Bayshore Park harbor development plan Brown County, Wisconsin

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Bayshor-e Park

ar or

eye opmen an

Brown County, Wisconsin

1981
HE
393.5
M6
H b
1 Pi

B39
1981
A"

OWEN AYRES & ASSOCIATES INC

SECTIONS

I Introduction 3

11 Existing Conditions 5

.111 Present and Future Needs 12

IV Summary of Demand Projections 18

V Miscellaneous Plan Recommendations 20

VI Design Alternatives 24

VII Costs 37

Vill Appendix 40

BAYSHORE PARK

HARBOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN

PROPERTY OF CSC LIBRARY

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
BROWN C0UNTY WISCONSIN
CHARLESTON SC 227427-2413

April 1981

The preparation of this plan is the direct result of efforts by the Brown
County Park Commission. Brown County has commissioned this plan in the
interest of providing quality recreational opportunities for its residents
and visitors.

Financial assistance has been provided by the State of Wisconsin, Department
of Administration, Office of State Planning and Energy and the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972, as amended, administered by the Office of Coastal
Zone Management, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration.

Brown County has been assisted by: OWEN AYRES & ASSOCIATES INC
1789 Shawano Avenue

Green Bay, WI 54303

Project Engineer - Vern Vandenberg
Project Planner - Peter Staks

SECTION I

Introduction

This report has been prepared as a guide to the ultimate design of the

Bayshore Park harbor and related facilities. The suggestions and designs in

this plan are advisory in nature, and provide a development goal, whereby interim

activities can be consistent with longer.range planning.

The plan objectives are to:

1. assess the level of boater demand for expanded water related facilities
at Bayshore Park.

2. identify the type, extent and estimated cost of harbor facilities that
are to be incorporated in the final harbor development.

3. define the role that Brown County could assume in satisfying boater
needs at the Bayshore Park facility.

4. set forth a schedule of improvements.

Location

Bayshore is located in the Town of,Green,Bay on the East shore of the Bay of

Green Bay in the extreme northeast corner of Brown County. State Highway 57 serves

as the major traffic artery extending from the major population centers within the

county. Via This route, the City of Sturgeon Bay is 24 miles to the north, and

the City of Green Bay is 17 miles to the south. (See Figure 1).

The shoreline has a northern exposure with little natural harbor protection

existing in the vicinity of Bayshore Park. The nearest public harbor of

refuge is at the mouth of the Fox River in Green Bay approximately 12 miles to the

south.

BAYSHORE PARK REGIONAL LOCATION

Oconto

Door
Shawano

BAYSHORE-:*-
PARK..,.

Kewaunee

G R E E N
8 A Y
Outagamie

Brown

ETON
A P P L

Manitowoc
Calumet

r L A K E
MANITOWO

MICHIGAN

4 Figure 1

SECTION 11

Existing Conditions

Existing Use of the Bayshore Park

Little data has been systematically gathered or recorded regarding the

activities of boating and harbor use at Bayshore Park to date. However, based

on the experiences and observations of park personnel, a reasonably accurate

estimate of harbor utilization can be provided.

Since its construction, park personnel estimate that there are an average

of about 360 boat launches per week starting in mid-May and ending in mid-October,

or approximately 7,200 launchings per season. On at least five occasions in

1979, the entire parking area at the shoreline was filled to capacity with cars

and boat trailers making it necessary to restrict further entry of vehicles and

to close the access road. Since the parking lot holds a maximum of about 70 cars

and trailer units, a minimum of that many launches occurred at those times. Overflow

parking can (and has) been accomodated at the top of the access road when

the parking facility has been full.

During times of favorable weather and holidays, as many as 400 launches per

week are estimated to occur. This would average almost 60 launches per day.

It is estimated that of the boats launched at Bayshore Park, approximately

half are used for fishing, while the others partake in cruising, water skiing,

sailing or other recreational activities.

HARBOR

P a r k i n g

Caretaker 1

T o i I e t
Baseball Shelter

Diamond
Parking
P X-R K -B 5-U IZ TDA T-Y

PRIVATE PRIVATE
PROPERTY PROPERTY

STH 57
17 mi. Green Bay

Figure 2

GREEN BAY

Lodge

Toilets

04
I>)
0

z
Toi let s 4 Q7

oilets

Sturgeon Say 24 mi.

BAYSHORE PARK
Brown County
-Iq@
N
0 01 400
F e e t

Most unique about the Bayshore Park boat harbor and associated camping park,
is that park personnel estimate that about 80% of the parks users come from

the City of Green Bay and surrounding urban area. This may be due to a number

of factors:

1. Bayshore Park is a relatively new park, and it's use is therefore

by those who are close to the facility.

2. There has been little advertising or publication about the park

and consequently few tourists utilize the facilities.

3. Demand and congestion at boating facilities in the City of Green

Bay is great enough that it is convenient for boaters to drive

to a nearby park.

As boating becomes more popular and with boaters staying closer to home

due to energy considerations, the above mentioned factors may change-and exert

greater boating pressure at the park facilities.

Fishing

With the development of the rubble breakwater, and subsequent boating

facilities, an interest in fishing has developed. The most popular and

abundant species for fishing in the Bayshore Park area is the Yellow Perch.

Excellent catches of large perch are reported all year, with the best fishing

during the spring and fall. Although some boats leaving the present harbor

troll for trout and salmon, many remain near the park due to the fine fishing

along the rocky bottom.

During peak fishing times, it has been reported that not only was there

excellent fishing from boats near the harbor but that fishermen were virtually

lined up on the breakwater for its entire length. This type of activity is

expected to continue to increase due to the park's proximity to the City of Green

Bay population area. Should an additional length of breakwater be constructed,

it would be expected to provide additional space for fishermen therefore relieving

congested conditions and improving the quality of the fishing experience. Additional

subsurface structures could be expected to be very attractive to perch and other

game fish present in the Bay.

