Little Bay de Noc management program recommended report to the Delta County Planning Commission

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

LITTLE BAY DE NOC
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

OCT 1980

COASTAL ZONE

INFORMATION CENNITR

(LITTLE BAY DE NOC

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

RECOMMENDED REPORT TO ThE
DELTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

OCTOBER, 1980

kwl@
'Littl@ Bay de Noc
Technical Advisory Committee

The preparation of this document was made possible through a grant from the
Michigan Coastal Management Program administered by the Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Land Resource Programs with Federal funds from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, administered by the Office of
Coastal Zone Management in accordance with the Coastal Zone Management Act.

The Little Bay de Noc Management Program represents a joint effort by the
CUPPAD Regional Commission, the Delta County Planning Commission, and the
.Little Bay de Noc Technical Advisory Committee under funding provided by the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. This Report is divided by chapters
as follows and is accompanied by the indicated maps.

CHAPTER PAGE

ONE: PLANNING PROCESS 2
TWO: ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES: 5
- Recreational/Historical 5
- Environment 12
- Residential 33
- Transportation 34
- Commercial/Industrial 41
- Energy 53

THREE: GOALS AND POLICIES 59
FOUR: PROGRAM OBJECTIVES: 60
- Development of a Port Authority 60
- Capital Improvements Program 61
- Management/Regulatory Recommendations 64
FIVE: MAPS: Little Bay de Noc Bay Atlas
- Critical Spawning Habitat Areas
- Little Bay de Noc Historical Sites

ONE: PLANNING PROCESS

Introduction

There are few areas in the Great Lakes Region having the diversity and abundance
of coastal resources to be found along Little Bay de Noc. The bay is an
excellent natural port served by major rail lines and also provides some of
the finest fish and wildlife habitats in the Upper Peninsula. The beaches,
fishing areas, and sheltered bays provide a wide variety of recreational
opportunities for residents and tourists. In addition to its natural beauty;
industry, tourism, timber, and agricultural production constitute a daily
diverse economic base providing for a year-round bay populaLion of over 25,000 .
Delta County's population is presently estimated at about 41,900 and is further
estimated to grow to about 48,700 by the year 2000. A large part of that
increase will occur along the bay. The accumulated effects of and potential
for growth, as well as the varied potential uses of its natural resources,
pose a need for thoughtful consideration of the bay's future.

As indicatE-d by the materials gathered by the Technical Advisory Committee,
largely provided by Mr. Roy Jensen, private and intergovernmental planning for
the bay has a long history. Some plans have been brought to fruition, others
not. Coordinated development of an overall plan has been stymied, in part, by
the diversity of governmental jurisdiction along the bay, which includes both
state and federal ownership and management as well as the local jurisdiction
of seven townships, two cities, and the County. Although there would appear
to be agreEment that the bay has great potential, there is certainly diversity
of opinion as to what it has potential for.

The Little Bay de Noc Management Program is based on the premise that bringing
the diverse private and governmental interests together to work from present
plans and their own expertise toward an overall management program will:

1. Benefit all interests.
2. Lead to better understanding. of the. p,:rq'plp_ms@!.ftn1iO oppprtunities fAcing--t-he
bay and their interdependence.
3. Result in a recommended program-fo.r future wnpgemeht/development of the
bay's resources.

A final management program adopted as part of the Cpunty.-Comprebensive-Plan''
will set the base for coordinated management actions and the development of
specific objectives, including such projects as new boat launch-.and -recr&at-t6nal
facilities, cargo facilities, an 'd w4,ter/wastewater pxojects.. Th-&-management.
program will be used to make recommendations to local governments and will
provide the analysis necessary.to secure state and fedetal funding for.siiecific
projects.

Groups in the Planning Process-.-

The Little Bay de Noc Management Program was initiated by the successful
attempt of the CUPPAD Regional CQmmission to receive funds from the stat6'sr-
Coastal Management Program,for a,'.?cotoprehensive.managemept-strategy,to.coor-dinate
existing plans and uses, (which) will result in goals, policies, and objectives
to properly manage the coastal resources of Little Bay de Noc."

The CUPPAD Regional Commission is a voluntary organization created and directed
'by local governments and private groups within the six Counties of Alger,
Delta, Dickinson, Marquette, Menominee, and Schoolcraft. Each county maintains
a committee composed of local officials and private representatives who generally
review all staff work pertaining to the county. The five officers of each
county.committee together form the Commission which provides overall direction.
The Regional Commission maintains a professional staff of seventeen who work
with local governments and planning commissions on a wide range of community
management and planning activities. The Regional Commission is locally funded
and receives state and federal funding under specific grants and designations.
All local governments in Delta County and several private organizations are
member groups of the Regional Commission. The Little Bay de Noc Management
Program has been staffed by the staff attorney, a management analyst, and an
environmental planner.

The Delta County Planning Commission is the one local planning commission with
jurisdiction encompassing the entire bay. Created pursuant to Act 282 P.A.
1945, the County Planning Commission is charged to make studies, surveys, and
plans for the economic, social, and physical development of the county and to
work with interested agencies and groups in so doing. Following a report from
Regional Commission staff on the potential program, the County Planning Commission
determined at its monthly meeting in January that the management program would
be done under its auspices and named a subcommittee to work on it. The subcommittee
reported out a suggested list of representative experts to serve on a Technical
Advisory Committee which was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission
and invitations were sent out. Planning Commissioners Joan Kitiuk, Chairperson
of the Subcommittee, was named to chair the lew combined Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC). Under the proposed planning process, a draft final report
developed by the TAC will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for its
review and adoption as part of the Delta County Comprehensive Plan. Joint
reviews with local governments are to occur at that time. 'The final management
program will, of course, also stand on its own for use by all interested
groups and provide a basis for securing state and federal funding for identified
bay projects-.'. Membexa- df, the Technical Advisory Committee are listed below.

Little-Bay de Noc'Technical Advisory Committee

Mr. Robert Anderson Ms. Beverly Moberg
Clairmont-Transfer CoffiPany Delta Co. Building and Zoning

Mr..Foy Arbour Mr. Don Pellegrini
-Peninsula Industrial Sales MSU Extension Service

!Mr. Joseph Bal Mr. RobL-rt Perr6n
-Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Harnischfeger Corporation

Mr. William Bullen Mr. James'Richer
Michig an Dept of Natura 1 Resources Ford River Township

Mr. Patrick. Curran Mr. Robert Schmeling
Delta County-Planning-Commission Delta'County Historical Society

Mr. Doug Glevanic The Honorable Dean Shipman
U.S. Forest Service Delta County District Court Judge

Mr. Otto Green Mr. Anthony Shomin
Bay de Noc Community College City of Escanaba Recreation Department

Mr. Lawrence Haack Mr. Roy Swanson
Audabon Society Delta County Chamber of Commerce

Mr. Joseph Heller Mr. Wallace Thorsen
Delta County Planning Commission Bay de Noc Township

Mr. Roy Jensen Mr. Harold Vanlerberghe
Escanaba Port Authority Delta County Board of Commissioners

Ms. Joan Kitiuk Mr. Henry Von Blaskewicz
Delta County Planning Commission Gladstone Yacht Club

Mr. William Lenberg
Chicago and Northwestern Railroad

The Technical Advisory Committee was the "Work group" on the project. It was
designed tc iiraw together representatives from all levels of government and
private business to provide the expertise, examination, review, plans, and
direction necessary for a realistic and truly useful end product. During the
6-7 month development of the management program, staff reported to and was
directed by the TAC, whose work provided the central part of the overall
study.

TWO: ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

RECREATION

The parks, harbors, access sites, and urban facilities along the 85 miles of
the bay provide a wide range of recreational outlets for bay and area residents
and for tourists. The established transportation network further assures that
travellers will be exposed to Little Bay de Noe facilities and accommodations,
though their ultimate destination may lay elsewhere. A 1977 estimate by the
Michigan Travel Bureau pegs tourist expenditures at 26.5 million dollars
annually in Delta County, accounting for over 6% of the county's total employment.
Though a large part of that expenditure relates to Big Bay de Noe (Fayette
State Park) and a part to out-county attractions, the greater proportion is
likely spent along Little Bay de Noe.

The increasingly higher price of gasoline is and will continue to restrict the
mobility of both area residents and tourists. This has led to an increasing
local interest in more intensive use of bay recreational facilities. Though
the increasing cost of travel is expected to have substantial impact on tourism,
it may also lead to a tourist trend beneficial to the bay if realized. As
indicated at a 1979 Michigan Planning Association seminar, tourists will be
more likely to travel to a particular area and stay during their vacation as
opposed to the "travel through" vacation more prevalent in the past. Thus,
provision of accommodations and attractions for a longer stay along the bay
may ameliorate, to some extent, the expected tourist loss.

As indicated in the 1974 Delta County Comprehensive Plan, recreational facilities
have not been provided in a systematic or coordinated fashion. Thus, provision
of facilities within an individual community has been dependent upon the
presence and success of that community's interest groups and upon a rather ad
hoc funding process. This has often led to perceived deficiencies in more
expensive facilities (i.e., ice rinks or.swimming pools) and to inadequate
distribution of facilities such as along the Stonington Peninsula. Many
facilities have also deteriorated over the years. Recent interest has generally
focused on improving and expanding public access sites, yacht harbor improvements,
and the promotion of public events and water sports.
The Bay de-Noc Management Program has led to a more comprehensive, co .ordinated
approach to recreation'through a three stage process:

1. Inventory of existing facilities, their condition, and present plans for
them'.
2. Consideration of future needs and the appropriate priority of recommended
projects.
3. Recommendations regarding the appropriate sites for any new facilities
based on access, soils, and environmental considerations and use of the
bay atlas.

The following is an inventory of present facilities and sites and the needs
expressed in.individual community plans. Critical to evaluation of opportunities
based on this review will be the expected cutbacks in state and federal funding
of state and federal sites. The capital improvements program will proceed
with this newdevelopment in mind.

Recreation Facilities in General

Little Bay de Noc has seven public boat launching ramps. Four of the seven
that are presently considered in good, servicable condition include the ramp
at the Ford River access site, two ramps in the City of Gladstone, and the
ramp at the mouth of the Whitefish River. The three ramps not considered in
good condition include the two ramps at Ludington Park in Escanaba and the
ramp at Twin Springs Park on the Stonington Peninsula. The Escanaba ramps may
be improved within the new capital improvements program for the park.

The Gladstone and Escanaba yacht harbors provide facilities f6r larger pleasure
craft. For well over 50 years, the City of Escanaba has maintained a pleasure
craft marina located in Ludington Park. The marina presently berths 40 vessels,
operates a storage yard, and maintains 13 transient spaces. Privately maintained
bouys for approximately 20 sailing vessels exist offshore with space available
for about 100. The yacht harbor in Gladstone has 8 seasonal docking facilities,
4 transient spaces, and bouys for about 8 sailing vessels.

Swimming areas are provided in Ford.River Township (Fuller Park), City of
Escanaba (Ludington Park), and Gladstone (Van.Cleve Park).

Tw in Springs Park (10 acres) has a picnic area and parking to go along with a
small beach. Fuller Park (40 acres) has 50 parking places, picnic area, swing
and play apparatus, softball field, multi-purpose area, and'1,000 feet of
swimming beach. Ludington Park (120 acres) has a swimming beach, bathhouse,
playground equipment, stationary raft, diving board, picnic tables, picnic
stoves, band shell with seating for 400 persons, 4 lighted tennis.courts,
restrooms, paved basketball court, picnic pavilion, fenced tot lot, ball
playing field, and soccer field. Van Cleve Park (62 acres) has a picnic area
(30 tables), playground equipment, tot lot, multi-purpose open field, swimming
beach, and beachhouse.

Other recreation areas of significant importance to the Little Bay de Noc area
are the Pioneer Trail Park, Wilderness Park, City Park (Gladstone), and Peninsula
Point. Generally described as an open space (5 acres), Peninsula Point-(Bay'f
de Noc Township) has an old lighthouse, a 10 car parking area, and small
picnic area. Pioneer Trail Park (Wells Township) consists of 98 acres, 100
picnic tables, a shelter, a dance pavilion, swings, etc., softball field--
horseshoe pits, open field, 56 campsites, 'and 2,600 feet of waterfront area@`
Wilderness Park (Gladstone) has 50 camping sites, 50 parking places, campground
equipment, waterfrontage, and consists of about 50 acres.. City Park (Gladstdne)
is made up of 23 acres, 10 picnic acres, a shelter, 'softball field, a-multi@'
purpose open.field, and adjoins the VancCleve, site with continuous wa-ter', I
frontage.
f; A

Ford RiveL Tct@ship

InTord River Township there 17'Ps been a need for park imp@rovememts,_ ind I-a@:@broat
launching facility in Fuller iark, a county-owneil,
general maintenance and clean-up problems have, been, obt&r3;ted--I@at
access site, No-See-Um Creek, Fuller Park,"and Portage Marsh access,
which are state-owned and maintained sites. Local residents, through
representatives on the Technical Advisory Committee, have indicated that the
beauty, accessibility, and,.therefore, enjoyment of the parks has been

substantially impaired by the poor maintenance of roads into the parks and
poor garbage pickup, particularly at Fuller Park. The county, as a result of
these concerns, has indicated through its representative that maintenance will
be stepped up. Maintenance of present parks is seen as a higher priority than
construction of new facilities. A boat launch site at Fuller Park should
still be constructed, but is viewed as having lower priority to improvements
at the Ford River site.

City of Escanaba

The City of Escanaba's marina has in recent years seen the demand for.seasonal
dock space increase with the present docking facilities deteriorating rapidly.
Since 1964, the beach front has been eroding at a rate of 7 feet per year and
has caused severe damage to support facilities in the area. The cement walkway
along the beach has been undermined by lake waves and has generally collapsed.
The walkway is fenced off. Other bathing beach areas are similarly threatened.
The two boat launching facilities are also considered in deteriorated
condition.

Presently, Escanaba is seeking Coastal Management Program funds through the
DNR to help defray the cost of two new marina projects. One is a proposed
small boat launch facility that will be located on Sand Island. The DNR
Waterways and DNR Recreation Services (LAWCON) have committed partial funding
of the project. The small boat launch will close the gap on a much needed
facility for small recreational boaters. Once this facility is completed, the
two other sites will be abandoned.

The other DNR funded project is the creation of a parksite and greenspace on
Ludington Park's Sand Island. This project will allow greater coastal access
for the residents of the area plus control and stabilize a highly volatile
erosion prone area. Coastal Management is currently fundi@g an engineering
design and will eventually become involved in the actual development of the
site.
'The completion of these projects are vitai in improving the access to Little
Bay de Noc.. In the near future, construction of 150 finger piers and service
dock, an-addition to the service building, and repairs to the north dock
facing are contemplated. Such major construction is necessary to upgrade
deteriorating conditions and meet the immediate-demands placed upon the facility.
A travel lift would also be useful in boat/storage handling because it would
increase capacity for storage and make the harbor more of an economical operation.
This facility would be the only one of its type in the area, with the next J
nearest'site located,in Marquette. The present marine rail system is a limiting
factor in harbor redevelopment because of its inefficierit design.

Other recreation facilities in the park are in poor condition, as indicated by
the need to resurface the tennis courts in Ludington Park. The park is also
in r@eed,:o�-ndw.-_,r1estroom facilities to replace those built in the 1940's, which
are itm-decitiatecaccor.di-ng to; the-city. General improvements to existing facil ities
are,@therefoie,@;_,needed to@keep,.its.usefulness and attractiveness at a high
standard.

Wells Township

In Wells"Township the lack of a public access site between Gladstone and
Escanaba has been an issue for some time. The mouth of the Escanaba River has
been indicated as an ideal site. At present, a lease for the industrially
owned lands at the proposed site is now being negotiated. The project has a
long-term lease arrangement with the DNR for the site. This proposed location
is protected from the bay and would improve overall boating access to a very
popular area. A boat launch site has been included as part of the Little Bay
de Noc Capital Improvements Program appearing in this report.

Delta County's Pioneer Trail Park has been heavily used since its inception.
Users include both resident day users and transient visitors to the area. The
proximity of the park to the Escanaba River and the urban area in general
ensure its continued utility. The County decided in the recent past to upgrade
aging equipment and facilities and rearrange access to and from US-2 & 41.
Other improvements planned include new and resurfaced roadways, year-round
hiking/ski paths, rehabilitation of the Pioneer cemetery, and installation of
new shower/restrooms and picnic facilities. A land use plan is being prepared
with the work to be done via county funds, volunteers, and private donations.
There are approximately 50 campsites in the park at Present and an expansion
of 2-3 sites per year is planned over the next five years with approximately
36 acres for day and passive uses.

Some formal access agreement would be advisable north of American Timber Homes
for winter access. Trespass, eros ion, and increased traffic in the area are
presently causing a safety and traffic hazard in the Bay View area.

City of Gladstone

In the City of Gladstone, indications by its 1976 plan suggest improvements to
Van Cleve and Wilderness Parks, construction of a fishing pier, upgrading the
yacht harbor, and additional park development. The City of Gladstone Recreation
Plan has indicated that a new park site should be developed east of the industrial
park on the north side of town. The fact that major improvements should b6
made at the existing parks to the south, which have over one mile of waterfront
area, this northern property may be left for other uses. Some opponents to
this northern park development believe the site would duplicate existing
facilities and that a new park at this site could not provide a good beach'
area without extensive renovation. Again, the Technical Advisory Committee
recommendation is that improvements be made to present facilities.

The Delta County Comprehensive Plan proposed that consideration be given to
expansion of shoreline day-use facilities. The City of Gladstone should,'''
according to that plan, consider a phase change to eliminate the Wilderness
Park and concentrate on day-use facilities.* Thistype;of.'action:'would' '!ekiI06ate
one-third of the camping facilities along the Little Bay de
would leave only 50 campsites at Vagabond Campground.- (p.;rivate)@'.';aar-,00ulity4',Rdad
513 just three miles south of US-2 and 56 sites at the :Rio]1-64@Sr ,Teu1l:.Park'4-@@,
(Delta County). Day-use facilities could be provided along with camping in
the Wilderness Park area. The elimination of the camping site:g-,gould put
strain on the other areas.

The City submitted a Coastal Management Project for Van Cleve Park for pathways.
'The project includes 1,100 feet of pathways for pedestrians and bicycle use
within the park. The project will complete a walkway throughout the entire
park. Recent citizen polls have shown that Van Cleve Park/Beach should get
most public funds. The beachhouse is old and should be' considered for renovation
or replacement.

The Gladstone Recreation Plan indicated a need for additional slips, pilings,
general docking space, and extensive dredging of the basin. However, a recent
survey indicated that the majority of people responding did not support improvements
and/or expansion to the yacht harbor. They did indicate a need for public
restrooms at the yacht harbot, al.so cleaner shoreline and beaches.

