[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
......... ... . . . . . . . . . . . Z81" J LAKE MICHIGAN SHORELINE 1979-80 GRANT PARKTO BENDER 0,11ril SHORE PROTECTION & PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT MILWAUKEE CO. PARK COMMISSION NELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. AMERICAN APPRAISAL CO. AsSMAho WISCONSIN & FEDERAL COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRA@ MILWAUKEE COUNTY PARK COMMISSION - 1980 Hyman D. Popuch, President Ferdinand A. Glojek, Vice President Janet K. Pelland, Secretary Daniel Cupertino, Jr. Celia Seraphim 0. C. White G,e org e @Dp n ova n PARTICIPATING COUNTY STAFF Robert J. Mikula , Director of Parks, Recreation & Culture Irving F. Heipel, County Landscape Architect James Bonifas, Corporation Counsel Thomas Borgwardt, Supervising Engineer, Architectural & Engineering Division MILWAUKEE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - 1980-84 I Bernice K. Rose 14 Richard D. Nyktewicz, Jr. 2 William E. Meaux 15 James Koconis 3 Penny E. Podell 16 F. Thomas Ament 4 Harout 0. Sanasarian 17 Daniel Cupertino, Jr. 5 Paul F. Mathews 18 Fred N. Tabak 6 Robert L. Jackson, Jr. *19 John,-D. St. John 7 Terrance L. Pitts 20 Richard H, Busster 8 Gerald D. Engel 21 James J. Lynn 9 fames A. Krivitz 22 Joseph M. Hutsteiner 10 Paul A. Henningsen 23 James R. Ryan 11 John J. Valenti *24 Thomas P. Kujawa 12 Bernadette Skibinski 25 Thomas A. Bailey 13 Dorothy K. Dean *Study Area Superviso !rs William F. O'Donnell, County Executive MUNICIPAL STAFF COORDINATION Paul E. Milewski, Director of Planning, City of Oak Creek Norbert S. Theine, City Administrator, City of South Milwaukee Financial Assistance to Milwaukee County to undertake this study was provided by the State of Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, Department of Administration, and by the U.S. Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under the Federal Coastal Zone and Management Act of 1972, as amended. PARTICIPATING STAFF CONSULTANTS SUBMITTING THIS REPORT: Russell Knetzger NELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Thomas Kindschi Land Planning and Development Consultants William L. Nelson 1733 North Farwell Avenue Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 Willia m T. Pa inter, Ph. D. , P. E. FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. John M. Murphy, Geologist Soil-Rock Consultants 2116 West Cornell Street Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53209 James R. Scott AMERICAN APPRAISAL COMPANY R.J. Gemeinhardt Valuation Investigation and Reports O.W. Liessmann 525 East Michigan Avenue Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201 'CIA US Department of Commerce NOAA Coastal Services Ce-@jter Library 2234 South Habsc-n Avcfyac Charleston, SC Cl< Cj LAKE MICHIGAN SHORELINE STUDY 1979-80 GRANTPIARKTO BENDER PARK SHORE PROTECTION & PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT MILWAUKEE CO. PARK COMMISSION NELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. AMERICAN APPRAISAL CO. N ASSISTANCE :WISCONSIN & FEDERAL COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS TABLE OF CONTEN-TS SUMMARY EXISTING SHORELINE CONDITIONS SHORELINE EROSION: CAUSES AND C U R E S 18 RECREATION PLANS WITH SHORELINE STABILIZATION 21 IMPLEMENTATION AND'COSTS 25 APPENDIX FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. Feasibility Reports No. 1, No. 2, No. 3 AMERICAN APPRAISAL CO. Report on Riparian Rights SUMMARY 1. STUDY AREA: A total of 3.5 miles of shoreline along Lake Michigan, extending from the mouth of the Oak Creek in the City of South Milwaukee, to the Oakwood Road in the City of Oal-, Creek. Some attention has also been given to the half mile south of Oakwood Road to Elm Road, and the Grant Park Shoreline north of the Oak Creek. 2. EXISTING OWNERSHIP: Of the 3.5 miles of shoreline, about 45% is presently in private ownership, and 55% in public. If the half mile between Oakwood and Elm Roads, now owned by WEP Co. , becomes public shoreline as proposed, the ratio could become 53% public and 47% private. 