Latitude and Longitude 
 of Transect-Shoreline Intersect 
 
 42°17'52.81" -87°49'58.35" 
 
 42°17'52.81" -87°49'59.71" 
 
 42°17'52.80" -87°49'59.98" 
 
 42°17'52.80" -87"50'00.64" 
 
 42°17'51.33" -87°49'58.08" 
 
 42°1 7'51 .32" -87°49'59.43" 
 
 42°17'51.32" -87°49'59.51" 
 
 42°1 7'51 .32" -87°49'59.55" 
 
 42°17'49.84" -87°49'57.89" 
 
 42°17'49.84" -87°49'59.16" 
 
 42°17'49.83" -87°49'59.48" 
 
 42°17'49.83" -87°49'59.53" 
 
 42°17'48.35" -87°49'57.71" 
 
 42°17'48.35" -87°49'59.00" 
 
 42°17'48.35" -87°49'58.94" 
 
 42°17'48.35" -87°49'59.62" 
 
 42°17'46.87" -87°49'57.56" 
 
 42°17'46.86" -87°49'58.82" 
 
 42°17'46.86" -87°49'58.23" 
 
 42°17'46.86" -87°49'59.57" 
 
 42°17'45.38" -87°49'57.43" 
 
 42°17'45.38" -87°49'58.59" 
 
 42°17'45.37" -87°49'57.76" 
 
 42°17'45.37" -87°50'00.77" 
 
 42°17'43.89" -87°49'57.20" 
 
 42°17'43.88" -87°49'58.29" 
 
 42°17'43.89" -87°49'57.68" 
 
 42°17'43.88" -87°50'01.15" 
 
 42°17'42.41" -87°49'56.91" 
 
 42°17'42.40" -87°49'58.01" 
 
 42°17'42.40" -87°49'57.86" 
 
 42°17'42.39" -87°50'01 .35" 
 
 42°17'40.92" -87°49'56.64" 
 
 42°17'40.91" -87°49'57.71" 
 
 42°17'40.91" -87°50'00.09" 
 
 42°17'40.90" -87°50'01.56" 
 
 42°17'39.43" -87"49'56.38" 
 
 42°17'39.43" -87°49'57.40" 
 
 42°17'39.42" -87°50'00.04" 
 
 42°1 7'39.42" -87°50'01 .59" 
 
 213 
 
Appendix K (continued) 
 Shorelines for Corridor 3 (continued) 
 
 Transact Latitude and Longitude 
 
 
 Distance 
 
 Latitude and Longitude 
 
 Code 
 
 of Spine-Transect Intersect 
 
 Year 
 
 (feet) 
 
 of Transect-Shoreline Intersect 
 
 320 
 
 42°17'38.12" 
 
 -87°48'45.44" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,296.03 
 
 42°17'37.94" 
 
 -87°49'56.17" 
 
 320 
 
 42°17'38.12" 
 
 -87°48'45.44" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,364.79 
 
 42°17'37.94" 
 
 -87°49'57.09" 
 
 320 
 
 42°17'38.12" 
 
 -87°48'45.44" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,551.59 
 
 42°17'37.93" 
 
 -87°49'59.59" 
 
 320 
 
 42°17'38.12" 
 
 -87°48'45.44" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,729.63 
 
 42°17'37.92" 
 
 -87°50'01.96" 
 
 321 
 
 42°17'36.64" 
 
 -87°48'45.44" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,280.52 
 
 42°17'36.45" 
 
 -87°49'55.96" 
 
 321 
 
 42°17'36.64" 
 
 -87°48'45.44" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,340.78 
 
 42°17'36.45" 
 
 -87°49'56.76" 
 
 321 
 
 42°17'36.64" 
 
 -87°48'45.44" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,529.58 
 
 42°17'36.45" 
 
 -87°49'59.29" 
 
 321 
 
 42°17'36.64" 
 
 -87°48'45.44" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,719.37 
 
 42°17'36.44" 
 
 -87°50'01.83" 
 
 322 
 
 42°17'35.15" 
 
 -87°48'45.42" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,265.52 
 
 42 8 17'34.97" 
 
 -87°49'55.75- 
 
 322 
 
 42°17'35.15" 
 
 -87°48'45.42" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,318.53 
 
 42°17'34.96" 
 
 -87°49*56.45" 
 
 322 
 
 42°17'35.15" 
 
 -87"48'45.42" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,501.83 
 
 42°17'34.96" 
 
 -87°49'58.91" 
 
 322 
 
 42°17'35.15" 
 
 -87°48'45.42" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,676.87 
 
 42°17'34.96" 
 
 -87°50'01.25" 
 
 323 
 
 42°17'33.67" 
 
 -87°48'45.42" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,255.02 
 
 42°17'33.48" 
 
 -87°49'55.61" 
 
 323 
 
 42°17'33.67" 
 
 -87°48'45.42" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,300.78 
 
 42°17'33.48" 
 
 -87°49'56.21" 
 
 323 
 
 42°17'33.67" 
 
 -87°48'45.42" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,483.33 
 
 42°17'33.47" 
 
 -87°49'58.65" 
 
 323 
 
 42°17'33.67" 
 
 -87°48'45.42" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,633.11 
 
 42°17'33.47" 
 
 -87°50'00.66" 
 
 324 
 
 42°17'32.18" 
 
 -87°48'45.41" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,246.77 
 
 42°17'31.99" 
 
 -87°49'55.49" 
 
 324 
 
 42°17'32.18" 
 
 -87°48'45.41" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,281.77 
 
 42°17'31.99" 
 
 -87°49'55.95" 
 
 324 
 
 42°17'32.18" 
 
 -87°48'45.41" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,441 .06 
 
 42°17'31.99" 
 
 -87°49'58.08" 
 
 324 
 
 42°17'32.18" 
 
 -87°48'45.41" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,590.85 
 
 42°17'31.99" 
 
 -87°50'00.08" 
 
 325 
 
 42°17'30.69" 
 
 -87°48'45.4r 
 
 1873 
 
 5,239.01 
 
 42°17'30.50" 
 
 -87°49'55.38" 
 
 325 
 
 42°17'30.69" 
 
 -87°48'45.41 " 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,270.27 
 
 42°17'30.51" 
 
 -87°49'55.80" 
 
 325 
 
 42°17'30.69" 
 
 -87°48'45.41 " 
 
 1947 
 
 5,380.54 
 
 42°17'30.51" 
 
 -87°49'57.27" 
 
 325 
 
 42°17'30.69" 
 
 -87°48'45.41" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,557.84 
 
 42°17'30.49" 
 
 -87°49'59.64" 
 
 326 
 
 42°17'29.21" 
 
 -87°48'45.39" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,232.26 
 
 42°17'29.02" 
 
 -87°49'55.28" 
 
 326 
 
 42°17'29.21" 
 
 -87°48'45.39" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,269.27 
 
 42°17'29.02" 
 
 -87°49'55.77" 
 
 326 
 
 42°17'29.21" 
 
 -87°48'45.39" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,332.03 
 
 42°17'29.01" 
 
 -87°49'56.61" 
 
 326 
 
 42°17'29.21" 
 
 -87°48'45.39" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,501.33 
 
 42°17'29.01" 
 
 -87°49'58.87" 
 
 327 
 
 42°17'27.72" 
 
 -87°48'45.39" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,225.51 
 
 42°17'27.53" 
 
 -87°49'55.18" 
 
 327 
 
 42°17'27.72" 
 
 -87°48'45.39" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,267.77 
 
 42°17'27.53" 
 
 -87°49'55.74" 
 
 327 
 
 42°17'27.72" 
 
 -87°48'45.39" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,274.52 
 
 42°17'27.53" 
 
 -87°49'55.84" 
 
 327 
 
 42°17'27.72" 
 
 -87°48'45.39" 
 
 1987 
 
 5.469.07 
 
 42°17'27.52" 
 
 -87°49'58.44" 
 
 328 
 
 42°17'26.23" 
 
 -87°48'45.39" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,218.51 
 
 42°17'26.05" 
 
 -87°49'55.08" 
 
 328 
 
 42°17'26.23" 
 
 -87°48'45.39" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,264.27 
 
 42°17'26.04" 
 
 -87°49 '55.70" 
 
 328 
 
 42°17'26.23" 
 
 -87°48'45.39" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,335.03 
 
 42°17'26.04" 
 
 -87°49'56.63" 
 
 328 
 
 42°17'26.23" 
 
 -87°48'45.39" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,396.30 
 
 42°17'26.04" 
 
 -87°49'57.46" 
 
 329 
 
 42°17'24.74" 
 
 -87°48'45.37" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,219.26 
 
 42°17'24.56" 
 
 -87°49'55.08" 
 
 329 
 
 42°17'24.74" 
 
 -87°48'45.37" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5.255.52 
 
 42°17'24.55" 
 
 -87°49'55.58" 
 
 329 
 
 42°17'24.74" 
 
 -87°48'45.37" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,356.54 
 
 42°17'24.55" 
 
 -87°49'56.92" 
 
 329 
 
 42°17'24.74" 
 
 -87°48'45.37" 
 
 1987 
 
 5.408.05 
 
 42°17'24.55" 
 
 -87°49'57.61" 
 
 214 
 
Appendix K (continued) 
 Shorelines for Corridor 3 (continued) 
 
 Transect Latitude and Longitude 
 
 
 Distance 
 
 Latitude and Longitude 
 
 Code 
 
 of Spine-Transect Intersect 
 
 Year 
 
 (feet) 
 
 of Transect-Shoreline Intersect 
 
 330 
 
 42°17'23.25" 
 
 -87°48'45.37" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,222.26 
 
 42°17'23.07" 
 
 -87°49'55.12" 
 
 330 
 
 42°17'23.25" 
 
 -87°48'45.37" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5.247.27 
 
 42°17'23.07" 
 
 -87°49'55.45" 
 
 330 
 
 42°17'23.25" 
 
 -87°48'45.37" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,420.31 
 
 42°17'23.07" 
 
 -87°49'57.76" 
 
 330 
 
 42°17'23.25" 
 
 -87°48'45.37" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,461.82 
 
 42°17'23.06" 
 
 -87°49'58.31" 
 
 331 
 
 42°17'21.77" 
 
 -87°48'45.35" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,225.51 
 
 42°17'21.58" 
 
 -87°49'55.15" 
 
 331 
 
 42°17'21.77" 
 
 -87°48'45.35" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,238.51 
 
 42°17'21.59" 
 
 -87°49'55.33" 
 
 331 
 
 42°17'21.77" 
 
 -87°48'45.35" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,419.56 
 
 42°17'21.58" 
 
 -87°49'57.75" 
 
 331 
 
 42°17'21.77" 
 
 -87°48'45.35" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,476.32 
 
 42°17'21.57" 
 
 -87°49'58.49" 
 
 332 
 
 42°17'20.28" 
 
 -87°48'45.35" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,227.01 
 
 42°17'20.10" 
 
 -87°49'55.17" 
 
 332 
 
 42°17'20.28" 
 
 -87°48'45.35" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,228.51 
 
 42°17'20.10" 
 
 -87°49'55.19" 
 
 332 
 
 42°17'20.28" 
 
 -87°48'45.35" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,415.30 
 
 42°17'20.09" 
 
 -87°49'57.68" 
 
 332 
 
 42°17'20.28" 
 
 -87°48'45.35" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,474.57 
 
 42°17'20.09" 
 
 -87°49'58.48" 
 
 333 
 
 42°17'18.79" 
 
 -87°48'45.35" 
 
 1873 
 
 5.225.76 
 
 42°17'18.61" 
 
 -87°49'55.14" 
 
 333 
 
 42°17'18.79" 
 
 -87°48'45.35" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,218.76 
 
 42°17'18.61" 
 
 -87°49'55.04" 
 
 333 
 
 42°17'18.79" 
 
 -87°48'45.35" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,381.54 
 
 42°17'18.61" 
 
 -87°49'57.22" 
 
 333 
 
 42°17'18.79" 
 
 -87°48'45.35" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,474.07 
 
 42°17'18.60" 
 
 -87°49'58.46" 
 
 334 
 
 42°17'17.30" 
 
 -87°48'45.34" 
 
 1873 
 
 5.224.01 
 
 42°17'17.12" 
 
 -87°49'55.11" 
 
 334 
 
 42°17'17.30" 
 
 -87°48'45.34" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5.207.75 
 
 42°17'17.12" 
 
 -87°49'54.89" 
 
 334 
 
 42°17'17.30" 
 
 -87°48'45.34" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,345.04 
 
 42°17'17.11" 
 
 -87°49'56.72" 
 
 334 
 
 42°17'17.30" 
 
 -87°48'45.34" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,446.06 
 
 42°17'17.11" 
 
 -87°49'58.07" 
 
 335 
 
 42°17'15.82" 
 
 -87°48'45.33" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,222.51 
 
 42°17'15.63" 
 
 -87°49'55.09" 
 
 335 
 
 42°17'15.82" 
 
 -87°48'45.33" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5.198.50 
 
 42°17'15.64" 
 
 -87°49'54.77" 
 
 335 
 
 42°17'15.82" 
 
 -87°48'45.33" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,296.53 
 
 42°17'15.62" 
 
 -87°49'56.08" 
 
 335 
 
 42°17'15.82" 
 
 -87°48'45.33" 
 
 1987 
 
 5.412.55 
 
 42°17'15.63" 
 
 -87°49'57.63" 
 
 215 
 
Appendix K (continued) 
 
 SHORELINES FOR CORRIDOR 4 
 
 Transect Latitude and Longitude 
 
 
 Distance 
 
 Code 
 
 of Spine-Transect Intersect 
 
 Year(s) 
 
 (feet) 
 
 401 
 
 42°14'50.17" 
 
 -87°47'46.29" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,555.35 
 
 401 
 
 42°14'50.17" 
 
 -87°47'46.29" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,527.36 
 
 401 
 
 42°14'50.17" 
 
 -87°47'46.29" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,638.70 
 
 401 
 
 42°14'50.17" 
 
 -87°47'46.29" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,722.37 
 
 402 
 
 42°14'48.73" 
 
 -87°47'45.74" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,565.79 
 
 402 
 
 42 D 14'48.73" 
 
 -87°47'45.74" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,523.96 
 
 402 
 
 42°14'48.73" 
 
 -87°47'45.74" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,617.82 
 
 402 
 
 42°14'48.73" 
 
 -87°47'45.74" 
 
 1987 
 
 5.728.38 
 
 403 
 
 42°14'47.31" 
 
 -87°47'45.19" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,575.99 
 
 403 
 
 42°14'47.31" 
 
 -87°47'45.19" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,523.72 
 
 403 
 
 42°14'47.31" 
 
 -87°47'45.19" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,599.00 
 
 403 
 
 42°14'47.31" 
 
 -87°47'45.19" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,734.08 
 
 404 
 
 42°14'45.87" 
 
 -87°47'44.65" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,581.76 
 
 404 
 
 42°14'45.87" 
 
 -87°47'44.65" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,548.00 
 
 404 
 
 42°14'45.87" 
 
 -87°47'44.65" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,627.24 
 
 404 
 
 42°14'45.87" 
 
 -87°47'44.65" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,755.51 
 
 405 
 
 42°14'44.44" 
 
 -87°47*44.10" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,579.15 
 
 405 
 
 42°14'44.44" 
 
 -87°47'44.10" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,568.88 
 
 405 
 
 42°14'44.44" 
 
 -87°47'44.10" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,615.21 
 
 405 
 
 42°14'44.44" 
 
 -87°47'44.10" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,743.01 
 
 406 
 
 42°14'43.01" 
 
 -87°47'43.55" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,568.16 
 
 406 
 
 42°14'43.01" 
 
 -87°47'43.55" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,589.28 
 
 406 
 
 42°14'43.01" 
 
 -87°47'43.55" 
 
 1947 
 
 5.615.93 
 
 406 
 
 42°14'43.01" 
 
 -87°47'43.55" 
 
 1987 
 
 5.736.21 
 
 407 
 
 42°14'41.58" 
 
 -87°47'43.00" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,563.42 
 
 407 
 
 42°14'41.58" 
 
 -87°47'43.00" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,604.94 
 
 407 
 
 42°14'41.58" 
 
 -87°47'43.00" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,604.94 
 
 407 
 
 42°14'41.58" 
 
 -87°47'43.00" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,721.27 
 
 408 
 
 42°14'40.16" 
 