Brampton Township

In Brampton Township a winter access road to Little Bay de Noc and streambank
stabilization plan at Days River is being developed by the DNR, who has requested
and received renewed funding to complete both of these projects. The projects
are designed to make winter fishing.access or smelt dipping easier and cause
less environmental damage. Since the area is heavily used during the smelting
season, more disposal containers in the area may help clean up problems.
Additional public access sites for winter and summer may be needed if the
general public is not allowed to continue use of some of the existing privately
owned sites.

Masonville Township

The Whitefish River Public Access Site in Masonville Township is state-owned,
consists of about 20 acres. Parking for 40 cars and trailers, and restrooms,
are available. The general area is considered a wildfowl area. The area has
had heavy fishing offshore in the public access location. Permanent offshore
fishing area is expected to be built in the near future to replace the metal
pier which was destroyed by ice. This improvement should increase the use of
the area as suggested when it was designated as an "Area of Particular Concern"
under the State's Coastal Management Program.

Presently, Masonville Township is in the process of improving their recreation
facilities. The Masonville Township recreation area (formerly called the
Rapid River Ball Park) consists of one ball diamond, 30 parking places, and a
capacity for 200 people on a two acre parcel of land. The first phase of
their capital improvements program for this recreation area will consist of
the acquisition of a 24.5 acre parcel of land ajoining the present area, the
placement of dugouts-and fencing in the ballfield, and the construction of two
restrooms..

.,-The@--,future recreational development schedule for the Masonville Township
reereatioA@,zkr,eayill include a tot lot, playground equipment, picnic area,
4ors,eshoe,-1CPurtsJ4.1and picnic pavilion. These activities are expected to occur
during the- ne-At -Iflive. years.

Ensign Township.

The land that is now Twin Springs Park was originally owned by Ensign Township
and the Escanaba and Lake Superior Railroad Company. The United States Forest

Service (USFS) was expected to maintain and improve the area after the transfer
to the USFS in 1960. The township would like to see this park developed
'further for recreational purposes and has indicated that it would like the
property deeded back if no improvements are planned. The USFS considers the
area as undeveloped recreation. If a small boat access site was provided at
Twin Springs and improvements to the existing facilities took place, residents
and visitors would not have to go to Rapid River to launch a boat. In addition,
that development would provide additional access to the bay from the eastern
shore. Potential improvement to the Twin Springs Park is listed as one of the
-projects in. the Capital Improvements Program.

Bay de Noc Township

The lack of a public boat launch on the Little Bay de Noc side of the Stonington
Peninsula has interested Bay de Noc Township residents in obtaining such a
facility. Possible sites include the "Farmers Dock" location and Maywood
Shores. This would provide access to the Bay for the residents in the Stonington
area and provide refuge for small-boats if stranded by poor weather. The bay
is narrow enough around Escanaba for boats to reach the Stonington Peninsula.
After discussion, this project has been included as a project in the Capital
Improvements Program.

The limited availability of rustic camping on or near Little Bay de Noc may
raise an opportunity to further development of Peninsula Point. The USFS
should consider providing an improved access road to the point and lighthouse,
and attempt to preserve the natural surrounding of the site including the
lighthouse.

Summary

It is extremely difficult and somewhat nonproductive for a unit of government
to consider its recreational system separately from that of the surrounding
areas and the county as a whole. Local residents utilize recreation facilities
and opportunities of all governments with little concern for corporate boundaries.
Therefore, the management program should develop a play for coordinating the
activities of the various organizations connected with the development and
promotion of recreation. This could include DNR, USFS, National Park Service,
Chambers of Commerce, planning commissions, local governing bodies, etc.

Since these facilities are, in most cases, located in a coastal area, many
projects will be eligible under both the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LAWCON) and'the Coastal Zone Management Program, LAWCON provides a 50 percent
grant match of local funds, Coastal Zone has a 80 perceut grant match program.
In some cases, either through the project being ineligible or the scarcity of
funds, important projects may have to be conducted thr ough strictly local
funds. Utilization of these funds becomes more possible when.a,poprc .tinatea,'
project serving a general area is proposed. The Little., Bay.dp@Noc:Man,a.gem.ent
J ". @! @ J
Program may provide the vehicle for such project proposals Jt,,i.s_further
' -- .1 J11 .. - f @ - ': -I @-: I
recommended that the County Planning Commission.cont.inue@to,.(@,o,@,@,4@nate efforts
in this regard.

.10

HISTORICAL

In recent years, there has been an increased interest in the preservation of
the heritage that earlier generations have given America. Historical preservation
has received a big boost from the bicentennial celebrations, but the search
for roots in our young, mobile nation probably goes deeper than this recent
upsurge of interest might seem to indicate. There is now, perhaps, more
concern and appreciation for the achievements and objects of quality that have
come down to us, esso@ntially as an unasked gift.
'But not only does preservation of these reminders of the past provide a sense
of worth and significance to modern endeavors, the preservation of older
structures can lend a variety and character to the human scene that cannot be
manufactured. They contrast with and bring to a human level the newer buildings
that rise, new and crisp, around them. And older buildings can retain their
appeal and meaning while taking on new uses, perhaps providing a new business
with an inexpensive first home, or an old business with an impressive, comfortable
"establishment".

Structures and sites of significance that are worth the effort of preservation,
repair, or restoration usually require some effort to identify and research
their part. The Historic Preservation Act of 1966 specifies that all states
should identify, document, preserve, and interpret "districts, sites, buildings,
structures, and objects of significance in American history, architecture,
archaeology, and culture". Surveys are, therefore, crucial in the process
that will lead to the preservation of Michigan's heritage.

The Delta County Historical Society has recognized the need to preserve our
culture. They conducted a historical site inventory of the county in 1969 and
played a role in placing sites such as the Peninsula Point Lighthouse on the
National Historical Register. In addition, several publications have been put
together surveying industrial, engineering, and architectural sites of historical
importance.

The Little Bay de Noe area has about thirty sites with historical character.
The sites included about seventeen buildings, ten historical markers, a limestone
fertilizer quarry, a cemetery, and a sunken freighter. A map and index for
the location of these historical sites can be found on pages lla through lld.

Surveys are important but historical sites cannot be assured a place in the
future just because of their historical character. Placing these sites on the
State Historical Register, National Historical Register, or both is the key to
historical recognit -ion which in turn supports its preservation. Of the 30
historical sites around the bay, only four have been recognized by the, Federal
Government or th"e'Sta-te of Michigan. They are the Peninsula Point Lighthouse,
M_
the'Sm1th brothers 1111,and the informational markers for Little Bay de Noe
and @ay@'t'hii"N,6_i@' -'*Grdnd Island Trail. Some sights that should be considered
f-0,r! pi'a'i@@iWe@el'on-a-his'torii--aI register are the House of Ludington, Delta
County Hi@'@6YY6@l'--ftiis6-um,;-Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co. Charcoal Plant, Sand Point
Lighthouse, and the C&NW Railroad Roundhouse.

If a particular site is placed on the National Historical-Register, many
opportunities arise. Grants and low interest loans become available for their
purchase and restoration. Historic Preservation Grants may be used for surveys

INVENTORY OF HISTORIC AREAS
MaD No. Name of Identi@y of Area location Description of Area
.1 Ford River Lumber Company Community of M-35 Old sawmill at-mouth of For4l River. No
Ford River evidence remains.
2 Early Stage Coach Station -Community of M-35 No evidence remains. Station used,primarily to
Ford River change horses.
3 Little Bay de Noc City of Ludington MHC State Site No. 147. A general history of
Escanaba Park Little Bay de Noc.
4 Monument to veterans of Civil, City of Ludington Granite monument placed by D.A.R.
Spanish-American War and World Escanaba Park
War I

5 Site of first school in Escanaba City of 7th St. South D.A.R. plaque on lawn of Carnegie Library.
Escanaba & 1st Ave. So.
Delta County Historical Museum City of Ludington H.ouses artifacts and historical papers.
Escanaba Park
7 Chicago Northwestern-Railroad Co. City of M-35 Railroad associated with early development of
Escanaba US-2&41 Escanaba.
8 Iron Ore Loading Docks City of North Lake A sequence of chute type docks, replaced by
Escanaba Shore conveyor in 1969.
Iron Ore Centennial.Monument City of Municipal Inscribed monument commemorating 100 years
Escanaba Dock Lawn as an ore port.
10 Shingle Mill City of East Ludington One of earliest wood using industries in Delta
Escanaba Street County.
11. Escanaba Centennial Monument City of Municipal Escanaba 100 years old - 1863-1963.
Escanaba Dock Lawn
12 Burning of Freighter Nahant City of Little At Ore Dock No. 4, November 9, 1897.
Escanaba Bay de Noc
13 -Cochrane Roll6r-Mills City of North Side At attempt to establish a steel mill in the
Escanaba Upper Peninsula - short lived. Specific
location unknown'..
11-a

Map No. Name or Identity of Area Location Description of Area

14 Oliver Iron Mining Company City of North Side Ore Crusher - preparing ore for boat loading.
Escanaba

is House of Ludington City of Ludington St. Part of structure dates to early Escanaba.
Escanaba

.16 1. Stephenson Co. Community of Co. Rd. 426 Largest sawmill in its time - pine and hardwood.
Wells

17 Mashek Chemical Co. Community of Co. Rd. 517 Remnants of buildings that once produced
Wells charcoal for the iron ore industry.

18 Michigan Tanning & Extract Co. Wells Twp. Co. Rd. 517 Remnant buildings of old tanning industry
(Hemlock bark)

19 Billings-Richards Sawmill Wells Twp. Co. Rd. 426 First sawmill in Delta'County - scant evidence
remains.

20 Smith Brothers Sawmill Wells Twp. Co. Rd. C-45 Site of second oldest sawmill in Delta County
(Now Mead's No. I Dam).

21 Early Lumbermen in Delta County Wells Twp. US-2 & 41 MHC Local Site No. 63 erected in 1967.

22 Cemetery of Early Settlers Wells Twp. US-2 & 41 In Pioneer Trail Park.

23 Early,Missionary Trail Wells Twp. US-2 & 41 Pioneer Trail Park dedicated to this trail.
Lewis Cass Chapter of DAR in 1934 placed plaque
on boulder here.

24 Indian Gardens City of US-2 & 41 Gardens noted on early survey maps. No
Gladstone evidence remains.

25 Marble Arms Company City of US-2 & 41 Early Gladstone industry.
Gladstone

26 Northwestern Cooperage Co. City of US-2 & 41 Remnant buildings remain. Now an industrial
Gladstone park.

27 Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co. Community of US-2 & 41 Building remnants of old charcoal industry,
Charcoal Plant Kipling

28 Masonville (Gena) Community of US-2.& 41 Site of first county seat. Site of Mason
Masonville Sawmill.

Map No..Name or Identity of Area Location Description of Area
29 Stack Lumber Company Mill Community of US-2 & 41 Remnant buildings of old sawmill industry.
Masonville

30 B6nz Mfg. Company Community of US-2 & 41 Remnant buildi ngs of old sawmill and woodenware
Masonville plant.
31 Stone Anderson Sawmill Community of US-2 & 41 Mill dates back to early Rapid River Remnants.
Rapid River of mill site still exist.
32 Sawmill at Garth Point Masonville On Bay de Noc Old town site and cemetery - Peacock Sawmill.
Township
33 Clark Sawmill Masonville US-2 Remnants of 3rd oldest sawmill in,Delta County
Township Whitefish River Louis A. Roberts Homestead.
34 Indian Portage - Litt le Masonville Co. Rd. 509 Trails led from Bay de Noc to Grand Island;
Bay de Noc to Grand Island Township also to Ogontz Bay. MHC State Site No. 281.
35 Limestone Fertilizer Quarry Bay de Noc Co. Rd.,513 Along Stonington shore..
Township
36 Sawmill Ensign Co. Rd. 513 Located near-Twin Springs Park.
Township
37 Peninsula Point Lighthouse Bay de Noc Co. Rd. 513 Now abandoned USGS Lighthouse.
Township Indian Cemtery in area.
38 Squaw Point Lighthouse Ensign Co. Rd. 513 Now automatically manned lighthouse.
Township
39 Sand Point Lighthouse City of Ludington Now USCG Light Station - built about 186.8-.-
Escanaba Park
40 Soo Line Railroad City of Traverses Delta At one time an important terminal for ore,
Gladstone County grain and commerce with lake vessels.
41 Escanaba River Company Community of Co. Rd. 426 The present Escanaba & Lake Superior Railroad
Wells Company.
42 Chicago and Northwestern City of 8th St. & Presently used to house train engines.. Built
Railroad Roundhouse Escanaba Ist Ave. North around 1880.

11-C

Little Bay de Noc Historical Sites

STATE FOREST T

0- R R M P T 0 N'
2

. ..........
28
30

23 22

N A
26
25 (40)

7
E S C A N A B A
36
38.

777"

20
19 21
18
22
17 23
W A Y
16
W E L S 41

42
14 7
9
1 @AU
10
12

3
39
ANA[k

of the state for historic properties, preparation of historic preservation
plans preparation of nominations to the National Register, and acquisition
p;eservation of properties listed in the Register. At the discretion of
the Secretary of the Interior, grants for up to 70 percent of costs for survey
and planning may be made. Fifty percent grants can be obtained for survey,
planning, acquisition, and development projects.

The Endangered Properties Fund, administered by the National Trust for Historic
Preservation, is a one million dollar fund used to preserve districts, buildings,
sites, structures, and objects that are national historic landmarks or that
possess an equivalent level of national significance and are faced with serious.,
threats.

If a historical site is placed on a historic register, the site will be restricted
to the current use only if federal money is used on the site. In addition,
monies are not always available for purchase and renovation.

Mapping of historic sites on Little Bay de Noe has been done as part of the
study. Some of these sites should be recommended for inclusion on the state
and federal registers.

ENVIRONMENT

Critical to any proposed development along the bay, be it a cargo facility or
a new recreation facility, will be the surrounding environmental considerations
and present land use regulations. Proposals emerging from the management
program will include consideration of environmental factors and recommendations
for regulatory improvements and changes.

MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER FACILITIES

Rapid River (Masonville Township):

Wastewater disposal is provided by means of individual on-site septic systems.
However, due to the shallow depth of soil to bedrock, these on-site subsurface
disposal systems are not functioning effectively, primarily within the community
of Rapid River. As a result, improperly treated septic tank effluent finds
its way through the rock openings to Rapid River and Little Bay de Noe. In
addition, several business and private households discharge sewage directly to
the river via a state highway storm drain.

The community of Rapid River recognizes the seriousness of its problem and has
taken steps to relieve the situation. To date, the township has completed the
first draft of its municipal wastewater facilities plan. The plan calls for a
wastewater system serving the community of Rapid River.

City of Escanaba:

The entire City of Escanaba is served by a wastewater treatment facility which
underwent major modernization in 1974 and now provides advanced secondary
treatment (including phosphate removal) which is well within the state's
effluent requirements. However, portions of the collection system are not
capable of handling the wasteload, particularly during the Spring when high
ground water is common. Consequently, collection system bypasses have been

necessary periodically resulting in discharges of raw waste into'the bay. The
city has,/initiated a wastewater facilities plan to develop a cost-effective
solution to these deficiencies.

Wells Township:

Problems with on-site septic systems in Wells Township has resulted in a need
to obtain funding for a facilities plan. The plan would determine the most
cost-effective way to solve their problems.

City of Gladstone:

The city is served by a wastewater treatment facility which is operating well
within the effluent limits set by the State of Michigan. However, due to the
age of the collection system, there is an excessive amount of infiltration/inflow,
particularly during periods of high ground water. As a result, the treatment
plant is overloaded and incapable of treating the waste properly. Efforts are
now underway by the city to alleviate this problem. To date, they have initiated
wastewater facilities planning to determine the most cost-effective solution.
A new site may be needed if considerable growth on the blulff occurs.

KUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS

Escanaba City and Wells Township:

Present Conditions

The City of Escanaba, with a population of about 15,502, is served by a recently
improved water supply facility obtaining water from Lake Michigan (Little Bay
de Noe). The water filtration plant has a capacity of 8 million gallons per
day (MGD), fully adequate for projected needs. System storage consists of one
million gallon at plant ground level storage and two one-half million gallon
elevated storage tanks. A deep well drawing water from the Munising Sandstone
on the west side of town is used at all times as a supplementary supply.

In 1976, the City of Escanaba completed construction of new treatment, trans-
mission, and storage facilities. The improvements included plant expansion,
distribution system additions, and a new 500',000 gallon elevated storage tank .
The plant upgrading included a new carbon storage and high service pumping
facility and extensive renovation of all treatment facilities. Additions to
the distribution system saw the installation of a new large diameter water
main which will insure proper pressure and an adequate supply of treated water
for use in homes and industry, in addition to increased.flows for fire fighting
purposes. A new elevated storage tank, erected on the north city limits,
provides 500,000 gallons of added storage capacity.

In Wells Township water is obtained through individual wells. There is suspected
ground and surface water contamination in the township, due to increased
population densities and significant growth, particularly in the unincorporated
village of Wells. The village has septic system difficulties in low lying
areas because of high water tables and organic soils. The Delta-Menominee
District Health Department has stated that they are aware,of the situation and
are correcting individual cases of septic failures as they occur. Municipal
water and/or wastewater service by the City of Escanaba could alleviate the
potential health hazards associated with these conditions.

Needs

The watei@ intake system for the Escanaba water plant is old and undersized,
limiting the ability of the water plant to draw water. The intake was built
in the 1930's and contains wooden portions. The intake is presently large
enough to meet current demands. The intake system is not able to meet the
water plant's 8 MGD designed capacity. The intakes present condition leaves
open the possibility of structural failure and a resultant water loss to the
system.

Another problem associated with the water intake system is the lack of emergency
power. If a power failure occurs., no backup power is available to pump water
from Little Bay de Noc into the plant. The remainder of the system would
function under existing emergency power but only until the water within the
system was depleted.

Wastewater discharge control is needed at the water filtration plant. The
sludge generated at the plant is.being discharged into Little Bay de Noc,
causing a pollution problem.

The City planned such improvements as a part of the recent expansion program
but deleted them because of insufficient funds. Presently, the City has a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the discharge
of sludge from the water treatment*works. Because of the magnitude of expenses
associated with facilities for such control, work has not been initiated.

In portions of Wells Township, increased population densities and natural
limitations have resulted in suspected ground water contamination from failing
septic systems. The most cost-effective way to remedy these problems with
regard to an adequate and safe water supply would be through a municipal water
system. Since the City's water system serves areas bordering the Township, it
may be advantageous to expand the City's water system into the Township.

Gladstone City - Brampton-Escanaba Townships

Present Conditions

The City of Gladstone, with a population of about 5,200, is located in central
Delta County on the west shore of Little Bay de Noc. The City of Gladstone
operates a 3.0 MGD water sedimentation and filtration plant. The plant was
constructed in the 1970's and is presently treating 500,000 gallons per day.
Once the water from Lake Michigan (Little Bay de Noc) is treated, it is stored
in two ground level reservoirs, a 500,000 gallon tank at the filtration plant,
and an older one million gallon tank on the bluff west 6f town.