3. BLUFF CHARACTER: 50 to 120 feet high above Lake Michigan, 70 to 80 feet in most places. Soils are mostly clays, but layers of sand combined with ground water provide an unstable "layer cake effect". The bluff angle is 44 to 55 degrees of slope. 4. EXTENT AND RATES OF SHORELINE EROSION: Erosion is extensive and present throughout the study area , except at the South Shore Sewage Treatment Plant at Pubtz Road, where the shoreline has been stabilized.. Virtually no plant growth rem6ins on the bluff face. Erosion has been measured since 1836, and over this 144 year period, the least amount of loss is 87 feet of bluff at Grange Avenue, and the greatest losses are at Ryan and Oakwood Roads, exceeding 370 feet. Thus average loss ranges from V. 5 to 2 .1.6 feet a year.. The erosion rate at the Ryan Road the last 15 years has bee n 5 feet per year. 5. CAUSES OF BLUFF EROSION: A. Undercutting by wave action of Lake Michigan at the base of the bluff. B. G r o u n d W a t e t' see-page, through the bluff from the top, interacting with the unstable soil layers. Both causes of erosion must be addressed in any shoreline stabilization program. 6, METHODS OF SHORELINE STABILIZATION: i Slop@ Grading (to around 20 to 25 degrees) not recommended here because the bluff is higher than 40 feet and because of cost, great loss of top .1 bluff area. Might be suitable in Grant Park if recreational use made of s!6pe. ii Rubble and Rock Fill recommended, using "once in a lifetime" rock be@ng generated by metropolitan Milwaukee SeWri-,,rage District. iii Seawalls not recommended here because hillsides have internal seepage layers and would erode above@ seawall height. Seawall costs are too high. 7. RECREATIONZSTABILIZATION PLANS: Scheme A - Minimum Land Fill., Four mile long bike and foot trail in a stabilized bluff and beach zone the entire length, new marina at Bender. Park, enlarged marina at South Milwaukee. Assumes all private riparian rights obtainable. Requires 5.5 million cubic yards of fill. Scheme B - Maximum Land Fill. Same recreational features as A, but more diversity with sheltered lagoons, shoreline extended out 800 - 1000,feet. Assume s all private riparian rights obtainable. Require s 14 million cubic yards of fill, which exceeds MMSD potential unless MMSD returns to earlier plan of large deep tunnels. Scheme C Beach and Bluff Stabilization of Public Lands. Assumes private lands or riparian rights not obtainable in useful segments. Stabilizes 4 miles of beach with offshore protection creating many sheltered lagoons, same recreational features as A and B. Stabilizes bluff on public lands, with option to stabilize private bluffs later as public acquisition is agreed. Requires 8 million cubic yards of fill. 8. COSTS: (PI acement only, no land purchase, assume free fill) Scheme A $33 Million Scheme B $ 72 Million .Scheme C $48 Million These costs are assumed to be prohibitive as -a pa rk project. Only.with MMSD taking on the project as part of its fill disposal program, which it must do one way or another anyway, can the costs be. affordable. 9. IMPLEMENTATION-. Outside of County government main approval for the plan must come from the US Army Corps of Engineers, who will..also involve the US Environmental Protection Agency. The tw.o local municipalities -- City of South Milwaukee and City of Oak Creek should also be contacted. The Corps may need an environmental assessment or statement 'to reach a decision. That could be most effectively provided by having the MMSD include these project proposals in its comprehensive tI8 process already underwa y. tX-1-STING SHORELINE CONDITIONS STUDY AREA On the following two pages are a pair of maps which show the enitre study area. Involved are 3.5 miles of Lake Michigan shoreline, from the mouth of the Oak Creek at the southern end of Grant Park in South Milwaukee south to the Oakwood Road. The northern 1. 