 -87°47'42.44" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,562.39 
 
 408 
 
 42°14'40.16" 
 
 -87°47'42.44" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,614.90 
 
 408 
 
 42°14'40.16" 
 
 -87°47'42.44" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,603.43 
 
 408 
 
 42°14'40.16" 
 
 -87°47'42.44" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,703.00 
 
 409 
 
 42°14'38.72" 
 
 -87°47'41.91" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,563.42 
 
 409 
 
 42°14'38.72" 
 
 -87°47'41.91" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,595.05 
 
 409 
 
 42°14'38.72" 
 
 -87°47'41.91" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,590.38 
 
 409 
 
 42°14'38.72" 
 
 -87°47'41.91" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,682.60 
 
 Latitude and Longitude 
 of Transect-Shoreline Intersect 
 
 42°14'35.08" -87°48'57.61" 
 
 42°14'35.16" -87°48'57.25" 
 
 42°14'34.85" -87°48'58.67" 
 
 42°14'34.63" -87°48'59.74" 
 
 42°14'33.62" -87°48'57.19" 
 
 42°14'33.74" -87°48'56.65" 
 
 42°14'33.48" -87°48'57.86" 
 
 42°14'33.18" -87°48'59.27" 
 
 42°14'32.16" -87°48'56.77" 
 
 42°14'32.31" -87°48'56.10" 
 
 42°14'32.10" -87°48'57.07" 
 
 42°14'31.73" -87°48'58.80" 
 
 42°14'30.71" -87°48'56.30" 
 
 42°14'30.81" -87°48'55.86" 
 
 42°14'30.59" -87°48'56.88" 
 
 42°14'30.25" -87°48'58.53" 
 
 42°14'29.29" -87°48'55.7r 
 
 42°14'29.33" -87°48'55.59" 
 
 42°14'29.20" -87°48'56.18" 
 
 42°14'28.85" -87°48'57.82" 
 
 42°14'27.89" -87°48'55.02" 
 
 42°14'27.83" -87°48'55.29" 
 
 42°1 4*27.76" -87°48'55.64" 
 
 42°14'27.43" -87°48'57.19" 
 
 42°14'26.47" -87°48'54.41 " 
 
 42°14'26.36" -87°48'54.94" 
 
 42°14'26.36" -87°48'54.94" 
 
 42°14'26.04" -87°48'56.43" 
 
 42°14'25.05" -87°48'53.85" 
 
 42°1 4'24.9 1 " -87°48'54.53" 
 
 42°14'24.94" -87°48'54.38" 
 
 42°14'24.67" -87°48'55.65" 
 
 42°14'23.61" -87°48'53.32" 
 
 42°14'23.53" -87°48'53.73" 
 
 42°14'23.54" -87°48'53.67" 
 
 42°14'23.30" -87°48'54.85" 
 
 216 
 
Appendix K (continued) 
 Shorelines for Corridor 4 (continued) 
 
 Transect Latitude and Longitude 
 
 
 Distance 
 
 Code 
 
 of Spine-Transect Intersect 
 
 Year(s) 
 
 (feet) 
 
 410 
 
 42°14'37.29" 
 
 -87°47'41 .36" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,548.86 
 
 410 
 
 42°14'37.29" 
 
 -87°47'41 .36" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,561.67 
 
 410 
 
 42°14'37.29" 
 
 -87°47'41 .36" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,587.77 
 
 410 
 
 42°14'37.29" 
 
 -87°47'41 .36" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,676.11 
 
 411 
 
 42°14'35.86" 
 
 -87°47'40.80" 
 
 1873 
 
 5.533.92 
 
 411 
 
 42°14'35.86" 
 
 -87°47'40.80" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,535.98 
 
 411 
 
 42°14'35.86" 
 
 -87°47'40.80" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,581.76 
 
 411 
 
 42°14'35.86" 
 
 -87°47'40.80" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,676.11 
 
 412 
 
 42°14'34.43" 
 
 -87°47'40.25" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,537.63 
 
 412 
 
 42°14'34.43" 
 
 -87°47'40.25" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,527.12 
 
 412 
 
 42°14'34.43" 
 
 -87°47'40.25" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,602.72 
 
 412 
 
 42°14'34.43" 
 
 -87°47'40.25" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,656.81 
 
 413 
 
 42°14'33.00" 
 
 -87°47'39.72" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,540.17 
 
 413 
 
 42°14'33.00" 
 
 -87°47'39.72" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,510.59 
 
 413 
 
 42°14'33.00" 
 
 -87°47'39.72" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,598.69 
 
 413 
 
 42°14'33.00" 
 
 -87°47'39.72" 
 
 1987 
 
 5.667.42 
 
 414 
 
 42°14'31.57" 
 
 -87°47'39.16" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,539.21 
 
 414 
 
 42°14'31.57" 
 
 -87°47'39.16" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,511.22 
 
 414 
 
 42°14'31.57" 
 
 -87°47'39.16" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,594.33 
 
 414 
 
 42°14'31.57" 
 
 -87°47'39.16" 
 
 1987 
 
 5.670.41 
 
 415 
 
 42°14'30.13" 
 
 -87°47*38.61" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,557.41 
 
 415 
 
 42°14'30.13" 
 
 -87°47'38.61" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5.517.16 
 
 415 
 
 42°14'30.13" 
 
 -87°47'38.61" 
 
 1947 
 
 5.637.12 
 
 415 
 
 42°14'30.13" 
 
 -87°47'38.61" 
 
 1987 
 
 5.677.38 
 
 416 
 
 42°14'28.71" 
 
 -87°47'38.07" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,558.44 
 
 416 
 
 42°14'28.71" 
 
 -87°47'38.07" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,538.35 
 
 416 
 
 42°14'28.71" 
 
 -87°47'38.07" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,682.12 
 
 416 
 
 42°14'28.71" 
 
 -87°47'38.07" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,674.29 
 
 417 
 
 42°14'27.27" 
 
 -87°47'37.52" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,572.35 
 
 417 
 
 42°14'27.27" 
 
 -87°47'37.52" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,575.99 
 
 417 
 
 42°14'27.27" 
 
 -87°47'37.52" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,669.31 
 
 417 
 
 42°14'27.27" 
 
 -87°47'37.52" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,678.96 
 
 418 
 
 42°14'25.85" 
 
 -87°47'36.97" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,590.69 
 
 418 
 
 42°14'25.85" 
 
 -87°47'36.97" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,613.39 
 
 418 
 
 42°14'25.85" 
 
 -87°47'36.97" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,680.06 
 
 418 
 
 42°14'25.85" 
 
 -87°47'36.97" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,693.11 
 
 419 
 
 42°1 4*24.41" 
 
 -87°47'36.42" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,613.39 
 
 419 
 
 42°14'24.41" 
 
 -87°47'36.42" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,646.06 
 
 419 
 
 42°14'24.41" 
 
 -87°47'36.42" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,670.89 
 
 419 
 
 42°14'24.41" 
 
 -87°47'36.42" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,716.60 
 
 Latitude and Longitude 
 of Transect-Shoreline Intersect 
 
 42°14'22.22" -87°48'52.58" 
 
 42°14'22.18" -87°48'52.75" 
 
 42°14'22.12" -87°48'53.09" 
 
 42°14'21.88" -87°48'54.21" 
 
 42°14'20.83" -87°48'51.84" 
 
 42°14'20.82" -87°48'51.86" 
 
 42°14'20.70" -87°48'52.45" 
 
 42°14'20.44" -87°48'53.66" 
 
 42°14'19.39" -87°48'51.34" 
 
 42°14'19.43" -87°48'51.20" 
 
 42°14'19.21" -87°48'52.17" 
 
 42°14'19.07" -87°48'52.87" 
 
 42°1 4*1 7.95" -87°48'50.83" 
 
 42°1 4' 1 8 .04" -87°48'50.45" 
 
 42°14'17.79" -87°48'51.58" 
 
 42°14'17.61" -87°48'52.46" 
 
 42°14'16.53" -87°48'50.26" 
 
 42°14'16.60" -87°48'49.90" 
 
 42°14'16.38" -87°48'50.97" 
 
 42°14'16.17" -87°48'51.95" 
 
 42°14'15.04" -87°48'49.95" 
 
 42°14'15.16" -87°48'49.43" 
 
 42°14'14.83" -87°48'50.97" 
 
 42°14'14.72" -87°48'51 .50" 
 
 42°14'13.61" -87°48'49.41" 
 
 42°14'13.66" -87 48'49.16" 
 
 42°14'13.27" -87°48'51.01" 
 
 42°14'13.29" -87°48'50.90" 
 
 42°14'12.15" -87°48'49.05" 
 
 42°14'12.14" -87°48'49.09" 
 
 42°14'11.88" -87°48'50.29" 
 
 42°1 4'1 1 .86" -87°48'50.42" 
 
 42°14'10.66" -87°48'48.73" 
 
 42°14'10.60" -87°48'49.02" 
 
 42°14*10.42" -87°48'49.88" 
 
 42°1 4*1 0.38" -87°48'50.04" 
 
 42°14'09.17" -87°48'48.47" 
 
 42°14'09.08" -87°48'48.89" 
 
 42°14'09.01" -87°48'49.21" 
 
 42°14'08.89" -87°48'49.80" 
 
 217 
 
Appendix K (continued) 
 Shorelines for Corridor 4 (continued) 
 
 Transect Latitude and Longitude 
 
 
 Distance 
 
 Code 
 
 of Spine-Transect Intersect 
 
 Year(s) 
 
 (feet) 
 
 420 
 
 42°14'22.98" 
 
 -87°47'35.87" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,637.36 
 
 420 
 
 42°14'22.98" 
 
 -87°47'35.87" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,654.13 
 
 420 
 
 42°14'22.98" 
 
 -87°47'35.87" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,668.21 
 
 420 
 
 42°14'22.98" 
 
 -87°47'35.87" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,726.25 
 
 421 
 
 42°14'21.55" 
 
 -87°47'35.33" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,655.63 
 
 421 
 
 42°14'21.55" 
 
 -87°47'35.33" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,649.62 
 
 421 
 
 42°1 4'21.55" 
 
 -87°47'35.33" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,648.83 
 
 421 
 
 42°14'21.55" 
 
 -87°47'35.33" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,711.62 
 
 422 
 
 42°14'20.12" 
 
 -87°47'34.78" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,655.47 
 
 422 
 
 42°1 4*20.12" 
 
 -87°47'34.78" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,638.23 
 
 422 
 
 42°14'20.12" 
 
 -87°47'34.78" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,640.60 
 
 422 
 
 42°14'20.12" 
 
 -87°47'34.78" 
 
 1987 
 
 5.706.40 
 
 423 
 
 42°14'18.70" 
 
 -87°47'34.23" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,645.03 
 
 423 
 
 42°14'18.70" 
 
 -87°47'34.23" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,597.73 
 
 423 
 
 42°14'18.70" 
 
 -87°47 '34.23" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,643.21 
 
 423 
 
 42°14'18.70" 
 
 -87°47'34.23" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,704.34 
 
 424 
 
 42°14'17.26" 
 
 -87°47'33.68" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,626.45 
 
 424 
 
 42°14'17.26" 
 
 -87°47'33.68" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,584.61 
 
 424 
 
 42°14'17.26" 
 
 -87°47'33.68" 
 
 1947 
 
 5.655.39 
 
 424 
 
 42°14'17.26" 
 
 -87°47'33.68" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,728.62 
 
 425 
 
 42°14'15.82" 
 
 -87°47'33.14" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,592.99 
 
 425 
 
 42°14'15.82" 
 
 -87°47'33.14" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,603.43 
 
 425 
 
 42°14'15.82" 
 
 -87°47'33.14" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,617.51 
 
 425 
 
 42°14'15.82" 
 
 -87°47'33.14" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,736.45 
 
 426 
 
 42°14'14.40" 
 
 -87°47'32.59" 
 
 1873 
 
 5.564.76 
 
 426 
 
 42°14'14.40" 
 
 -87°47'32.59" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,622.02 
 
 426 
 
 42°14'14.40" 
 
 -87°47'32.59" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,625.97 
 
 426 
 
 42°14'14.40" 
 
 -87°47'32.59" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,728.38 
 
 427 
 
 42°14'12.96" 
 
 -87°47'32.04" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,557.65 
 
 427 
 
 42°14'12.96" 
 
 -87°47'32.04" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,632.22 
 
 427 
 
 42°14'12.96" 
 
 -87°47'32.04" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,600.82 
 
 427 
 
 42°14'12.96" 
 
 -87°47'32.04" 
 
 1987 
 
 5.728.07 
 
 428 
 
 42°14'11.53" 
 
 -87°47'31.49" 
 
 1873 
 
 5.547.76 
 
 428 
 
 42°14'11.53" 
 
 -87°47'31.49" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,654.68 
 
 428 
 
 42°14'11.53" 
 
 -87°47'31.49" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,607.62 
 
 428 
 
 42°14'11.53" 
 
 -87°47'31.49" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,738.82 
 
 429 
 
 42°14'10.10" 
 
 -87°47'30.95" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,532.58 
 
 429 
 
 42°14'10.10" 
 
 -87°47'30.95" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,678.48 
 
 429 
 
 42°14'10.10" 
 
 -87°47'30.95" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,581.45 
 
 429 
 
 42°14'10.10" 
 
 -87°47'30.95" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,743.01 
 
 Latitude and Longitude 
 of Transect -Shoreline Intersect 
 
 42°14'07.68" -87°48'48.24" 
 
 42°14'07.63" -87°48'48.46" 
 
 42°14'07.60" -87°48'48.63" 
 
 42°14'07.44" -87°48'49.38" 
 
 42°14'06.20" -87°48'47.92" 
 
 42°14'06.21" -87°48'47.85" 
 
 42°14'06.22" -87°48'47.84" 
 
 42°14'06.04" -87°48'48.64" 
 
 42°14'04.76" -87°48'47.37" 
 
 42°14'04.81" -87°48'47.15" 
 
 42°14'04.81" -87°48'47.18" 
 
 42°14'04.63" -87°48'48.02" 
 
 42°1 4'03.36" -87°48'46.69" 
 
 42°14'03.49" -87°48'46.08" 
 
 42°14'03.36" -87°48'46.67" 
 
 42°14'03.21" -87°48'47.45" 
 
 42°1 4'01 .98" -87°48'45.90" 
 
 42°14'02.10" -87°48'45.36" 
 
 42°1 4'01 .90" -87°48'46.28" 
 
 42°1 4'01 .70" -87°48'47.22" 
 
 42°14'00.64" -87°48'44.93" 
 
 42°14'00.61" -87°48'45.07" 
 
 42°14'00.58" -87°48'45.24" 
 
 42°14'00.25" -87°48'46.77" 
 
 42°13'59.29" -87°48'44.02" 
 
 42°13'59.13" -87°48'44.74" 
 
 42°13'59.12" -87°48'44.80" 
 
 42°1 3'58.84" -87°48'46.1 1 " 
 
 42°13'57.87" -87°48'43.37" 
 
 42°13'57.67" -87°48'44.34" 
 
 42°1 3'57.76" -87°48'43.94" 
 
 42°13'57.42" -87°48'45.56" 
 
 42°13'56.47" -87°48'42.70" 
 
 42°13'56.19" -87°48'44.07" 
 
 42°13'56.31" -87°48'43.47" 
 
 42°13'55.95" -87°48'45.16" 
 
 42°1 3'55.09" -87°48'41 .96" 
 
 42°13'54.68" -87°48'43.83" 
 
 42°13'54.95" -87°48'42.59" 
 
 42°13'54.51" -87°48'44.66" 
 
 218 
 
Appendix K (continued) 
 Shorelines for Corridor 4 (continued) 
 
 Transect Latitude and Longitude 
 
 
 Distance 
 
 Code 
 
 of Spine-Transect Intersect 
 
 Year(s) 
 
 (feet) 
 
 430 
 
 42°14'08.67" 
 
 -87°47'30.40" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,539.93 
 
 430 
 
 42°14'08.67" 
 
 -87°47'30.40" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,681.64 
 
 430 
 
 42°14'08.67" 
 
 -87°47'30.40" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,616.32 
 
 430 
 
 42°14'08.67" 
 
 -87°47'30.40" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,716.36 
 
 431 
 
 42°14'07.25" 
 
 -87°47'29.85" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,550.92 
 
 431 
 
 42°14'07.25" 
 