Outside of the City of Gladstone, drinking water in Escanaba and Brampton
Townships is provided by individual wells. Portions of these townships have
experienced significant development because of their close proximity to the
City of Gladstone. One such area in Brampton Township is the unincorporated
community of Kipling-

Needs

The water j'ntake system was constructed in 1889 and is made of wood staves and
metal banded. The diameter is 24 inches. The inshore portion was replaced
with steel pipe in 1923. The crib and pipe was last inspected in 1957 and
found to be in good condition.

Since the present condition 'of the water intake system is unknown, it should
be inspected and an alternate intake investigated. The cooling water intake
for the City's power generating plant could serve as an alternative intake for
the water-systeni. The cooling water intake for the power plant is 42-inches
in.diameter. One of the reasons-for using this intake is that the water
quality varies from water plant intake to power plant intake and at times it
would be beneficial to treat the one with the best water quality. In addition,
it would provide the water plant with a backup system.

An alternative water transmission main to the bluff storage reservoir is also
needed. Presently, only one main extends from the plant to the reservoir and
if that water line failed, the bluff storage reservoir could supply water to
the City for about 2 to 3 days. If the water main from the distribution
system to the bluff reservoir fails, the water plant, along with the on-site
storage, could supply the City with water. ' Since the condition of the water
line from the distribution system to the bluff is unknownY and the fact that
the Soo Line Rail Yard is located above this water line, an additional water
line supplying the bluff storage area would help insure a continuous supply of
water to the City. A second water line from the water treatment plant to the
distribution system would also improve the supply capabilities of the system.

The original construction of Gladstone's water system included many undersized
and dead end water lines. Dead end lines are undesirable because if a water
main breaks, service will be disrupted between the break and the end of the
line. With looped lines, water can come from both directions and service can
be continuous. Looped lines also reduce fluctuations in water pressure,
providing better service. Undersized mains of the 2 to 4 inch variety are
inconvenient in times of peak use when water pressure is inadequate. Secondly,
they cannot provide adequate fire protection because the lines are not large
enough to warrant fire hydrant hook-ups. The City does have a long-range
program of looping and upgrading these deficient areas to improve local water
pressure.

The community has nearly completed developing the portion of the City fronting
on Little Bay de Noc. Construction of a new ind 'ustrial park on the bluff is
being planned. In .1974, water service was extended to the north bluff area.
However, to promote residential and industrial growth in the bluff area, an
adequate water supply-will be needed. The City has ample water treatment
facilities to supply the bluff area with water but water storage and a dis-
tribution system extension is necessary.

At the end of 1977, 39 percent of the water leaving the plant was not charged
to a customer. Losses were due to maintenance uses, main breaks, fire hydrant
losses, and the like. The City, therefore, was not collecting money for 39
percent of the water treated for human and household consumption. Normal
losses for an old-system is about 25 percent. Some of the loss has been
attributed to water meter inaccuracy. Water-may not be properly metered if:

1) the customer demand was more than 20 gallons per minute or 2) if pressure
drops too
low along the service line.
'Gladstone conducted a study of water loss problems in 1978 and undertook a
program of remedial action. In 1979, a 6 percent reduction in the amount of
lost water was observed. The City decided to continue its program and has
employed four persons through the CETA program to investigate water leaks
through soundings. The City is also continually testing meters for proper
working order and upgrading problem water lines.

In portions of Brampton and Escanaba Townships, increased population densitie s
and natural constraints pose an increasing.danger of ground water contamination
due to failing septic systems. Since the City of Gladstone operates a water
supply system near these townships, it may be cost-effective to remedy these
problems by extending the City's water service to these areas rather than
constructing independent water systems. If investigation shows that construction
of a water system will be impractical, individual corrections must take place.

Ford River Township - Ford River

Present Conditions

Ford River Township operates a water system serving the unincorporated community
of Ford River. This water system was inherited from the founding lumber
company in the early 1940's. The Priginal system included a rock well yielding
less than 40 GPM and a 3,000 gallon hydropneumatic tank. When the Township
took it over, the distribution system consisted of small diameter (mostly 2")
pipe. This has been replaced with 6" pipe as money became available.

in 1973, Ford River undertook a major waterworks improvement program, including
a new well, a 50,000 gallon elevated storage tank, and the installation of 6"
mains to replace most of the remaining 2" lines.

In 1976, Ford River Township submitted an application to the Farmer's Home
Administration for a $104,000 combined federal grant and loan. The project
scope was to improve well number one, which produced only 40 gallons per
minute (GPM), with a new submersible well pump, controls and instrumentation,
updating the electrical system at the well site and modifying the existing
piping. These actions were designed to increase the systems reliability. The
project also included the installation of approximately 3,350 linear feet of
six inch water main with the appropriate number of fire hydrants.

Pipe installation was started in late Fall of 1977 and completed in early
spring of 1978. However, the Farmer's Home Administration provided only
$88,000 in combined grant and loan financing. The $16,000 decrease necessitated
deletion of some controls and instrumentation at the number one well site.
Consequently, the number one well was of no use to the Township.

In the Fall of 1978., Ford River Township applied and received a grant for
$12,000 from the Farmer's Home Administration which enabled the Township to
use the number one well as a back-up source of water.

The present system serves about 525 people within Ford River Township. It
consists of two ground water wells, the number one well produces 50 GPM and

the number two well produces 200 GPM.. These wells have independent electric-
power supplies for reliability purposes. The system contains a 50,000 gallon
elevated-storage tank and a distribution system consisting primarily of 6-inch
piping. The elevated tank maintains system pressure and provides a modest
reserve for firefighting.

Needs

Since Ford River Township's water system has recently completed major improvements,
the system has no significant Deeds at present. Any long-range additions to
the system should include extensions of water mains westerly along Township
Road A-29 and northerly along Highway M-35. If development between Ford River
and-Escanaba increases significantly, it may become feasible to connect both
systems. This would provide Ford River with a standby supply of water in case
of well failure or a serious fire.

Masonville Township Rapid River

Present Conditions

The unincorporated community of Rapid River, with a population of about 485,
obtains their water through individual wells. It has several small industries,
including a cheese factory and a lumber mill. Tourism is a major source of
income for the town. Wastewater treatment is provided through septic systems
that do not function effectively due to.the shallow soil. Water is generally
obtained from artesian wells 300 feet deep which tap the Trenton-Black River
Limestone and the Aa Train formation (part of the Cambrian-Ordovician sandy
dolomites). Even though wells in the area are generally quite deep, the
characteristics of the bedrock with its solutional openings-may allow the
contamination of the aquifer.

Needs

Good drinking water can be found within the area, but only at substantial
depths. This water requires a large expenditure to obtain it. Many wells are
improperly constructed which may allow contaminated surface water to reach the
aquifer. It may be practical to provide Rapid River with a municipal water
-system to insure a good supply of water than through individual wells. if
this proves impractical, well problems will continue to be met-by the individual
as they occur.

EROSION --LAKE LEVELS - FLOODING

Shoreline erosion and lake levels will be treated together because of the
significant dependence of erosion rates on lake levels.

Shoreland erosion is a natural and ongoing process. However, the resultant
damage to buildings and/or loss of property have made this a major problem
along the bay. As stated before, the erosion process is continuous, but the
rate of erosion fluctuates so that at times it does not seem to be a problem
and during other times it is a major concern. Shoreland erosion becomes
critical when high lake levels submerge beaches, and thus permit wave acton to
work directly.on highly erodible uplands. The levels of the Great Lakes have
been-monitored since 1860. Studies of lake levels during this time span have

resulted in any method of predicting future lake levels. From examining
lake level charts, it can be seen that.the interval between periods of high
and low water can vary widely. The range of lake levels has varied 6.6 feet
on Lake Michigan.

Recent high water levels in Lake Michigan have caused increased shoreline
erosion. Such erosion adds sediment, organic matter, and associated nutrients
to the waters of Lake Michigan and several areas in Delta County have been
designated as "high risk" erosion areas under the Michigan Shorelands Protection
and Management Act. The impact of shoreline erosion on the quality of the
waters of.Lake Michigan remains undetermined.

The severity of the erosion problem varies throughout the bay, with some areas
experiencing damaging erosion, whereas, others are experiencing little or no
erosion. The problem has also been addressed by the DNR, which has identified
high risk erosion areas..

In Ford River Township, erosion problems exist south of the mouth of No-See-Um
Creek, Ik miles north of the mouth of 'Bark River, k mile north of Breezy
Point, and the Ford River public access site.

Water levels are so high in the Portage Marsh that large portions of the
cattail cover have been "lifted" by the water, broken loose, and floated away
to wash up on nearby beaches. Nesting and brooding use of the marsh by waterfowl
appears to have diminished during this high water period.

Erosion problems exist in the Sand Island area, Escanaba's Municipal Dock,
Saunders Point (Gladstone), and the mouth of the Days River. Flood problem
areas include the shoreline of Escanaba, the shoreline of Gladstone, and
portions of Rapid River. The Sand Island erosion is a severe problem consisting'
of nearly seven feet of erosion per year. Present efforts to contain the.
problem are discussed in the chapter on Recreation.

DRAINAGE BASINS

The water quality of Little Bay de Noc is also influenced by activities that
take place many miles away. Approximately 2,330 square miles of land drain
directly into Little Bay de Noc. The bay's drainage basins are the Ford
River, Bark River, Escanaba River, Whitefish River, Days River, Tacoosh River,
Rapid River, Stonington Peninsula (includes Squaw Creek and Black Gorge), and
Little Bay de Noc Coastal (Portage Creek). The following is an explanati 'on of
the conditions of each drainage basin as it relates to possible influence on
the water quality of the bay.

a. Bay de Noc Coastal (Stonington Peninsula)

This basin has no dischargers and is sparsely populated. No problems in
terms of water quality have been identified.

b. Days, Tacoosh, and Rapid River Basins

The only permitted discharger in this basin'is the Rapid River Cheese
Company.

There is a water quality problem in this watershed which is'chiefly
asso.cj'ated with proximity of 'bedrock to surface and subsurface sewage
dis'osal. The community of Rapid River has bedrock or heavy soil problems.
p
This location is known to have localized septic failures and drinking
water contamination, but sampling data for the watershed is generally
lacking. Wastewater treatment needs for Rapid River has been treated in
detail in the Municipal Wastewater Facilities section of this report.

C. Whitefish River Drainage Basin

There are no discharges in this basin and no water quality problems were
identified. Soils and generalized drainage are good in the area of the
river mouth and on the east bank. Natural limitations for septic tanks,
coupled with.zoning and health department regulation, should provide
adequate controls to minimize the impacts of development.

d. Escanaba River Basin

The Escanaba River has water quality limitations from its mouth at Little
Bay de Noc to a point two and a half miles upstream. The Michigan Department
of Natural Resources has designated this particular segment as a water
quality limited segment for Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD). In general,
if additi,onal waste loadings occur on the river, the (BOD) may surpass
the acceptable water quality standards. If the source of the additional
waste loadings can be determined, corrections may have to be made.

There are two permitted dischargers i-a this basin and both fall within
the water quality limited segment of the Escanaba River. They are: Mead
Paper Incorporated which discharges to the Escanaba River, and American
Cynamid which also discharges to the Escanaba.River.

The only significant discharger in this basin is Mead Paper Incorporated.
Industrial wastes are treated in a large aerated lagoon system and discharged
to the river. The plant has been meeting water quality effluent limitations
on a regular basis.

With the possible exception of incidental contamination by upstream
homes, hunting camps, and septic systems, no upstream sources of pollution
have been identified at this time.

e. Little Bay de Noc Coastal

This basin includes the largest population centers 'in the county. The
Cities of Escanaba and Gladstone, and densely populated portions of Wells
and Escanaba Townships are included within its boundaries.

There are four surface dischargers to Little Bay de Noc in this basin:

1. City of Gladstone Wastewater Treatment Plant
2. City of Escanaba Power Plant
3. City of Escanaba Water Treatment Plant
4. City of Escanaba Wastewater Treatment Plant

The City of Escanaba Wastewater Treatment Plant is considered a major
disc'harger, but the effluent is considered excellent at this time.

The effects of storm water discharges on water qua lity of Little Bay de
Noc from the urban area is as yet undetermined. There is no obvious
evidence of degradation near either community except from an aesthetic
viewpoint in Gladstone, where a storm sewer discharges to the yacht basin
and debris collects in a confined area.

According to the Michigan State Department of Health, the Escanaba Water
Treatment Plant is a documented problem. They are currently discharging
filtrant consisting of clarifier sludge and backwash water. Currently a
permit is being worked up for this situation. They are presently under
an interim permit.

Septic systems in Kipling are only marginally functional, due to the
characteristic high water table and heavy soils in the area. There is a
problem of local ground water contamination and surface water contamination
of Little Bay de Noc.

h. Ford River Basin

There are no permitted discharges in this basin.

Some sewage discharge, directly to the Ford River, is suspected by health
officials. This suspicion is reinforced by DNR STORET water quality
data, where at times of low flow, fecal coliform bacteria, and total
phosphorus exhibit elevated levels. During the winter months, especially
during late January and early February, elevated levels of chloride
indicate some road salt contamination.

i. Bark River Basin

Currently, no permitted discharges are prescnt in this basin. Residential
--nd commercial development is not intense in this watershed, as most of
@he land use is agricultural. The largest community in the basin is the
town of Bark River. Heavy soils lend themselves to septic failure. The
potential for ground water contamination is present but not really imminent.
Some residents have directly connected their sewage systems to the state
highway storm drain system. The Township received a Facilities Planning
Grant and is working to correct the situation.

The Bark River, downstream from US-2 to the river's mouth at Lake Michigan,
is largely agricultural with sparse residential development. Except for
a few instances of livestock watering and cropping close to the streambank,
no problems have been identified.

In order to detect water quality problems in the various drainage basins which
in turn affect the water quality of the bay, water quality monitoring will be
important. A document prepared by the CUPPAD Regional Commission called Water
Quality Monitoring Recommendations suggest that additional testing take place
at the mouth of the Bark River and Escanaba River and the bay itself.

The Department of Natural Resources w'ater monitoring program for water year
1980 will include the Escanaba River at US-2 & 41 bridge and the Ford River at
M-35 bridge under the Great Lakes Tributary Monitoring Program. The water
intakes of Gladstone and Escanaba have provided some monitoring of the water
quality of the bay, however, the DNR's Water Intakes Monitoring Program is
being suspended for Fiscal Year 1980. Some indications of,the water quality
of the bay can be obtained through a continuous testing program at the Escanaba
and Gladstone water supply plants to determine the effectiveness of the filtratio.
process. This is required by the Michigan Department of Public Health. An
effective water quality monitoring program for the bay and its drainage basins
would be helpful in evaluating problem areas.

NON-POINT POLLUTION

Inspection of DNR STORET data reveals a relatively high chloride content at
main highway river crossings in the Escanaba/Gladstone urban area. Because
this data :is limited, it is not possible to draw any conclusions. It appears
that higher salt concentrations were found on the Ford, Escanaba, and Whitefish
Rivers in the months of January, February, or March, depending on the time of
runoff. Higher concentrations near bridge crossings have indicated possible
residuals from highway deicing compounds.

Some concern has been noted with regard to ore boat ballast being discharged
into the bay. The problem here is that the ore boats take on ballast in
polluted waters and releases it here when loading. In addition, the practice
of deck cleaning while in the bay is believed to have caused problems with
beach maintenance. The material tends to float up onto the beaches if the
conditions are right.

Specific water pollution problems usually from 'forestry activities were not
identified in Delta County. Due to favorable soils, slopes, and adequate
management practices, forestry activities do not appear to have any significant
impact on water quality. It should be noted here that detailed water quality
information was not available to assess any possible subtle effects of forestry
activities on water quality.

The potential for agricultural pollution in an intensely farmed area is very
-high according to EPA. Historically, agriculture's most significant,contribution
to pollution loadings of lakes and streams has been in the form of sediments.
In addition, continuous applications of pesticides and herbicides can contribute
substantially to the pollution of bodies of water flowing through or adjacent
to intensively used agricultural lands.

Another problem that has been associated with farming attivities is the location
of feed lots near water courses with minimal or no setbacks from a water body.
Additional intensive farming practices that can result in adverse water quality
impacts include cultivation up to stream banks, continuous cropping, up and
down hill plowing, lack of shelter belts, winter manure application, and the
indiscriminate application of fertilizer, nutrients, and chemicals.

Near the community of Bark River, northwest of Highway M-35 and south of US-2,
some occurence of cropping up to the banks of the Bark River and livestock
watering related bank breakdown have been identified. Intensive or detailed
water quality sampling data is not available, and the scope of the problems
cannot be discerned at this time.

There is a need in Delta County for increased participation with the Soil
Conservation Service. At present, 67*/q of the farms in the county have Soil
and Water@ Conservation plans with the SCS, the remaining one-third still needs
to be covered by conservation plans.

FISH AND WILDLIFE

This section of the study largely utilizes a recent DNR Preliminary Fisheries
Plan. The shoreline habitat and shoal areas of Little Bay de Noc provide
suitable spawning grounds for northern pike, smallmouth bass, perch, smelt,
alewives, walleyes, lake trout, whitefish, and various species of minnows.
The bay aiso has very good shoreline habitats for waterfowl reproduction with
the Portage Marsh having one of the most concentrated wildlife populations in
the state. The preservation of these areas will be an important factor in
maintaining and increasing the various fish and wildlife populations.

For various reasons throughout the last century, fish populations in the bay
have fluctuated. In 1885, early commercial fish catch records for Michigan's
waters of Green Bay clearly indicate herring, whitefish, lake trout dominance.
In a typical year (1885), these three .species accounted for over 87% of the
total harvest. By 1957, the alewife, an anadromous migrant from salt water,
was firmly established and entered the commercial catch. Since 1962, this low
value species has accounted for over 50% of the commercial catch in Green Bay
waters.

Proper mana gement of fish populations in Little Bay de Noc will be needed if
the high value fishery is to be re-established. Foremost among the problems
facing rehabilitation of Great Lakes fish stocks was the sea lamprey predation.
Toward the end of the 1960's, sea lamprey control became a reality, and with
it came positive responses of native stocks of whitefish, burbot, and northern
pike and of planted stocks of pike, rainbow, steelhead, br6wn trout, and coho
salmon.

High rates of commercial fishing were recognized threats to the success of
rehabilitation programs. It is imperative that survival to maturity of native
and planted stocks be maximized to assist in the recovery of depressed populations.
In 1970,.commercial fishing activity was curtailed for all species except
smelt and alewife in Little Bay de Noc under the Department of Natural Resources
Zone Management Plan. Under this plan the number of participants in the
commercial fishery and the amount of fishing time per year per participant was
reduced in an effort to give various species of fish the opportunity to expand
their numbers.

A third threat to the rehabilitation of high value fish'stocks has been the
overabundance of competing low value species such as smelt, alewife, and
suckers. About 90% of the commercial catch in the late 1960's consisted of
these low value species. The introduction of coho and chinook salmon into
Lake Michigan was designed to help control the abundance of low value species
and convert them into a high value product.