0 mile is in the City of South Milwaukee, and the southern 2 .5 miles is in the City of Oak Creek. Another 0.5 miles, from Oakwood Road South to Elm Road has for some purposes been included in this s5tudy because the shoreline, now owned by the Wisconsin Electric Power Company, is shown under City of Oak Creek plans to 1@bcome available again for other private and public uses. SHORELINE OWNERSHIP Shoreline ownership falls into two categories, the above water lands, and the submerged lands. Rights to the submerged lands, normally vested in the State, were ceded by the State of Wisconsin in 1935 to Milwaukee County for the first 2400 feet out from the shoreline in the study area giving the County rights to fill these lands above water level for recreational uses. The interaction between the County's right to fill, and the landward owner's riparian rights of access to Lake Michigan, are summarized in the Appendix report by American Appraisal Co. The following two maps show shoreline ownership only in terms of the' landward zone giving the stretches of private and public ownership. These are summarized in the table below. More detail on these ownerships are available in the American Appraisal Co. report mentioned above. STUDY AREA SHORELINE Percent Miles Ownership City of South Milwaukee Shoreline 3.7% 0.13 Public 24.9% 0.87 Private 28.6% 1.00 City of Oak Creek Shoreline 50.0% 1.35 Public 21.4% 0.75 Private 61.4% 2.50 100.0% 3.50 Total 53.7% 1.90 (Public) 46.3% 1.60 (Private) Over the entire 3. 5 mile shoreline, roughly 45% is private and 55% is public. If the additional half mile that may become surplus from the WEP Co. is included, the ratio could become either 53% publiq/47% private if that shoreline goes private, or 60% public/40% private if that shoreline goes public. The alternate shoreline plans presented later in this report, based upon concepts contained in City of Oak -Creek plans, place the actual shoreline and landfill in public, and the balance of the upper bluff in private. ANITOB LAGOON OR A N T. MINNESOTA AVE. MONR GOL F COURSE OE AVE. No MILWAUKEE AVE. iiU @i C) MADISON AV E. WISCONSIN F APPLETON CO. MARQUETT AVE. MONTANA AVE. WATER MtREATMENT. P PUBLIC CITY OF1 MW SOUTH MILWAUKEE Jy 9 J MARION AVE. LAKEVIEW AVE. SCHOOL []o EVERSPITE ELECTRIC SIGNS MANISTIQUE AVE. HOVSINQ > PROJECT MACKINAC LITTLE LEAGU E SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT E. MARINA ROAD co A .@QLIJM IA_ AVE. 7X - LAKEVIEW RD. LIR"w 'EM19- LIAMS EDGEWOOD 14 13 ED'S RD pv@ufty On. VOMMILD 00 moll hoLEAponst WRON JASO@ CT Is w, CT UETZ 2 *O.n RIVIRTOW RD., dWACr LUF00. CNLWPCN mc.,g OR-c.*A-.E cm PUBLIC C44"I roff SCMOOL 23 4 AMERICA. AVE.. Sr WArl`Wl CATHOLIC Cmtwo 'Ll@ AYE L, scwoi a C, AVE rwrlv AfCOWATIOM AAIFI.CAC CITY OF NO OAK CREEK 44 WAD) ji, OR "I WE. 01 ROAD 0 BRIE. -.3 PATON NO m SCANLAIN lAlFM rA N Y SCMOOL L- ROAD 311, 5" tl@w W A IW JVAAS Pl4JVff f cl co ft4#r V-1:21U.-I z -@Ar L'"[ ANfWAUJrff COl1jVrr MACIALF CVwrr LAND USE The accompanying fold out aerial photograph, taken in 1975 for the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, shows the basic patterri.of,la,nd-tise., abutting the shoreline study area North of the Oak.Creek in the City of South Milwaukee, the features of Grant Park are plainly visible in the up 'er 4 inche's of the,_.aerial, map. p Immediately south.of @Oak Creek' s junction with Lake Michigan, the facilities of the South Milwaukee Yacht Club appear, followed by a short stretch of vacant land, and then the Everbrite Sign Company. South of Everbrite is South 1\/.Iilwaukee's own sewage treatment plant, more@ vacant.shore line, and then the backyards of resi- dences facing 3rd Avenue, south to the South Milwaukee - Oak Creek boundary, which would be Forest Hill extended. Within Oak Creek, the first three. fourths. mile (About 2 inches on the aerial) is the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District' s Puetz Road - South Shore Treat- ment Plant, with its prominent fill out into Lake Michigan. Industrial devetopment'-on topiof the -bluff continues for the next half mile southerly and then a quarter mile of vacant, private landto Ryan Road extended before reaching Bender Park. Bender Park extends about one mile, from Ryan Road to Oakwood Road. As of 1975 when this aerial