A new development in fish stocking by the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources may have an impact on fishing demand in Green Bay. In 1973, the
D.N.R. began a program (partially subsidized by the Federal Government) of

re-introducing the Walleye Pike to the waters of Green Bay.

An estimated 300,000 Walleye fingerling and 10,000,000 Walleye fry are being

planted annually. About 60,000 fingerling Walleyes were planted at Bayshore

Park during 1980. The success of this reintroduction program has been evidenced

by the excellent growth rate of the fish where in a period of only 3-4 years

the fish are achieving lengths up to 18".

Fishing has in turn picked up substantially, and as these fish grow and

a brood stock is maintained, fishing for Walleye may become a very popular

attraction for boaters. It has already become attractive in some areas, as

it is reported that Walleye fishing below the De Pere dam has at least doubled

in the past few years.

Based upon the present numbers of boat launchings for fishing at Bayshore

Park (as many as 3,600 launchings annually) an increase of at least 50%
could evolve over the next 5 to 10 years just based upon the present and future

successful re-establishment of a Walleye fishery. In a similiar program in

Lake Erie, when the Walleye fishery became re-established, a six-fold increase
in angling was experienced in less than 5 years.0 Discussions with Ohio D.N.R.

representatives indicate that the harbors and launching areas closest to large

communities are filled to capacity almost daily.

Harbor of Refuge

Aside from providing a recreational boat launch ramp, the Bayshore Park

breakwater serves as a harbor of refuge from storms on the Bay. During

storms, it has been estimated by park managers that in addition to the normal

returning number of boats that originally launched at the park, Bayshore Park

serves about one to three boats as a harbor of refuge. These crafts are ones

that would typically be en-route between marinas or be too far from their

original launch site to return in a storm.

Generally, harbors of refuge should be a maximum of about 15 miles apart,

thereby offering storm sanctuary at a maximum shoreline distance of 7.5 miles

to the nearest harbor. Bayshore Park is well situated to act as a harbor

of refuge in that it is approximately midway between the City of Green

Bay and Little Sturgeon where public boat harbors are located.
In a 1974 Corps of Engineers study,,1a formula was used to estimate the

number of transient boats typically found between marinas. This study indicates

that about 3.3 transient boats can typically be found between Little Sturgeon

and Green Bay that would be caught in severe weather. For the spring and fall,

the probability of a severe storm in a week was one in five but during the

summer, one.in thirteen. Boating activity in the summer does however significantly

increase thereby increasing the number of boats potentially caught in severe

weather.

With projected increases in the number of boaters in this geographic area,

the number of boats that would require use of a harbor of refuge also increases

proportionally. For the ultimate capacity sizing of the future breakwater

and harbor it is reasonable to assume that a maximum of 10 boats would be using

Bayshore Park facilities during storm conditions. This allows for a tripling

of the present boating rate. An increase in this number of boats could be seen if

the proposed Bay Beach Marina in the City of Green Bay is constructed. It is

expected that potential Bay Beach boaters would commonly travel by water to

Bayshore park for the day, and return to Bay Beach in the afternoon. Should there

be unexpected storms, Bayshore Park would have to provide temporary mooring space

for these boaters.

As communication equipment such as CB radios and ship-to-shore radios

become more common, it is hoped that weather information and severe weather

warnings would tend to reduce the number of boats that would be caught by

surprise during storms.

The important safety function of a harbor of refuge should be underscored

for this particular reach along Green Bay. With the limited potential for

addi-tional new harbors between the City of Green Bay and the Sturgeon Bay

area Bayshore Park facilities will be necessary to serve as a sanctuary during

storms, for quite some time.

SECTION III

Present and Future Needs

Present Needs At the Bayshore Harbor

Presently there is inadequate protection for craft within the harbor

when storms approach from the northeast. Wave action is not sufficiently dampened

to avoid damage to water craft. Entry to the harbor.during storms is hazardous.

This condition is a result of a modification to the original plans whereby the

binwall structure was repositioned 30 feet to the east in an effort to increase

the storage area within the harbor. A breakwater extension should have been

constructed to accomodate the repositioning of the binwall. Because of

budgetary considerations the extension was not constructed.

The holding capacity inside the breakwater is limited to perhaps 30 average

sized craft. Mooring places are available for a maximum of about 15 boats.

During storms with wind from the northeast, it becomes difficult to get boats

out of the water due to waves within the breakwater, and subsequent pier movement

at the launch ramps.

Future Demand Estimates for the Bayshore Park Boat Harbor

Numerous studies have been conducted in the past few years regarding the

changing status of Great Lakes boating. Without exception, each of the trends

listed, and projections presented, indicate an increasing level of demand at the

present boating facilities, and in some cases the studies show the absolute need for

new or expanded facilities.

Boating activity projections are based primarily on such clear evidence

as:
increases in the number of boating participants.'

- increases in the boater registrations of the Upper Lake'Michigan areas.

- increases in the population of the primary market areas of Upper Lake

Michigan boaters.

- increased interest in fishing in Lake Michigan in the past decade.

Subsequent to the increased activity in Lake Michigan boating there has

been an increased awareness of the necessity of having harbors of refuge during

severe storms. In addition, studies such as.Economic Impact and Needs of Wisconsin's
2
Great Lakes Boaters , and Impacts of Recreation in the Coastal Area : Demand and
Supply of Recreation in Wisconsin's Coastal Counties3, prepared during 1976 and 1977

respectively, by the Recreation Resources Center, University of Wisconsin-Extension,

reveal that Wisconsin's Great Lakes boaters spent about $13 million just during the

1975 boating season. Considering.similiar spending, no additional boating, and

just adjusting for inflation (avg. 10%/year) those same boaters will be spending

over $24 million during the 1981 boating seas on. Any increase in participation
since 1975, or projected into the future, increases the dollars spent substantially.