 -87°47'29.85" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,673.74 
 
 431 
 
 42°14'07.25" 
 
 -87°47'29.85" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,608.41 
 
 431 
 
 42°14'07.25" 
 
 -87°47'29.85" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,734.39 
 
 432 
 
 42°14'05.81" 
 
 -87°47'29.30" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,554.63 
 
 432 
 
 42°14'05.81" 
 
 -87°47'29.30" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,664.16 
 
 432 
 
 42°14'05.81" 
 
 -87°47'29.30" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,649.46 
 
 432 
 
 42°14'05.81" 
 
 -87°47'29.30" 
 
 1987 
 
 5.785.16 
 
 433 
 
 42°14'04.38" 
 
 -87°47'28.76" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,559.23 
 
 433 
 
 42°14'04.38" 
 
 -87°47'28.76" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,665.60 
 
 433 
 
 42°14'04.38" 
 
 -87°47'28.76" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,642.66 
 
 433 
 
 42°14'04.38" 
 
 -87°47'28.76" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,875.79 
 
 434 
 
 42°14'02.95" 
 
 -87°47'28.21" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,583.58 
 
 434 
 
 42°14'02.95" 
 
 -87°47'28.21" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,677.14 
 
 434 
 
 42°14'02.95" 
 
 -87°47'28.21" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,678.72 
 
 434 
 
 42°14'02.95" 
 
 -87°47'28.21" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,914.47 
 
 435 
 
 42°14'01.52" 
 
 -87°47'27.66" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,604.77 
 
 435 
 
 42°14'01.52" 
 
 -87°47'27.66" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,698.64 
 
 435 
 
 42°14'01.52" 
 
 -87°47'27.66" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,681.64 
 
 435 
 
 42°14'01.52" 
 
 -87°47'27.66" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,928.86 
 
 Latitude and Longitude 
 of Transect-Shoreline Intersect 
 
 42°13'53.63" -87°48'41 .50" 
 
 42°13'53.25" -87°48'43.32" 
 
 42°13'53.43" -87°48'42.48" 
 
 42°13'53.16" -87°48'43.77" 
 
 42°13'52.17" -87°48'41.10" 
 
 42°13'51.84" -87°48'42.67" 
 
 42°1 3*52.02" -87°48'41.84" 
 
 42°13'51.67" -87°48'43.45" 
 
 42°13'50.73" -87°48'40.59" 
 
 42°13'50.43" -87°48'42.00" 
 
 42°13'50.47" -87°48'41.81" 
 
 42°13'50.10" -87°48'43.56" 
 
 42°1 3'49.29" -87°48'40.1 1 " 
 
 42°1 3'49.00" -87"48'41 .47" 
 
 42°13'49.06" -87°48'41.18" 
 
 42°13'48.43" -87°48'44.17" 
 
 42°13'47.79" -87°48'39.88" 
 
 42°1 3'47.53" -87°48'41 .07" 
 
 42°13'47.53" -87°48'41.10" 
 
 42°13'46.89" -87°48'44.12" 
 
 42°13'46.30" -87°48'39.59" 
 
 42°13'46.04" -87°48'40.80" 
 
 42°13'46.09" -87°48'40.59" 
 
 42°13'45.42" -87°48'43.75" 
 
 219 
 
Appendix K (continued) 
 
 SHORELINES FOR CORRIDOR 5 
 
 Transect Latitude and Longitude 
 
 
 Distance 
 
 Code 
 
 of Spine-Transect Intersect 
 
 Year(s) 
 
 (feet) 
 
 501 
 
 42°11 '36.35" 
 
 -87°46'01.47" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,404.57 
 
 501 
 
 42°11 '36.35" 
 
 -87°46'01.47" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5.441.28 
 
 501 
 
 42°11 '36.35" 
 
 -87°46'01.47" 
 
 1947 
 
 5.407.83 
 
 501 
 
 42°11 '36.35" 
 
 -87°46'01.47" 
 
 1987 
 
 5.526.13 
 
 502 
 
 42°1 1 '35.07" 
 
 -87°46'00.47" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,402.43 
 
 502 
 
 42°11 '35.07" 
 
 -87°46'00.47" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,431.50 
 
 502 
 
 42°11 '35.07" 
 
 -87°46'00.47" 
 
 1947 
 
 5.398.40 
 
 502 
 
 42°1 1 '35.07" 
 
 -87°46'00.47" 
 
 1987 
 
 5.522.53 
 
 503 
 
 42°11 '33.79" 
 
 -87°45'59.45" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,391.67 
 
 503 
 
 42°11 '33.79" 
 
 -87°45'59.45" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5.423.87 
 
 503 
 
 42°11 '33.79" 
 
 -87"45'59.45" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,389.31 
 
 503 
 
 42°11 '33.79" 
 
 -87°45'59.45" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,519.40 
 
 504 
 
 42°11 '32.51" 
 
 -87°45'58.42" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,393.12 
 
 504 
 
 42°11 '32.51" 
 
 -87°45'58.42" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,410.53 
 
 504 
 
 42°11 '32.51" 
 
 -87°45'58.42" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,382.58 
 
 504 
 
 42°11 '32.51" 
 
 -87°45'58.42" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,512.45 
 
 505 
 
 42°11 '31 .23" 
 
 -87°45'57.40" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,384.93 
 
 505 
 
 42*11 '31. 23" 
 
 -87°45'57.40" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,390.42 
 
 505 
 
 42°11 '31.23" 
 
 -87°45'57.40" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,364.95 
 
 505 
 
 42*11 '31.23" 
 
 -87°45'57.40" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,505.04 
 
 506 
 
 42°1 1 '29.94" 
 
 -87°45'56.40" 
 
 1873 
 
 5.365.72 
 
 506 
 
 42°11 '29.94" 
 
 -87°45'56.40" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,378.07 
 
 506 
 
 42°11 '29.94" 
 
 -87°45'56.40" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,346.99 
 
 506 
 
 42°11 '29.94" 
 
 -87°45'56.40" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,493.03 
 
 507 
 
 42°11 '28.66" 
 
 -87*45'55.37" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,355.52 
 
 507 
 
 42 11'28.66 , ' 
 
 -87°45'55.37" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,394.58 
 
 507 
 
 42°11 '28.66" 
 
 -87°45'55.37" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,387.51 
 
 507 
 
 42°11 '28.66" 
 
 -87°45'55.37" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,480.89 
 
 508 
 
 42°11 '27.38" 
 
 -87°45'54.35" 
 
 1873 
 
 5.349.00 
 
 508 
 
 42°1 1*27.38" 
 
 -87°45'54.35" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5.392.01 
 
 508 
 
 42°11 '27.38" 
 
 -87°45'54.35" 
 
 1947 
 
 5.394.24 
 
 508 
 
 42°11 '27.38" 
 
 -87°45'54.35" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,475.41 
 
 509 
 
 42°1 1 '26.10" 
 
 -87°45'53.33" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,343.94 
 
 509 
 
 42°11 '26.10" 
 
 -87°45'53.33" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,370.44 
 
 509 
 
 42°11'26.10" 
 
 -87°45'53.33" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,398.82 
 
 509 
 
 42°11'26.10" 
 
 -87°45'53.33" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,478.19 
 
 Latitude and Longitude 
 of Transect-Shoreline intersect 
 
 42°11 '09.09" -87°47'03.54" 
 
 42°1 1 '08.90" -87°47'03.96" 
 
 42°1 1 '09.07" -87°47'03.57" 
 
 42°11 '08.47" -87°47'04.93" 
 
 42°1 1 '07.81 " -87°47'02.49" 
 
 42°1 1 '07.67" -87°47'02.83" 
 
 42°1 1 '07.83" -87°47'02.45" 
 
 42°1 1 '07.21 " -87°47'03.88" 
 
 42°1 1 '06.59" -87°47'01 .35" 
 
 42°1 1 '06.43" -87°47'01 .73" 
 
 42°1 1 '06.61 " -87°47'01 .32" 
 
 42°1 1 '05.94" -87°47'02.82" 
 
 42°1 1 '05.30" -87°47'00.36" 
 
 42°1 1 '05.22" -87°47'00.56" 
 
 42°1 1 '05.35" -87°47'00.23" 
 
 42 1 1 '04.70" -87°47'01 .72" 
 
 42°1 1 '04.06" -87°46'59.24" 
 
 42°1 1 '04.04" -87°46'59.3 1 " 
 
 42°1 1 '04. 1 6" -87°46'59 .0 1 " 
 
 42°1 1 '03.45" -87°47'0.62" 
 
 42°11 '02.88" -87°46'58.00" 
 
 42°1 1 '02.81 " -87°46'58.1 5" 
 
 42°1 1 '02.97" -87 46'57.79" 
 
 42°1 1 '02.23" -87°46'59.46" 
 
 42°1 1 '01 .64" -87°46'56.86" 
 
 42°1 1 '01 .45" -87°46'57.31 " 
 
 42°1 1 '01 .49" -87°46'57.22" 
 
 42°1 1 '01 .02" -87°46'58.30" 
 
 42°1 1 '00.40" -87°46'55.77" 
 
 42°11'00.19" -87°46'56.27" 
 
 42°1 1 '00.18" -87°46'56.30" 
 
 42°10'59.76" -87°46'57.23" 
 
 42°10'59.14" -87°46'54.70" 
 
 42°10'59.01" -87°46'55.01" 
 
 42°10'58.87" -87°46'55.33" 
 
 42°10'58.47" -87°46'56.23" 
 
 220 
 
Appendix K (continued) 
 Shorelines for Corridor 5 (continued) 
 
 Transect Latitude and Longitude 
 
 
 Distance 
 
 Code 
 
 of Spine-Transect Intersect 
 
 Ye or Is) 
 
 (feet) 
 
 510 
 
 42°11 '24.83" 
 
 -87°45'52.33" 
 
 1873 
 
 5.343.52 
 
 510 
 
 42°11 '24.83" 
 
 -87°45'52.33" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,354.06 
 
 510 
 
 42°11 '24.83" 
 
 -87°45'52.33" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,369.67 
 
 510 
 
 42°1 1 '24.83" 
 
 -87°45'52.33" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,492.13 
 
 511 
 
 42°11 '23.54" 
 
 -87°45'51.30" 
 
 1873 
 
 5.336.65 
 
 511 
 
 42°11 '23.54" 
 
 -87°45'51.30" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5.351.57 
 
 511 
 
 42°1 1 '23.54" 
 
 -87°45'51.30" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,361.14 
 
 511 
 
 42°1 1 '23.54" 
 
 -87°45'51.30" 
 
 1987 
 
 5.508.51 
 
 512 
 
 42°11 '22.26" 
 
 -87°45'50.28" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,341.58 
 
 512 
 
 42°1 1 '22.26" 
 
 -87°45'50.28" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,366.62 
 
 512 
 
 42°11 '22.26" 
 
 -87°45'50.28" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,368.29 
 
 512 
 
 42°11 '22.26" 
 
 -87°45'50.28" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,500.88 
 
 513 
 
 42°11 '20.98" 
 
 -87°45'49.28" 
 
 1873 
 
 5.353.72 
 
 513 
 
 42°1 1 '20.98" 
 
 -87°45'49.28" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,394.24 
 
 513 
 
 42°11 '20.98" 
 
 -87°45'49.28" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,353.72 
 
 513 
 
 42°1 1 '20.98" 
 
 -87°45'49.28" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,504.69 
 
 514 
 
 42°11 '19.70" 
 
 -87°45'48.26" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,353.72 
 
 514 
 
 42°11 '19.70" 
 
 -87°45'48.26" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5.426.36 
 
 514 
 
 42°11 '19.70" 
 
 -87°45'48.26" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,388.96 
 
 514 
 
 42°11 '19.70" 
 
 -87°45'48.26" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,508.85 
 
 515 
 
 42°11 '18.41" 
 
 -87°45'47.23" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,349.90 
 
 515 
 
 42°11 '18.41" 
 
 -87"45'47.23" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,458.90 
 
 515 
 
 42°11 '18.41" 
 
 -87°45'47.23" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,404.79 
 
 515 
 
 42°11 '18.41" 
 
 -87°45'47.23" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,526.13 
 
 516 
 
 42°11'17.13" 
 
 -87°45'46.21" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,343.73 
 
 516 
 
 42°11'17.13" 
 
 -87°45'46.21" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,465.63 
 
 516 
 
 42°11'17.13" 
 
 -87°45'46.21" 
 
 1947 
 
 5.425.67 
 
 516 
 
 42°11'17.13" 
 
 -87°45'46.21" 
 
 1987 
 
 5.543.75 
 
 517 
 
 42°1 1'1 5.86" 
 
 -87°45'45.21" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,360.79 
 
 517 
 
 42°11 '15.86" 
 
 -87°45'45.21" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,470.35 
 
 517 
 
 42°11 '15.86" 
 
 -87°45'45.21" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,416.36 
 
 517 
 
 42°11 '15.86" 
 
 -87°45'45.21" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,557.90 
 
 518 
 
 42°11'14.57" 
 
 -87°45'44.19" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,372.59 
 
 518 
 
 42 11 '14.57" 
 
 -87°45'44.19" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,473.95 
 
 518 
 
 42°11 '14.57" 
 
 -87°45'44.19" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,403.67 
 
 518 
 
 42°11 '14.57" 
 
 -87°45'44.19" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,484.15 
 
 519 
 
 42°11 '13.30" 
 
 -87°45'43.16" 
 
 1873 
 
 5.372.24 
 
 519 
 
 42°11 '13.30" 
 
 -87°45'43.16" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,479.78 
 
 519 
 
 42°11 '13.30" 
 
 -87°45'43.16" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,421.64 
 
 519 
 
 42°11 '13.30" 
 
 -87°45'43.16" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,573.17 
 
 Latitude and Longitude 
 of Transect-Shoreline Intersect 
 
 42°10'57.87" -87°46'53.68" 
 
 42°10'57.81" -87°46'53.80" 
 
 42°10'57.73" -87°46'53.97" 
 
 42 o 10'57.12" -87°46'55.38" 
 
 42°10'56.62" -87°46'52.59" 
 
 42°10'56.54" -87°46'52.75" 
 
 42°10'56.50" -87°46'52.86" 
 
 42°10'55.76" -87°46'54.56" 
 
 42°10'55.32" -87°46'51.62" 
 
 42°10'55.18" -87°46'51.90" 
 
 42°10'55.18" -87°46'51.93" 
 
 42°10'54.51" -87°46'53.44" 
 
 42°10'53.98" -87°46'50.75" 
 
 42°10'53.77" -87°46'51.21" 
 
 42°10'53.98" -87°46'50.75" 
 
 42°10'53.21" -87°46'52.47" 
 
 42°10'52.69" -87°46'49.73" 
 
 42°10'52.33" -87°46'50.55" 
 
 42°10'52.51" -87°46'50.13" 
 
 42°10'51.90" -87°46'51.51" 
 
 42°10'51.43" -87°46'48.66" 
 
 42°10'50.88" -87°46'49.92" 
 
 42°1 0'5 1 . 1 5" -87°46'49 .30" 
 
 42°10'50.54" -87°46'50.69" 
 
 42°10'50.18" -87°46'47.58" 
 
 42°10'49.57" -87°46'48.98" 
 
 42°10'49.77" -87°46'48.52" 
 
 42°10'49.17" -87"46'49.87" 
 
 42°10'48.81" -87°46'46.76" 
 
 42°10'48.26" -87°46'48.01" 
 
 42°10'48.53" -87°46'47.39" 
 
 42°10'47.82" -87°46'49.01" 
 
 42°10'47.47" -87°46'45.87" 
 
 42°10'46.96" -87°46'47.03" 
 
 42°10'47.32" -87°46'46.22" 
 
 42°10'46.91" -87°46'47.15" 
 
 42°10'46.20" -87°46'44.85" 
 
 42°10'45.65" -87°46'46.08" 
 
 42°10'45.95" -87°46'45.42" 
 
 42°10'45.18" -87°46'47.16" 
 
 221 
 
Appendix K (continued) 
 Shorelines for Corridor 5 (continued) 
 
 Transect Latitude and Longitude 
 
 
 Distance 
 
 Latitude and Longitude 
 
 Code 
 
 of Spine-Transect Intersect 
 
 Year(s) 
 
 (feet) 
 
 of Transect-Shoreline Intersec 
 
 520 
 
 42-11 '12.01" 
 