wa-s'taken, little actual park - type development had ta-ken place within Bender Park, and that is' still largely the case. South of Oakwood Roa'd, extending to the Wisconsin Electric Power Company's large coal- fired Oa.k Creek Power Plant at the end of the aerial, is a half mile of natural shoreline. On" top the bluff is visible a substantial landfill operation by WEP Cc. ret6ted Lto dis posa.1 bi their fly a S)1.1-.;- BASIC TOPOGRAPHY Later in this report i-s-..a series of.three fold out maps on which topography is shown in 10 foot contour intervals. Examination of any one of these maps, pre- pared by the US Geological Survey, shows that most of the land for the first mile and a half inland of the shoreline is abc)ut 700 feet above mean sea level, ranging down to elevation 650 at the very top of the shoreline bluff. The'average elevation for La ke Michigan is S80 feet above sea level, so that the bluff throughout the study area averages, in-the vicinty of 70 feet. high above beach level. These contours also show that surface waters imove toward Lake Michigan, but rather slowly in many places given the fairly level nature of much of the land. This move- ment of surface water, and the lack of extensive storm sew'er development, gives maximum opportunity for saturation' of subsoils. 4 V d jj- -Al "All Ac it 17 iik IL .0t NON* gem 14= JW a rip 31 IBM im-W 'om BLUFF AND BEACH EROSION RECESSION RATES Following the fold-out aerial photograph is a series of photographs taken of various sections of the study area shoreline in the fall of 1979. Photography and annotations have been done by John M. Murphy, geologist with Foundation Engineering, Inc. These photographs show that throughout the study area the shoreline bluff and beach are suffering extensive and continual erosion. Only where the South Shoretre.otment plant has stabilized the shoreline has erosion ceased. The extent and causes of this erosion are discussed in more detail in the Foundation Engineering Inc. reports later on, but briefly two causes are at work and should be kept in mind as the photographs are examined- A. Undercutting of the bluff by Lake Michigan wave action. B. Gr,(Dui�'dWater seepir)g through the top of the bluff, mixing with the "layer cake" of soil types present. Erosion will continue unless both causes are addressed. Measurements of the bluff have been kept since 1836, and over the 144 year period to 1980, the bluff has receded the least at Grange Avenue 87 feet, and the most at Ryan Road and Oakwood Road -- 370+ feet. The average is 0,'s a foot to 2 . 6 feet per year. At Ryan Road 74 feet have been lost in just the last 15 years, a rate of 5 feet per year. The photographs show that more erosion is imminent. 7 Looking West from 6300 S. Litt e or no vegetation, sand layer eroding from middle of bluff (sign at top of bluff warning of cliff) 7 Looking West from 6350 S. seeing Cudahy Towers Mud flow, massive erosion If, .'AIL even with vegetation, strat- ification, and erosion of sand layer, 402qM 1IIp -:@4qA 0qWII qtq3q' Looking West from 6625 S. (south of creek in Grant Park) -4q0 Vertical Bluff, qno vegetation, erosion and undercutting of sod, sand layer eroding in bluff, and toe erosion by storm waves even with a beach q-qM0q*q7 8 Looking North from 6700 S. Massive erosion., mud flows, trees falling down the bluff Ar@ 0qA4q48qk4q@ iii Looking Northwest from 6700 S. q11q1-4q4 36qU Example of a more stable bluff 9 -A Looking West from 6700 S. Little or no vegetation on slope, stratification of layers, and toe erosion by storm waves Looking South from6700 S. Extreme erosion of bluff 10 Looking West from 6775 S. Private attempt to halt erosion q-42qw 6qVe@ ooking West from 7100 S. Classic slumping even with vegetation, and toe erosion -4 by storm waves 77- Iqv 'N, Looking West from 7450 S. Seeing beach pavillion at Grant Park More stable bluff Looking South from 7650 S. 4qJ @0"@ Looking West from 7890 S. Water seepage out the face of the bluff, rill erosion increased below seepage 8qkq4q@ 'q4 12 Looking South from 8050 S. seeing Puetz Road Plant Some beach build up