Average expenditures for each boating party in the upper Lake Michigan area
(including the Bayshore Park area) was about $45.00 per outing in 1976.

Population Increases

Having estimated that 80% of the Bayshore Park recreationists came from

the City of Green Bay area, the population changes of this.area will indicate

potential demand changes at Bayshore Park. In 1970 the Brown County population

was 158,244. The 1980 preliminary census data reveals a population of 175,470.

This shows an increase of 10.9 percent.

Boater Registration Increases

A review of the number of boater registrations in the Upper Lake Michigan

Area reveals significant increases from 1971 to 1979. The entire Upper Lake

Michigan Area averaged an increase of 32.6 percent in boater registration,

and Brown County (known to be the greatest contributor of boaters to Bayshore

Park,) increased at 43.4 percent.

Increased Interest in Lake Michigan Boating
The lack of comparable historic data makes an accurate quantitative estimate

of increased interest in Lake Michigan boating difficult. There are however

considerable indicators of this increased interest.

Since the planting of salmon in the Lake, many charter operators

have opened on the Lake.
In the time frame of 1970-1974, 95 to 100 percent of the slips in
the Upper Lake Michigan region were rented.7 In 1975 surveyed marinas
were at full capacity. Phone conversations with marina owners and
operators confirms that in 1980 and 1981 marinas would be virtually
at full capacity with many areas having lengthy waiting lists.

Boating Participation Increases

A 1972 study showed that of the five Counties bordering Green Bay, 45%

of the boat owners of those Counties used Green Bay and Lake Michigan for

boating. At that time, the study reported that among the boaters who did

. 4
most of their boating inland, 58% described the Bay as "dirty . As the Fox

River waters continue to show excellent progress in becoming cleaner, the

percentage of boaters using the Bay from these Counties is expected to increase.

Boating participation during the 1970-1980 decade increased substantially

in Coastal Counties. On the average summer weekend day, the increase from 1970-1980

was 115 percent. For Brown County, the greatest source of boaters to Bayshore
Park, the increase was near average at 115.4 percent.5

The Brown County Planning Department estimates that presently one of every

five households in the County owns a boat and partakes in boating activities.

The Planning Department also feels that the upper Lake Michigan area could use

an additional 1,000 to 1,500 boat slips to accomodate the present demand. A
plan to develop the Bay Beach Marina was defeated at public referendum, and its
development is uncertain at the time of this writing.6

Projected Boating Needs in the Bayshore Park Area

As described earlier, Bayshore Park harbor accommodates an estimated 7,200

launchings annually, with its four launching ramps, and has waterfront parking

for about 70 cars and trailers. Using the available known indicators to project

boating needs, the following information regarding needs can be established:

Using population increases for the region as a guide, and assuming boating

participation stays the same, in the year 1990 there would be a demand for

7,984 launchings at Bayshore Park and in the year 2000, 8,854 launchings at

the park.

Using population increases for the region plus adding a figure of 32.6%

increase in boater registration, in 1990 a demand for 10,586 launchings can be

expected and in the year 2000 a demand for 14,038 launchings can be expected.

Both of these estimates must be accommodated by the additional

consideration of the increased transient boater traffic in the Bayshore Park

area, and the estimated expanded harbor space requirement to hold an additional

10 boats (see text on harbor of refuge) during the severe storms.
A 1974 Corps of Engineers Study 8 confirms the projections for additional

boating facility needs in the next twenty years. This study indicated that

between the City of Green Bay and Sturgeon Bay areas substantial increases in

berths and mooring spaces will be in demand.

Berth and Mooring Demands*
Year Year Year
1980 1990 2020
Berths Moorings Berths Moorings Berths Moorinqs
City of Green Bay Area 140 35 285 70 6-46 160
Sturgeon Bay Area 115 35 175 50 245 70

Launch Lane Demands Year Year Year
1980 1990 2020
Lanes Lanes Lanes
City of Green Bay Area 0 0 7
Sturgeon Bay Area 11 15 24
*Source: Lake Michigan Regional Boating Survey and Analysis, Corps of
Engineers, 1974, p. 62.

Care should be exercised in constructing too many launch lanes at

a given site, as the provision of the lanes induces a certain level of

demand in itself. An estimate of how this induced demand operates is

shown in the following table.

Induced Launch Demand in Launches Per Season*

Increase in Induced Launches
Launch Lanes Per Season

1 Boo
2 1,200
3 1,450
4 1,650

Source: Lake Michigan Regional Boating Survey and Analysis, Corps of
Engineers, 1974, page 58.

SECTION IV

Summary of Demand Projections

0 Without any new attractions to lure boaters to the Bayshore Park area,

demand will increase by about 68% through the year 1990. By the year 2000,

about 100% increase in boating pressure may be expected.

0 Any new programs, such as the walleye planting program, sponsored

by the D.N.R. should increase the interest in boating substantially -

perhaps a 50% increase in the number of fisherman using Bayshore

Park.

40 To accomodate the number of launches expected by the years 1990 and

2000 an additional launch lane might need to be constructed. An "induced"

additional demand (would likely be created by that construction of perhaps
800 launches per season).

Harbor of refuge calculations indicate that the Bayshore Harbor

should provide the capability of providing sanctuary for about 10 additional

boats by the year 2000. More area may be required should the Bay Beach Marina

in Green Bay be constructed during the next 10 years.