Sport fishing also has an impact on the rehabilitation program of the bay.
One case was with the coho salmon which were introduced into Haymeadow Creek,
a tributary to the Whitefish River, from 1968 through 1972. It was hoped that
an open water fishery in upper Little Bay de Noc would develop. Each year

returning adults quickly passed through Green Bay and Little Bay de Noe and
moved up the Whitefish River into Haymeadow Creek. A carnival atmosphere
centering around a snag fishery developed each fall. Because the anticipated
open water fishery did not develop and much criticism was received concerning
the fishery in Haymeadow Creek, the coho salmon management program was discontinued
after 1972.

If the fishery of Little Bay de Noe is to be restored to past numbers, cooperation
between all involved must take place. Evidence of this joint effort to
re-establish the commercial and sport fishery has been noted through various
studies. Scientific research permits have been issued to several licensed
commercial fishermen from 1971 through 1977 to fish with impoundment gear in
Little Bay de Noe for whitefish. These permits, by limiting fishing to winter
and early summer months, have provided valuable data needed for the determination
of an accruate harvest quota for this species.

Fisheries Division personnel in 1972 and 1973 tagged and released sublegal and
legal whitefish from commercial impoundment nets at several locations in the
bay. The project attempted to determine migratory and general movement'patterns
of the fish throughout northern Green Bay.

Data received from the scientific research.permits and tagging studies suggest
an annual quota of 20-30,000 pounds of whitefish may safely be harvested from
the bay on a sustain ed basis.

Uses in shoreland areas shoL)ld be limited to those that will not interfere
e habitats. The
following is a list of marshes oil the Little Bay de Noe shoreline that have a
with the preservation and maintenance of fish and wildlif

high wildlife value:

a. Mouth of Ford River
b. Escanaba and Portage Bay
C. Mouth of Escanaba River
d. South of Gladstone
e. Mouth of Days River
f. North end of Little Bay de Noe
g. South of Squaw Point
h. Peninsula Point

Since some of these areas are heavily used during the waterfowl hunting season,
steel shot restrictions would protect the waterfowl from lead poisoning.. The
Technical Advisory Committee has endorsed protection of these areas as part of
the Management/Regulatory recommendations in this reporlt. A map and index
related to critical habitat areas can be found on pages 23a and 23b.

DEVELOPMENTAL LIMITATIONS

Increases in shoreline development and the expected increased pressure to
devel op the bay's lakeshore raises the question as to whether every type of
use should be permitted to locate along every type of shoreland. The most
troublesome shore types are:. 1) artificial fill's, 2) erodible low bluffs, 3)
erodible low plains, and 4) wetlands.

INVENTORY'OF CRITICAL FISH HABITAT AREAS

Map
No. Name Location Comment

I. Whitefish River Estuary Extreme head of Little Critical reproductive habitat for walleye, northern
Bay de Noc, T41N, R21W, pike, yellow perch, smelt, panfish, smallmouth
Sect. 28, 29, 30, 31. bass, and white.sucker.

2 Masonville-Days River Area T41N, R21W, Sect. 31 Critical reproductive habitat for walleye, northern
T40N, R22W, Sect. 2 pike, yellow perch, smelt, panfish, and smallmouth
bass.

.3 Kipling Area T40N, R22W, Sect. 10, Critical reproductive habitat for walleye, northern
ill 6. pike, yellow perch, panfish, and smallmouth bass.
4 Escanaba River Mouth T39N, R22W, Sect. 7, 18 Critical reproductive habibat for walleye, northern
8, 17 pike, yellow perch, sauger, smallmouth bass, and
panfish.
5 Escanaba Yacht Harbor T39N, R22 W, Sect. 29 Critical reproductive habitat for northern pike,
yellow perch, and panfish.
.6 Portage Marsh T38N, R22W, Sect. 6, 7 Critical reproductive habitat for northern pike,
T38N, R23W, Sect. 1, 12 yellow perch, and panfish.
7 Ford River Breezy Area Point T38N, R23W, Sect. 21, 22 Critical reproduction habitat for walleye, smallmouth
bass, while and longnose sucker, and lawyer.

8 Round Island-No See-Um Creek Area T38N, R23W, Sect. 31, 32 Critical reproductive habitat for lake trout and
and northern pike.
NOTE: The east side of the lower bay between Squaw Point and the Community of Stonington has been observed as having
significant habitat characteristics for whitefish reproduction.

Little Bay de Noc Critical Habitats-_-

,,,RTATE: FUREST

. .........

00- M P T 0 N

23 22

I T-@T,- N T

E S C A N A B A

71-

it A y

1, S
`@23

The Stonington Peninsula is dominated,by soils of the Nahma-Ensley and Angelica-
Cathro and Tacoosh Association with Tawas-Carbondale, Lupton, and Rifle-Roscommon
Associations present. Both of these major soil associations have poorly
drained substrata. These associations, therefore, present limitations in
terms of general suitability for intensive use.

As indicated earlier, the low lying portions of the community of Wells are
experiencing serious septic tank failure problems because of high water tables
and organic soils. The high ground water areas have been identified by the
Delta-Menominee District Health Department as having a high potential for
ground water pollution in the future, primarily due to the intensive nature of
current and projected residential development.

These are some of the common problems that should be recognized if development
is to take place. In general, if development is to occur in a particular
area, the following should be considered:

a) Locate new development in areas where the natura 1 environment is suitable.
b) Assure that the proper steps are taken to protect property in high risk
erosion areas.
c) Correlate the use of land with the suitability of soil.
d) Protect ground and surface waters from contamination resulting from
improper sewage treatment.
e) Encourage well-designed concentrated development in specific areas in
order to preserve the rural nature of the area and to best accommodate
necessary growth.

These considerations are reflected in the Goals and Policies of this Report
and the more specific Management/Regulatory Recommendations.

Funding

Various agencies have programs to protect or correct problem areas related to
the environment. The Coastal Zone Management Program and Waterways Division
of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Army Corp of
Engineers have helped with erosion stabilization projects. The Fish and
Wildlife Division of the DNR is involved with fish plantings. The Michigan
'Land Trust Fund is a land acquisition program for public ownership. 'The .
Farmers Home Administrdtion provides funding for water and sewer projects.
The DNR, through the Environmental Protection Agency, provides funding for
wastewater projects. The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
(ASCS) provides funding for implementing agricultural conservation. The
Department of Housing and Urban Development alsoprovides funding for water
and sewer projects.

These are some of the funding avenues that can be tapped. Each program varies
with respect to their eligibility requirements related to a particular project
and available funds.

ENVIRONMENTAL/LAND USE REGULATIONS

The Little Bay de Noe Management Program represents the first attempt to view
the bay in its entirety. The Technical Advisory Commit@ee in this report is
recommending that a unified land use concept be developed for the bay utilizing

'the Delta County Planning Commission as the central coordinating body. Land
use regul ations around the bay should be coordinated around the agreed upon
land use'concepts outlined in this report including joint review meetings
wherever possible. To make these recommendations work,. it is important to
recognize from the beginning, the present disparity in land use regulations
and the specific needs for coordination.

The environmental or land use regulations that pertain to Little Bay de Noc
have not developed from a unified, rational plan of action or from any set of
local, state, or federal priorities. Rather, over time, regulations that
affect the bay have been adopted by separate levels of government responding
to separate statutes addressing separate problem areas. Nowhere is lack of
forethought for coordination and overlap more evident than in regulations
applying to shoreland areas. The following synopsis of federal, state, and
local regulations provides the background for the recommendations contained in
this report.

Applicable Federal Regulations

The Clean Water Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and the National Flood
Insurance Program are the three federal land use regulatory programs that most
directly impact the bay. All of these programs are to be directly implemented
by state or local regulations meeting federal guidelines.

The Clean Water Act divides water pollution problems into two basic types:
point source which comes from such direct outlets as a pipe or nonpoint source
which derives from other than a direct measurable outlet and would include
such sources as septic tank fields, agricultural runoff, etc. The state
amended the Michigan Water Resources Commission statute to comply with the
point source requirements and discharge permits for industVial or wastewater
facilities are obtained from the DNR operating under that statute. Specific
point source problems were detailed in an earlier section. Water/wastewater
facility projects to bring bay area localities into compliance are included as
part of the Capital Improvements Program.. Nonpoint source pollution in Michigan
is to be controlled by methods developed in the regional water quality plans.
The six county study which includes the bay and was completed by the CUPPAD
Regional-Commission calls for greater lake setback (100 feet) for septic
fields and conversion of some areas, Wells and Rapid River, from septic systems
to sewer systems.

The U.S. Coastal Zone Management Act resulted from the Congressional findings
that "important ecological, cultural, historic, 'and esthetic values in the
coastal zone wich are essential to the well-being of all citizens are being
irretrievably damaged or lost, and that state and local efforts to date have
been inadequate. Although not establishing any direct federal regulation of
shorelands, the act provides that if a state develops state programs meeting
federal minimums, the state will be eligible to participate in the federal
program. The State of Michigan has complied with this program through a
variety of existing state regulations, the most critical of which are reviewed
below.

The goal of the third federal program, the National Flood Insurance Program,
is to reduce the need for flood disaster relief by requiring local adoption of
regulations to control development irl identified floodplains. Local jurisdictions

will be flood mapped nationwide for f-loodplain and flooding areas. These maps
will be done in stages of increasing specificity and the more specific the
mapping becomes, the more stringent the focal land use controls must be for
the local unit to enter or reiiiain. in the program. If the local unit of government
does not enter the program, then federal sanctions apply within the identified
areas. These consist of the prohibition of the use of any federal funds,
including VA or FHA loans to individuals, for any construction within the
identified floodplain zones..

Along Little Bay de Noc, the Townships of Ford River, Wells, Brampton, and
Masonville and the Cities of Escanaba and Gladstone were mapped and the federal,
requirements for adoption of the'regulations were mandated. The local regulations
are to consist of a series of requirements for elevating or floodproofing of
structures, septic, sewer, water, and u@ility connections or facilities and
for development or construction in a mallner i,.,hich minimizes flood risk. These
regulations are to be adopted as established by the federal government by the
cities or townships and are to apply to the areas identified in the federal
maps.

The CUPPAD Regional Commission and State DNR hydrologists have been attempting
during the last three years to have many maps rescinded or redrawn and to
develop an alternative to local adoption of the federal ordinance model. The
maps, drawn in Harrisburg, PeniisylVania,'on the basis of USGS twenty foot
contour maps, have been highly inaccurate. In addition, the required regulations
overlap and duplicate many present state or local regulations.

To date, tile effort has been successful in having inland floodplain maps
rescinded entirely and in Delta County that resulted in the rescission of the
maps for Bark River and Escanaba Townships. Redrafting of the coastal township
maps to include only a strip along the coast or a major river may be soon
forthcoming.. General agreement on an alternativc to the federal regulatory
model has been reached and details are being slowly developed with the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. After having their maps redrawn to reflect much
more limited flood boundaries, Escanaba and Gladstone joined the program,
entrusting enforcement to their present buildiDg./zoning officials. Brampton
Township also joined the program. The Townships of Ford River, Wells, and
Masonville have not passed the local ordinances pending outcome of the regional/
state/federal negotiations.

State Regulations

Michigan has several single purpose regulatory programs that impact on sh oreland
areas, the requirements of which must technically, legally be met, under the
state Construction Code Act, before a local building permit may be issued.
These regulations, in conjunction with each other, provide for Michigan eligibility
under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. The major regulations, which
will be discussed here, include the Shorelands Protection and Management Act,
the Great Lakes.Submerged Lands Act, the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Act, the Inland Lakes and Streams Act, and the Wetlands Act.

The Shorelands Protection and Management Act provides for regulation of use or
development within three types,of shoreland areas: "environmental areas"
necessary for the preservation and maintenance of fish and wildlife, "high
risk erosion areas" subject to erosion, and "flood risk areas" subject to

flooding. The statute and accompanying regulations further provide that
approved local zoning ordinances would replace direct state review and permits,
although'the Department of Natural Resour@es would retain an overview of the
zoning administration. The high risk and environmental areas will be designated
within a shorelands zone extending 1,000 feet landward of the ordinary high
water mark of the Great Lakes and connecting waterways which include the St.
Mary's River, Detroit River, St. Clair River, or Lake St. Clair. Also included
in the zone will be lands bordering or adjacent to waters affected by levels
of the Great Lakes, which would refer to coastal lakes and river mouth areas.

The flood risk areas are not limited to the 1,000 foot zone, but include areas
determined "on the basis of studies and surveys to be subject to flooding from
effects of levels of the Great Lakes." Only areas actually designated within
the'shoreland zone are subject to permit requirements. The entire shoreland
zone does not, thus, fall automatically under state or local permit review.
The procedure for designation is outlined below.

Requirements imposed upon designated areas will depend upon which type of area
it is designated as and the specific characteristics of that area. The purpose
of the requirements and their potential scope are specified in the regulations.
The high risk areas and flood risk areas are designated under the statute for
the sole purpose of preventing property loss. In the high risk areas, moveable
structures will be allowed if the partial depth is not adequate to permit the
required setback and the requirements for permanent structures will entail
setbacks for construction or, as an alternative, approved erosion control
devices. Flood risk area requirements will entail elevation and/or floodproofing
construction. The environmental areas are designated for the preservation and
maintenance of fish and wildlife and the requirements will be concerned with
changes in their habitat. In designated environmental areas, a permil-, from
either the DNR or a local official acting under an approved local zoni-,@,g
ordinance would be required for dredging, filling, grading, or other .-I'erations
of the soil; alteration of natural drainage not including maintenance ,
established drainage improvement works or dikes; alteration of vegetai, .1
utilized by fish or wildlife for nesting, food, or protective cover; al.
placement of permanent structures. If an entire parcel is within a dc,-4-gnated
environmental area, a structure zone will be established in which these activities,
including placement of a permanent structure, will not require any permit
beyond the building or zoning permits normally applicable. Farming of land
within a designated environmental area would likewise not require ally permit
beyond those normally applicable unless artificial drainage, pumping, or dikes
are used.

The designation, potential local ordinance development,,and state review shall
proceed according to the steps outlined below:

1. The Department of Natural Resources shall consider areas for designation
based on engineering and environmental studies which shall be based on
the factors listed in the regulations appearing in this publication.
Flood risk area designations shall be based on present studies listed in
the regulations and these flood risk area designations do not require
Steps 2, 3, and 4 below.

2. Prior to designation of either high risk or environmental areas, pre-
designation letters shall be seat to affected landowners informing them
that the area is being considered and inviting their comments.

3. Based on information from Steps,1 and 2, the DNR shall designate a high'
risk or environmental area and notify affected landowners and local
governments of the authority and reasons for designation, a description
of the area's limits, an explanation of any regulatory measures, the
potential regulatory role of the local government, and the procedure for
appealing the designation.

4. Any agg rieved party shall. be granted an appeal hearing under the Michigan
Administrative Procedures Act if a petition of appeal is filed within 60
days of the designation of a high risk or environmental area.

5. After a designation, the affected local government may enact a zoning
ordinance or amendment to an existing ordinance that would affect the
designated area and submit it to the DNR which has 30 days to approve or
disapprove it. The DNR must approve the ordinance or amendment if it
adequately enforces the statute and regulations. If approved, state
permit requirements are removed. All subsequent zoning ordinance amendments
affecting a designated area must be similarly approved and copies of all
variances must be sent to the DNR. Approval may be rescinded and state
permit requirements renewed if the local-government fails to properly
administer an approved ordinance. Appeal- of DNR actions is similar to
Step 4.

6. In the absence of an approved ordinance, a permit from the DNR must be
obtained for a n@_-w permanent structure in a high risk or flood risk area
or for one of the listed uses in an environmental area. No permit is
required for a new permanent structure in a flood risk area if the structure
is in a subdivision for which approval is required under the Subdivision
Control Act. No permit is required for uses in a structure zone of an
environmental area. The DNR must either approve or disapprove a permit
application within 60 days of its filing. Appeal is similar to Step 4.

The Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act regulate the filling, dredging, or building
upon the bottomlands of the Great-Lakes below the ordinary high water mark.
If an owner or developer desires, basically, to change the characteristics of
the bottomland, an application must be made. The DNR is to review the application
.to determine the potential effect upon the public trust which exists in the
bottomlands. Fish habitat is a specific reason for protection of bottomlands
from alteration. It is significant to note, however, that thi's statute does
not provide any regulatory authority regarding upland changes above the ordinary
high water whether or not they would affect the wato@r or habitat quality.

Upon the receipt of an application, the DNR mails copies to the state department
of public health and the "clerks of the county, city, village, and township,
and drain commissioner" of the affected area and to adjacent reparian owners
which is accompanied by a statement that unless written objection is filed
within 20 days, the DNR may take action to approve the application. Review
and approval may be accomplished by the local DNR officer. Before a permit or
application is.approved, the applicant is to receive approval, if necessary,
from the Army Corps of Engineers, the Michigan Waterways Commission, and the
local unit of government.

Under the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act, the State Department of
Agriculture has submitted to the DNR for its approval, a unified statewide

soil erosion and sedimentation control program now codified by the DNR in Rule
323.1701 et. seq., of '%-,he Michigan Administrative Code. County enforcing
agencies'-which are appointed by the county board and may be any county officer,
board, commission, department, or other county entity, are to be responsible
for the administration of the regulations throughout the county including
cities and villages, unless a city, village, or charter township has in effect
an ordinance conforming to and approved 'under the act. A local ordinance may
be more restrictive, but may not make lawful what is unlawful under the act or
regulations. Regulated under the regulations are earth changes which are
.defined as changes to one acre or more of land within 500 feet of a lake or
stream. The act and regulations do not apply to:

1. The industry generally referred to as logging.
2. The' industry"generally referred to as mining.

3. The plowing or tilling of land for the purpose of crop production or the
harvesting of crops.

4. A person engaged in agricultural practices who has entered into an agreement
with the appropriate soil conservation district to pursue such agricultural
practices in accordance with the act and regulations. Notification by
the district to the enforcing agency and DNR is required and the person
remains liable to enforcement-under the agreement although site plans,
land use plans, or permits under the ordinance or regulations are not
required.

5. Actions of a state agency, city, village, charter township, county, or a
county agency whose soil erosion and sedimentation control procedures
have been found adequate under the act and regulations by the DNR after
review by the local soil conservation district. Such a finding leads to
the local or state unit or agency becoming an "authorized public agency"
not amenable to the local ordinance or regulation requirements, but still
subject to enforcement if the practices, methods, or actions later violate
the act, regulations, or ordinance.

General law townships may not be or name local enforcing agencies and may not
apply to become "authorized public agencies.'.' They may, however, be prosecuted
for violation of the act, a local ordinance, or the regulations. A county or
local enforcing agency must notify the DNR of all violations of the act,
regulations,-or a local ordinance. The DNR or the county or local enforcing
agency may maintain an action in a court with jurisdiction for all violations
except those of a person who has entered an agreement with the local S.C.D.
The DNR is also given overall enforcing authority and, ifter a hearing, may
make a final determination concerning violation by anyone or any unit, of the
act, regulations, or local ordinance, or concerning the failure of the local
enforcing agency to enforce any of the three. After the hearing, the final
order or stipulation or consent order is conclusive unless appealed within
fifteen days in circuit court.