north of plant Looking West from 9050 S. Crater-like erosion from slumping iJ 4 SAW 13 Looking South from 9200 S. seeing Oak Creek Power Plant Straight shoreline, no beach, steep slope, and no vegetation on bluff 47-q10q" W V, S6qW A4, Looking North from 9300 S. Illustration on mass erosion 14 0 IA A. Looking down at the lake at 9400 S. Vertical bluff, no beach, massive toe erosion, undercutting, and surface slumps -77 Looking North from 9400 S. seeing Puetz Rd. Plant *"M - Stratification, surface slumping, undercutting at the top, and no beach Looking North from 9900 S. Good example of surface slumping at the upper portion of bluff, a more stable area on the right edge of the photo Looking South from 9900 S. seeing Oak Creek Power Plant Eros ion Looking Northeast from 10000 S. No beach, bad erosion @ , Nit, 77, 16 Looking North from 10050 S. 77, Classic example of the multi- ple slumping blocks '177 Looking North from 10200 S. Decreasing beach and increasing eros ion -.Add" Looking South from 10300 S. seeing Oak Creek Power Plant Slumping, some beach build up just North of power plant 17 SHORELINE EROSION: CAUSES AND CURES Foundation Engineering, Inc. in connection with this study has produced three reports that address the causes and potential solutions to beach and bluff erosion of the Lake Michigan shoreline within the 3.5 miles of study area shoreline. Since their firm also evaluated Grant Park, their reports cover 1.2 additional miles , or 4.7 miles of total shoreline. Titled Feasibility Reports Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and issued between January and August 1980, they are reproduced in full in the Appendix of this report. Feasibility Report No. 1 summarizes samplings of soil taken across the entire bluff face at six locations distributed over the entire study area . The bluff- face analysis shows that conditions between Carrolville and South Milwaukee (stations 11R to 8N) are fairly uniform, but that conditions on either side of this middle zone have substantial differences. Table 1 at the end of Feasibility Report No. I summarizes the conditions at a glance. There are typically half a dozen soil layers that make up the bluff, but the existence of sand layers part way up the bluff reduces the number of significant soil layers to three. Groundwater seepage layers occur at all sites except Carrolville. The bluff face is usually at a slope of 44 to 55 degrees, erosion is recorded at each site, and in three of the six locations no'beach or practically no beach remains. In Grant Park bluff vegetation is still present, at least 50% at the sampling site, but at all other. ,Pampl'ing sites vegetation is virtually non- existant, reaching only 20% near Forest Hill Avenue. The prognosis for continued erosion is bleak. Two of the sites are labeled "unstable for full height" of the bluff, and the balance have various degrees of instability. Feasibility Report -No. 2 provides a cross-check to the investigations of the first report, by sampling through test borings of the bluff. Four borings were made -- three in Grant Park and one in Bender Park. One of the three in Grant Park was started at beach level to provide data on the strata below lake level. At two sites in Grant Park and one in Bender Park groundwater monitoring wells have been left in place for long term evaluation of groundwater fluctuations. Called piezometers, these monitoring wells have been taken over by Milwaukee County's department of public works, who will take the water level readings and maintain logs of the results. Borings and piez'ometers at more frequent intervals along the shoreline should be installed as soon as budget permits. The results of the test borings in Feasibility Report No. 2 confirm the simplified bluff face analysis performed in Report No. 1. 