0 There is presently already a shortage of berths and moorings along the

east side of Green Bay, through the Sturgeon Bay'area. By the year 1990, over

140 mooring sites would be in demand and over 460 berths in demand. Although

berths or slips have not been considered as being accommodable at Bayshore

Park, it is clear that by the year 2000 at least twice as many temporary mooring

places, as present, will be in demand. Future designs should accomodate as many
mooring places as possible within the harbor.

Advantages of Expandingthe Bayshore Harbor

Maintenance costs at most of Lake Michigan and Green Bay marinas and harbors

are a key in the economic feasibility to their development. Proposals to construct

new harbors and marinas or their expansions-require income projections that

adequately cover the maintenance costs.

One of the highest maintenance costs typically associated with marinas on

the Great Lakes is the on-going dredging requirement. Frequently the costs

of dredging can clearly be shown as being covered by the expected income from

boat launch and berth rental fees. Bayshore Park has the geographic advantage

of having a shoreline that requires very little maintenance to keep the

facilities operational.
The lack of large quantities of littoral drift (suspended material such

as sand that is carried in the water) indicates that little sedimentation occurs

within the harbor and consequently dredging is not required. To date, little

difference in water depth has occurred within the harbor due to the

construction of the breakwater and dredging costs have not been necessary as

a budgeted maintenance item.

The extension of the harbor, even to ultimate capacity, would not be expected

to require future dredging as an ongoing maintenance item. This is a significant

operational advantage over other harbor areas.

SECTION V

Miscellaneous Plan Recommendations

During the analysi's of the harbor facility, a number of other park activities

frequently related to the boating function of the park were reviewed. Generally

the park organization and operations are felt to be very good, and some of the

following observations are forwarded to maintain and increase the quality of

recreational use of the park.

1. Due to the highlight of Bayshore Park - the harbor facility - substantial

pedestrian activity takes place at the waters edge. It is suggested that

electricity be provided at the waterfront for night lighting, a telephone be

made conveniently available and that rest room facilities and a boat waste pump-

out station be provided.

2. The two primary centers or nodes of activity in the park are the

campgrounds and the harbor. Pedestrian traffic between the two would be

facilitated by steps down the bluff at a location preferably just east from

the caretakers residence. These stairs could be constructed from natural materials

such as wood or stones to blend with the natural appeal of the bluff. Due to the

steep slope, safety would be enhanced by providing handrails along the steps.

In addition, steps would remove much of the pedestrian traffic along the access

road. People are now forced to walk down the road, as it is the only pedestrian a

access to the waterfront. The road cut has little "shoulder", so people are

required to walk on the road. Although no accidents have been reported to date,

this situation should be remedied if possible.

3. Construction of a short walking path along the bluff is presently

occuring. It is suggested that at the farthest eastern point of the path, steps

be placed down to the lake front. Hikers could then walk back along the waterfront

and loop back up to the campground on the stairs mentioned in point #2 above.

Without looping the route, hikers would be forced to retrack their path.

4. It is suggested that a bulletin board - display case be located at the

harbor. This information board would contain emergency services phone numbers,

weather information phone numbers, radio station call numbers, a map and

description of nearest harbors of refuge, boating related goods and services

nearby, boat launch and parking rules, and similar information. For safety

this would be very helpful, and it would answer many questions typically

requested of the park manager and staff. This type of information board need

not be an expensive or overly elaborate creation, but should be water-proofed

with. perhaps a plexi-glass front to deter vandelism.

5. The only entryway to Bayshore Park is presently from Highway 57. To

enhance a "gateway to the park" entry, perhaps consideration should be given

to landscaping the entryway around the beautiful stone walls. An identifying

sign framed by similar materials, such as a wooden sign with stone support would

make the entry even more appealing.

A
PAIVIC

6. Due to the increased projected use of the park, more space will be

demanded for typical "active" recreation facilities such as football, baseball,

frisbee throwing, kite flying, soccer, tennis, playground equipment, etc. These

activities require level land, preferably clear of trees. Acquisition (if

possible) of acreage between Highway 57 and existing park lands is highly

encouraged. This could not only facilitate additional parking for the shelter

building but also provide the needed space (away from the bluff) for the above

mentioned active recreation uses.

7. Although swimming along the shoreline is likely to continue in demand,

the physical conditions of steep slope and very little littoral drift

necessary for sand deposition make creation of a beach area difficult. Neither

lands directly to the east or west of the harbor provide favorable beach sites.

It is perhaps possible to allow for sun bathing and similar activities on the

shoreline, but long term establishment of a sandy beach seems remote. To not

encourage swimming also relieves the County of necessary supervisory or life

guard personnel, and larger clean-up and safety liabilities.

Park Management

Management of the park and harbor has to date been excellent. The facilities

are in fine condition and the presence of a resident caretaker has enhanced the

operation and expansion of the facilities.

Presently the use of the harbor and launch ramps is free, with a camping

charge levied by the night. The laws allow that the maintaining agency owning

the park (Brown County) may charge reasonable launching fees if desiring to

do so. To date there has not been a need to levy launch fees.

The latest federal proposals are indicating substantial cutbacks in CETA

employees, therefore park maintenance fundi-ng may become more of a responsibility

strictly of Brown County. Should this come about, a greater burden will be

placed on existing management persons. Projected growth in the camping areas

as well as in the harbor area would indicate the need for maintaining at least

the present level of staffing.

Should maintenance costs become overly burdensome, revenues could be generated

by charging nominal boat launching fees. Such a rate could be a $2.00 per day launch

fee. At an estimated 7,200 launches per year, about $14,000 should be generated.