The statute makes the regulations and enforcement procedure mandatory throughout
the state. The cost of local review are to be borne by the local units or
agencies involved except that they may provide for fees to be charged for
inspections and plan reviews.. The statute provides that two or more counties

may cooperate in the enforcement of the act through the Urban Cooperation Act.
The regulations do and the local ordinances could-address most location,
modification, or construction methods or other activities or substantive land
changes which might result in nonpoint discharges into adjacent waters.

The Inland lakes and Streams Act may be said, in general, to be the counterpart
to the Great lakes Submerged Act. Under this statute, inland bottomlands are
to be protected through review of proposed alterations to those bottorrilands.
Specifically, Section 3 of the statute provides:

Sec. 3. Except as provided in this act, a person without a permit from
the department shall not:

(a) Dredge or fill bottomland.
(b) Construct, enlarge, extend, remove, or place a structure on bottomland.
(c) Erect, maintain, or operate a marina.
(d) Create, enlarge, or diminish an inland lake or stream.
(e) Structurally interfere W4th the natural flow of an inland lake or
stream.
M Construct, dredge, commence, extend, or enlarge an artificial canal,
channel, ditch, lagoon, pond, lake, or similar waterway where the
purpose is ultimate connectiorf with an existing inland lake or
stream, or where any part of the artificial waterway is located
within 500 feet of the ordinary high water mark of an. existing
inland lake or stream.
(g) Connect any natural or artificially constructed waterway, canal,
channel, ditch, lagoon, pond, lake, or similar water with an existing
inland lake or stream for navigation or any other purpose.

Permits are not required for "a seasonal structure placed on bottomland to
facilitate private non-commercial recreational use," for reasonable sanding of
beaches, construction or maintenance of an agricultural drain, minor drainage
facilities, or wastewater facilities otherwise approved. The DNR, upon receiving
an application, is to send copies to the local health department, the city,
village, township, and county affected, the local soil conservation district,
and local port commission, if there is one. Each of those units or agencies
has twenty days to reply in writing.

Essentially, the statute covers modifications of the bottomlands, bridge, or
culvert construction, bulkhead lines, haul roads, and similar activities. The
DNR is to balance the application against any detrim ents to the public trust
or reparian rights. A public hearing may be held if a proposed project is
controversial or if additional information is needed.

Further DINR regulatory power through the recent wetlands act will apparently
await an inventory in this area of present wetlands.

Local Regulatory Powers

Zoning ordinances potentially provide the most far reaching of local land use
controls. Separate zoning ordinances along' the bay are presently administered
by Ford River Township, the Cities of Escanaba and Gladstone, Delta County
(covering Wells, Brampton, Ensign, and Bay de Noc Townsh4pS)
, Escanaba Township,
and @Iasonville Township. Within the cities' limits, the development pattern

is generally already set. In the unincorporated areas, zoning becomes a more
critical factor for setting the development trend. Major zoning issues include:

- Lack of coordination within the ordinances or among the administrators/
boards carrying out the ordinances. An overall la*nd use concept for the
bay i's non-existant.
- Lack of enforcement of use restricting. Delta County has the most prohibitive
ordinance with Open Space, Timber Production, or Rural Residential districts
lining a good portion of the shore. These districts contain large lot
and setback requirements, and in some instances prohibition of development,
based on soils, access, and recommended usage. However, enforcement of
these regulations must be considered spotty. Variances and rezonings
within the county and township ordinances are routinely granted. Zoning
may not really be said to have had a strong impact on bay development.

The Delta-Menominee health department code covering the bay shore is pertinent
to bay development in that it regulates setback from the lake and distance
from septic tank fields to groundwater. The lake setback is fifty feet from
the lake for single-family residences 'and one hundred feet for any other use.
Septic fields must maintain four feet isolation from groundwater. Often, if
the property owner is willing to fill the area immediately around a home and
septic tank, development is permitted in otherwise unsuitable areas. The
sufficiency of these requirements has been questioned in, among others, the
Areawide Water Quality Plan.

The Subdivision Control Act grants review authority over subdivisions of land
to cities, villages, townships, county road commissions, county drain commissioners,
the county plat board (county clerk, treasurer, and register of deeds), the
local health department, and the Departments of Treasury, Natural Resources,
Transportation, and Health. The so called "Plat Act" was repealed by this
statute whose proper name is the "Subdivision Control Act" though it is often
also referred to as the plat act. The local regulatory authority whose power
is reviewed here include municipalities, which is defined as cities, villages,
or townships, the local health department, the county road commission, and the
county drain commissioner. The county plat board receives copies of the
preliminary plat "for informational purposes" and is the final local authority
to review the final plat "for conformance to all provisions of the Act."
Howeverl the plat board is not provided with regulatory standards of its own
within the statute and its role should be viewed as that of confirming that
all steps have been taken rather than as a separate regulatory agency in its
own right. The plat board does play a role in checking up on local authorities
and could itself enforce the act. Note that the county is not granted general
regulatory authority under this statute. County review is restri-..ed to the
road commission, drain commissioner, and health department.

Final approval is vested at the state level and it has been the state which
has generally moved or forced the local unit to move in the face of subdivisions.
Note also, that platting is a mandatory procedure when the act applies. A
local authority does not have the option of reviewing a plat or not. It is
required to review plats under the statute whether it has published separate
regulations under the statute or not. The relation to zoning is simply that a
proprietor must comply with both the local zoning ordinance and all local or
state,subdivision.regulations. Where one is stricter than the other, the
stricter regulation would apply.

Perhaps the most difficult issue is when the statute applies and'when, therefore,
submission of a plat is required. There has been considerable discussion and
several attempts at changing or clarifying the operative definition of "subdivide."
Presently, "subdivide" means the follow-JiLng:

1. Partitioning or dividing of a continuous area or acreage of land,

2. By the proprietor thereof or by virtually anyone who may receive the land
in fee or lease'in virtually any manner from the proprietor,

3. For the purpose of sale, building development, or lease over a year,

4. Into 5 or more parcels,

5. Each of which is 1.0 acres or less in area,

6. Either at one time or by successive divisions within a period of 10
years..

A forty acre parcel may, for example, be broken into seven parcels before
coming under the act by creating three parcel of 10.1 acres and four parcels
out of the rest. Not that 5 or more parcels under 10 acres each have not
quite been cr'eated and, therefore, the statute would not apply. Consider the
breaking of a ten acre parcel into four parcels, three of which are two acres
in size and the fourth is four acres. At this point, there has been no subdivision.
If the fourth parcel is broken into two two-acre parcels, each two acres must
be submitted though the other three parcels originally broken down do not-fall
under the act. Clearly, these are borderline cases and the intent of the
statute concerns "subdivision" in the more recognized sense. Nonetheless, the
present definition and application create peculiar results in a rural area
like the bay area, and largely account for the confusion. surrounding the
statute.

Under procedures summarized below, the preliminary and final plats are submitted
and reviewed by the various local and state authorities. The enabled reviewing
authority for municipalities (townships, cities, villages), county road commission,
county, drain commissioners, and local health departments is outlined below:

A. Municipal Authority

(1) Under Section 259: "The standards for approval of plats prescribed
in'this act are minimum standards and any municipality, by ordinance,
may impose stricter requirements and may reject any plat which does
not conform to such requirements." Considerable control is, therefore,
vested in municipal units and restrictions over subdivisions could
clearly be based upon and implement parts of the water quality plan.

(2) Under Section 182, a municipality may require for all public and
private streets, alleys, and roads in its jurisdiction that the
subdividing conform to:

(a) the general plan, width, and location requirements that it has
adopted and published as long as it doesn't conflict with
county or state plans for the location and width of certain
streets, roads, and highways.

(b) proper drainage, grading, and construction as provided in its
published construction@standards.

(d) requirements for completion of complete plans for grading,
drainage, and construction to be prepared and sealed by a civil
engineer registered in the state.

(3) In addition, the municipality may require cash deposit or surety for
@work and must reject a plat which is isolated from or which isolates
other lands from existing streets, unless suitable access is provided.

(4) The municipality shall also require standards within the statute be
met.

B. County Road Commission

The Commission has the same authority as the municipal unit regarding
AM and (3) above as the plat relates to county plans and published
rules. The road commission may bring suit to enforce its standards.

C. County Drain Commissioner

The drain commissioner shall require adequate storm water facilities and
may require establishment of a county drainage district in accordance
with the Drain Code.

D. Local Health Department
Standards are not specified, but would presumably incl'ud.e the local
health code. Review is made of both preliminary and final plats. Violation
of codes could be basis for rejection of plat.

Clearly, considerable regulations over subdivisions are possible under this
statute if the municipal unit or county agencies decide to do so. For rules
to be effective, they must be adopted by proper public procedures and published.

RESIDENTIAL

The existing housing stock in the Little Bay de Noc area is predominately.
single-family, owner-occupied, and relatively old. The percentage of rental
units in the bay area (approxim*ately 20%), in particular in the Escanaba area,
should also be recognized.

The demand for multi-family housing, especially from the elderly population,
has been quite conspicuous in the bay area. Even with 3e-@ publicly subsidized
multi-family units built in the area since 1970, there @,,,*;,t-.ars to be no end to
the need for alternative housing for elderly and low-inc..-
families.

New construction of single-family home has been steadily declining over the
last three years, the obvious result of the exorbitant. cost and scarcity of
construction funds nation-wide. Single-family constri,.:1'_.ion has been most
active in Wells and Escanaba Townships, with 151 and 1.48 new units respectively,

in the last, 3 years. Escanaba City, Masonville, Ford River, and'Brampton
Townships have also shown signs of residential growth.

Mobile home ownership has attracted greater numbers in recent years in the bay
area. If this trend continues, new demands way be placed on local governments
to provide adequate space for mobile home owners to locate.

Due to the shortage of construction funds and the condition and age of the
housing stock, housing rehabilitation programs, either through local banks or
,a local governmental'unit, appear to offer at least a partial and practical
solution to the growing housing needs of the bay area.

With the expansion of the Mead Paper Mill, there will be a strain placed on
the 'area housing supply. Therefore, it is imperative that such avenues as
mobile home parks, preservation of the existing housing stock, and additional
rental housing be pursued.

Critical to development of properl.-y planned housing and rental units will be
the land use regulations in the area. Zoning, health department requirements,
and flood insurance regulations provide the prime considerations regarding bay
development. These were discussed in some detail in the previous chapter.
The Technical Advisory Committee is recommending support of new multi-family
housing for the Escanaba and Gladstone areas.

TRANSPORTATION

The study of the transportation system serving Little Bay de Noe will obviously
be a critical part of every other'area of study under the overall management
program. The roads, rail lines, airport, and dock areas link the area together
and provide connection to the rest of the nation and the'world. The Little
Bay de Noe area is in the fortuitous position of possessing an active, natural
deep water port served as well by major rail lines and national and state
highways. The potential of a new general cargo facility in light of these
circumstances is a major reason for the study. The Technical Advisory Committee
is in the fortuitous position of having the combination of expertise necessary
to develop planning with consideration of all relevant factors including
commercial-industrial potential, recreation, and environmental constraints.

There has been much emphasis in recent years placed on the concept of multimodal
transportation planning. The multiatodal approach basically refers to planning
for a total coordinated transportation system, rather than at the subsystem
level. Traditionally, transportation planning has been done at the modal
level (e.g,, highway plans, public transportation plans, etc.). This concept
of total (or multimodal) transportation is based on the premise that there is
an interrelationship among modes of transportation and an alteration in the
characteristics of one mode can. have an obvious effect on the operational
characteristics of other modes. An example would be in the case of a rail
abandonment forcing shippers along the rail line to now truck their product
over highways. Increased truck traffic can quickly deteriorate a road and
shorten the life of a bridge. In such siLuations, it is possible to predict
the consequences of an alteration in.the transportation system.

The need exists to develop a suitable balance araong economic efficiency,
energy, and environmental considerations. Potential changes in energy availability

may have a severe effect on the types,of transportation available for use. As
the energy situation worsens and costs rise, thos-e modes of transportation,
particularly rail and water which are energy efficient, will probably play a
more important role in the distribution system. In our energy-scarce world,
we obviously cannot depend on any single method of transportation. There is a
need for railroads, as well as highways, and buses, as well as automobiles, to
carry people and goods. After the following brief review of the transportation
network connecting the bay, preliminary considerations regarding a general
cargo facility and other transportation issues are presented.

Highway and Rail Connection

Figure 1 on the following page (taken from the recent Chamber of Commerce map)
depicts the roadways surrounding the bay and some points of interest. The
major highways serve the populated western shore of the bay. The Stonington
Peninsula, including Twin Springs Park and Peninsula Point, is served by
County Road 513, which is generally considered to be in poor condition and
impassible in some sections during part of the year. Any consideration of
recreational or historic site improvements on the peninsula will need to
include consideration of road improvements as.well.

Figure 2 depicts the state and county r6ads in the Central Upper Peninsula.
It is clear from that map that the western shore of the bay is a traffic hub
for both north/south and east/west transit through the Upper Peninsula. Some
idea of the magnitude of the road traffic may be gained from Figure 3, which
depicts 1975 average daily traffic figures. Although coffmiuter traffic between
Gladstone and Escanaba accounts for a large part of the high count along that
corridor, the traffic load apparent on US-41, US-2, and M-35 clearly establishes
the western shore area as an arterial hub for the Upper Peninsula.

Figure 4 depicts the major highways and rail lines in the Central Upper Peninsula.
Little Bay de Noe is served by three major rail lines: The Soo Line, Chicago
and Northwestern, and the Escanaba and Lake Superior rail line * In reviewing
Figure 4, it should be noted that the Soo Line trackage between Rapid River
and Eben has been abandoned and the Lake Superior and Ishpeming Railroad has
recently received Interstate Commerce Commission permission to abandon its
line between Marquette and Munising (excepting the 5.5 mile stretch between
'Munising and the Soo Line). The effect of these abandonments has been to-
increase truck traffic as local shippers have, over the years,,transferred to
truck and to decrease, to some extent, the amount of connecting traffic on the
remaining lines.

Rail abandonments have posed a major problem for the Upper Peninsula as they
have throughout rural areas of the nation. However, considering the large
volume of traffic, largely iron ore, on the C&NW and the large interstate/
international traffic on the Soo Line, the rail lines serving Little Bay de
Noe would not appear in danger of abandonment. In addition, the E&LS has been
aggressive in establishing service on its line and in its bid to purchase
large sections of the Milwaukee Road line to the west, which has been in
Interstate Commerce Commission abandonment proceedings for some time.

Delta County Airport

Delta County Airport is located on M-35, just south of Escanaba. It is an air
carrier airport and serves Delta County and parts of Menominee and Schoolcraft

'K IN5

G 22
18/1
T1
,t4 rl@ J,
%
WOODLAWN G'31,
ox

F I-

IC 43
C 0 R
CI ENSIGI
N
,c J -J

HOA@

0 CO 422

,i'GLADSTONE
4;2,
3 32

.-A
r

041
;- @-.:, K-36
FLATROCKIi

K-2

f- PIONEER TRAIL PARK

C-35
6 -"K- lu

17
-7-

20 C , @ I
U s -
CANABA
!Es
cc -'s
0 .1 TOP!
ILIJ
Lcon b
A-1
I- ZJ

If.
A I I' i

L<
24

A28

A
-26
A-22

FORD
RIVER
-y
3tli
..Z; 0 V2 1 2 3 4 5 6

SCALE IN MILES

Figure 1

A-20 -J
0

2,1 23

PULLEi-- PARK "@',,P

35a

Figure 2 -

STATE AND COUNTY ROADS IN THE
CEW- RAL UPPER PENINSULA

Bit 84MY

era nd
&.6/4 Pf V11"Is.'.

Bit
41, 'IV

?
31 .,o
1 '1"
J% :;m"

c4
fshperning 3; Deerton. strand

-Ame Sands j, Yeirr*f
-if Rep@Wic Mun;si
Ska6d;a 'Nemwe z-,
sairle
Ru-jy 15 S- ey
S 34
S.noell

inn
Caris?tclcl ti
W.!ch Uke a T-@-
Ausim c4e,,, 16
S.anzy d,
57
sx.rr

Tsena-y

U-,r,op 'Wam

N
Wand 94
Sa ola A nold Ro@k
Mashek
T?,ec,- Felch W "son
,A
"i-d'ifte zzz
pel"ir's
r .,,r
is oVe v
i ol e
f cc,@,
va-- ykl
Branct.* 2
!;=a
Come
ain Gladsto
@crwjy I

2 Faym

F
J@
41 fat,

Gou ev
Legend:

IDaeg"t-j In U.S. AND STATE ROUTES
Lon r@,
MULMANE DIVICED
;ni3:;s
PA.ED - TWO OR WORE L&NES

VILFAGE SZ-NErS RED DOTS
4 I'N
UILEAGE B.-TWEEN OWh.S AND JUNCTIONS
COUNTY ROADS
5 PAvED
C@_'MCMATZO COUNTY ROADS

4@-

35b

Figure . 3

STATE TRUNKLINE SYSTEM
1975-AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
CENTRAL UPPER PENINSULA

..Fax

... ... lit 1,

...........

..........

-7771

NJ.

AVERAGE DAILY-TRAFFIC

-0 200

2000 5000,

5000 10,000

10,000 and above

Pennanent Traffic
Recorders

Source: MDSH&T

CENTRAL UPPER PENINSULA
PLANNING AND DEVELOPNIEN
356
REGIONAL CO,'v,,1Vi_-)SiON

Figure 4

RAILROADS *AND HIGH11AYS IN THE CENTRAL UPPER PENINSULA W

M-28
Milli

M-28
AA- M-94

E&LS

M-149

cs (p)
US:,14

CENTRAL UPPER PENINSULA
35d PLAN Nl! AJ'10' -r-'EVELCP,%'!:r.-

Counties. The airport is served by Republic Airlines with six flights per
day, three south to Green Bay and connecting cities, and three north. In
1979, 42;'843 passengers were enplaned. This amount may be somewhat overstated
as passengers came from outside the normal service area when Ford Airport, in
Kingsford, was closed for a few months for runway improvements.

The airport has two runways, a north-south and a east-west runway. The north-south
runway is primarily used for general aviation. The runway was reconstructed
in 1978. The east-west runway is the longer of the two, 6,500 feet. It was
also imprOVed in 1978. The width was increased to 150 feet to accommodate
largerplanes. The runway was resurfaced and a safety parallel taxiway added.

The Delta County Airport submitted two projects to the CUPPAD Regional Commission
1980 Transportation Project Priority List; expansion of the terminal facilities
and'expansion of the general aviation facilities. These projects are ranked 4
and 9, respectively. Plans for 1980 include the expansion of the general
aviation ramp and security fencing around the periphery of the airport.