18 Also shown in Report No. 2 are the results of c omputer- performed Stability Analyses of the Bender Park bluff, done by geology Ph.D. candidate Robert Sterrett of the Univeri3@ity of Wisconsin -Madison. These analyses combine the known conditions of groundwater levels (piezometric surfaces ) soil layers, and bluff slope angle, to produce a prediction of whether the bluff face is in a stable or unstable condition. , The stability analyses are performed for various points along the bluff face so that zones of varying degrees of stability can be identified. In the cross section drawings at the end of Report No. 2, these zones are depicted as curves. Where the values read 1. 00 or less, instability exists and further erosion will take place. Mr. Sterrett's work predicts significant additional erosion in Bender Park. However this work also provides the quantitative basis for predicting how much of various types of corrective action need to be- taken to achieve a ratio sufficiently above 1. 00 to provide stability. Fbasibilfty Report No.3 takes the results of the bluff face and boring investigations and concludes that the bluffs are generally unstable, and that stabilization will require control of surface storm water infiltration to prevent shallow sliding, and construction of toe-loads to avoid major landslides. Three stabilization methods are outlined: i Slope Grading ii Rubble and Rock Fill iii Seawall Method (i) slope grading, has been used by MMSD at its South Shore Plant, with toe-loads supplied by the Lake Michigan fill behind sheet steel piling. However, extensive use of this method up and down the shoreline is not recommended because achieving the necessary 20 to 25 degree slope angle will involve moving enormous quantities of earth, and will sacrifice much topland. Private land would especially find the loss of topland a major drawback. Generally where the bluffs are higher than 40 feet, the economics of slope grading do not prove feasible, and for this reason Foundation Engineering, Inc. in its reports does not pursue this alternative. However withing Grant Park and on the shorelibe south of Oakwood Road slope grading might h ave feasibility if. (1) the slope itself is to become a recreational feature such as a downhill ski run, and (2) if in add*ition to the cost of the grading, costs can be included for construction of the necessary armoring against wave action at beach level with concrete rubble and with 4 to 5 and 5 to 8 ton pieces of limestone rip-rap. Method iii, the construction of seawalls with proper below grade foundations, has worked well for Milwaukee County, Parks in' Big Bay Park for over 35 years. 19 They are, however, extremely expensive. Also, where ground water seepage layers exist in the bluff above seawall height, as it would in this case, drainage facilities must be included to prevent slippage of the slope and ground water action on the.1andwardOide of the sea wall. These drainage facilities will require on-going maintenance. Method ii, Rubble and Rock Fill, is the recommended course of action over most@of the study shoreline because of these characteristics: � Less existing topland has to be sacrificed � The method is compatible with the kind of surplus material MMSD will be generating � Construction can take place even where wet soils and surface water are present � Toe-load fill can be transported by trucks, thus avoiding double handling of the material by earth moving equipment. As discussed further in Report No. 3, "Rubble can be placed so as to control groundwater and eliminate 'surface sliding of the hillside soils. Terraces can be constructed, from beach level upward, to eliminate rotational slippage of hillsides, such as are present within the project limits. Feasibility Report No. 3 concludes with cost estimates for this treatment of the subject area, under each of the three alternate recreation plans developed by Nelson & Associates, Inc. The next section of this report presents these three recreation plans, and the final chapter presents the costs together with appraisal material re- lated to riparian values within the study area . 