 -87°45'42.14" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,380.77 
 
 42°10'44.87" 
 
 -87°46'43.92 
 
 520 
 
 42°11 '12.01" 
 
 -87°45'42.14" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5.487.41 
 
 42°10'44.34" 
 
 -87°46'45.15 
 
 520 
 
 42°11 '12.01" 
 
 -87°45'42.14" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,448.01 
 
 42°10'44.53" 
 
 -87°46'44.71 
 
 520 
 
 42°11 '12.01" 
 
 -87°45'42.14" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,572.05 
 
 42°10'43.90" 
 
 -87°46'46.12 
 
 521 
 
 42°1 1 '10.73" 
 
 -87°45'41.14" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,382.66 
 
 42°10'43.58" 
 
 -87°46'42.93 
 
 521 
 
 42°11 '10.73" 
 
 -87°45'41.14" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,490.75 
 
 42°10'43.03" 
 
 -87°46'44.17' 
 
 521 
 
 42°11 '10.73" 
 
 -87°45'41.14" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,466.40 
 
 42°10'43.16" 
 
 -87°46'43.90 
 
 521 
 
 42°11 '10.73" 
 
 -87°45'41.14" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,561.59 
 
 42°10'42.68" 
 
 -87°46'44.99' 
 
 522 
 
 42°1 1 '09.44" 
 
 -87°45'40.12" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,390.98 
 
 42°10'42.26" 
 
 -87°46'42.02' 
 
 522 
 
 42°11 '09.44" 
 
 -87°45'40.12" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,474.72 
 
 42°10'41.83" 
 
 -87°46'42.97' 
 
 522 
 
 42°1 1 '09.44" 
 
 -87°45'40.12" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,472.02 
 
 42°10'41.84" 
 
 -87°46'42.95' 
 
 522 
 
 42°1T09.44" 
 
 -87°45'40.12" 
 
 1987 
 
 5.557.90 
 
 42°10'41.41" 
 
 -87°46'43.93' 
 
 523 
 
 42°11'08.17" 
 
 -87°45'39.09" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,403.33 
 
 42°10'40.92" 
 
 -87°46'41.13' 
 
 523 
 
 42°1T08.17" 
 
 -87°45'39.09" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,451.14 
 
 42°10'40.68" 
 
 -87°46'41 .68' 
 
 523 
 
 42°11'08.17" 
 
 -87°45'39.09" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,497.48 
 
 42°10'40.44" 
 
 -87°46'42.22' 
 
 523 
 
 42°11 '08.17" 
 
 -87°45'39.09" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,561.59 
 
 42°10'40.12" 
 
 -87°46'42.95' 
 
 524 
 
 42°1 1 '06.89" 
 
 -87°45'38.09" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,413.32 
 
 42°10'39.58" 
 
 -87°46'40.23' 
 
 524 
 
 42°11 '06.89" 
 
 -87°45'38.09" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,473.61 
 
 42°10'39.28" 
 
 -87°46'40.93' 
 
 524 
 
 42°11 '06.89" 
 
 -87°45'38.09" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,487.97 
 
 42°10'39.21" 
 
 -87°46'41 .09' 
 
 524 
 
 42°1 1 '06.89" 
 
 -87°45'38.09" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,573.17 
 
 42°10'38.78" 
 
 -87°46'42.07' 
 
 525 
 
 42°11 '05.60" 
 
 -87°45'37.07" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,417.48 
 
 42°10'38.28" 
 
 -87 46'39.26' 
 
 525 
 
 42°11 '05.60" 
 
 -87°45'37.07" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,478.88 
 
 42°10'37.97" 
 
 -87°46'39.97' 
 
 525 
 
 42°11 '05.60" 
 
 -87°45'37.07" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,529.73 
 
 42°10'37.71" 
 
 -87°46'40.56' 
 
 525 
 
 42°11 '05.60" 
 
 -87°45'37.07" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,579.13 
 
 42°10'37.46" 
 
 -87°46'41.13' 
 
 526 
 
 42°1 1 '04.33" 
 
 -87°45'36.05" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,420.18 
 
 42°10'36.99" 
 
 -87 46'38.28' 
 
 526 
 
 42°1 1 '04.33" 
 
 -87°45'36.05" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,483.25 
 
 42°10'36.67" 
 
 -87 o 46'39.00' 
 
 526 
 
 42°1 1 '04.33" 
 
 -87°45'36.05" 
 
 1947 
 
 5.515.93 
 
 42°10'36.50" 
 
 -87°46'39.38' 
 
 526 
 
 42°1 1 '04.33" 
 
 -87°45'36.05" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,572.61 
 
 42°10'36.22" 
 
 -87 <, 46'40.02 , 
 
 527 
 
 42°1T03.04" 
 
 -87°45'35.03" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,426.91 
 
 42°10'35.66" 
 
 -87 46*37.34' 
 
 527 
 
 42°11 '03.04" 
 
 -87°45'35.03" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,490.33 
 
 42°10'35.35" 
 
 -87°46'38.07' 
 
 527 
 
 42° 11 '03.04" 
 
 -87°45'35.03" 
 
 1947 
 
 5.477.98 
 
 42°10'35.41" 
 
 -87°46'37.92' 
 
 527 
 
 42°11 '03.04" 
 
 -87°45'35.03" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,581.01 
 
 42°10'34.90" 
 
 -87°46'39.1V 
 
 528 
 
 42°11'01.76" 
 
 -87°45'34.02" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,416.92 
 
 42°10'34.44" 
 
 -87°46'36.20' 
 
 528 
 
 42°11'01.76" 
 
 -87°45'34.02" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,496.16 
 
 42°10'34.04" 
 
 -87°46'37.12' 
 
 528 
 
 42*11*01.76" 
 
 -87°45'34.02" 
 
 1947 
 
 5.448.01 
 
 42°10'34.28" 
 
 -87°46'36.57' 
 
 528 
 
 42°11'01.76" 
 
 -87°45'34.02" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,590.45 
 
 42°10'33.56" 
 
 -87°46'38.20' 
 
 529 
 
 42°1 1 '00.48" 
 
 -87°45'33.00" 
 
 1873 
 
 5.403.11 
 
 42°10'33.23" 
 
 -87 o 46'35.03' 
 
 529 
 
 42°1 1 '00.48" 
 
 -87°45'33.00" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,498.86 
 
 42°10'32.74" 
 
 -87°46'36.14' 
 
 529 
 
 42°1 1 '00.48" 
 
 -87°45'33.00" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,447.45 
 
 42°10'33.00" 
 
 -87°46'35.54' 
 
 529 
 
 42°1 1 '00.48" 
 
 -87°45'33.00" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,591.13 
 
 42°10'32.28" 
 
 -87°46'37.19" 
 
 222 
 
Appendix K (continued) 
 Shorelines for Corridor 5 (continued) 
 
 Transact Latitude and Longitude 
 Coda of Spina-Transect Intersect 
 
 530 
 530 
 530 
 530 
 
 531 
 531 
 531 
 531 
 
 532 
 532 
 532 
 532 
 
 533 
 533 
 533 
 533 
 
 534 
 534 
 534 
 534 
 
 535 
 535 
 535 
 535 
 
 42°10'59.20" -87°45'31.98" 
 
 42°10'59.20" -87°45'31.98" 
 
 42°10'59.20" -87°45'31.98" 
 
 42°10'59.20" -87°45'31.98" 
 
 42°10'57.92" -87°45'30.96" 
 
 42°10'57.92" -87°45'30.96" 
 
 42°10'57.92" -87°45'30.96" 
 
 42°10'57.92" -87°45'30.96" 
 
 42°10'56.64" 
 42°10'56.64" 
 42°10'56.64" 
 42°10'56.64" 
 
 42°10'55.36" 
 42°10'55.36" 
 42°10'55.36" 
 42°10'55.36" 
 
 42°10'54.07" 
 42°10'54.07" 
 42°10'54.07" 
 42°1 0*54.07" 
 
 42°10'52.80" 
 42°10'52.80" 
 42°10'52.80" 
 42°10'52.80" 
 
 -87°45'29.95" 
 -87°45'29.95" 
 -87°45'29.95' 
 -87°45'29.95" 
 
 -87°45'28.93" 
 -87°45'28.93' 
 -87°45'28.93" 
 -87°45'28.93" 
 
 -87°45'27.91" 
 -87°45'27.91" 
 -87°45'27.91" 
 -87°45'27.91" 
 
 -87°45'26.89" 
 -87°45'26.89" 
 -87°45'26.89* 
 -87°45'26.89" 
 
 Yaar(s) 
 
 1873 
 1910-11 
 1947 
 1987 
 
 1873 
 1910-11 
 1947 
 1987 
 
 1873 
 1910-11 
 1947 
 1987 
 
 1873 
 1910-11 
 1947 
 1987 
 
 1873 
 1910-11 
 1947 
 1987 
 
 1873 
 1910-11 
 1947 
 1987 
 
 Distance 
 (feet) 
 
 5,390.77 
 5,499.07 
 5,436.21 
 5,554.64 
 
 5,396.38 
 5,499.97 
 5,435.10 
 5,514.34 
 
 5,387.29 
 5,485.40 
 5,445.44 
 5,501.01 
 
 5,385.15 
 5,450.23 
 5,441.83 
 5,494.36 
 
 5,368.98 
 5,433.86 
 5.434.20 
 5,494.36 
 
 5,354.06 
 5,428.03 
 5,428.93 
 5,493.93 
 
 Latitude and Longitude 
 of Traneect-Shoreline Intersect 
 
 42°10'32.00" -87°46'33.88" 
 
 42°10'31.47" -87°46'35.12" 
 
 42°10'31.78" -87°46'34.39" 
 
 42°10'31.18" -87°46'35.75" 
 
 42°10'30.70" 
 42°10'30.18" 
 42°10'30.51" 
 42°10'30.11" 
 
 42°10'29.47" 
 42°10'28.97" 
 42°10'29.17" 
 42°10'28.89" 
 
 42°10'28.19" 
 42°10'27.86" 
 42°10'27.91" 
 42°10'27.64" 
 
 42°10'26.99" 
 42°10'26.67" 
 42°10'26.67" 
 42°10'26.36" 
 
 42°10'25.79" 
 42°10'25.42" 
 42°10'25.41" 
 42°10'25.08" 
 
 -87°46'32.92" 
 -87°46'34.11" 
 -87°46'33.37" 
 -87°46'34.27" 
 
 -87°46'31.79" 
 -87°46'32.93" 
 -87°46'32.47" 
 -87°46'33.10" 
 
 -87°46'30.76" 
 -87°46'31.50" 
 -87°46'31.41" 
 -87°46'32.01 " 
 
 -87°46'29.55" 
 -87°46'30.29" 
 -87°46'30.30" 
 -87°46'30.99" 
 
 -87°46'28.37" 
 -87°46'29.22" 
 -87°46'29.22" 
 -87°46'29.97" 
 
 223 
 
Appendix K (continued) 
 
 BLUFFLINES FOR CORRIDOR 3 
 
 Transect Latitude and Longitude 
 
 
 Distance 
 
 Code 
 
 of Spine-Transect Intersect 
 
 Year(s) 
 
 (feet) 
 
 301 
 
 42°18'06.39" 
 
 -87°48'45.57" 
 
 1873 
 
 5.776.39 
 
 301 
 
 42°18'06.39" 
 
 -87°48'45.57" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 « * * 
 
 301 
 
 42°18'06.39" 
 
 -87°48*45.57" 
 
 1947 
 
 • • • 
 
 301 
 
 42°18'06.39" 
 
 -87°48'45.57" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,935.68 
 
 302 
 
 42°18'04.91" 
 
 -87°48'45.56" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,770.64 
 
 302 
 
 42°18'04.91" 
 
 -87°48'45.56" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,835.41 
 
 302 
 
 42°18'04.91" 
 
 -87°48'45.56" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,896.42 
 
 302 
 
 42°18'04.91" 
 
 -87°48'45.56" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,943.93 
 
 303 
 
 42°18'03.42" 
 
 -87°48'45.55" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,767.39 
 
 303 
 
 42°18'03.42" 
 
 -87°48'45.55" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,808.65 
 
 303 
 
 42°18'03.42" 
 
 -87°48'45.55" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,888.67 
 
 303 
 
 42°18'03.42" 
 
 -87°48'45.55" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,944.18 
 
 304 
 
 42°18'01.93" 
 
 -87°48'45.55" 
 
 1873 
 
 5.733.88 
 
 304 
 
 42°18'01.93" 
 
 -87°48'45.55" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,814.65 
 
 304 
 
 42°18'01.93" 
 
 -87°48'45.55" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,870.66 
 
 304 
 
 42°18'01.93" 
 
 -87°48'45.55" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,923.93 
 
 305 
 
 42°18'00.44" 
 
 -87°48'45.53" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,698.87 
 
 305 
 
 42°18'00.44" 
 
 -87°48'45.53" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,811.40 
 
 305 
 
 42°18'00.44" 
 
 -87°48'45.53" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,846.16 
 
 305 
 
 42°18'00.44" 
 
 -87°48'45.53" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,857.66 
 
 306 
 
 42°17'58.95" 
 
 -87°48'45.53" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,677.87 
 
 306 
 
 42°17'58.95" 
 
 -87°48'45.53" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5.791.64 
 
 306 
 
 42°17'58.95" 
 
 -87°48'45.53" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,819.65 
 
 306 
 
 42°17'58.95" 
 
 -87°48'45.53" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,873.91 
 
 307 
 
 42°17'57.47" 
 
 -87°48'45.52" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,685.37 
 
 307 
 
 42°17'57.47" 
 
 -87°48'45.52" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,769.39 
 
 307 
 
 42°17'57.47" 
 
 -87°48'45.52" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,787.89 
 
 307 
 
 42°17'57.47" 
 
 -87°48'45.52" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,833.90 
 
 308 
 
 42°17'55.98" 
 
 -87°48'45.51" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,739.63 
 
 308 
 
 42°17'55.98" 
 
 -87°48'45.51" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5.753.14 
 
 308 
 
 42°17'55.98" 
 
 -87°48'45.51" 
 
 1947 
 
 5.785.15 
 
 308 
 
 42°17'55.98" 
 
 -87°48'45.51" 
 
 1987 
 
 5.790.14 
 
 309 
 
 42°17'54.49" 
 
 -87°48'45.51" 
 
 1873 
 
 • • • 
 
 309 
 
 42°17'54.49" 
 
 -87°48'45.51" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,755.64 
 
 309 
 
 42°17'54.49" 
 
 -87°48'45.51" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,700.63 
 
 309 
 
 42°17'54.49" 
 
 -87°48'45.51" 
 
 1987 
 
 5.739.63 
 
 Latitude and Longitude 
 of Transect-ShoreUne Intersect 
 
 42°18'06.19" -87°50'02.74" 
 
 42°18'06.18" -87°50'05.70" 
 
 42°18'06.18" -87°50'05.85" 
 
 42°18'06.18" -87"50'04.86" 
 
 42°18'04.70" -87°50'02.65" 
 
 42°18'04.69" -87°50'03.51" 
 
 42°18'04.70" -87°50'04.32" 
 
 42°18'04.69" -87°50'04.96" 
 
 42°18'03.21" -87"50'02.60" 
 
 42°18'03.2T -87°50'03.14" 
 
 42°18'03.21" -87°50'04.21" 
 
 42°18'03.21" -87°50'04.96" 
 
 42°18'01.73" -87°50'02.14" 
 
 42°18'01.72" -87°50'03.22" 
 
 42°1 8'01 .73" -87°50'03.97" 
 
 42°1 8'01 .72" -87°50'04.68" 
 
 42°18'00.25" -87°50'01.67" 
 
 42°18'00.24" -87°50'03.16" 
 
 42°18'00.23" -87°50'03.63" 
 
 42°18'00.23" -87°50'03.79" 
 
 42°1 7'58.75" -87°50'01 .38" 
 
 42°17'58.75" -87°50'02.89" 
 
 42°17'58.75" -87°50'03.27" 
 
 42°17'58.75" -87°50'04.00" 
 
 42°17'57.27" -87°50'01.46" 
 
 42°17'57.26" -87°50'02.58" 
 
 42°17'57.26" -87°50'02.84" 
 
 42°17'57.26" -87°50'03.45" 
 
 42°17'55.78" -87°50'02.19" 
 