Water Transit/Carg Facility

Considering the location of transportation linkages to Little Bay de Noe, it
is not surprising that the bay now is a major port of the Upper Peninsula.
Figure 5 depicts 1971-77 statistics on total. short tons shipped via selected
ports. The Escanaba statistics are dependent on iron ore shipments and that
must be taken into account when considering the port as a possible general
cargo facility. For example, the total 1977 tonnage for Escanaba breaks down
as follows:

Commodity Short Tons

Iron Ore and Concentrates 9,100,035
Coal and Lignite 154,722
Gasoline 108,752
Distillate Fuel Oil 1217858
Residual Fuel Oil 18)463
Petroleum and Coal Products 2,224
Fresh Fish 72

More recent statistics, including a detailed port inventory, are being obtained
from the Michigan Department of Transportation, which is presently developing
a port study-in Michigan. Of course, any consideration of Escanaba as a
Itgeneral" cargo port, as opposed to its present status as a "bulk" cargo port,
must begin with an inventory of the potential general cargo volume, traffic
connections, and what these factors mean in the interst@te/international
market.

Most studies, especially those postdating the rise in fuel prices, project
substantial increases in cargo movements by water. The following table was
developed by A.T. Kearney,-Inc. in 1976, for the Army Corps of Engineers in a
study entitled: "Great Lakes/Saint Lawrence Seaway Traffic Forecast Study".

Potential GL/SLS General Cargo Movements.
(millions of short tons)

U.S. U.S. All
Imports Exports Other Total

1972 base 15.0 9.2 5.4 29.6
'1980 23.9 18.5 7.7 50.1
1990 63.'7 35.9 13.9 113.5
2000 95.1 54.1 21.6 170.8
.2010 143.1 94.5 32.7 270.3
2020 213.5 151.1 49.6 414.2
2030 316.8 240.3 75.3 632.3
2040 468.2 380.5 113.5 962.2

These totals, if they prove accurate, would represent a 5.2% average annual
ercentage increase for imports and 5.6% for exports. The Kearny Report also
indicates that the potential for GL/SLS shipping has historically run ahead of
actual shipping. Increasing fuel costs may be expected to increase the demand
for and, therefore, the potential for ship/train long haul shipping.

Figure
MIGHT TRAFFIC (Short Tons)

Harbor 1971 1974 1977

Duluth 37,050,852 40,344,702 33,419,210
Escanaba 9,381,838 9,685,677 9,506,126
Gladstone 320,779 230,924 232,783
Green Bay 2,763,287 2,531,487 2)476,718
Marquette 835,359 1,036,070 394,317
Menominee 279,372 152,398 124,259
Milwaukee 5,660,299 4,263,862 3,946,382
Port Inland 4,519,314 4,324)129 3,469,169
Presque Island 3,549,274 3,118,370 5,215,296
Sault St.. Marie 116,564 87,464 69,942

Source: Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Part 3, Waterways and
Harbors, Great Lakes, Army Corps of-Engineers.

Overall statistical growth projections are meaningless to a specific port such
as Escanaba, unless it can particularize itself'as an area where that growth
will occur. That, 'Of course, requires study of the por@'s individual potential.

Given the time and financial constraints, the present Little Bay de Noc Management
Program cannot of itself lead to the immediate development of a cargo facility.
A project of that magnitude will require some time and detailed engineering
before it is on the ground. An application for,a Port Expansion Study was
submitted by the county for 1981 Coastal Management funds. The work of the
Technical Advisory Committee.gave application substance and justification for
expenditure of public funds. As of the time of this final report, the study

had been funded and will proceed. The final work will, therefore, be possibie
in a timely fashion after this study.

At the first TAC meeting, the form an eventual authority for operation of the
facility may take was discussed as well as potential methods for financing.the
facility. It was suggested that an amendment to the articles of the Delta
County Building Authority may be possible to allow it to engage in this operation.
This was the first alternative researched by staff.

The Delta County Building Authority is a public corporation organized pursuant
to Act 31 of the Public Acts of 1948. That statute provides authority to
construct and operate a community building or center and adjoining parking
facilities. It does not, however, provide for construction of a com.Triercial/
industrial facility of the type envisioned. Thus, the County Building Authority
is not itself a legally sufficient vehicle for development of a cargo facility.
There are several statutes providing different options for the potential
development of a cargo facility. The choice, when made, will be dependent
upon the desired method of operation and control (private, governmental, or
mix of the two) and the desired or poss-ible methods of finance. Three major
options are discussed below.

Economic Development Corporations Act, Act 338, P.A. 1974

A "project", as defined in Section 3(e) of this act, may include land
and existing or planned improvements suitable for use by any industrial or
commercial enterprise . . . including necessary buildings, improvements, or
structures suitable for and intended for or incidental to use as an industrial
or commercial enterprise, including industrial park or industrial site improvements
and.port improvements . . ." Thus, there is ample authority under this statute
for the development and financing of a cargo facility.

Both Delta County and the City of Escanaba have active Economic Development
Corporations. Financing and development through an E.D.C. is a familiar
process in this area. The Mead Expansion Project, to name one major example,
is utilizing County E.D.C. authority and bonding. The financial savings and
development potential through sale and lower interest on E.D.C. bonds has thus
.already been demonstrated locally. The statute provides wide flexibility in
financing and in operation as the E.D.C. may lease or sell all or part of-an
eventual facility. On the basis of experience and local familiarity, this is
certainly an important option for future considerati on.

Revenue Bond Act, Act 94 P.A. 1933

A "public improvement", as defined in Section 3(b) of this statute, includes
it . . . yacht basins; harbors; docks; wharves; terminal facilities; elevated
highways; bridges over, tunnels under, and ferries across lakes or any part
thereof . . . marine railways; or any right or interest therein. The term
'public improvement' shall be construed to mean the whole or any part of any
one of the above named improvement or of any combination thereof, as determined
by the governing body Obviously, this statute also provides ample
authority for a general cargo facility-

The Revenue Bond Act enables the development of the above improvements by a
"I>ublic corporation" which is defined to include any county, city,
village, township, port district . . . or any combination thereof when authorized
by law to act jointly, or any authority created by or pursuant to an act of
the legislature." The Urban Cooperation Act, Act 7 P@A. 1967, essentially
provides that any power local governments may exercise individually, they May
exercise jointly and may, if they desire, create a new authority composed as
they may agree. Thus, under this combination of legislation, a single local
government or any combination may develop and finance a general cargo facility.
Act 7 has recently been used in this region as the legal basis for township
associations and for water, sewer, and solid waste authorities. This option
would provide great flexibility i-n development, operation, and control of the
facility.

Despite its name, the ReveD ue Bond Act also provides great flexibility in
methods of finance. Section 4(e) of the statute provides that: "The powers
in this act granted may be exercised notwithstanding that no bonds are issued
hereunder." Thus, grant or taxes or a combination of the two may be utilized
if preferred. Revenue bonds may be issued under this statute without a vote
unless the option to pledge full faith and credit behind the bonds was taken,
at which time an election would be requi red. This option, therefore, also
provides great overall flexibility and would be another method to seriously
consider. The chief difference between proceeding u@ader the Revenue Bond Act
as opposed to an E.D.C. would be the greater governmental involvement and
control under the Revenue Bond Act.

Port Authority Act, Act 639 P.A. 1978

The term "port authority" has often been used in discussions of a possible
general cargo facility and it is useful at the outset to specify, to some,
extent, the present legal meaning of that term in Michigan. Act 639 repealed
the former Port-District statute except insofar as it pertains to existing
port districts. Any new "port authority" created in Michigan would be developed
under Act 639. The formation and powers of a port authority under this statute
are outlined below:

Formation:

1) A city and county, or a combination of counties or a combination of
cities and counties, by joint resolution, requests the governor to authorize
incorporation of the Authority.

2) Initial Articles of Incorporation and any amendments must be approved
by the governor and filed with the Secretary of State.

3) The Authority shall have 5 or 7 members serving staggered 4 year
terms. One member is appointed by the governor and the remaining number is
set and chosen by agreement of the incorporating units as set forth in their
joint resolution.

4) Members select their own officers and are not compensated except for
actual travel and other expenses incurred as members.

Powers:

1.) The Authority is a "body corporate and politic" which may sue and be
sued, own and dispose of property, hire employees, accept grants, and contract.

2) Its powers, though restricted to port facilities or projects, are
very broad in that regard encompassing anything from dredging and filling
channels to developing wharves, piers, storage, and transport facilities or
industrial districts, and the powers to promulgate rules, rates, and charges
.for its facilities.

3) The Authority may contract with private parties or with governmental
bodies who may pay their contract obligations through taxes, service charges,
spec.ial-assessment, or any other available monies.

4) The Authority possesses the power of condemnation of land for its
purposes and facilities.

5) The Authority may issue revenue bonds upon approval of the Michigan
Municipal Finance Commission, but may not indebt another governmental unit
except by contractual agreement.

This option envisions the creation of a local authority with its own governmental
and corporate powers. Local governmental power over it would be largely
maintained by the method of naming or removing members. Again, under this
option, a wide variety of financing arrangements is possible.

A final-option would, of course, be totally private development and operation
of a cargo facility. It is possible that a private enterprise operation will
be the outcome of the study. Financial savings, however*, would indicate that
private development would initially utilize one of the first two options.

The Transportation/Commercial/Energy Subcommittee of the Technical Advisory
Committee spent the greater part of its discussions on the issue of establishing
a cargo facility in Escanaba. Mr. Roy Jensen, who had served on the original
Escanaba Port Authority, provided a history of the authority and shipping
opportunities in the bay. The Technical. Advisory Committee has on file the
correspondence and documents detailing activities of the city and port authority
at that time. Discussion was also had with local manufacturers and with state
Department of Transportation personnel. A cruise of the bay and discussion on
potential sites was also made. Based on the work to date, the following
recommendations and findings are made:
- A new Port Authority under the 1978 Port Authority'Act should be established
to be the focal point for in-depth engineering/traffic studies and development
of facilities. A Port Authority is the best of the above alternatives.

- The Port Authority should be created and represent the City of Escanaba,
the City of Gladstone, and Delta County. The enabling legislation does
not provide for township representation, but the county's appointment
should be someone from an area to be affected.

- In the interim period between local establishment and state approval, the
Authority should be an acting Harbor Commiss'ion with organization and
membership that could easily transfer to a Port Authority.

- The best sites for any new dock facilities would be adjacent to the Reiss
dock on the submerged pilings or on C&Nd land along the north shore of
Escanaba. A river mouth area, such as that of the Escanaba River or the
Days River, would involve the Project in major environmental questions
that would probably indefinitely delay or halt the project.
- Primary emphasis at the early stages 'should *be upon the 'development of a
bulk facility based upon the apparent and projected economics of shipping
in the Great Lakes.

- A general cargo facility should be considered over time if it becomes
feasible or in conjunction with the bulk facilities.

Bulk cargo includes such items as coal, fuel, or wood chips. General cargo
would include packaged shipped materials such as containeriz'ed cargo. The
above findings are based on a preliminary review of what new port facilities
in Escanaba could expect to have as a base. A small percentage, approximately
one hundreth, of the over two hundred million tons shipped annually in the
Great Lakes is general cargo. Most of that, according to available studies
and experts, finds its way through the major ports of Milwaukee or Detroit.
Profit on a general cargo facility runs at approximately 2%, one dollar a ton
being considered good. Given the fact that both goveriuiiental and private
funding for such projects is tight presently, it is doubtful the necessary
funds could be raised for that sort of facility. There would not simply
appear at this time to be sufficient "general" cargo in this area to profitably
stop general cargo ships on the lake and compete with@established routes and
trade arrangements.

Bulk cargo is another story, for here a future of increased shipping is bright.
The Michigan Seagrant Program is, for example, about to study the feasibility
of shipping western coal eastward via a port like Escanaba as opposed the
present use of Duluth. Coal shipments on the Great Lakes have reached 40
.million tons annually and this may grow to as much as 135 million tons annually
by the year 2000 as the increased use of abundant, "cleaner" western coal'
continues. The rail connections and lake location of Escanaba make it an
ideal port for this development. In addition, indications presently are that
other bul 'k items such as wood chips or agriculturalproducts could profitably
be shipped through Escanaba. The bulk potential in specific should provide
the first agenda item for the new Port Authority.

COMMERCIAL/INIDUSTRIAL

Specific data for the Little Bay de Noc area itself has never been compiled
and surrounding county and regional factors impact to the extent that that
data, rather than merely a bay compilation, must be considered when developing
commercial/industrial issues and opportunities for the bay. For background
purposes, Delta County and regional/state statistics are presented. Three
main issues providing the focus of the commercial/industrial section of the
management program may be outlined as follows:

1. Industrial/Commercial sites along the bay.
2. Agricultural/Timber production possibilities-that would use the bay as a
shipping port.
3. Tourism accommodations and facilities.

Following the statistical data presented below, each of these issue areas will
be reviewed. Potential commercial/industrial enterprises must consider local
population projections as well as distant markets for new goods. The following
data on units surrounding the bay and the county as a whole was derived froin
1970 census counts and 1975 state estimates supplemented by reported housing
permits, water quality management survey statistics, and established trends.
The 1980 census may provide more-accurate data, but the numbers will likely be
close.

Census Count Projected Population

Local Unit 1970 19 80 1990 2000

Bay de Noc Township 312 380 425 460

Brampton Township 737 1,100 1,350 1,500

Ensign, Township 505 665 775 840

Escanaba City 15,368 15,500 15,500 15,500

Escanaba Township 1,948 3,080 3,870 4)400

Ford.River Township 1,762 2,507 2,950 3,340

Gladstone City 5,237 5,060 5,000 5,000

Masonville Township 1,409 1,990 2,400 2,640

Wells Township 4)003 5,846 7,150 7,910
(include Wells Place)

'Wells Place (1,085)

Delta County 35,924 41,900 46)000 48,700

Thus, the@ projection would be continued moderate growth around the bay. Past
statistics on per capita income, total business establishments, etc., might
normally be considered useful in establishing a trend for the coming years.
However, recent severe inflation, the rise in fuel prices, and the potential
for recession/depression make economic projections based on past data rather
shakey. In order to get some idea of the Delta County situation and how it
compares to adjacent counties, the following i-ckground tables are provided.
More recent. and bay @specific data is presentl,' being compiled.

Estimate Per Capita Income

Change
County 1970 1975 1970-1975

Alger $2,593 $4,261 +64.3
Delta 3,120 4,468 +43.2
Dickinson 3,171 5,303 +67.2
Marquette 3,237 5,036 +63.9
Menominee 2@813 4,344 +54.4
Schoolcraft 2,785 4,237 +52.1

Central Upper
Peninsula 2,953 4,608 +56.0
State of Michigan 4,180 6,169 +47.6

-Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1977.

Labor Force 1960-1977
(By Place of Residence)

Total Increase
County 1960* 1970* 1975-,rA- 1977** Since 1970

Alger 2,945 3,005 4)150 4,625 53.9
Delta 11)640 12,244 16)100 16,625 35.8
Dickinson 83444 8)197 10,525 11,375 38.8
Marquette 18,952 24,250 26@650 32,525 34.1
Menominee 8,528 8,725 10,700 10,475 20.0
Schoolcraft 3,024 2,630 3,325 3,425 30.2
Region 53,533 59,051 71,450 79,050 38.8

Source: *Census of Population, 1960 and 1970.
-@@MESC, Employment and Labor Force Estimates.

Percentage Unemployment Rates 1960-1977

County 1960* 1965* 1970* 1976** 1977**

Alger 12.9 N/A 8.7 13.7 15.0
Delta 9.1 7.0 10.2 8.8 10.8
Dickinson 8.9 6.5 .7.6 7.9 7.7
Marquette 7.9 5.2 6.5 7.8 8.7
Menominee 6.2 4.9 6.1 6.5 6.9
Schoolcraft 16.7 N/A 13.8 10.5 13.1
Region 8.8 6.2 7.8 8.2 10.4
State of Michigan 6.9 3.9 7.0 8.9 7.8
United States 5.5 4.5 4.9 7.4 7.8

Source: -,,-CUPPAD,.Emplo.yment and Earnings in Perspective.
**MESC, Employment and Labor Force Estimates.
MESC, Employment and Labor Force Estimates.

Total Business Establishments and Payrolls
by County, 1968 and 1974

1968 1974
% of % of
County. Firms PaYE-0-lis-l" Firms Payrolls*

Alger 14T 8.108 199 9.264
Delta 687 30-752 776 85.042
.Dickinson 527 26.332 619 64.620
Marquette 973 63-516 1)135 112.084
Menominee 432 22.628 483 39-819
Schoolcraft 183 6.276 227 11.087

*$'s in millions.

Source: Ccunty Business Patterns, 1968.and 1.974.

Percentage Occupational Groups by County

Alger Delta Dickinson Ma rq. Men. School.

Professional and
Technical 12.9 10.9 13.3 15.1 9.8 11.0,
Farmer and Farm
Laborers 5.6 2.0 1.6 0.5 7.2 1.5
Managers and
Proprietors 5.4 10.2 9.2 7.0 5.6 12.9
Clerical and
Sales 15.6 20.7 20.8 22.7 15.8 16.5
Craftsmen 14.1 14.5 16.9 14.0 16.0 13.3
Operatives 20.2 16,1 17.1 13.2 21.7 11.2
Drivers 4.4 5.2 5.6 4.9 4.9 4.9
Service 13.0 13.5 13.9 17.0 12.0 18.8
Laborers 8.4 5.8 4.7 4.o 6.1 8.4
Household 0.3 1.0 0.8 1.3 0.7 1.4

Source: U.S. Census of Population, 1970.

INDUSTRIAL SITES

The need for available land for manufacturing and distribution industries
generally involves two types: industrial parks and individual sites, usually
in established industrial areas. Both the industrial parks and single sites
are concentrated within the larger communities adjacent to water and sewer
services, electric or natural gas connection, and the rail and road network.
Industry in the Little Bay de Noc area is thus concentrated along the
Escanaba/Gl.adstone corridor and is close by the bay.

Since about. 1920, a number of communities have developed industrial parks,
some utilizing various federal funding sources. In most of the cases, the
it-i.-'Iustrial parks were successful for expanding local firms, attracting some
ne.., industries, and in rationalizing the local land use patterns. The regional
in,1-trial park situation is depicted in the following chart:

Industrial Parks

Approximate
'Industrial Approx. Remaining
Parks Community of Firms Acreage-

Iron Mountain Iron Mountain 15 40+
Kingsford Kingsford 12 160+
Norway-Vulcan Vulcan 2 200
Menominee kenominee 5 40-160 Future Use
Escanaba Escanaba 5 8
Red Pines Escanaba 2 55
Gladstone Gladstone 9 0
North Bluff Gladstone 1 96
Reynolds Marquette 8 0
Hematite Ishpeming 8 10-15 Future Use
Ishpeming Ishpeming 7 35
Midway Negaunee Twp_ 7 15
Tri-City Marquette Twp. 4 0
Manistique Manistique 0 30
Munising Munising 0 40 (in planning)

Escanaba

Recent Regional Commission work for the Escanaba Foundation provides a basic
examination of potential industrial site expansion of development. Three
general areas studied are outlined below and depicted on the accompanying map:

Area I

Description of Area: The "Bosk-Bichler" property adjacent to the Sportsman's
Club property identified as parcels A, B, and C on the mitp.