20 RECREATION PLANS WITH SHORELINE STABILIZATION The foll1owing fold-out.maps pires@ent three alternate plans for the study area from the mouth of the 0.6 k `Cre e k -- s outh t o the Oa k Cree k power pla nt. All three plans presume the method of rubble and rock fill outlined as method ii in the Foundation Engineering, Inc. reports in the A ppendix,and as discussed in the preceeding chapter. The plans vary in three wdys -- the quantity of fill required, whether lands that are now private are to be bought and included or not, and the amount of environmental diversity between the plans. All three plans are offered with the hope of close cooperation between the Parks Department , who would have final jurisdiction over the public lands, and the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sew(@,rage District, which maybe producing sufficklient quantities of fill material in the next few years to make the plans feasible. SCHEME A, Minimum Land Fill This plan, by its very title, uses the least fill of the three plans -- 5.5 million cubic yards. As such it falls within the 5 to 8.6 million cubic yards of material the MMSD might be generating from underground tunneling in its expansion program. Scheme A assumes acquisition of all riparian rights from private land owners in the study area, including the half mile from.k)akwood Road to Elm Road, and would stabilize the entire area south of Grant Park. Recreational uses would be confined to 100 to 200 feet of area at the base of the bluff except for the two nodes represented by the expanded South Milwaukee marina, and a new marina to be built at Bender Park. The feasibility and sizes for these two marinas has not been independently studied in this report, that having already been done by the US Army Corps of Engineers in its 1974 report "Lake Michigan Recreational Boating Survey and Analysis. " Reference to "star moorings" in the marinas relates to the system being used on Chicago's lake- front to achieve higher denisty boat storage at less cost than an all fixed system. Given the narrow corridor of recreation land that results-U.ndbria minimum fill plan, the most prominent'recreational use would be linear in nature -- bicycle and foot paths. The route through the Puetz Road sewage treatment plan is feasible,, staff of the MMSD has reported. The steep bluffs in the study area have restricted the number to 5 places that a .lake-level path system could be connected to the top of the bluff. These five are: 1. South Milwaukee Yacht Club Area 2. E. American Avenue extended (City of Oak Creek water department road) 3. Ryan Road to Marina Drive 4. Oakwood Road to Marina Drive 5. Elm Road 21 SCHEME B-Maximum Land Fill This plan requires 14 million cubic yards,,or almosttriple the amount of Scheme A. It exceeds by some 6 million cubic yards what the MMSD would have available, unless the MMSD were to return to the extensive deep tunnel storm overflow storage plan it once considered. The plan has all the features and access points as Scheme A, but by fitting out 800 to 1000 feet to match the South Shore Treatment Plant and the WEP Co. ptant fills, opportunity is introduced for sheltered lagoons and larger play spaces. Actually a plan was drafted that brought the shoreline uniformly out to the South Shore Treatment and power plant fills, but the quantities so exceeded what might be available, that the plan was dropped at an early stage. The concern was that the shoreline be returned to as uniform a beachline as possible, to minimize scouring and deposition action of the lake current that. appears to take place when man-made intrusions are placed out from the shoreline. Again, as with Scheme A, all shoreline from Grant Park to the Oak Creek power plant would be stabilized, requiring the acquisition of all private riparian rights. Also, as with Scheme A, the plan assumes the MMSD would be able to carry out its plan of expanding the South Shore Treatment site into Lake Michigan northerly of its present fill up to the South Milwaukee city limits. A s of the writing of this report that fill plan has failed to receive the necessary approval from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Perhaps as the total opportunities for bluff stabilization, lakefront recreation, and the need for sewerage treatment space are explored with