 42°17'55.77" -87°50'02.37" 
 
 42°17'55.78" -87°50'02.79" 
 
 42°17'55.78" -87°50'02.86" 
 
 42°17'54.29" -87°50'04.13" 
 
 42°17'54.28" -87"5O'02.39" 
 
 42°1 7'54.29" -87°50'01 .65" 
 
 42°17'54.29" -87°50'02.18" 
 
 224 
 
Appendix K (continued) 
 Blufflines for Corridor 3 (continued) 
 
 Transect Latitude and Longitude 
 
 
 Distance 
 
 Code 
 
 of Spine-Transect Intersect 
 
 Year (s ) 
 
 (feet) 
 
 310 
 
 42°17'53.00" 
 
 -87°48'45.51" 
 
 1873 
 
 5.640.36 
 
 310 
 
 42°17'53.00" 
 
 -87°48'45.51" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 • • • 
 
 310 
 
 42°17'53.00" 
 
 -87°48'45.51" 
 
 1947 
 
 * •* 
 
 310 
 
 42°17'53.00" 
 
 -87°48'45.51" 
 
 1987 
 
 • • • 
 
 311 
 
 42°17'51.52" 
 
 -87°48'45.50" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,617.85 
 
 311 
 
 42°17'51.52" 
 
 -87°48'45.50" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,752.64 
 
 311 
 
 42°17'51.52" 
 
 -87°48'45.50" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,682.87 
 
 311 
 
 42°17'51.52" 
 
 -87°48'45.50" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,685.12 
 
 312 
 
 42°17'50.03" 
 
 -87°48'45.49" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,646.86 
 
 312 
 
 42°17'50.03" 
 
 -87°48'45.49" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5.760.63 
 
 312 
 
 42°17'50.03" 
 
 -87°48'45.49" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,628.36 
 
 312 
 
 42°17'50.03" 
 
 -87°48'45.49" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,669.86 
 
 313 
 
 42°17'48.54" 
 
 -87°48'45.48" 
 
 1873 
 
 5.678.12 
 
 313 
 
 42°17'48.54" 
 
 -87"48'45.48" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,767.64 
 
 313 
 
 42°17'48.54" 
 
 -87°48'45.48" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,681.87 
 
 313 
 
 42°17'48.54" 
 
 -87°48'45.48" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,714.62 
 
 314 
 
 42°17'47.05" 
 
 -87°48'45.47" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,701.12 
 
 314 
 
 42°17'47.05" 
 
 -87°48'45.47" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,793.89 
 
 314 
 
 42°17'47.05" 
 
 -87°48'45.47" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,718.38 
 
 314 
 
 42°17'47.05" 
 
 -87°48'45.47" 
 
 1987 
 
 5.749.13 
 
 315 
 
 42°17'45.56" 
 
 -87°48'45.47" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,721.63 
 
 315 
 
 42°17'45.56" 
 
 -87°48'45.47" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,818.40 
 
 315 
 
 42°17'45.56" 
 
 -87°48'45.47" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,730.88 
 
 315 
 
 42°17'45.56" 
 
 -87°48'45.47" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,771.64 
 
 316 
 
 42°17'44.08" 
 
 -87°48'45.46" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,745.64 
 
 316 
 
 42°17'44.08" 
 
 -87°48'45.46" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5.807.90 
 
 316 
 
 42°17'44.08" 
 
 -87°48'45.46" 
 
 1947 
 
 * • « 
 
 316 
 
 42°17'44.08" 
 
 -87°48'45.46" 
 
 1987 
 
 5.775.89 
 
 317 
 
 42°17'42.59" 
 
 -87°48'45.46" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,760.14 
 
 317 
 
 42°17'42.59" 
 
 -87°48'45.46" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,810.40 
 
 317 
 
 42°17'42.59" 
 
 -87°48'45.46" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,781.40 
 
 317 
 
 42°17'42.59" 
 
 -87°48'45.46" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,791.90 
 
 318 
 
 42°17'41.10" 
 
 -87°48'45.44" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,767.39 
 
 318 
 
 42°17'41.10" 
 
 -87°48'45.44" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,834.91 
 
 318 
 
 42°17'41.10" 
 
 -87°48'45.44" 
 
 1947 
 
 5.780.14 
 
 318 
 
 42°17'41.10" 
 
 -87°48'45.44" 
 
 1987 
 
 5.827.91 
 
 319 
 
 42°17'39.61" 
 
 -87°48'45.44" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,770.14 
 
 319 
 
 42°17'39.61" 
 
 -87°48'45.44" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,840.15 
 
 319 
 
 42°17'39.61" 
 
 -87°48'45.44" 
 
 1947 
 
 5.777.14 
 
 319 
 
 42°17'39.61" 
 
 -87°48'45.44" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,802.65 
 
 Latitude and Longitude 
 of Transect-Shoreline Intersect 
 
 42°17'52.81" -87°50'00.85" 
 
 42°17'52.79" -87°50'04.43" 
 
 42°17'52.79" -87°50'04.94" 
 
 42°17'52.81" -87°50'02.29" 
 
 42°17'51.32" -87°50'00.54" 
 
 42°1 7'51 .32" -87°50'02.34" 
 
 42°17'51.32" -87°50'01.41" 
 
 42°17'51.32" -87°50'01.43" 
 
 42°17'49.83" -87°50'00.92" 
 
 42°17'49.83" -87°50'02.43" 
 
 42°17'49.83" -87°50'00.67" 
 
 42°17'49.84" -87°50'01.23" 
 
 42°1 7'48.34" -87°50'01 .33" 
 
 42°17'48.34" -87°50'02.52" 
 
 42°1 7'48.34" -87°50'01 .37" 
 
 42°17'48.35" -87°50'01.81" 
 
 42°17'46.85" -87°50'01.62" 
 
 42°17'46.85" -87°50'02.87" 
 
 42°1 7'46.85" -87°50'01 .85" 
 
 42°17'46.85" -87°50'02.27" 
 
 42°17'45.36" -87°50'01 .90" 
 
 42°17'45.36" -87°50'03.18" 
 
 42°17'45.36" -87°50'02.02" 
 
 42°17'45.36" -87°50'02.57" 
 
 42°17'43.88" -87°50'02.21" 
 
 42°17'43.88" -87°50'03.05" 
 42°1 7'43.88"-87°50'03.58" 
 
 42°17'43.87" -87°50'02.62" 
 
 42°17'42.39" -87°50'02.39" 
 
 42°17'42.39" -87°50'03.07" 
 
 42°17'42.39" -87°50'02.68" 
 
 42°17'42.39" -87°50'02.82" 
 
 42°17'40.91" -87°50'02.48" 
 
 42°17'40.90" -87°50'03.39" 
 
 42°17'40.90" -87°50'02.65" 
 
 42°17'40.90" -87°50'03.29" 
 
 42°17'39.42" -87°50'02.52" 
 
 42°1 7'39.41 " -87°50'03.45" 
 
 42°17'39.41" -87°50'02.61" 
 
 42°1 7'39.41 " -87°50'02.94" 
 
 225 
 
Appendix K (continued) 
 Blufflines for Corridor 3 (continued) 
 
 Transect Latitude and Longitude 
 
 
 Distance 
 
 Code 
 
 of Spine-Transect Intersect 
 
 Year(s) 
 
 (feet) 
 
 320 
 
 42°17'38.12" 
 
 -87°48'45.44" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,777.14 
 
 320 
 
 42°17'38.12" 
 
 -87°48'45.44" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5.817.90 
 
 320 
 
 42°17'38.12" 
 
 -87°48'45.44" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,775.14 
 
 320 
 
 42°17'38.12" 
 
 -87°48'45.44" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,856.66 
 
 321 
 
 42°17'36.64" 
 
 -87°48'45.44" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,771.64 
 
 321 
 
 42°17'36.64" 
 
 -87°48'45.44" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,781.64 
 
 321 
 
 42°17'36.64" 
 
 -87°48'45.44" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,761.63 
 
 321 
 
 42°17'36.64" 
 
 -87°48'45.44" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,850.41 
 
 322 
 
 42°17'35.15" 
 
 -87°48'45.42" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,746.13 
 
 322 
 
 42°17'35.15" 
 
 -87°48'45.42" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5.755.14 
 
 322 
 
 42°17'35.15" 
 
 -87°48'45.42" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,730.63 
 
 322 
 
 42°17'35.15" 
 
 -87°48'45.42" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,809.40 
 
 323 
 
 42°17'33.67" 
 
 -87°48'45.42" 
 
 1873 
 
 5.711.63 
 
 323 
 
 42°17'33.67" 
 
 -87°48'45.42" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,730.38 
 
 323 
 
 42°17'33.67" 
 
 -87°48'45.42" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,734.89 
 
 323 
 
 42 <> 17'33.67" 
 
 -87°48'45.42" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,772.89 
 
 324 
 
 42°17'32.18" 
 
 -87°48'45.41" 
 
 1873 
 
 5.670.12 
 
 324 
 
 42°17'32.18" 
 
 -87°48'45.41" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,716.88 
 
 324 
 
 42°17'32.18" 
 
 -87°48*45.41" 
 
 1947 
 
 5.718.13 
 
 324 
 
 42°17'32.18" 
 
 -87°48'45.41" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,736.63 
 
 325 
 
 42°1 7*30.69" 
 
 -87°48'45.41 " 
 
 1873 
 
 5,653.36 
 
 325 
 
 42°17'30.69" 
 
 -87°48'45.41" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,701.62 
 
 325 
 
 42°17'30.69" 
 
 -87°48'45.41" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,703.62 
 
 325 
 
 42°17'30.69" 
 
 -87°48'45.41" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,664.36 
 
 326 
 
 42°17'29.21" 
 
 -87°48'45.39" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,606.60 
 
 326 
 
 42°17'29.21" 
 
 -87°48'45.39" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,685.62 
 
 326 
 
 42°17'29.21" 
 
 -87°48'45.39" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,671.12 
 
 326 
 
 42°17'29.21" 
 
 -87°48'45.39" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,626.86 
 
 327 
 
 42°17'27.72" 
 
 -87°48'45.39" 
 
 1873 
 
 5.558.34 
 
 327 
 
 42°17'27.72" 
 
 -87°48'45.39" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,670.61 
 
 327 
 
 42°17'27.72" 
 
 -87°48'45.39" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,617.60 
 
 327 
 
 42°17'27.72" 
 
 -87°48'45.39" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,600.60 
 
 328 
 
 42°17'26.23" 
 
 -87°48'45.39" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,526.83 
 
 328 
 
 42°17'26.23" 
 
 -87°48'45.39" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,656.61 
 
 328 
 
 42°17'26.23" 
 
 -87°48'45.39" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,606.35 
 
 328 
 
 42°17'26.23" 
 
 -87°48'45.39" 
 
 1987 
 
 5.651.86 
 
 329 
 
 42°17'24.74" 
 
 -87°48'45.37" 
 
 1873 
 
 5.512.83 
 
 329 
 
 42°17'24.74" 
 
 -87°48'45.37" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,656.36 
 
 329 
 
 42°17'24.74" 
 
 -87°48'45.37" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,655.36 
 
 329 
 
 42°17'24.74" 
 
 -87°48'45.37" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,628.61 
 
 Latitude and Longitude 
 of Transect-Shoreline Intersect 
 
 42°17'37.92" -87°5O'02.59" 
 
 42°17'37.93" -87°50'03.14" 
 
 42°17'37.92" -87°50'02.57" 
 
 42°17'37.93" -87°50'03.66" 
 
 42°17'36.43" -87°50'02.52" 
 
 42°17'36.43" -87°50'02.66" 
 
 42°17'36.44" -87°50'02.39" 
 
 42°17'36.44" -87°50'03.58" 
 
 42°17'34.95" -87°50'02.17" 
 
 42°17'34.95" -87°50'02.29" 
 
 42°17'34.95" -87°50'01 .96" 
 
 42°17'34.95" -87°50'03.01" 
 
 42°17'33.47" -87°50'01 .70" 
 
 42°17'33.47" -87°50'01.95" 
 
 42°17'33.46" -87°50'02.01 " 
 
 42°17'33.47" -87°50'02.52" 
 
 42°17'31.98" -87°50'01.14" 
 
 42°17'31.98" -87°50'01.76" 
 
 42°17'31.98" -87°50'01.78" 
 
 42°17'31.97" -87°50'02.03" 
 
 42°17'30.49" -87°50'00.92" 
 
 42°1 7*30.49" -87°50'01.56" 
 
 42°17'30.49" -87°50'01.59" 
 
 42°1 7'30.49" -87°50'01 .07" 
 
 42°17'29.00" -87°50'00.27" 
 
 42°17'29.01" -87°50'01.33" 
 
 42°17'29.00" -87°50'01.14" 
 
 42°17'29.01" -87°50'00.56" 
 
 42°17'27.52" -87°49'59.63" 
 
 42°17'27.52" -87°50'01.13" 
 
 42°17'27.52" -87°50'00.42" 
 
 42°17'27.52" -87°50'00.19" 
 
 42°17'26.03" -87°49'59.20" 
 
 42°17'26.03" -87°50'00.94" 
 
 42°17'26.03" -87°50'00.27" 
 
 42°17'26.03" -87°50'00.87" 
 
 42°17'24.54" -87°49'59.01" 
 
 42°17'24.54" -87°50'00.92" 
 
 42°17'24.54" -87°50'00.91" 
 
 42°17'24.54" -87°50'00.56" 
 
 226 
 
Appendix K (continued) 
 Blufflines for Corridor 3 (continued) 
 
 Transact Latitude and Longituda 
 
 
 Distance 
 
 Coda 
 
 of Spina-Transect Intersect 
 
 Yaar(a) 
 
 (faat) 
 
 330 
 
 42°17'23.25" 
 
 -87°48'45.37" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,501.83 
 
 330 
 
 42°17'23.25" 
 
 -87°48'45.37" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,656.62 
 
 330 
 
 42°17'23.25" 
 
 -87°48'45.37" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,593.85 
 
 330 
 
 42°17'23.25" 
 
 -87°48'45.37" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,633.36 
 
 331 
 
 42°17'21.77" 
 
 -87°48'45.35" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,482.58 
 
 331 
 
 42°17'21.77" 
 
 -87°48'45.35" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,652.87 
 
 331 
 
 42°17'21.77" 
 
 -87°48'45.35" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,616.35 
 
 331 
 
 42°17'21.77" 
 
 -87°48'45.35" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,659.37 
 
 332 
 
 42°17'20.28" 
 
 -87°48'45.35" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,456.07 
 
 332 
 
 42°17'20.28" 
 
 -87°48'45.35" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,637.11 
 
 332 
 
 42°17'20.28" 
 
 -87°48'45.35" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,592.35 
 
 332 
 
 42°17'20.28" 
 
 -87°48'45.35" 
 
 1987 
 
 5.637.61 
 
 333 
 
 42°17'18.79" 
 
 -87°48'45.35" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,431.81 
 
 333 
 
 42°1 7'1 8.79" 
 
 -87°48'45.35" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,618.60 
 
 333 
 
 42°17'18.79" 
 
 -87°48'45.35" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,606.60 
 
 333 
 
 42°17'18.79" 
 
 -87°48'45.35" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,600.85 
 
 334 
 
 42°17'17.30" 
 
 -87°48'45.34" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,416.80 
 
 334 
 
 42°17'17.30" 
 
 -87°48'45.34" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,596.35 
 
 334 
 
 42°17'17.30" 
 
 -87°48'45.34" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,540.33 
 
 334 
 
 42°17'17.30" 
 
 -87°48'45.34" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,553.09 
 
 335 
 
 42°17'15.82" 
 
 -87°48'45.33" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,403.55 
 
 335 
 
 42°1 7'15.82" 
 
 -87°48'45.33" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,568.59 
 
 335 
 
 42°17'15.82" 
 
 -87°48'45.33" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,546.59 
 
 335 
 
 42°17'15.82" 
 
 -87°48'45.33" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,550.09 
 
 Latitude and Longituda 
 of Transect-Shoreline Intersect 
 
 42°17'23.06" -87°49'58.85" 
 
 42°17'23.05" -87°50'00.92" 
 
 42°17'23.06" -87°50'00.07" 
 
 42°17'23.06" -87°50'00.61" 
 
 42°17'21.57" -87°49'58.59" 
 
 42"1 7'21 .56" -87°50'00.86" 
 