Administration and collection of the launch fees could be on a periodic check

program, as such a program would work on an honesty basis. Labor cost to collect
fees is minimal. Typically launch fee collection might be in self-sealing
envelopes $2.00 per day pay before launching. On the envelope information would

be requested such as:

Car make and license number

Boat make and license number

A stop sign at the top of the bluff'and collection box (some pipe-type collection
boxes made of steel have proven more.vandalism proof than wooded boxes) would need
to be provided. Boaters could fill out the envelope, enclose $2.00 and drop the
envelope into the collection box. Envelopes would be collected daily, and based
upon the availability of personnel, periodic checks of parked cars and trailers

would be made to assure that all would have paid. This or any other fee system

should be applied only upon evaluation of the necessity to charge for services.

that is presently given free to campers at the park.

SECTION VI

Design Alternatives

Expansion of the harbor facility to accommodate the need for refuge and

to satisfy projected demand for mooring space can be accomplished by

various designs. Two feasible alternatives are presented in Figures 3 and

4. Both are compatible with the present facility and serve the intended

purpose.

Alternative I features a harbor entry open to the west-northwest. The

harbor would be expanded in two segments, one being a 160 foot extension of

the present breakwater parallel to the shoreline and a second being a 300 foot

segment perpendicular to the shore followed by a 150 foot dog-leg to the

northwest. With winds prevailing from the west and northwest, a boater would

leave the harbor powering into the wind and would return with the wind at his

stern. Upon entering the harbor, a minor change in course would'be needed to

insure entry into protected waters. The waves generated by winds out of the

west and northwest will enter the harbor; however, they will be dampened somewhat

when they.reach the inside face of the rubble breakwater. Considering also

waves generated by winds out of the north and east, this alternative design

configuration provides a more positive degree of protection. Only

reflected waves could be expected to enter the harbor.

Alternative 2 features a harbor entry oriented in an easterly direction.

The expansion would include two separate breakwater segments, one being a

360 foot extension of the present breakwater running parallel to shore and a

second being a 120 foot structure perpendicular to the shoreline. The

latter segment could be either binwall type or rubble mound type construction.

This alternative provides excellent protection from waves generated by winds

prevailing from the north and west; however, little if any protection is

provided against wave action from the east and northeast. This may not create

a severe problem considering that winds from the east are usually of low
velocity (less than 10 m.p.h.). Easterly winds greater than 10 m.p.h. that

could cause significant wave action occur less than 2% of the time when

considering all winds occuring at the site.

The most difficult time for a boater to approach the-harbor would be when

the winds are from the northeast. A slight change in course is required as the

boater passes the end of the main breakwater structure. Any error in judgement

or loss of power could result in his being blown onto the shore at some

point outside of the confines of the harbor.

Future Expansion Considerations

Alternative I would be considered as the final development phase since

its configuration does not lend itself to expansion to the east. Any expansion

in that direction would require reconstruction of portions of the breakwater

structure.

Alternative 2 is more open ended and lends itself quite readily to future

expansion to the east. Note that the outer breakwater could readily be extended

eastward parallel to the shore along its present alignment.

011r

loop

It
pie me s

-rallef racl,117

,;yt
7 el

4to @@Tcvseow (ma/)

ww-@-

44471SRVA 7-1 Ve

43ROWA) 606PA.;7-Y, A14S

Figure 3

Oic

aw,

too
ICIAI& C-A
F- A S

sy: 6>weA) Ayq s-sa As5oc,
A
&RE 9@dO 6A>,'@
mofloe

1317Y

3 dr do;,

VOOLE M00,00 A?M Uo.4 7-6

W,44A -IMP

Ao'

A A)R ri VE.

Figure 4

Interior Space

Both design alternatives offer the same amount of interior space as shown

on the Conceptual Design Sketch. (Figure 5).

The existing finger piers along the west breakwater are too short to

comfortably accommodate two craft on each side. A minor extension of these

piers would effectively double the intended mooring space. Water craft of

various sizes could moor in tandem with some extra space being allowed between

craft.

Pier Arrangement

Provision of a trunk pier extending perpendicular from the shoreline with

branching finger piers seems to offer the best arrangement. Large boats could

utilize the slip farthest from shore in deeper water with smaller craft

occupying the slips in shallower water near the s.horeline. This arrangement

also minimizes the distance that boaters must transport their gear in trans-

ferring it from their autos to their boats. All surfaces of the floating

pier system would float at the same level except for the section connecting

the system to the shore. The slope of this connecting section would vary

depending on water levels in the bay. Tandem mooring is shown on the conceptual

design, Figure . Distance between piers would be on the order of 30 feet to

allow suffifient clearance for the forward moored craft to exit between two

rear moored craft. A respacing of the main trunk pier(s) could allow for single

instead of tandem mooring.

The present binwall structure could be retained and utilized primarily by

larger craft. Some difficulty may be experienced in embarking and disembarking

during low water periods because of the elevation differential between the top

of the binwall and the water surface. This could be rectified by adding finger

piers perpendicular to the structure with ramped sections to account for fluctuation

in water levels. During periods of low water, the slope on the ramped portion of

the finger pier could become excessively steep thereby creating a hazard. A

longer ramp would detract from the usable portion of the overall pier length.

Therefore, removal of the binwall and replacement with a floating pier system

should be considered since it no longer needs to function as a breakwater.

Launch Ramps

Presently, there is a 70 foot wide concrete launch ramp providing four

launch lanes. Two floating piers exist parallel to the launch lanes. Each pier

is positioned to service two launch lanes. Sufficient space is available on

the easterly side of the present ramp to add additional lanes if needed in the

future, especially if the binwall structure is removed.

Auto Parking

A gravel parking lot approximately 700 feet long by 130 feet wide (about

2 acres) presently serves the harbor facility. Depending on the traffic flow

scheme and parking arrangement, it is estimated that about 70 car and trailer

units can be accommodated. Sufficient maneuvering space is allocated for

approaching the launch ramps and also for entering/exiti@g the lot. The

launch ramps are located at the westerly end of the lot thereby minimizing

interference with traffic flow. During peak use times, the existing parking

lot is reported to be completely full, and as demand increases and should the

harbor be enlarged, parking needs will surpass the present capacity. Two

alternatives are available in the development of additional parking facilities.