A. Physical Features

1. Soils: There are four soils in the northern area of the city. Two
are unsuitable, consisting of peat muck, and two are high quality
sands. The three parcels shown on'the attached map are located on
these suitable soils.

2. Drainage: The drainage of the entire area is poor. In the unsuitable
soils area the water table is at or near the surface. For the
suitable soils, being sand and flat, they have rapid permeability
and slow runoff. However, being that separate storm sewerage would
be required in almost every location, the runoff problem is solvable.

3. T pography: The area of good soils is quite flat with slopes of 0
to 41. This presents no difficulties for construction.

4. Flood Hazard: Because of being so flat and that the unsuitable
soils area is prone to flood, the western third of the suitable
soils area is included in a flood hazard area. However, a new flood
hazard study of the area has just been completed, but not published.
It is anticipated that it will conform closer to the soils boundary.

CORPORA

....... ......
.. ..........

... .......-

1217
.......... . .....
............ ...
I Vilh C3
1@ 18
-14 13,,'

..........

[IL
L

out-To, T I f- II
coumly

I Q0 L
T":

lAY Dri NOC

COMMUNITY COLLEGE

f RM

.........

...........
............
13` 18
ITT

'324
lu- ........
9 WA

pla
---------------

B. Man-Made Features

1. Water and Sanitary Sewer: C urrently a 10-inch water main and a
15-inch sanitary sewer run along to the Holiday Inn property with
spurs connecting to the Delta County Building. These would provide
adequate service to most industrial- users of an industrial park. In
addition, a major sanitary sewer is proposed to run across the area
to the Soo Hill community at a later date.

2. Rail: As can be seen from the map, direct access to rail service
can be provided by one or more spurs from the EUS rail, which
serves as the eastern boundary of the area. It would also be possible
to run a spur from the Soo Line (upper left corner of the map) to
serve and/or all of the three parcels shown.

3. Access: Twenty-ninth Avenue North provides road access to the area.
4. Utilities: Power and phone line's currently run along the EUS rail
route. The power delivery available appears adequate, but a higher
than average power user could necessitate additional service.

5. Ownership': The current ownership of the study area involves the
city, Delta County, the Sportsman's Club, and Mr. Bosk.

C. Industrial Rail-Park Development Options

1. Parcel "A": This piece of property is 65 acres and is owned by the
city (part of the upper two "40's") and the county (part of the
lower "40's"). Access could be provided either by a road connector
running south directly to the end of College Avenue, or out along
29th Avenue North, or by both routes. Rail acces's is provided by
the EUS.

2.* Parcel "B": This parcel is also owned by the city and county, but
is only 16 acres. This could be' developed as a "micro" park, using
small lots or a few larger lots. Access could be provided by a
connector either directly to US-2 & 41 or north to the road that
served the old "poor farm". Rail service would be from the EUS.

3. Parcel "C": Parcel "C" is 40 acres and is solely owned by the Delta
County Sportsman's Club. Access could be provided along the north
side by a road that would connect with the "poor farm" road or
directly with US-2 & 41 through parcel "B". Access could also be
provided 'through 24th Avenue North, or by both the north and south
routes. Rail access to this parcel would be easier from the Soo
Line. Ownership would be the major constraint on this property.

4. Combinations: Parcels "A" and "C", or "B" and "C" , or all three
parcels can be combined into an industrial park development. In
addition, the privately owned parcels owned by Mr. Bosk and by
Bichler Brothers, could also be brough t into.such a development.

The major advantage of such a combination would allow 'staging of the
development over a number of years, hence spreading out the development
costs and allowing better flexibility and control of development.
The advantages of includiag the two private owners, especially Mr.
Bosk, would be unification of development and control, and improved
staging.

D. Other Considerations

The decision-making issues that now need to be considered are: Is the
area to be used for industrial/commercial development or for some other
single land use? If the answer to that question is yes, then the following
issues will have to be considered:

a. The level of participation desired by the current owners: city,
county, Sportsman's Club, and the two private landowners, Mr. Bosk
and Bichler Brothers,

b. The size and scope of the'park.

C. 1%7hether the park will be developed in stages, and their timing and
size.

Area II

Description of Area: Examination of the properties that are owned by the City
of Escanaba and the Escanaba. Feundation along Sheridan Road depicted as Parcel
F on the map.

A. Physical Features

1. Soils: The area is covered with the same four soils of the other
study site. Two are high quality sands, quite suitable for construction.
The other two are unsuitable mucks. In addition, two other materia s
have been dumped in the area. One is residue from American Cyanamid.
This is apparently filled into a gully in the Rubicon sand. The
other fill, consisting of rubble and stump materials, is being
dumped onto the two mucks.

2. Topography: The area slopes from west to east with some of the area
requiring additional grading and filling.

3. Drainage: Because of the slope and the soils, the drainage is from
west to east but held by the barrier caused by Sheridan Road.
Additional fill in the muck areas and storm sewerage will be required.

B. Man-Made Features

1. Water and.Sanitary Sewer: Water service for the sites is excellent
with a 16" main on the uphill side of the property. Sanitary sewer
service is not available.

2. Rail Service: The property is bounded on the south side by Chicago
and North Western tracks. Additionally, it is traversed by one of

the tracks. This track is At grade level with the property, and
sidings could be developed from it to any point on either parcel.

3. Access: Road across from 20th Avenue North and Sheridan Road is
more than adequate. Cul-de-sacs from 20th Avenue similar to the
pattern in the current industrial park would be better for the city
property.

4. Utilities.: Adequate power traverses the city property. The right-of-way
for the city's high voltage lines prevents structures being built
underneath, however.

5. Ownership: The property south of 20th Avenue North is owned by the
city. Tlie Escanaba Foundation. owns the property north of that
avenue.

C. Developmental Options

1. Developing the two parcels as a single small industrial park of
approximately 50 acres. Access could be improved by installing
cul-de-sac streets into each of the properties and continuing to
fill and grade. However, the power liae right-of-way limits use by
prohibiting structure construction underneath.

2. The Foundation has a plan of subdivision for its property. Continued
filling and grading could make the site more dttractive. After the
filling, the largest loss could be subdivided by means of a cul-de-sac
from College Avenue. Providing water service should be relatively
inexpensive since the main is in unde-r 19th Street. Sanitary sewer
service would be more difficult since,no lines serve the area east
of the highway and north of the Chicago and North Western yards.
The alternatives would be to run an 8" sewer line along Sheridan
Road to 16th Avenue North or to use individual septic systems.
Storm sewerage could be run under Sheridan to the Chicago and North
Western property and south to their outlet.

3. Use of the city property not restricted by the power lines could be
made possible by use of cul-de-sacs or by a new street forming an
angle across'the property connecting Sheridan Road with 20th Avenue
North. The water and sewer conditions are the same for the Foundation's
property.

The use of available "free" fill should be continued in both areas
in the short-term. Materials such as fly ash from the city's power
plant can be very useful as long as the necessary land fill requirements
are met.

Area III'

Description Qf Area: Examination of the City of Escanaba's property along the
bay front, north of the Chicago and North Western Ore Dock., and land owned by
the Escanaba and Lake Superior Railroad in Wells depicted as parcels G and H
on the map.

A. Physical Features

1. Soils: The soils in this study area are more complex than in the
other locations. The Tawas and Carbondale mucks are ammendable to
improvement by filling and grading, but at some cost. The Croswell
sand provide an excellent construction base. The AuGres sand tends
to be unstable. It will flow when wet and unconfined. The alluvial
deposits (river sands on Map) vary greatly in height, composition,
and degree of consolidation. Since they were produced by the river
and its meanderings and delta development processes, the various
sands and gravels are probably interbedded resulting in a very
unstable surface. In. a:ddition, unless the river channel is stabilized,
the future course of the river.will continue to change. Prior to
use, a very detailed soil survey will be necessary. The marsh area
or the island is so low that unless it is filled in and stabilized,
it will grow and contract as the river meanders.

2. Drainage: The two sands have rapid permeability and slow runoff.
The slopes are not enough-to insure reasonable runoff rates, and
storm sewerage must be considered to improve these characteristics.
The two mucks will definitely require some storm sewerage if filled .
The alluvial deposits probably have a large variance depending on
particle sizes of the various beds.

3.' Topography: Most of the area is flat. The AuGres sand, however,
as a slight slope that can result in some soil movement if not
artificially drajined or confined. The river sands are "bumpy" due
to their unconsolidated nature. Unless stabilized and partially
filled, it will continue to settle haphazardly.

B. Man-Ma6e Featu.res

1. Water and Sanitary Sewer: The area inside the city limits is served
by 6" or 8" water lines. The E&LS property is served by a small
private unit line. A larger capacity line would have to be installed
if the property were to be developed. Sanitary sewer service is not
available.

2. Rail: The area is crossed by several sets of track and sidings.
Some potential lots have rail sidings, for other potential lots,
rail service would not-be available s2 _nce,the tracks are not at
j
gradient or are for use of the ore handling operation.

3. Access: The current road access is poor. It is unpaved and narrow.
Some areas are virtually land locked by tracks. The island has no
access at all except by boat. A replacement for the old Sheridan
Road bridge would have to be a part of any development program for
the island.

Utilities: The municipal power plant is located in this area.
Distribution would present no difficulties. However, the power line
right-of-way prohibits construction of buildings in some of the
area.

5. Ownership: Currently, the ownership is divided among the city, the
E&LS Railroad, and Mr. T. D. Vinette. Mr. Vinette is also leasing a
portion of the city's property for a boat shed. Standard Oil and
the Escanaba Coal and Docks Company are also owners.

C. Development Options

1. Continue to allow ad-hoc industrial development to proceed on a
moderately slow pace.

2. Induce the city to pave the current roads and install additional
water service, thereby :to make the current parcels more attractive.

3. Combine these parcels with the parcels on Sheridan Road as heavy
industrial sites in a coordinated improvement program.

The above descriptions should provide a basis for consideration of future
industrial site locations. Utilizing the bay atlas, the transportation materials
on a cargo facility, and the appropriate environmental considerations, an
overall industrial/commercial proposal for the bay may emerge.

Gladstone

With the filling up of its present industrial park, Gladstone has turned to
the development of a North Bluff industrial park of approximately 100 acres.
The development of this park will impact industrial/cow!@nercial development
along the bay and may provide ready customers for a general cargo,facility.
Construction is presently underway for the A&W Manufacturing Company, and
there are two prospective businesses. Grant applications for road, water, and
electric extensions are presently pending with the federal Economic Development
Administration and the Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission. This park's
potential needs to be further explored and documented and consideration given
to it in the overall bay strategy.

'AGRICULTURAL/TIMBER PRODUCTION

Recently, attention has been given to the potential for increased agriculture
production and shipment out of the area via the Escanaba port. The larger
part of this section of the management program will be based upon information
to be developed in conjunction with the Michigan State Extension Service.

In the past, the number of farms and total acreage in farming has been declining
in Delta County.as it has throughout the area. The following table illustrates
this fact:

Farms and Farm Acreage 1964, 1969, and 1974.

Number of Farms Acres of Land in Farms
County 1974 1969 1964 1974 1969 1964

Alger 95 104 148 20)674 25,146 32,263
Delta 331 373 526 95,361 101,542 117,155
Dickinson 157 16*2 197 38,760 39,749 43,763
Marquette 96. 97 139 27,177 27,393 41,943
Menominee 515 594 923 146,753 162,239 208,215.
Schoolcraft 49 54 97 15,556 14)835 18,083
Region 1,243 1,384 2,030 344,281 370,904 461,422,

Source:- U.S. Census of Agriculture, 1964, 1969, and 1974.

Major crops in the Delta County area have, in the past, included hay, oats,
corn, potatoes, and dry beans. Recent data in these areas and the barley
production potential is being collected to be included in the report as potential
items for shipment from the bay. Data and a full discussion of timber products.
and the potential for shipment is now being compiled'and will await TAC review
of state and federal (Hiawatha) plans as well as local industrial options.
Pr'esent issues and opportunities relative to the Little Bay de Noc study
include:

Potential for agriculture and.timber products shipments via the bay port
facilities.
Difficulties and loss of acreage facing agricultural production.
Potential for new facilities along the bay utilizing production of these
resources.

TOURISM

Available land for tourism and economic development is going to be in either
of two types of locations. The first is along the Escanaba/Gladstone corridor
for multi-purpose lodging and/or restaurant facilities. The second is the
rural or specialized activity site. Future prospects for tourism are uncertain
due to the rise in gasoline prices and its effect on travel. Tourist accommodations
and needs are directly related to recreational facilities development which is
discussed in more detail in a previous section of the report. The Delta
County Chamber of Commerce has recently completed and published an inventory
of restaurants/accommodations along the bay area. Data from a.1977 tourist
industry study is presented on the following page. Present issues and oppor-
tunities may be'summarized as follows:

- Potential responses to a tourist downturn including a switch to more
long-term accommodations and possible mass transit to the area.
- Completion of the Holiday Inn on M-35.
- Potential for increased recreational fishing on the bay and promotion of
special bay events such as sail boat regattas, fishing derbies, etc.

Tourism Industry Characteristics

Establishments Alger Delta Dickinson Marquette Menominee Schoolcraft

Year-Round Est. 27 45 24 35 15 19

Total Rooms 274 785 430 944 188 286

Average Rate $14.20 $13-54 $15.42 $19.24 $11.05 $19.42

Seasonal Est. 38 24 5 18 8 .56

Total Rooms 289 122 33 171 40 367

Average Rate $15.75 $15.69 $12.76 $17.48 $13.58 $14.77

Total Expenditures $5.049 $26-592 $20.870 $26.256 $4.039 $13.464
($'s in Thousands)

Travel Generated 164 861 676 951 131 436

Personal Income $1,395 $7,350 $5,768 $7P257 .$1,116 $3,721

% of Total 3.90% 4.14% 4.33% 2.13% 1.03% 11.09%
Personal Income

% of Total 4.72% 6.07% 7.120/ 3.28% 1.34% 15.43%
Employment

Source: Tourist Industry Growth Study, Travel Bureau, DOC, Michigan, 1977.

ENERGY

Current Status

Until recently, the topic of energy generally merited s'cant attention in the
development of a plan. Now, the amount and type of energy available is a
critical factor in any study considering commercial, residential, or industrial
growth or a project such as.a general cargo facility. Because both present
and potential energy facilities are adjacent to the bay and directly affect
it, their consideration is a logical and necessary part of a bay management
program.

Unfortunately, truly reliable data on overall energy use and probable need 'is
too often unavailable. Most such information has been collected only recently ,
if at all. Some data that is collected by government agencies from corporate
users is also unavailable in the sense that it cannot be reported directly.
In a rural area with few suppliers, the problems of disclosure of confidential
information and the fact that service areas don't generally follow political.
boundaries further hampers data collection. Past use and potential need are
also dependent on variables such as weather, tourist fluctuations, and new
industry or process on line at a particular time. Thus, the reliability of.
data runs the gamut from the very reliable.estimates on electric and natural
gas usage through much less reliable information on gasoline, fuel oils, and
diesel fuel to the guesstimate approach to wood usage.

The three sources uti.lize(i by the CUPPAD Regional Commission to date include:
1) A 1972 data study by the Brookhaven National. Laboratory derived from national,
state, and local data; 2) Michigan Energy Administration analysis on an annual
basis for the years 1976 and 1977; and 3) Local information gathered by Regional
Commission staff. Despite the potential inaccuracy of ene:rgy predictions, a
fairly accurate picture augmented by contact with local officials and suppliers,
such as WEPCO, can be presented for a general review of significant issue
areas.. Five issue areas: Electricity, Natural Gas, Other Petro Fuels, Coal,;
and Alternate/Wood Energy Potential are discussed in some detail below.

Electricity

Electric generation and service in the Little Bay de Noc area derives from
four sources: Escanaba municipal system, Mead Corporation mill (Mead generates
its own electric needs by natural gas), Alger-Delta Electric Co-Op (serving
the northern bay and Stonington Peninsula), and the Upper Peninsula Power.
Company, UPPCO, (to whose power grid the municipal and Co-Op systems are
linked). The City 'of Gladstone did operate a coal fired 6,000 KW system. The
city has ceased operation of their power plant as a result of air pollution,
requirements. Power is supplied to city residents by U.P. Power Company.
Total electric consumption and growth in Delta County with comparison to:
adjacent counties is presented in the table below:

Total Electricity Consumption, 1976-1977
in 1,000 KWH

County 1976 1977 % Growth

Alger 771)640 773,270 2.2
Delta 451,370 522,380 15.7
Dickinson 387,050- 395,700 2.2
Marquette 528@610 503,580 -4.7
Menominee 186,760 200,910 7.6
Schoolcraft 132$190 1521070 15.0

Sour ce: MEA Fuel Demand Report.

The Alger County statistics reflect the Kimberly Clark mill use and the decrease
in Marquette County is probably accountable to the iron strike affecting 1177 *
In Delta County, the growth in demand is due to the expansions at Harnischfeger
and rapid increases in residential growth.

The City of Escanaba operates a coal fired 25,000 KW plant. The recent successful
bond issue will enable the city-to install pollution control equipment which
should bring the plant into compliance with EPA/DNR air pollution control
regulations. The plant has been in violation of those regulations resulting
in the immediate area being classified as a "non-attainment area" which could
have constraining effects on area development. The bond issue does not address
power generation and that presents the immediate problem.

Demand on the Escanaba system is expected to reach its capacity at about 1985.
Contracts between the city and UPPCO providing for electricity from the latter
could extend that critical date to 1988. However, the problem is clearly one
requiring positive action in the near future.

Two possibilities are presently being explored by the city in light of the
uncertainty surrounding WEPCO's Ford River plant plans. The first is expansion
of the present plant through addition of a diesel fueled "peaking unit" that
would operate during periods of high electric demand. The second is a 5 to 6
million dollar power line extension from Escanaba to Iron Mountain which would
provide linkage into UPPCO electric power for future needs. A perceived
advantage for the power line extension concept is that it could be utilized to
transfer power from as well as to Little Bay de Noc which would be a great
asset should'a WEPCO plant come into reality. The power line extension would
appear to be'the favored alternative at this time.

One problem area for the City of Escanaba is plant age 'and size. The plant is
more than 30 years old, and considered short of peak power capacity. For
UPPCO, Escanaba, and the Alger-Delta Electric Co-Op, some new distribution
lines will be necessary, but are not expected to require significant new
rights-of-way. The municipal owned system is funded through bonds and thus
face a severe financial problem for expansion. There is a need for technical
and financial assistance for the system from other sources.

The electric supply situation surrounding Little Bay de Noc thus may be viewed
as a limiting factor to growth and as an area req uiring immediate and continuing
attention. It is equally clear that the systems are joined together in a
power grid and solutions are interdependent. One overall approach to providing
sufficient electric supply will likely emerge in the near future. Any con-
sideration of new commercial/industrial facilities would be incomplete without
review of this problem area.