 42°1 7'21 .56" -87°50'00.37" 
 
 42°17'21.56" -87°50'00.94" 
 
 42°17'20.09" -87°49'58.22" 
 
 42°17'20.08" -87°50'00.64" 
 
 42°17'20.08" -87°50'00.04" 
 
 42°17'20.08" -87°50'00.66" 
 
 42°17'18.60" -87°49'57.89" 
 
 42°17'18.59" -87°50'00.39" 
 
 42°17'18.60" -87°50'00.22" 
 
 42°17'18.60" -87°50'00.14" 
 
 42°17'17.11" -87°49'57.68" 
 
 42°17'17.11" -87°50'00.09" 
 
 42°1 7'17.11" -87°49'59.34" 
 
 42°17'17.11" -87°49'59.50" 
 
 42°17'15.62" -87°49'57.51" 
 
 42°17'15.61" -87°49'59.71" 
 
 42°17' 15.62" -87°49'59.42" 
 
 42°17'15.62" -87°49'59.46" 
 
 227 
 
Appendix K (continued) 
 
 BLUFFLINES FOR CORRIDOR 4 
 
 Transect Latitude and Longitude 
 
 
 Distance 
 
 Code 
 
 of Spine-Transect Intersect 
 
 Year(s) 
 
 (feet) 
 
 401 
 
 42°14'50.17" 
 
 -87°47'46.29" 
 
 1873 
 
 5.712.17 
 
 401 
 
 42°14'50.17" 
 
 -87°47'46.29" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5.763.42 
 
 401 
 
 42°14'50.17" 
 
 -87°47'46.29" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,790.07 
 
 401 
 
 42°14'50.17" 
 
 -87°47'46.29" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,812.22 
 
 402 
 
 42°14'48.73" 
 
 -87°47'45.74" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,719.76 
 
 402 
 
 42°14'48.73" 
 
 -87°47'45.74" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,742.22 
 
 402 
 
 42°14'48.73" 
 
 -87°47'45.74" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,791.10 
 
 402 
 
 42°14'48.73" 
 
 -87°47'45.74" 
 
 1987 
 
 5.811.19 
 
 403 
 
 42°14'47.31" 
 
 -87°47'45.19" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,806.52 
 
 403 
 
 42°14'47.31" 
 
 -87°47'45.19" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5.760.25 
 
 403 
 
 42°14'47.31" 
 
 -87°47'45.19" 
 
 1947 
 
 5.798.69 
 
 403 
 
 42°14'47.31" 
 
 -87°47'45.19" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,849.38 
 
 404 
 
 42°14'45.87" 
 
 -87°47'44.65" 
 
 1873 
 
 • • * 
 
 404 
 
 42°14'45.87" 
 
 -87°47'44.65" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 >*• 
 
 404 
 
 42°14'45.87" 
 
 -87°47'44.65" 
 
 1947 
 
 • * * 
 
 404 
 
 42°14'45.87" 
 
 -87°47'44.65" 
 
 1987 
 
 • » * 
 
 405 
 
 42°14'44.44" 
 
 -87°47'44.10" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,840.21 
 
 405 
 
 42°14'44.44" 
 
 -87°47'44.10" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,793.47 
 
 405 
 
 42°14'44.44" 
 
 -87°47'44.10" 
 
 1947 
 
 • * • 
 
 405 
 
 42°1 4'44.44" 
 
 -87°47'44.10" 
 
 1987 
 
 » • • 
 
 406 
 
 42°14'43.01" 
 
 -87°47*43.55" 
 
 1873 
 
 5.763.10 
 
 406 
 
 42°14'43.01" 
 
 -87°47'43.55" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,817.20 
 
 406 
 
 42°14'43.01" 
 
 -87°47'43.55" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,835.78 
 
 406 
 
 42°14'43.01" 
 
 -87°47'43.55" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,842.03 
 
 407 
 
 42°14'41.58" 
 
 -87°47'43.00" 
 
 1873 
 
 5.734.32 
 
 407 
 
 42°14'41.58" 
 
 -87°47'43.00" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5.843.85 
 
 407 
 
 42°14'41.58" 
 
 -87°47'43.00" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,859.27 
 
 407 
 
 42°14'41.58" 
 
 -87°47'43.00" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,861.64 
 
 408 
 
 42°14'40.16" 
 
 -87°47'42.44" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,710.59 
 
 408 
 
 42°14'40.16" 
 
 -87°47'42.44" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,837.36 
 
 408 
 
 42°1 4*40.16" 
 
 -87°47 '42.44" 
 
 1947 
 
 5.847.01 
 
 408 
 
 42°14'40.16" 
 
 -87°47'42.44" 
 
 1987 
 
 5.856.97 
 
 409 
 
 42°14'38.72" 
 
 -87°47'41.91" 
 
 1873 
 
 5.736.21 
 
 409 
 
 42°14'38.72" 
 
 -87°47'41.91" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,806.52 
 
 409 
 
 42°14'38.72" 
 
 -87°47'41.91" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,814.97 
 
 409 
 
 42°14'38.72" 
 
 -87°47'41.91" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,831.11 
 
 Latitude and Longitude 
 of Transect-ShoreUne Intersect 
 
 42°14'34.66" -87°48'59.62" 
 
 42°14'34.52" -87°49 '00.28" 
 
 42°1 4'34.44" -87°49'00.61 " 
 
 42°14'34.39" -87°49'00.90" 
 
 42°14'33.20" -87°48'59.16" 
 
 42°14'33.14" -87°48'59.46" 
 
 42°14'33.01" -87°49'00.08" 
 
 42°14'32.95" -87°49'00.34" 
 
 42°14'31.54" -87°48'59.73" 
 
 42°14'31.67" -87°48'59.14" 
 
 42°14'31.55" -87°48'59.63" 
 
 42°14'31.42" -87°49'00.28" 
 
 42°14'28.77" -87°49'05.51" 
 
 42°14'28.86" -87°49'05.05" 
 
 42°14'29.66" -87°49'01 .28" 
 
 42°14'28.90" -87°49'04.90" 
 
 42°14'28.58" -87°48'59.07" 
 
 42°14'28.71" -87°48'58.46" 
 
 42°14'27.65" -87°49'03.48" 
 
 42°14'27.73" -87°49'03.08" 
 
 42°14'27.36" -87°48'57.53" 
 
 42°14'27.22" -87°48'58.22" 
 
 42°14'27.16" -87°48'58.46" 
 
 42°14'27.15" -87°48'58.54" 
 
 42°14'26.01" -87°48'56.61" 
 
 42°14'25.71" -87°48'58.02" 
 
 42°14'25.67" -87°48'58.20" 
 
 42°14'25.66" -87°48'58.24" 
 
 42°14'24.65" -87°48'55.76" 
 
 42°14'24.30" -87°48'57.38" 
 
 42°14'24.27" -87°48'57.50" 
 
 42°14'24.25" -87°48'57.64" 
 
 42°14'23.15" -87°48'55.54" 
 
 42°14'22.95" -87°48'56.44" 
 
 42°14'22.93" -87°48'56.55" 
 
 42°14'22.88" -87°48'56.75" 
 
 228 
 
Appendix K (continued) 
 Blufflines for Corridor 4 (continued) 
 
 Transect Latitude and Longitude 
 
 
 Distance 
 
 Latitude and Longitude 
 
 Code 
 
 of Spine-Transect Intersect 
 
 Year(s) 
 
 (feet) 
 
 of Transect-Shoreline Intersect 
 
 410 
 
 42°14'37.29" 
 
 -87°47'41 .36" 
 
 1873 
 
 5.717.39 
 
 42°14'21.77" 
 
 -87°48'54.75" 
 
 410 
 
 42°14'37.29" 
 
 -87°47'41 .36" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5.779.87 
 
 42°14'21.60" 
 
 -87°48'55.54" 
 
 410 
 
 42°14'37.29" 
 
 -87°47'41.36" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,826.92 
 
 42°14'21.47" 
 
 -87°48'56.15" 
 
 410 
 
 42°14'37.29" 
 
 -87°47'41.36" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,809.99 
 
 42°14'21.51" 
 
 -87°48'55.93" 
 
 411 
 
 42°14'35.86" 
 
 -87°47'40.80" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,703.79 
 
 42°14'20.37" 
 
 -87°48'54.02" 
 
 411 
 
 42°14'35.86" 
 
 -87°47'40.80" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,779.32 
 
 42°14'20.16" 
 
 -87°48'54.99" 
 
 411 
 
 42°14'35.86" 
 
 -87°47'40.80" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,831.59 
 
 42°14'20.02" 
 
 -87°48'55.66" 
 
 411 
 
 42°14'35.86" 
 
 -87°47'40.80" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,813.32 
 
 42°14'20.07" 
 
 -87°48'55.43" 
 
 412 
 
 42°14'34.43" 
 
 -87°47'40.25" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,695.24 
 
 42°14'18.96" 
 
 -87°48'53.37" 
 
 412 
 
 42°14'34.43" 
 
 -87°47'40.25" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,773.86 
 
 42°14'18.76" 
 
 -87°48'54.37" 
 
 412 
 
 42°14'34.43" 
 
 -87°47'40.25" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,792.20 
 
 42°14'18.70" 
 
 -87°48'54.61" 
 
 412 
 
 42°14'34.43" 
 
 -87°47'40.25" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,770.22 
 
 42°14'18.76" 
 
 -87°48'54.33" 
 
 413 
 
 42°14'33.00" 
 
 -87°47'39.72" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,754.72 
 
 42°14'17.38" 
 
 -87°48'53.58" 
 
 413 
 
 42°14'33.00" 
 
 -87°47'39.72" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,821.15 
 
 42°14*17.19" 
 
 -87°48'54.44" 
 
 413 
 
 42°14'33.00" 
 
 -87°47'39.72" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,774.89 
 
 42°14'17.32" 
 
 -87°48'53.83" 
 
 413 
 
 42°14'33.00" 
 
 -87°47'39.72" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,784.30 
 
 42°14'17.29" 
 
 -87°48'53.95" 
 
 414 
 
 42°14'31.57" 
 
 -87°47'39.16" 
 
 1873 
 
 » • * 
 
 42°14'14.20" 
 
 -87°49'01.28" 
 
 414 
 
 42°14'31.57" 
 
 -87°47'39.16" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 • • • 
 
 42°14'14.36" 
 
 -87°49'00.50" 
 
 414 
 
 42°14'31.57" 
 
 -87°47'39.16" 
 
 1947 
 
 ft tt • 
 
 42°14'14.37" 
 
 -87°49'00.46" 
 
 414 
 
 42°14'31.57" 
 
 -87°47'39.16" 
 
 1987 
 
 • * • 
 
 42°14'14.59" 
 
 -87°48'59.43" 
 
 415 
 
 42°14'30.13" 
 
 -87°47'38.61" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,782.16 
 
 42°14'14.44" 
 
 -87°48'52.84" 
 
 415 
 
 42°14'30.13" 
 
 -87°47'38.61" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,838.87 
 
 42°14'14.28" 
 
 -87°48'53.56" 
 
 415 
 
 42°14'30.13" 
 
 -87°47'38.61" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,767.53 
 
 42°14'14.48" 
 
 -87°48'52.65" 
 
 415 
 
 42°14'30.13" 
 
 -87°47'38.61" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,786.12 
 
 42°14'14.42" 
 
 -87°48'52.89" 
 
 416 
 
 42°14'28.71" 
 
 -87°47'38.07" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,785.56 
 
 42°14'12.99" 
 
 -87°48'52.34" 
 
 416 
 
 42°14'28.71" 
 
 -87°47'38.07" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5.852.78 
 
 42°14*12.81" 
 
 -87°48'53.20" 
 
 416 
 
 42°14'28.71" 
 
 -87°47'38.07" 
 
 1947 
 
 5.786.67 
 
 42°14'12.99" 
 
 -87°48'52.35" 
 
 416 
 
 42°14'28.71" 
 
 -87°47'38.07" 
 
 1987 
 
 5.815.14 
 
 42°14'12.91" 
 
 -87°48'52.72" 
 
 417 
 
 42°14'27.27" 
 
 -87°47'37.52" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,792.37 
 
 42°14'11.55" 
 
 -87°48'51.87" 
 
 417 
 
 42°14'27.27" 
 
 -87°47'37.52" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,870.02 
 
 42°14'11.33" 
 
 -87°48'52.86" 
 
 417 
 
 42°14'27.27" 
 
 -87°47'37.52" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,803.67 
 
 42°14'11.51" 
 
 -87°48'52.02" 
 
 417 
 
 42°14'27.27" 
 
 -87°47'37.52" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,810.16 
 
 42°14'11.50" 
 
 -87°48'52.10" 
 
 418 
 
 42°14'25.85" 
 
 -87°47'36.97" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,841.55 
 
 42°14'09.98" 
 
 -87°48'51.95" 
 
 418 
 
 42°14'25.85" 
 
 -87°47'36.97" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,869.31 
 
 42°14'09.91" 
 
 -87°48'52.31" 
 
 418 
 
 42°14'25.85" 
 
 -87°47'36.97" 
 
 1947 
 
 • • • 
 
 42°14'09.11" 
 
 -87°48'56.08" 
 
 418 
 
 42°14'25.85" 
 
 -87°47'36.97" 
 
 1987 
 
 ■ •• 
 
 42°14'08.86" 
 
 -87°48'57.25" 
 
 419 
 
 42°14'24.41" 
 
 -87°47'36.42" 
 
 1873 
 
 « • m 
 
 42°14'06.95" 
 
 -87°48'58.95" 
 
 419 
 
 42°14'24.41" 
 
 -87°47'36.42" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 « » • 
 
 42°14'08.23" 
 
 -87°48'52.93" 
 
 419 
 
 42°14'24.41" 
 
 -87°47'36.42" 
 
 1947 
 
 « * « 
 
 42°14'07.08" 
 
 -87°48'58.39" 
 
 419 
 
 42°14'24.41" 
 
 -87°47'36.42" 
 
 1987 
 
 • « * 
 
 42°14'07.43" 
 
 -87°48'56.70" 
 
 229 
 
Appendix K (continued) 
 Blufflines for Corridor 4 (continued) 
 
 Transect Latitude and Longitude 
 
 
 Distance 
 
 Latitude and Longitude 
 
 Code 
 
 of Spine-Transect Intersect 
 
 Year(s) 
 
 (feet) 
 
 of Transect-ShoreBne Intersec 
 
 420 
 
 42°14'22.98" 
 
 -87°47'35.87" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,811.74 
 
 42°14'07.21" 
 
 -87°48'50.47' 
 
 420 
 
 42-t 4-22.98" 
 
 -87°47'35.87" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 * * • 
 
 42°14'06.12" 
 
 -87°48'55.62' 
 
 420 
 
 42°14'22.98" 
 
 -87°47'35.87" 
 
 1947 
 
 5.879.67 
 
 42°14'07.02" 
 
 -87°48'51 .34' 
 
 420 
 
 42°14'22.98" 
 
 -87°47'35.87" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,890.35 
 
 42"14'06.99" 
 
 -87°48'51.49' 
 
 421 
 
 42°14'21.55" 
 
 -87°47'35.33" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,840.45 
 
 42°14'05.69" 
 
 -87°48'50.29' 
 
 421 
 
 42°14'21.55" 
 
 -87°47'35.33" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 6,053.18 
 
 42°14'05.12" 
 
 -87°48'53.03' 
 
 421 
 
 42°14'21.55" 
 
 -87°47'35.33" 
 
 1947 
 
 5.898.73 
 
 42°14'05.54" 
 
 -87°48'51.04' 
 
 421 
 
 42°14'21.55" 
 
 -87°47'35.33" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,882.21 
 
 42°14'05.58" 
 
 -87°48'50.83' 
 
 422 
 
 42°14'20.12" 
 
 -87°47'34.78" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,836.88 
 
 42°14'04.27" 
 
 -87°48'49.70' 
 
 422 
 
 42°14'20.12" 
 
 -87°47'34.78" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 6.025.17 
 
 42°14'03.76" 
 
 ■87°48'52.12' 
 
 422 
 
 42°14'20.12" 
 
 -87°47'34.78" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,901.18 
 
 42°14'04.10" 
 
 -87°48'50.52' 
 
 422 
 
 42°14'20.12" 
 
 -87°47'34.78" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,905.06 
 
 42°14'04.09" 
 