-8)q Y O)c" G A

"A
203

IAIY

SY: OWEA)
&ZP-SA)

ovoe

Lty 9/V y

C=> CE>

C;p ",I= C=> C:::o
-,44rsRAarl ve- d. z
Mll C>
410 C> C>

C> CAN 4= C> C>

1,aonc@

70 -C

0 oe
RROWA)

Figure 5

One alternative would be to relocate the baseball diamond on top of the
bluff, and convert this space to car and boat trailer parking. The baseball

diamond and back-stop fencing would require relocation to another site. An

ideal location for the baseball diamond would be to the southeast of the park

shelter toward S.T.H. 57. This would however require the purchase of the

property from a private party to add to the park. The advantages to this

parking alternative are that it is the closest land to the launch area that

is level and wooded. If the baseball diamond were to be relocated in the near

future (even before harbor expansion) the space could be used for overflow

parking. The disadvantages to overflow or additional parking at any place

on top of the bluff is that it requires pedestrian traffic to use the

access road as a connecting walkway.

A second alternative would involve considerably more construction along

the lake shoreline and would involve extending the present parking lot to the

east or west. This would require establishing a new bulkhead line and bringing

in fill to create a level parking facility at the shoreline. The advantages

to this alternative are that it consolidates all of the parking at one single

location. Access to boats is convenient, other park functions already in

place (such as the baseball diamond) would not be impacted or require relocation,

and the development would not require puchasing additional land. Disadvantages

to this parking alternative include obtaining permits for filling at the

waterfront, finding a source for the needed fill material, creation of a

sligh.tly greater development impact at the waters edge and increased development

costs.

Boat Traffic

Similarly as with auto traffic, the launch ramp location on the westerly end

of the harbor away from the harbor entrance minimizes interference with boat

traffic. Launch and load activities are somewhat removed from mooring and

entrance/exit activities.

Type of Construction

The present breakwater is constructed with rock fill forming a rubble

mound. This type of construction was originally selected for several

reasons. A rock like hardpan bottom condition at the site did not lend itself

to pile driving or excavating. Extending the breakwater can be accomplished

merely by placing additional rock fill to form the desired configuration.

This type of construction causes the least disturbance from an environmental

standpoint and is nonpolluting. Fill material is also available close to the

project site.

A steel binwall type structure with interior rock fill and paved surface

presently serves as the easterly breakwater. Its vertical face allows it to

also be utilized directly for docking and mooring. Comparing it to the rubble

mound, the binwall tends to reflect waves rather than absorb them.

For both alternatives, a binwall structure of similar length and orientation

could be incorporated into the easterly leg of the breakwater extending

approximately 120 feet out from the shoreline. This would provide additional

mooring space.

Water Depth

The outer leg of Alternative 1 extends into slightly deeper water as

compared to Alternative 2. The east-west leg of Alternatives 1 and 2 runs

parallel to the shoreline and also parallels the bottom contour. The vol.ume of

fill material required to construct it would be essentially constant along its

length. Height of fill measured from the bay bottom to the top of the

breakwater would be approximately 19 feet. For Alternative 1 at the far end

of the outer leg, the fill height would be 21 feet from bay bottom to top of

structure. Since the breakwater is trapezoidal in cross section, the additional

2 feet of fill height for Alternative 1 translates into an additional volume of

fill at the base of the structure and thereby increases its cost of construction.

SECTION VII

Costs

The major share of the total capital improvement costs will be expended on

the construction of the breakwater. The costs will vary depending on the design

alternative selected. Construction cost for each of the two suggested alternatives

is a follows:

Alternative 1

a. Average 19 foot high rubble mound
160 linear feet @ $2,000 = $ 320,000

b. Average 15 foot high rubble mound
300 linear feet @ $1,550 = 465,000

c. Average 21 foot high rubble mound
150 linear feet @ $2,260 = 339,000

Total Estimated Construction Cost $1,124,000

Alternative 2

a. Average 19 foot high rubble mound
360 linear feet @ $2,000 = $ 720,000

b. Average 15 foot high rubble mound or
binwall
120 linear feet @ $1,550 = 186,000

Total Estimated Construction Cost $ 906,000

Other development costs will be incurred in providing the remaining improvements

that are either necessary or desirable to complete the facility. These costs

could vary considerably depending on their configuration, size, material makeup

and location. Based on the quantities and physical arrangement of facilities shown

on preliminary plans developed by the County in 1976 for shore related facilities,

the following total development costs have been estimated (in 1981 dollars):

ESTIMATED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COSTS

Breakwater structure (average of two alternatives) $1,070,000

Interior dock system 150,000

Toilet building 40,000

Water and waste handling systems at waterfront 65,000

Electrical distribution and lighting-systems 65,000

Additional parking at top of bluff 25,000

Stairways, walks, and traffic control devices 20,000

Total Estimated Construction Costs $1,435,000

Engineering fees and administration expenses

10% of construction costs 143,500

Contingency fund - 15% of construction costs 215,500

Total Estimated Development Costs $1,784,000

FOOTNOTES

0) Lake Erie Fisheries Investigations, Ohio Department of Natural Resources,

Division of Wildlife, Dingell-Johnson Projects F-35-R, R-35-R, F-35-R-18.

1979.

1) Lake Michigan Regional Boating Survey and Analysis, Department of the Army

Corps of Engineers, January 1974, page 50.

2) Economic Impact and Needs of Wisconsin's Great Lake Boaters, Ayse Somersan,

Extension Recreation Resources Center, July 1976.