One perceived potential solution to power needs is the on again, off again
plan of WEPCO to construct a power plant in the Ford River area close to :
Little Bay de Noc. At present, plans to construct either in Ozau'kee County,
Wisconsin, or Ford River Township have been delayed. Reduced peak demand
forecasts have allowed WEPCO to plan construction of the plant for the early:
1990's instead of 1987, as previously announced.

This timetable seems to assume WEPCO's ability to proceed with its nuclear
construction program in a timely manner. It also assumes that demand forecasts
will not change. Such forecasts have been characterized by unexpected changes
since the early 1970's.

New advance plans still indicate that bo 'th sites will eventually be chosen as
plant locations. However, a company decision cannot yet be considered final.
Such a decision would also not guarantee success in the permit proces.s or
eventual completion by a set timetable.

C4-
The potential constru k-ion in Ford River Township is, to say the least, a
controversial issue in the Little Bay de Noc area. A 400 MW plant is proposed
and an idea of its size may be gained from the fact that Escanaba and Gladstone
combined potentially produce 31 MW's at present. The plant's annual consumption
of coal is estimated at about 240,000 tons. A WEPCO plant of that size would,
of course, be a regional power source providing a service area stretching well
beyond the Little Bay de Noc area. The effects of the plant, both on communities
and the environment, would primarily be felt locally and there are differing
opinions on the balance that would be struck. Full analysis and response to
its impact awaits some final decision by WEPCO.

Natural Gas

Natural gas into the area generally comes from the field of the Permian Basin
in Texas through northern natural gas lines. The Little Bay de Noc area is
primarily served by the Michigan Consolidated Gas Company. The natural gas
serving this area is regulated in price by the U.S. Interstate Commerce Commission
and most of it is "old" gas from wells in production prior to 1974. Gas price
deregulation is not expected to have a large effect on natural gas prices in
the next three to five year period, but this is a business presently prone to
surprises and uncertainty. The price fluctuates and, although there is@ample
natural gas at present in the area, it is not safe to plan ahead on:an assumption
that it will continue. Use of natural gas, as discussed below;.is also under
federal regulation. -Michigan Energy Administration estimates on natural gas
consumption in selected counties, for comparisons, follow.

Total Natural Gas Consumption, 1976-1977
@in Million Cubic Feet

County 1976 1977 Change

Alger 400 387 -3.3
Delta 8,393 8,523 -1.7
Dickinson 2,986' 2,928 -2.0
Marquette 16,642 21,092 +12.7
Menominee 1,797 1,639 -9.1.
Sc'hoolcraft 655 585 -10.3

The downturns are a reflection of a milder 1977 winter and some conversion to
other fuels.

Percentage Natural Gas Use by County, 1976-1977

1976 - 1977
Residential/ Residential/
County Commercial Industrial Commercial Industrial

Alger 100.0 0.0 96.9 3.1
Delta 22.8 77.2 2.2.1 77.9
Dickinson 58.9 41.1 57.1 42.8
Marquette 10.6 89 `4 8.4 91.6
Menominee 67.4 32.1 66.8 32.6
Schoolcraft 91.6 8.4 90.5 9.5

Jhe high industrial use figures for Marquette and Delta Counties reflects
natural gas use to bake iron ore pellets and in Delta, Mead Corporation's use
as a principal fuel for its boiler system. For some very excellent reasons,
the Mead Corporation project contemplates use of a coal/wood system.

There is currently no shortage of natural gas for the area. Natural gas
service is under federal allocations and regulation, however, essentially
requiring:

- Gas service to communities not currently having gas service is precluded.
- For those communities with gas service lines, extensions are possible, but
use guarantees and deposits are required until there are sufficient customers
on an extension to pay its cost.
- A company serving the area may acquire new residential, commercial, or
industrial customers, but:
New industrial customers may not use the gas for either drying operations
or as a boiler fuel. Space heating and any process is allowed, but
again:
---New-industrial users face daily and annual maximums, depending on the
type of service.

The bottom line for the Little Bay de Noc program is that natural gas, for a
variety of reasons, will not be the fuel of the future for growth. Conservation
and conversions will be more likely than expanded use. Coal and wood appear
to be prime in industrial and electric consideration and this fact, barring
some new Alaskan 'supply, will have significant impact on potential port traffic
and facilities.

Other Petro Fuels

'Data on gasoline, diesel, fuel oils,:and bottle gds-is,much more-sketchy than
the figure:3 above. There are three sou rces,for th ese -products to or through
the Little Bay de Noe area:

- The Lakehead Pipeline cutting west to east with ef breakpoint@'at Rapid River.
The only product delivered is Number 4 grade,' equivalent'fuel oil,.destined
for CCI to the north.
- Outside pipeline and tanker terminals, predominantly-Gieen Bay. The local
wholesalers, for Mobile and Texaco products,'receive shipments by truck from
there.
- Tanker to the port facilities along the Escanaba/Wells/Gladstone area whose
1977 terminal fuel capacities appear below.

Tanker Terminal Fuel Capacities
by Fuel Type, 1977 as barrels

Marathon Citgo Amoco Shell Bay de Noe
Gladstone Gladstone Escanaba, Escanaba Gladstone
Regular Gas 51,500 129,000 801000 67,5o6 26 $1000"
Premium Gas 14,000 19,000 31)000* 14,500
No Lead Gas 14,000 36,000 53,000
No. 1 Fuel Oil 19,500 60,000 53,000 55,000
No. 2 Fuel Oil 53,000** 285,000** 80,000 82,500 @100,000**
Diesel 541000

*Amoco premium is also no lead.
**Some of this fuel oil is also used as diesel fuel.

Figures on use are difficult to come by and their accuracy may certainly be
questioned. Among the problems in data collection:,

- End use is seldom recorded at point of sale.
- Trade areas differ for both retail and wholesale@sources,@from political@
(much less Bay de Noe) boundaries.
- Much of the product is consumed by tourist�,or seasonal residents.
- Recording of sales is voluntary. I

For what they,may be worth, the Michigan Energy Administration.offers the
following 107 comparative statistics:

1976-1977 Gasoline Consumption
(in 1,000 gallons)

County 1976 1977 % Change

Alger 6,723 5,845 -13.1
Delta 19,860 24,336 +25.2
Dickinson 13,795 13,568 -1.7
Marquette 40,586 46,384 +14.3
Menominee 141433 13,777 -4.5
Schoolcraft 5,750' 4,312 -25. 0

Generally, data on sales, consumptioli, and end use of diesel and bottle gas
around the bay has not been attempted. Estimate -and conclusions regarding
potentiat by long.-,term,residents and businessmen are probably the most useful
to the study. Conclusions reached in.the recently adopted Regional Energy
Plan regarding Delta County as a whole:

The distributors -in.Delta County receive nearly all motor fuels by ship or
barge and deliver to retailers by-truck.
Approximately 86% of total gasoline consumption in the county is for
transportation, 13%, for re.sidentiallcommercial uses in recreation, construction,
and agriculture,;with the remaining 1% used by industry.
Diesel oil consumption is reported to have a slightly higher residential/
commercial use at about 16%.

An assumption that may be made for purposes of the Little Bay de Noc study is
that demand for these products will remain and grow roughly commensurate with
overall growth and that the supply will continue to predominantly come through
port facilities of the bay.

Coal

Army'Corps of En'gineers 1977 statistics "on Little Bay de Noc indicates the
154,722 tons o.f.coal were. shipped in the bay that year. Principal users were
the electric generating facilities. The Mead Expansion can be expected to add
to this total, as would any new industrial development. Coal shipments and
availability pay thus be expected to continue to grow ar!d will continue to be
delivered through present,port facilities.

Alternate/Wood Energy Potential

Wood has continued to be a major residential fuel in the county. In the past
four years it has increased in use considerably. Wood's commercial and industrial
use as a fuel has been more limited. However, Mead paper has begun to use its
residual bark and fine materials as a boiler fuel.

In the future,.yood use as a fuel is expected to increase. A major portion of
Mead's proposed expansion is a reboiling to use a wood-coal mix as the firm's
.primary fuel. Other smaller firms are also considering various types* of wood
fired boilers and furnaces.

The sourc es of wood fuel vary but are considerable. 'Both the national and
state forests are allowing cutting in certain areas as a process of thinning
stands. Tops left from pulp and logging operations are,also available.

Private land owners are making available individual trees as a way of clearing
undesireable species or deceased or dead trees.

A major development has been the purchases of the "40's" by local individuals
.as a method of.having a guaranteed wood supply.

THREE: GOALS AND POLICIES
The Little Bay de Noc Management Program is prepared for adoption as part of
the Delta County Comprehensive Plan. As such, it may be seen as a study
indicating objectives and projects, for carrying out already adopted goals and
policies of the County Comprehensive Plan as well as indicating new goals and
policies that require future adoption. The following are suggested additions
to the Goals, Policies, and Objectives of the Count Comprehensive Plan.

1. Under the Transportation Goal stated:

"Improve all modes and arteries of transportation in a balanced
relationship to each other and as integral parts of a regional and
statewide transportation system."

The objective should be added:
Establish a Port Authority to coordinate the development and provide
for the operation of new port facilities.

2. Under the Natural Features goal stated:

"Preserve and enhance Delta County's natural enviroment."

The objective should be added:

Coordinate the public land use management for Little Bay de Noc in
such a fashion that;

a. Utilizes the Delta County Planning Commission as the central
coordinating body.
b. Involves all units of government along the bay.
c. Leads to coordinated and rational regulation of growth and land
use that protects property values and public uses and resources
of the bay.

All other recommendations of the study are specific projects for implementing
the more general goals and policies of the adopted County Comprehensive Plan.

FOUR: PROGRAM OBJECTIVES

DEVELOPMENT OF A PORT'AUTHORITY

After review of the alternatives ' including utilization of the County Economic
Development Corporation or the formation of a separate authority under the
Urban Cooperation Act, the Technical Advisory Committee chose to recommend the
formation of a new Port Authority. -The Port Authority would involve both
cities and the county under this recommendation (the legislation does not
provide for direct township involvement) and would operate as 'a Harbor Commission
until the Articles of Incorporation for the Port Authority are state approved.
The Harbor Commission would have.a. number of appointees and an organization
that could easily transfer to a Port Authority once the Articles are approved.
Other recommendations include potential use of the site just south of the
Reiss Coal Dock and the review of bulk cargo as most promising initially.
Recently, Delta Count received word that its application to do a e;ngineer,@u
r
S:
study of port expan I had been approved and would be funded by t e Michigan
_si!on te
-fS1rVfflLrfft-bT"T'raW9'por ation. It is critical that full advantage be taken of
'Dor@
Ve a
this opportunity to continue work toward new port facilities. The best utilization
of the funds and the engineering consultants that would be hired with those
funds would involve a local group that worked exclusively on the project so as
to gain local expertise that represents different units of government so as to
gain broad local support. It is suggested that the group to directly overview
the study and to work with the engineers be the new Harbor Commission/ Port
Authority. It is recommended that the Harbor Commission/Port Authority have
the following representative membership:

2 members appointed by the City of Escanaba
I.member appointed by the City of Gladstone
3 members appointed by Delta County
1 member appointed by the Governor

The county should app'oint members who would represent the wishes or desires of
the townships in the bay area.

CAPITAL IM]:1ROVEHENTS PROGRAM

Introduction

Capital improvement projects are major projects that require the expenditure
of funds above and beyond those of operating expenses. There are two broad
categories of capital projects: a) replacement items, and b) new projects or
purchases.

.Generally, most capital projects have the following common characteristics:

1. They are of large size.
2. They are of fixed nature.
3. They zre of long life (10 to 30 years).
4. They involve expenditures of a non-recurring-nature.''
5. They provide governmental facilities for public service.
6. They add substantially to the value of the fixed assets:of the governm .ents.

Some specific examples of capital improvement:@'projects are:

civic center relocation of people
boat launches an-nex to apublic building
harbor facilities swimming pool
park architect and engineer fees
playground demolition of buildings

The Capital. Improvements Program is the developmeht of a pr6posed schedule'of
public physical improvements over a certain peri6d of-time. The capital
program itself is a multi-year list of pr6posed projects based on a:series of
priorities, according to the need, desire, and importance of such improvements,
as well as the communities' present and anticipated financial status.'

There are many benefits of a Capital Improvement Program, including:@-
1. Attent'ion is focused on the goals, policies, and objectives in the' Delta
County Comprehensive Plan as amended by,the Little Bay'de Noc Management
I .
Study in setting priorities for the projects."The plan recognizes the
needs of the area, and projects will be focused on those needs.

2. Optimum use is made of the scarce taxpayer's dollars for capital projects.
Advance planning helps avoid costly mistakes. -Completed projects wili be
less likely to be torn up in the process of constructing new projects.

3. Greater cooperation and coordination will be possible among the units of
government and the state in the bay area. Possible'-conflict or-overlap
in construction may be discovered and corrected. Work should become more
effectively scheduled. A project the-state'may be planhing-qould,be
combined with a project a township is thinking about.!

4. Opportunities for participation inifeder-61,or'state grant programs will
be enhanced because there will be a ready list o f long-term improvements
ready to be funded. Funding agencies require projects to'be prioritized
prior to submission for grants.

The projects in this Capital Improvements Program are consistent with and help
to implement the goals, policies, and objectives of the Delta County Comprehensive
Plan.

The.-Projects.,

The -following projects.are-being recommended and prioritized by the Little Bay
de Noc Technical Advisory Committee. Possible funding sources are indicated
for each project.

The projects listed below include three functional areas: Recreation, Environment,
and Transportation. The Advisory Committee decided to concern themselves with
projects that would have an impact upon the waters of Little Bay de Noc.

The projects in each functional area have been grouped into three categories:
High, Medium, and Low Priority. Projects classified as High Priority are of
extreme importance to.the,area,@and should be undertaken as soon as they can be
funded. Projects designated as Medium Priority are needed but should be
implemented only after the,High_Pr.iority projects have been given consideration.
Those designated as Low Priority are desirable but may be postponed.

Recreation

High Priority Projects Source of Funding

1. Small boat launch facility, City of Escanaba Marina DNR/Local
2. Major Maintenance, City pf Escanaba Marina Local
3. Beach Nourishment, City pf Escanaba Municipal Beach Corp/Local
4. Passive-Recreation Area-Sand Island, City of Escanaba DNR/Local
:5. 1mprovements to Twin Springs/May'wood Park Forest Service
6. Public Access Site at.either Martin Bay or
."Farmers Dock" Location, Bay de Noc Township DNR
7. Improvements to Fuller Park, Ford River Township LAWCON/Local
a) Stabilize'Riv'erbani
b) Pit Toilets
c) Develop Day-Use/Parking west of M-35 (or)
Stabilize Rivo@rbank and Stairway Access

Medium Priority Projects

I.- Public Access Site-at Mouth of Escanaba River,
Wells Township. DNR
2. Improvements to Marina, City of Gladstone LAWCON/Local

Low Priority Projects

i.,.,Majpr,Mariqa Construction,-City of Escanaba DNR/Local
2. Neighborhood Park-Dock Area (North), City of
Escanaba DNR/Local
3. Improvements to Fuller Park,.Ford-River Township Y-AWCON/Local
a) Bruqhing and Tree Thinning
b). Road Improvements and/or,Relocation
c) 'Signing

Source of Funding

d) Primitive Campsites
e) Fire Rings
f) Picnic Tables and Grill's
g) Increased Maintenance and Trash Recepticals
h) Beach Cleanup
i) Pedestrian Walkway
j) Play Equipment
k) Access Control
1) Limited Camping/Day-Use West of M-35
m) Possible Ball Field Development

Environment

High Priority Projects
1. Wastewater system for Community of Rapid River EPA/DNR/FmHA
2. Water Plant Standby Power, City of Escanaba HUD/Local
3. Wastewater System Improvements, City of Escanaba Undetermined
4. North Bluff Water Storage Tank, City of Gladstone EDA/FmHA/UGL/Local
5. Standby Generator for Water and Wastewater Plants, FmHA
City of Gladstone
6. 2" and 4" Waterlines FmHA

Medium Priority Projects

1. New Water Intake System, City of Escanaba HUD/Local
2. Wash Water Reclaim and Sludge Disposal for Undetermined
Water Treatment Plant
3. Wastewater System Improvements, City of Gladstone Undetermined
4. 10" and 12" Water Mains - Minneapolis Street FmHA
Extension, City of Gladstone
5. Alternate Intake Line FmHA/Local

Low Priority Projects

1. Sewer Extension to McGillis & Gibbs Property EDA

Transportation

High Priority Projects
1. Improvements to County Road 513, Bay de Noc & MTF
Ensign Townships

Coordination

The general coordination of the Capital Improvements Program should rest with
the Delta County Planning Commission. Though the projects may be located in
one township, persons in adjoining communities will benefit from the project.
The Delta County Planning Commission has the jurisdiction, representation, and
authority to bring the various local governments, state or federal agencies,
and local interests together to implement these combined solutions to local
needs.

Abbreviations

DNR" Department of Natural Resources
Corp Army Corps of Engineers
LAWCON Land, Air, Water Conservation Fund
EPA Environmenta,l Protection Act
FmHA Farmers Home Admini'str'ation
HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development
MTF Motor Transportation Fund

MANAGEMENT/REGULATORY RECOMMENDATIONS

The earlier sections in this report have detailed the needs for recreational
needs, habitat protection, and regulatory -.coordination. The recommendations
to the state or federal government regarding recreational development on their
public land have been included within the Capital Improvements Program. A map
depicting the areas most in need of protection to protect critical fish habitat
has been.completed as part of this study. It is recommended that these now be
taken into consideration in the review of.local regulations.

The continuing implementation'of this..report should remain the responsibility
of the Delta County Planning @6mmission. State statute charges the Commission
with the responsibility of coordinating pi'anning efforts in the county. The
Commission should meet this responsibility through four ongoing activities.

First, the local land use regulations in the bay area should be examined for
their impact on the bay, especially in light of this study.

Seconqly,,.changes should be recommended to local units for these regulations.
These cha'nges should be the product'oi the revised policies of the County
Comprehensive Plan, the,soi@ls map,. the bay atlas, the fish habitat map, the
historic areas,.map, and all other information developed in this report and the
Comprehensive Plan. These changes should improve the efforts of local units
of government in managing the Little Bay @e Noc area. They should bring the
- ; a
local units of government together to recognize the interdependence of their
actions on the bay and the need to establish some degree of conformity in
their management.

Thirdly, the mechanism for County Planning Commission review of Little Bay de
Noc Management should be impro-@ed. The Commission should be continually
informed of public management actions-around the bay. Those actions should be
reviewed for their impact on the bay and the appropriate comments made.

Finally, the-Delta County Vlanning qommission.should provide the leadership in
the implementation of a "one stop" permit process. Such a process should
simplify the problems caused by multiple permits as well as aid in the Planning
Commission's coordinating role. The exact order and identification of necessary
permits and forms is set out in a publication developed by the CUPPAD Regional
Commission entitled:, "Waterfront.Development Guide."

NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY

3-6668 14111876 2