 -87°48'50.57' 
 
 423 
 
 42°14'18.70" 
 
 -87°47'34.23" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,828.26 
 
 42°14'02.86" 
 
 -87°48'49.04' 
 
 423 
 
 42°14'18.70" 
 
 -87°47'34.23" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,980.89 
 
 42°14'02.45" 
 
 -87°48'51 .00' 
 
 423 
 
 42°14'18.70" 
 
 -87°47'34.23" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,896.75 
 
 42°14'02.67" 
 
 -87 48'49.91• 
 
 423 
 
 42°14'18.70" 
 
 -87°47'34.23" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,901.66 
 
 42°14'02.67" 
 
 -87°48'49.98' 
 
 424 
 
 42°14'17.26" 
 
 -87°47'33.68" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,818.78 
 
 42°14'01.46" 
 
 -87°48'48.37* 
 
 424 
 
 42°14'17.26" 
 
 -87°47'33.68" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,920.40 
 
 42°14'01.18" 
 
 -87°48'49.67* 
 
 424 
 
 42°14'17.26" 
 
 -87°47'33.68" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,868.99 
 
 42°14'01.32" 
 
 -87 o 48'49.01 , 
 
 424 
 
 42°14'17.26" 
 
 -87°47'33.68" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,860.06 
 
 42°14'01.35" 
 
 -87 48'48.91 , 
 
 425 
 
 42°14'15.82" 
 
 -87°47'33.14" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,811.19 
 
 42°14'00.05" 
 
 -87°48'47.72' 
 
 425 
 
 42°14'15.82" 
 
 -87°47'33.14" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,892.56 
 
 42°13'59.82" 
 
 -87°48'48.77' 
 
 425 
 
 42°14'15.82" 
 
 -87°47'33.14" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,845.19 
 
 42°13'59.95" 
 
 -87°48'48.17' 
 
 425 
 
 42°14'15.82" 
 
 -87°47'33.14" 
 
 1987 
 
 5.859.03 
 
 42°13'59.91" 
 
 -87°48'48.34' 
 
 426 
 
 42°14'14.40" 
 
 -87°47'32.59" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,801.85 
 
 42°13'58.65" 
 
 -87°48'47.05' 
 
 426 
 
 42°14'14.40" 
 
 -87°47'32.59" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,887.58 
 
 42°13'58.41" 
 
 -87°48'48.15* 
 
 426 
 
 42°14'14.40" 
 
 -87°47'32.59" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,812.53 
 
 42°13'58.62" 
 
 -87°48'47.20' 
 
 426 
 
 42°14'14.40" 
 
 -87°47'32.59" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,835.54 
 
 42°13'58.55" 
 
 -87°48'47.49" 
 
 427 
 
 42°14'12.96" 
 
 -87°47'32.04" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,769.67 
 
 42°13'57.29" 
 
 -87°48'46.10' 
 
 427 
 
 42°14'12.96" 
 
 -87°47'32.04" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,866.86 
 
 42°13'57.03" 
 
 -87 48'47.35' 
 
 427 
 
 42°1 4'1 2.96" 
 
 -87°47'32.04" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,816.41 
 
 42°13'57.17" 
 
 -87°48'46.70" 
 
 427 
 
 42°14'12.96" 
 
 -87°47'32.04" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,822.18 
 
 42°13'57.16" 
 
 -87°48'46.77" 
 
 428 
 
 42°14'11.53" 
 
 -87°47'31.49" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,750.37 
 
 42°13'55.92" 
 
 -87°48'45.30" 
 
 428 
 
 42°14'11.53" 
 
 -87°47'31.49" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,888.84 
 
 42°13'55.54" 
 
 -87°48'47.08" 
 
 428 
 
 42°14'11.53" 
 
 -87°47'31.49" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,839.49 
 
 42°13'55.68" 
 
 -87°48'46.45' 
 
 428 
 
 42°14'11.53" 
 
 -87°47'31.49" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,855.70 
 
 42°13'55.64" 
 
 -87°48'46.65" 
 
 429 
 
 42°14'10.10" 
 
 -87°47'30.95" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,741.43 
 
 42°13'54.52" 
 
 -87°48'44.65" 
 
 429 
 
 42°14'10.10" 
 
 -87°47'30.95" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,893.83 
 
 42°13'54.10" 
 
 -87°48'46.59" 
 
 429 
 
 42°14'10.10" 
 
 -87°47'30.95" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,851.99 
 
 42°13'54.21" 
 
 -87°48'46.06" 
 
 429 
 
 42°14'10.10" 
 
 -87°47'30.95" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,830.32 
 
 42°13'54.27" 
 
 -87°48'45.79" 
 
 230 
 
Appendix K (continued) 
 Blufflines for Corridor 4 (continued) 
 
 Transect Latitude and Longitude 
 
 
 Distance 
 
 Code 
 
 of Spine-Transect Intersect 
 
 Year(s) 
 
 (feet) 
 
 430 
 
 42°14'08.67" 
 
 -87°47'30.40" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,734.39 
 
 430 
 
 42°14'08.67" 
 
 -87°47'30.40" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,905.06 
 
 430 
 
 42°14'08.67" 
 
 -87°47'30.40" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,844.16 
 
 430 
 
 42°14'08.67" 
 
 -87°47'30.40" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,845.26 
 
 431 
 
 42°14'07.25" 
 
 -87°47'29.85" 
 
 1873 
 
 5.728.14 
 
 431 
 
 42°14'07.25" 
 
 -87°47'29.85" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5.916.05 
 
 431 
 
 42°14'07.25" 
 
 -87°47'29.85" 
 
 1947 
 
 ft ft ft 
 
 431 
 
 42°14'07.25" 
 
 -87°47'29.85" 
 
 1987 
 
 ft ft ft 
 
 432 
 
 42°14'05.81" 
 
 -87°47'29.30" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,749.10 
 
 432 
 
 42°14'05.81" 
 
 -87°47'29.30" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,921.34 
 
 432 
 
 42°1 4*05.81" 
 
 -87°47'29.30" 
 
 1947 
 
 5.878.72 
 
 432 
 
 42°14'05.81" 
 
 -87°47'29.30" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,935.18 
 
 433 
 
 42°14'04.38" 
 
 -87°47'28.76" 
 
 1873 
 
 5.769.67 
 
 433 
 
 42°14'04.38" 
 
 -87°47'28.76" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5.927.52 
 
 433 
 
 42°14'04.38" 
 
 -87°47'28.76" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,881.25 
 
 433 
 
 42°14'04.38" 
 
 -87°47'28.76" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,989.99 
 
 434 
 
 42°14'02.95" 
 
 -87°47'28.21" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,781.69 
 
 434 
 
 42°14'02.95" 
 
 -87°47'28.21" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,926.73 
 
 434 
 
 42°14'02.95" 
 
 -87°47'28.21" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,900.63 
 
 434 
 
 42°14'02.95" 
 
 -87°47'28.21" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,993.63 
 
 435 
 
 42°14'01.52" 
 
 -87°47'27.66" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,786.43 
 
 435 
 
 42°14'01.52" 
 
 -87°47'27.66" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,910.73 
 
 435 
 
 42°14'01.52" 
 
 -87°47'27.66" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,922.61 
 
 435 
 
 42°14'01.52" 
 
 -87°47'27.66" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,979.31 
 
 Latitude and Longitude 
 of Transect-Shor eline Intersect 
 
 42°13'53.10" -87°48'44.00" 
 
 42°13'52.64" -87°48'46.19" 
 
 42°13'52.80" -87°48'45.41" 
 
 42°13'52.80" -87°48'45.42" 
 
 42°13'51.69" -87°48'43.37" 
 
 42°13'51.18" -87°48'45.78" 
 
 42°13'51.09" -87°48'46.21" 
 
 42°13'51.12" -87°48'46.03" 
 
 42°13'50.20" -87°48'43.09" 
 
 42°13'49.74" -87°48'45.30" 
 
 42°1 3'49.85" -87°48'44.75" 
 
 42°13'49.70" -87°48'45.47" 
 
 42°13'48.72" -87°48'42.80" 
 
 42°13'48.29" -87°48'44.83" 
 
 42°13'48.41" -87°48'44.24" 
 
 42°13'48.11" -87°48'45.63" 
 
 42°13'47.25" -87°48'42.41 " 
 
 42°13'46.85" -87°48'44.28" 
 
 42°13'46.93- -87°48'43.94" 
 
 42°13'46.68" -87°48'45.14" 
 
 42°13'45.81" -87°48'41 .93" 
 
 42°13'45.46" -87°48'43.52" 
 
 42°13'45.44" -87°48'43.67" 
 
 42°13'45.29" -87°48'44.40" 
 
 231 
 
Appendix K (continued) 
 
 BLUFFLINES FOR CORRIDOR 5 
 
 Transe 
 
 ct Latitude and Longitude 
 
 
 Distance 
 
 Code 
 
 of Spine-Transect Intersect 
 
 Year(s) 
 
 (feet) 
 
 501 
 
 42°11 '36.35" 
 
 -87°46'01.47" 
 
 1873 
 
 5.581.14 
 
 501 
 
 42°1T36.35" 
 
 -87°46'01.47" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,649.15 
 
 501 
 
 42°11 '36.35" 
 
 -87°46'01.47" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,656.56 
 
 501 
 
 42°11 '36.35" 
 
 -87°46'01.47" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,682.72 
 
 502 
 
 42°11 '35.07" 
 
 -87°46'00.47" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,567.21 
 
 502 
 
 42°11 '35.07" 
 
 -87°46'00.47" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,658.58 
 
 502 
 
 42°1 1 '35.07" 
 
 -87°46'00.47" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,626.59 
 
 502 
 
 42°11 '35.07" 
 
 -87°46'00.47" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,685.85 
 
 503 
 
 42°11 '33.79" 
 
 -87°45'59.45" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,514.68 
 
 503 
 
 42°1 1 '33.79" 
 
 -87°45'59.45" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,651.29 
 
 503 
 
 42°11 '33.79" 
 
 -87°45'59.45" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,630.75 
 
 503 
 
 42°11 '33.79" 
 
 -87°45'59.45" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,669.47 
 
 504 
 
 42°11 '32.51" 
 
 -87°45'58.42" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,501.56 
 
 504 
 
 42°11 '32.51" 
 
 -87°45'58.42" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,614.03 
 
 504 
 
 42*11 '32.51" 
 
 -87°45'58.42" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,621.11 
 
 504 
 
 42°11 '32.51" 
 
 -87°45'58.42" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,646.02 
 
 505 
 
 42°11'31.23" 
 
 -87°45'57.40" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,505.81 
 
 505 
 
 42*11 '31. 23" 
 
 -87°45'57.40" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,571.92 
 
 505 
 
 42*11*31.23" 
 
 -87°45'57.40" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,605.15 
 
 505 
 
 42*1 1*31.23" 
 
 -87°45'57.40" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,666.90 
 
 506 
 
 42°11 '29.94" 
 
 -87°45'56.40" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,513.57 
 
 506 
 
 42°11 '29.94" 
 
 -87°45'56.40" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,559.02 
 
 506 
 
 42°11 '29.94" 
 
 -87°45'56.40" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,602.24 
 
 506 
 
 42°11 '29.94" 
 
 -87°45'56.40" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,614.80 
 
 507 
 
 42°11 '28.66" 
 
 -87°45'55.37" 
 
 1873 
 
 5.516.83 
 
 507 
 
 42°1 1 '28.66" 
 
 -87°45'55.37" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,557.00 
 
 507 
 
 42°11 '28.66" 
 
 -87°45'55.37" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,581.91 
 
 507 
 
 42°11 '28.66" 
 
 -87°45'55.37" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,640.40 
 
 508 
 
 42°11 '27.38" 
 
 -87°45'54.35" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,512.67 
 
 508 
 
 42°11 '27.38" 
 
 -87°45'54.35" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,572.27 
 
 508 
 
 42*11 '27.38" 
 
 -87°45'54.35" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,578.79 
 
 508 
 
 42°11 '27.38" 
 
 -87°45'54.35" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,641.30 
 
 509 
 
 42°11'26.10" 
 
 -87°45'53.33" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,497.27 
 
 509 
 
 42°11'26.10" 
 
 -87*45'53.33" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,574.28 
 
 509 
 
 42°11 '26.10" 
 
 -87°45'53.33" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,591.56 
 
 509 
 
 42°11'26.10" 
 
 -87°45'53.33" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,656.43 
 
 Latitude and Longitude 
 of Transect-Shoreiine Intersect 
 
 42°1 1 '08.1 9" -87°47'05.56" 
 
 42°11 '07.86" -87*47'06.35" 
 
 42°11 '07.82" -87°47'06.43" 
 
 42°1 1 '07.68" -87°47'06.72" 
 
 42°1 1 '06.99" -87°47'04.39" 
 
 42*1 1 '06.52" -87°47'05.43" 
 
 42°1 1 '06.69" -87°47'05.07" 
 
 42°1 1 '06.39" -87°47'05.76" 
 
 42°1 1 '05.97" -87°47'02.77" 
 
 42°11 '05.28" -87°47'04.33" 
 
 42°1 1 '05.38" -87°47'04.10" 
 
 42*1 1 '05.19" -87°47'04.55" 
 
 42°1 1 '04.75" -87°47'01 .60" 
 
 42°1 1 '04. 1 9" -87°47'02.89" 
 
 42°1 1 '04.1 5" -87°47'02.97" 
 
 42*1 1 '04.02" -87°47'03.26" 
 
 42°1 1 '03.45" -87°47'00.63" 
 
 42°11 '03.11" -87°47'01 .39" 
 
 42°11 '02.95" -87°47'01.76" 
 
 42°1 1 '02.63" -87°47'02.48" 
 
 42°1 1 '02.1 3" -87°46'59.70" 
 
 42°1 1 '01 .90" -87°47'00.23" 
 
 42*11 '01 .69" -87°47'00.71" 
 
 42*11 '01 .62" -87°47'00.86" 
 
 42°1 1 '00.83" -87°46'58.71 " 
 
 42*1 1 '00.63" -87°46'59.18" 
 
 42*1 1 '00.51 " -87°46'59.46" 
 
 42°11'00.21" -87°47'00.14" 
 
 42°10'59.57" -87*46'57.65" 
 
 42°10'59.27" -87°46'58.33" 
 
 42*10'59.24" -87*46'58.42" 
 
 42°10'58.93" -87°46'59.13" 
 
 42*10'58.37" -87*46'56.46" 
 
 42°10'57.98" -87°46'57.34" 
 
 42*10'57.89" -87°46'57.54" 
 
 42*10'57.56" -87°46'58.28" 
 
 232 
 
Appendix K (continued) 
 Blufflines for Corridor 5 (continued) 
 
 Transect Latitude and Longitude 
 
 
 Distance 
 
 Latitude anc 
 
 1 Longitude 
 
 Code 
 
 of Spine-Transect Intersect 
 
 Year(s) 
 
 (feet) 
 
 of Transect-Shoreline Intersec 
 
 510 
 
 42°11 '24.83" 
 
 -87°45'52.33" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,486.51 
 
 42°10'57.15" 
 
 -87°46'55.32 
 
 510 
 
 42°11 '24.83" 
 
 -87°45'52.33" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,569.70 
 
 42°10'56.72" 
 
 -87°46'56.27' 
 
 510 
 
 42°11 '24.83" 
 
 -87°45'52.33" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,582.26 
 
 42°10'56.67" 
 
 -87°46'56.41' 
 
 510 
 
 42°11 '24.83" 
 
 -87°45'52.33" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,649.28 
 
 42°10'56.32" 
 
 -87°46'57.18' 
 
 511 
 
 42°11 '23.54" 
 
 -87°45'51.30" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,486.51 
 
 42°10'55.86" 
 
 -87°46'54.30' 
 
 511 
 
 42°1 1 '23.54" 
 
 -87°45'51.30" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,568.32 
 
 42°10'55.45" 
 
 -87°46'55.24 
 
 511 
 
 42°11 '23.54" 
 
 -87°45'51.30" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,579.56 
 
 42°10'55.39" 
 
 -87°46'55.37' 
 
 511 
 
 42°11 '23.54" 
 
 -87°45'51.30" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,637.14 
 
 42°10'55.10" 
 
 -87°46'56.03' 
 
 512 
 
 42°11 '22.26" 
 
 -87°45'50.28" 
 