3) Demand and Supply of Recreation in Wisconsin's Coastal Counties, Ayse Somersan

U.W.-Extension Recreation Resources Center, February, 1977.

4) Marine Recreational Uses of Green Bay: A Study of Human Behavior and Attitude

Patters, R. Ditton and T. Goodale, U.W. Sea Grant Program, Report #117,

December, 1972

5) Ibid 3. Table 4, page 24.

6) Information regarding proposed development of additional boating facilities

in the City of Green Bay and nearby areas is from telephone discussions

with the Brown County Planning Department during February of 1981.

7) Ibid 2, pp. 38-39.

8) Ibid 1, pp. 58, 62.

SECTION VIII -

Appendix

ENGINEERS
PLANNERS
SURVEYORS
OWEN AYRES & ASSOCIATES -INC

1 7 8 9SHAWANO AVENUE
G R E E NBAY, WISCONSIN 54303
(414) 497-1541

Dear Madam or Sir:

You have been identified as an individual who represents an association or
a unit of government that might have an interest in planning Bayshore Park.
As you may know, Bayshore Park is along the east shoreline of Green Bay
about 17 miles northeast from the City of Green Bay. Long term design plans
are being presently created by the Brown County Park Commission and its
consultant OWEN AYRES & ASSOCIATES INC to assure that development at the
park - particularly in the harbor - is consistent with long range plans.

Along with this cover page, you will find a brief summary of key findings
in demand for use of the park facilities and two alternative harbor designs to
accommodate projected demands. A con 'ceptual design for day use mooring spaces
within the harbor is also included.

Your comments concerning the findings and/or design alternatives are
welcome. Should you wish to respond, please let me hear from you prior to
March 20. Mail your comments to: OWEN AYRES & ASSOCIATES INC, 1789 Shawano
Avenue, P.O. Box 3968, Green Bay, W1 54303, Attention: Vern Vandenberg.
I may also be reached at 497-1541 to respond to your questions.

Yours truly,

OWEN AYRES & ASSOCIATES INC

Vern Vandenberg, P.
Project Engineer

VV/aw

Enc.

LETTER SENT REGARDING BAYSHORE PARK

DATED 3/9/81 SENT TO THE FOLLOWING

Donald Holloway Jerry Van Den Wymelenberg
Brown County Executive Downtowner Motel
Brown County Court House 321 South Washington Street
100 South Jefferson Street Green Bay, WI 54301
Green Bay, WI 54301
Ken Bukowski, Corporation Counsel
J. Roger Dernbach Brown County
County Board Chairman Northern Building
251 East Mission Road 305 East Walnut Street
Green Bay, WI 54301 Green Bay, WI 54301

Cecil De Peau, Director Chet Miller
Brown County Park Commission Park and Recreation Director
Northern Building City of Green Bay
305 East Walnut Street 100 North Jefferson Street
Green Bay, WI 54301 Green Bay, WI 54301

John Seefeldt Green Bay Area Chamber of Commerce
Brown County Harbor Commission 400 South Washington Street
Northern Building Green Bay, WI 54301
305 East Walnut Street
Green Bay, WI 54301 Green Bay Area Visitor and Convention Bureau
1901 South Oneida Street
Paul Sager Green Bay, WI 54364
University of Wisconsin-Green Bay
2420 Nicolet Drive Gary Thompson
Green Bay, WI 54302 Green Bay Boating Club
c/o Form Systems and Services
Les Raduenz, President P. 0. Box 14
Brown County Boating Association Green Bay, WI 54305
3439 Nicolet Drive
Green Bay, WI 54302 Brown County Board of Supervisors
c/o Ron De Lain, County Clerk
Commander Brown County Court House
U. S. Coast Guard Station 100 South Jefferson Street
Sturgeon Bay, WI 54235 Green Bay, WI 54301

Tom Conard B.F. Paruleski
Conard's Mens Wear Brown County Planning Commission
1464 Main Street City Hall
Green Bay, WI 54302 100 North Jefferson Street
Green Bay, WI 54301
Ben Laird, Chairman, Marina Committee
Green Bay Area Vistor & Convention Bureau Robert Mundelius
c/o Green Bay Broadcasting Company Corps of Engineers
225 North Adams Street North Main Street
Green Bay, WI 54301 Kewaunee, WI 54216

Mike Casey
Brown County Shoreland Zoning
Northern Building
305 East Walnut Street
Green Bay, WI 54301
42

Letter Responses

Corjr2t(y Plann ing Commission

R 00 M 608 C I T Y H A L L
100 NORTH JEFFERSON STREET
GREEN BAY o WISCONSIN* 54301
TELEPHONE 497-3633

March 17, 1981

Mr. Vern Vandenberg, P.E.
Project Engineer
Owen Ayres & Associates, Inc.
1789 Shawano Avenue
Green Bay, WI 54303

Dear Mr. Vandenberg:

I have reviewed the proposed expansion of Bay Shore County Park with
respect to the harbor enlargement and wish to offer the following
comments:

1. The report on present development and use of the harbor appears
accurate.

2. We have no further information on projected demand for use for
this harbor, adding the new DNR registration figures for 1980
(attached). Note that boat registrations in Brown County have
increased +59 percent in the past ten years while our population
has increased + 11 percent.

3. "Special Note #211 on the future continued use of Bay Shore Park
facility even if the Bay Beach facility is developed is assured
as a harbor of refuge and access point due to its spacing of about
15 miles easterly along the coast line from any future Bay Beach/
Fox River area facility. This spacing also would apply to a
Suamico River based facility westerly of a future central facility.

4. "Special-Note #311 regarding further expansion of Bay Shore Park
Harbor, however, is questionable due to the probable high cost
of such a large expansion compared with the allocation of boating
funds more centered in the county.

The use of this harbor for access and as a harbor of refuge for this
reach of coast line is important to eastern Brown County. This harbor
is cost effective in terms of maintenance and its entrance should be
improved to better control northeastern storm waves. However, due to
the easternmost location in the county and due to the limitations of the
access road, this harbor should not be enlarged to where it becomes
the principal harbor in the county. The principal harbor/marina is now
planned to be located adjacent to Bay Beach Park in the central part
of the county, accessible to 1-43 and to urban services. A doubling

BROWN COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Mr. Vern Vandenberg
March 17, 1981
Page -2-

or tripling of the size of Bay Shore Park Harbor would be diverting
future financial resources away from a greater and more centrally
needed harbor facility.

The adopted long-range comprehensive plan for Brown County recommends
a major waterfront park along the Bay with a marina west of Bay Beach
Park. Thus far, a 55 acre county island has already been constructed
off-shore in a location especially planned to eventually serve as a
harbor enclosure.

If I can offer more information, please call me.

Sincerely,

B.F. Paruleski, AICP
Planning Director

BFP:jmc

cc: Cecil Depeau, County Park Director

WISCONSIN BOAT REGISTRATION - 1980
BROWN, DOOR, AND OCONTO COUNTIES

Outboards Sail Inboards Totals

Brown County:

Original 12,826 447 326
(Individual)
Fleet 66 11 1

Totals 12,892 (94Z) 458 (3%) 327 (3%) J3,677

Door County:

Original 2,290 143 181
(Individual)
Fleet 308 37 7

Totals: 2,598 (88%) 180 (6%) 188 (6%) 2,966

Oconto County:

Original 2,882 28 41
(Individual)
Fleet 233 4 0

Totals 3,115 (98%) 32 (1%) 41 (1%) 3,188

RATE OF CRANGE: BROWN COUNTY AND WISCONSIN

Brown County % Wisconsin %
- N,
12/1970 Boats 8,589 +59 312,282 +24
13,677 386,232
12/1980 Boats

1970 Population
(Census) 158,244 4,417,933
1980 Population
(Prelim. Census) 175,470 4 689,055 +6

SOURCE: Dale P. Morey, Supervisor of Boating Safety, Wisconsin DNR, 12/31/80

Compiled by the Green Bay-Brown County Planning Department, 3/1981
(Does not include large pleasure craft "documented" with the U.S. Coast Guard)

State of Wisconsin \ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES.
AnthonV S. Earl
secowaly

Box 3600
Green Bay, Wisconsin 54303
March 12, 1981 IN REPLY REFER TO: 3500

Mr. Vern Vandenberg
Owen Ayres and Associates, Inc.,
1789 Shawano Avenue
Green Bay, Wisconsin 54303

Dear Vern:

I have reviewed the Bayshore Park Harbor Development Plan-Prelimi-
nary report.

I believe the plan pretty well addresses those concerns that have
been previously identified.

Once adopted, I would like to see the County apply for a single permit
that would cover all phases of construction for at least the next
ten years. This approach would reduce paper work from both us and
the County.

Thanks for the opportunity to review the proposal.

Thank you.
SR oi Wa bender
Water Management Coordinator

RLF:ip.

BROWN COUNTY BOARD 0 IF HARBOR COMMISSIONERS
The POR Tof GREEN BA Yp WISCONSIN
NORTHERN BUILDING
Telephone 414 - 497-3265

MAILING ADDRESS
PORT DIRECTOR COURT HOUSE
JOHN A SEEFELDT GREEN BAY, WI 54301

March 17, 1981 B-15.6b

Mr. Vern Vandenberg, P.E.
OWEN AYRES & ASSOCIATES INC.
1789 Shawano Ave
P.O. Box 3968
Green Bay, WI 54303

Dear Mr. Vandenberg:

I have reviewed the data sheet and various alternatives
for the Bay Shore Park Marina.

I feel Alternative I would be the best plan. It would
provide adequate protection for the interior marina area.

You might want to add a bin wall directly across from
the end of the 1601 extension. This would negate any resurge
action that could result from a northwest storm.

Sincerely,

'
OHN A. SEErELDT
Port Director4//-

JAS:mz
@'OH N !A
or, @'

BROWN COUNTY
BOATING ASSOCIATION

box 3535
green bay , wis. 54303

March 23, 1981

Mr. Vern Vandenberg, P.E.
Owen Ayres & Assoc. Inc.
1789 Shawano Ave.
Green Bay, Wis. 54303

Re: Bayshore Park

Mr. Vandenberg,

The following comments are in response to your inquiry regarding Bayshore
Park and the proposed expansion.

1. The present faciiity is inadequate as a harbor of refuge, because
of severe wave turbulence penetrating the harbor.

2. The existing harbor , and any expansion, must resolve the problem
of wave refraction inside the harbor.

3. The harbor, or a portion of the harbor, should be available for single
overnight use on a fee basis. The site is too distant and exposed to
permit safe round trip day passages from other launching points,and
marinas on the lower bay. Thi s is an important item to the long term
use of the facility. The severe slope of the roadway down to the
ramps, restricts use by many boat owners with trailable boats. This
factor will become more evident as cars become smaller.

-4. Some type of floating pier or cantilevered walkway along the inside
face of the outer breakwall would help provide needed temporary
fending off space for boats waiting to pull out.

Since ely,

s duenz
President
S ce el
'YsRadu

green bay boat club, green bay yacht club , brown county conservation alliance,
windjarnmers sailing. club , west shore yacht club , coast guard auxiliary ,
wisconsin boating association 49

DATE DUE

GAYLORDINo. 2333 PRINTED IN U.S.A.

3 6 58 14108 2539