 1873 
 
 5.495.55 
 
 42°10'54.54" 
 
 -87°46'53.39' 
 
 512 
 
 42°11 '22.26" 
 
 -87°45'50.28" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,568.11 
 
 42°10'54.17" 
 
 -87°46'54.22' 
 
 512 
 
 42°11 '22.26" 
 
 -87°45'50.28" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,598.98 
 
 42°10'54.01" 
 
 -87°46'54.57' 
 
 512 
 
 42°1 1 '22.26" 
 
 -87°45'50.28" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,637.14 
 
 42°10'53.82" 
 
 -87°46'55.01' 
 
 513 
 
 42°11 '20.98" 
 
 -87°45'49.28" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,499.07 
 
 42°10'53.24" 
 
 -87°46'52.4V 
 
 513 
 
 42°11 '20.98" 
 
 -87°45'49.28" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,568.80 
 
 42°10'52.89" 
 
 -87°46'53.22' 
 
 513 
 
 42°11 '20.98" 
 
 -87°45'49.28" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,602.80 
 
 42°10'52.72" 
 
 -87°46'53.6T 
 
 513 
 
 42°1 1 '20.98" 
 
 -87°45'49.28" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,633.32 
 
 42°10'52.56" 
 
 -87°46'53.96' 
 
 514 
 
 42°11 '19.70" 
 
 -87°45'48.26" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,489.43 
 
 42°10'52.01" 
 
 -87°46'51 .28* 
 
 514 
 
 42°11 '19.70" 
 
 -87°45'48.26" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,555.55 
 
 42°10'51.67" 
 
 -87 o 46'52.03' 
 
 514 
 
 42°11 '19.70" 
 
 -87°45'48.26" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,598.42 
 
 42°10'51.45" 
 
 -87 46'52.53• 
 
 514 
 
 42°11 '19.70" 
 
 -87°45'48.26" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,634.23 
 
 42°10'51.28" 
 
 -87°46'52.94' 
 
 515 
 
 42°11 '18.41" 
 
 -87°45'47.23" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,485.05 
 
 42°10'50.75" 
 
 -87 o 46'50.22' 
 
 515 
 
 42°11 '18.41" 
 
 -87°45'47.23" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,574.28 
 
 42°10'50.29" 
 
 -87 46'51.24 , 
 
 515 
 
 42°11 '18.41" 
 
 -87°45'47.23" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,616.95 
 
 42°10'50.08" 
 
 -87°46'51.73' 
 
 515 
 
 42°11 '18.41" 
 
 -87°45'47.23" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,658.58 
 
 42°10'49.87" 
 
 -87°46'52.2V 
 
 516 
 
 42°11'17.13" 
 
 -87°45'46.21" 
 
 1873 
 
 ft ft ft 
 
 42°10'46.71" 
 
 -87°46'55.47' 
 
 516 
 
 42°11'17.13" 
 
 -87°45'46.21" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 ft ft ft 
 
 42°10'45.95" 
 
 -87°46'57.19' 
 
 516 
 
 42°11'17.13" 
 
 -87"45'46.21" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,620.76 
 
 42°10'48.78" 
 
 -87°46'50.76' 
 
 516 
 
 42°11'17.13" 
 
 -87°45'46.21" 
 
 1987 
 
 ft ft ft 
 
 42°10'45.17" 
 
 -87°46'58.96' 
 
 517 
 
 42°11 '15.86" 
 
 -87°45'45.21" 
 
 1873 
 
 ft ft ft 
 
 42°10'45.48" 
 
 -87°46'54.35* 
 
 517 
 
 42°11 '15.86" 
 
 -87°45'45.21" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 ft ft ft 
 
 42°10'44.71" 
 
 -87°46'56.09* 
 
 517 
 
 42°11 '15.86" 
 
 -87°45'45.21" 
 
 1947 
 
 ft ft ft 
 
 42°10'44.47" 
 
 -87°46'56.63" 
 
 517 
 
 42°11 '15.86" 
 
 -87°45'45.21" 
 
 1987 
 
 ft ft ft 
 
 42°10'43.89" 
 
 -87 46'57.97' 
 
 518 
 
 42°11 '14.57" 
 
 -87°45'44.19" 
 
 1873 
 
 ft ft ft 
 
 42°10'44.24" 
 
 -87 46'53.24' 
 
 518 
 
 42°1 1 '14.57" 
 
 -87°45'44.19" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 ft ft ft 
 
 42°10'43.47" 
 
 -87°46'54.98" 
 
 518 
 
 42°11'14.57" 
 
 -87°45'44.19" 
 
 1947 
 
 ft ft ft 
 
 42°10'43.19" 
 
 -87°46'55.6r 
 
 518 
 
 42°11 '14.57" 
 
 -87°45'44.19" 
 
 1987 
 
 ft ft ft 
 
 42°10'42.60" 
 
 -87°46'56.96* 
 
 519 
 
 42°11 '13.30" 
 
 -87°45'43.16" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,614.03 
 
 42°10'44.98" 
 
 -87°46'47.62' 
 
 519 
 
 42°11 '13.30" 
 
 -87°45'43.16" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,753.56 
 
 42°10'44.27" 
 
 -87°46'49.22" 
 
 519 
 
 42°11 '13.30" 
 
 -87°45'43.16" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,701.59 
 
 42°10'44.53" 
 
 -87°46'48.63" 
 
 519 
 
 42°11 '13.30" 
 
 -87°45'43.16" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,731.77 
 
 42°10'44.38" 
 
 -87°46'48.98" 
 
 233 
 
Appendix K (continued) 
 Blufflines for Corridor 5 (continued) 
 
 Transect Latitude and Longitude 
 
 
 Distance 
 
 Code 
 
 of Spine-Transect Intersect 
 
 Year's) 
 
 (feet) 
 
 520 
 
 42°11 '12.01" 
 
 -87°45'42.14" 
 
 1873 
 
 5.660.64 
 
 520 
 
 42°11 '12.01" 
 
 -87°45'42.14" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,702.36 
 
 520 
 
 42°11 '12.01" 
 
 -87°45'42.14" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,765.56 
 
 520 
 
 42°11 '12.01" 
 
 -87°45'42.14" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,762.30 
 
 521 
 
 42°11 '10.73" 
 
 -87°45'41.14" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,523.21 
 
 521 
 
 42°1 1*10.73" 
 
 -87°45'41.14" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,700.56 
 
 521 
 
 42°11 '10.73" 
 
 -87°45'41.14" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,635.34 
 
 521 
 
 42°11 '10.73" 
 
 -87°45'41.14" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,682.59 
 
 522 
 
 42°1 1 '09.44" 
 
 -87°45'40.12" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,570.81 
 
 522 
 
 42° 1 1 '09.44" 
 
 -87°45'40.12" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,739.06 
 
 522 
 
 42°1 1 '09.44" 
 
 -87°45'40.12" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,709.09 
 
 522 
 
 42°11 '09.44" 
 
 -87°45'40.12" 
 
 1987 
 
 5.768.90 
 
 523 
 
 42°11 '08.17" 
 
 -87°45'39.09" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,603.35 
 
 523 
 
 42°11 '08.17" 
 
 -87°45'39.09" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 * • • 
 
 523 
 
 42°11 '08.17" 
 
 -87°45'39.09" 
 
 1947 
 
 » » » 
 
 523 
 
 42°11 '08.17" 
 
 -87°45'39.09" 
 
 1987 
 
 • * • 
 
 524 
 
 42°11 '06.89" 
 
 -87°45'38.09" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,602.24 
 
 524 
 
 42°11 '06.89" 
 
 -87°45'38.09" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,644.22 
 
 524 
 
 42°11 '06.89" 
 
 -87°45'38.09" 
 
 1947 
 
 5.644.90 
 
 524 
 
 42°11 '06.89" 
 
 -87°45'38.09" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,699.44 
 
 525 
 
 42°1 1 '05.60" 
 
 -87°45'37.07" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,598.77 
 
 525 
 
 42°11 '05.60" 
 
 -87°45'37.07" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,649.28 
 
 525 
 
 42°1 1 '05.60" 
 
 -87°45'37.07" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,663.98 
 
 525 
 
 42°1 1 '05.60" 
 
 -87°45'37.07" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,729.20 
 
 526 
 
 42°11 '04.33" 
 
 -87°45'36.05" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,590.23 
 
 526 
 
 42°11 '04.33" 
 
 -87°45'36.05" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,662.40 
 
 526 
 
 42°11 '04.33" 
 
 -87°45'36.05" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,663.98 
 
 526 
 
 42°1 1 '04.33" 
 
 -87°45'36.05" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,705.96 
 
 527 
 
 42°1 1 '03.04" 
 
 -87°45'35.03" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,626.04 
 
 527 
 
 42° 1 1 '03.04" 
 
 -87°45'35.03" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,666.56 
 
 527 
 
 42° 1 1 '03.04" 
 
 -87°45'35.03" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,650.05 
 
 527 
 
 42° 11 '03.04" 
 
 -87°45'35.03" 
 
 1987 
 
 « * * 
 
 528 
 
 42*11 '01.76" 
 
 -87°45'34.02" 
 
 1873 
 
 tt * * 
 
 528 
 
 42°11 '01 .76" 
 
 -87°45'34.02" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5.651.85 
 
 528 
 
 42-11 '01. 76" 
 
 -87°45'34.02" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,669.47 
 
 528 
 
 42-11 '01. 76" 
 
 -87°45'34.02" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,721.78 
 
 529 
 
 42-11 '00.48" 
 
 -87°45'33.00" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,561.72 
 
 529 
 
 42°1 1 '00.48" 
 
 -87°45'33.00" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,650.73 
 
 529 
 
 42°11 '00.48" 
 
 -87°45'33.00" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,655.80 
 
 529 
 
 42-1 1 '00.48" 
 
 -87°45'33.00" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,726.84 
 
 Latitude and Longitude 
 of Transect-Shoreline Intersect 
 
 42°10'43.45" -87»46'47.13" 
 
 42°10'43.25" -87°46'47.62" 
 
 42°10'42.93" -87°46'48.35" 
 
 42°10'42.94" -87°46'48.31" 
 
 42°10'42.87" -87°46'44.55" 
 
 42°10'41.97" -87°46'46.58" 
 
 42°10'42.30" -87°46'45.83" 
 
 42°10'42.06" -87°46'46.38" 
 
 42°10'41.34" -87°46'44.08" 
 
 42°10'40.50" -87°46'46.01" 
 
 42°10'40.65" -87°46'45.66" 
 
 42°10'40.35" -87°46'46.35" 
 
 42°10'39.91" -87°46'43.44" 
 
 42°10'37.39" -87°46'49.17" 
 
 42°10'38.75" -87°46'46.04" 
 
 42°10'36.76" -87°46'50.58" 
 
 42°10'38.63" -87°46'42.40" 
 
 42°10'38.42" -87°46'42.89" 
 
 42°10'38.41" -87°46'42.89" 
 
 42°10'38.14" -87°46'43.52" 
 
 42°10'37.37" -87°46'41 .34" 
 
 42°10'37.11" -87°46'41 .92" 
 
 42°10'37.03" -87°46'42.10" 
 
 42°10'36.70" -87°46'42.84" 
 
 42°10'36.12" -87°46'40.23" 
 
 42°10'35.77" -87°46'41.06" 
 
 42°10'35.76" -87°46'41 .08" 
 
 42°10'35.54" -87°46'41 .56" 
 
 42°10'34.66" -87°46'39.62" 
 
 42°10'34.46" -87°46'40.09" 
 
 42°10'34.54" -87°46'39.91" 
 
 42°10'33.30" -87°46'42.74" 
 
 42°10'31.69" -87°46'42.46" 
 
 42°10'33.26" -87°46'38.90" 
 
 42°10'33.17" -87°46'39.10" 
 
 42°10'32.90" -87°46'39.71" 
 
 42°10'32.42" -87°46'36.85" 
 
 42°10'31.98" -87°46'37.88" 
 
 42°10'31.95" -87°46'37.93" 
 
 42°10'31.60" -87°46'38.75" 
 
 234 
 
Appendix K (continued) 
 Blufflines for Corridor 5 (continued) 
 
 Transect Latitude and Longitude 
 
 
 Distance 
 
 Latitude and Longitude 
 
 Code 
 
 of Spine-Transect Intersect 
 
 Year(s) 
 
 (feet) 
 
 of Trarwect-Shoreline Intersec 
 
 530 
 
 42°10'59.20" 
 
 -87°45'31.98" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,527.80 
 
 42°10'31.32" 
 
 -87°46'35.44' 
 
 530 
 
 42°10'59.20" 
 
 -87°45'31.98" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5.646.79 
 
 42°10'30.72" 
 
 -87°46'36.82' 
 
 530 
 
 42°10'59.20" 
 
 -87°45'31.98" 
 
 1947 
 
 5.674.40 
 
 42°10'30.58" 
 
 -87 46'37.13' 
 
 530 
 
 42°10'59.20" 
 
 -87°45'31.98" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,710.89 
 
 42°10'30.39" 
 
 -87°46'37.54' 
 
 531 
 
 42°10'57.92" 
 
 -87°45'30.96" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,528.49 
 
 42°10'30.04" 
 
 -87°46'34.43' 
 
 531 
 
 42°10'57.92" 
 
 -87°45'30.96" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,628.95 
 
 42°10'29.53" 
 
 -87°46'35.59' 
 
 531 
 
 42°10'57.92" 
 
 -87°45'30.96" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,651.29 
 
 42°10'29.41" 
 
 -87°46'35.85' 
 
 531 
 
 42°10'57.92" 
 
 -87°45'30.96" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,703.95 
 
 42°10'29.14" 
 
 -87 46'36.44' 
 
 532 
 
 42°10'56.64" 
 
 -87°45'29.95" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,532.99 
 
 42°10'28.72" 
 
 -87°46*33.47' 
 
 532 
 
 42°10'56.64" 
 
 -87°45'29.95" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,648.38 
 
 42°10'28.15" 
 
 -87°46'34.79' 
 
 532 
 
 42°10'56.64" 
 
 -87°45'29.95" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,645.25 
 
 42°10'28.16" 
 
 -87°46'34.76' 
 
 532 
 
 42°10'56.64" 
 
 -87°45'29.95" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,690.14 
 
 42°10'27.94" 
 
 -87°46'35.27' 
 
 533 
 
 42°10'55.36" 
 
 -87°45'28.93" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,534.32 
 
 42°10'27.44" 
 
 -87°46'32.47' 
 
 533 
 
 42°10'55.36" 
 
 -87°45'28.93" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,638.81 
 
 42°10'26.91" 
 
 -87 46'33.67' 
 
 533 
 
 42°10'55.36" 
 
 -87°45'28.93" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,640.83 
 
 42°10'26.90" 
 
 -87°46'33.69' 
 
 533 
 
 42°10'55.36 n 
 
 -87°45'28.93" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,671.49 
 
 42°10'26.75" 
 
 -87 o 46'34.04 , 
 
 534 
 
 42°10'54.07" 
 
 -87°45'27.91" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,531.06 
 
 42°10'26.18" 
 
 -87°46'31.41' 
 
 534 
 
 42°10'54.07" 
 
 -87°45'27.91" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,618.62 
 
 42°10'25.73" 
 
 -87°46'32.42' 
 
 534 
 
 42°10'54.07" 
 
 -87°45'27.91" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,620.63 
 
 42°10'25.72" 
 
 -87 46'32.44' 
 
 534 
 
 42°10'54.07" 
 
 -87°45'27.91" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,669.68 
 
 42°10'25.47" 
 
 -87°46'33.00' 
 
 535 
 
 42°10'52.80" 
 
 -87°45'26.89" 
 
 1873 
 
 5,514.34 
 
 42°10'24.98" 
 
 -87 o 46'30.20' 
 
 535 
 
 42°10'52.80" 
 
 -87°45'26.89" 
 
 1910-11 
 
 5,606.06 
 
 42°10'24.52" 
 
 -87 46'31.25' 
 
 535 
 
 42°10'52.80" 
 
 -87°45'26.89" 
 
 1947 
 
 5,582.81 
 
 42°10'24.63" 
 
 -87°46'30.98' 
 
 535 
 
 42°10'52.80" 
 
 -87°45'26.89" 
 
 1987 
 
 5,649.49 
 
 42°10'24.30" 
 
 -87°46'31.75* 
 
 235