DNR all factors can be related and resolved to everyone's satisfaction . SCHEME C_- Beach and Bluff Stabilization of Public Lands- Until actual negotiations are opened with private land owners in the study area, it is not known how many are actually in favor of selling their riparian rights, and possibly also full title to their shoreline lands. Since the Park Commission has no condemnation power unless endorsed by the local municipality, should some private owners refuse to sell, that may block public action in whole seg- ments of the present private areas. As discussed by Foundation Engineering, Inc. in their reports in the Appendix, stabilization has to be done in meaningful chunks, otherwise the non-stabilized areas lead to undermining of the treated areas. Scheme C has been prepared assuming that some, or even all, presently private lands would not be treatable by the public on terms suitable to the public. Only public shore lands would be stabilized under Scheme C. Therefore bluff stabili- zation of private lands would be left totally in the hands of present private owners. Beach stabilization along stretches of private lands would be done by the public with off-shore fill. The fill would be placed beyond the extent of private riparian 22 A BR 650 T. 5 N.. D Gra V0 Pit e Pit 4152 PARK, -GR n A V, FA7 ZA11 icl JL_ Se td 4e t ZE Y ::Mjl f -A c _W WTj SOUTH MILWAUKEE V51 L11 A P0 C4NNtGT TO V16TIN4 XYCLf TRAIL -fXlbnN6f M@,CH AREA CONNECTIom To 6WIT FhRrl RARKWAY 5aMLW YAWT CLUE, __)N ExOnNA jem FARKIN41 AREA LAUNCHN61 RAMP6 fHLAR4E EXI5TH(j MINA 5TAR MoMtjej CZ4 P19Ft @.wj 100 7ET TurAL %6;. -PARK ]NO AREA __J P B M A PICNIC AREA ...OR 666 DICYCLE FOOT TRAIL - PARK PK)yf C D J6 14 FO E@@'r @_pjLn 4 E Forest Hill P't 4749 Memorial Park tw A WHERE 0 MINIMUM LAND FILL 0. Milk 1980 =UETZ I t 330000 1 - W FEET C) I"- p ............ L 4748 Crib . . ........... 4 i2 611vil e :J E,E K C R 22 3'0 e 100' 5HORE 5TArILLZATION ZONC StMatt;hWvS:':.: Ch u)v i '-_ )2,? St Matth ws Ceni', uj 22 -_-, 2j'-*--':' 47000' N. 0A q 24- #Ei;ory n"61 nA DEACH 0- 7- . . . . . . PARMN11 XAT LAUNCH RAMF5 O@ 0) CD 5TAP, MOORIN61 7PA FIER MOORIN61 U) NEW MAKINA fACILITIE 5 M PIER MOORIN66 4746 FITZS = MON8 7 *V 188 5TAK MOORINi5I6 2 -fZ8 TOTAL MOOKIN(IS PICNIC PARKINCI GREEK "t m-rue/rour rATH f-ARK PRIVF Accf55 PRIV6 0 .. . . . . . . . . ...A 4745 KW VR4_',rTY [ME MICHIGAN SHOREIJIN _H61 '979-80 GRANTPARKTOBEND R SHORE PROTECTION & PUBLIC D C rATH TO MILWAUKEE O.,fARK COMMISSI FED RIAN 04KE wy, 3c NKF 4TftA1 67 ELM GO SULTAR NELSOR & ASSOCIATEg INC: FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. AMERICAN APPRAISAL CO. 4744 Lights C 0 5 : FUNDING ASSIS ANCE K- Powerplant OA FEK'. 7W twal LJINT SM 693 F_ -- - ------ T. 5 N. ------- --- LINE--- _qD: -MI-1,WAUKEE W- T L T. 4 NJ b74j 7A@_IN9'77 . 77 f@D T \% '7231@ ft J T. 5 N. Grave T Gra4 I', Pit tu % IIRAIVS0 4752 PARK@ @GR k C, 1 y on k RA @56 '7f Golf Cotu@!@e' t p tb@g J7` !F t"' WCit Hall SOUTH MILWAUKEE 5 4751 V-)ca ionz -E@CT TO I@X151'INCI J@IICYCLE TKAIL @[661, 13VAcH Af@,,A @J" ul@ tZ, ,Pka 5CVT1 MILWAUISM 0-19rCLU15 S I'Ej EX15TINCT JfTTY L--max; 0 N rAF;KNCj AFr-A Ncolltq FAMFEt 7 E@ EA15TING AURINA 224 C;rAF; hAOOAIW@6 rTAR MOORINq 100 Plf@R M@AINC,6 nVA MOORNq 3Z4 TOTAL MOMNq5 j or S6 0 B M FAFKN6 AFW-A 4 750 @DRE - PICNIC A9CA : 666 LA(jOON -151CYCLE f "T FATft - MfjK pglVf PICNIC AW 15 I J6 14 L,E b FIKV RAr,AFV-A ForestaIpa 4749 Memor Pit td 1-AVP5CAFfEP @PLIFKR AREA 61MILAR TO Fluwlom PLANr J 0 eovri-f MAXIMUM LAND FILL TKIATmrw TA-mTheNr APRIL, 1980 @PIJETZ 33009o .7 ...... FEET LO I 5WFE9 AREA SIMILAR TO FILTRATION PLANT . ......... ------------ Crib 4748 Z. ........... 32 r6 Ivil e AZE K`,@. CR @3 ALGc56 :j . Sa 100-200 &iOi`e SIA1511-17ATION ZQW- @;hews St Ma j : Ch 7% St Matth ws CerTY" 22 2T' -N. 47000m @2 (6 (6 N '1116 ID 1@ IPA T@ WW IYARIW, VACILIT1156 2W 6TA;1,M0OKN65 6 11 VOCTV4G1, 4746 S /@Lm 0 ms Pir -rML MOOKNC6 @-,Tz 420 VW I W4 PICNIC Af,A DicyrM/F@T M-Ri rAAK PRIV5 7-- 40' LA1510ON 47 45 T EAKE MICHIGAN SHORELIN K 979-80 GRANT PARKTO BEND R '@V SHORE PROTECTION & PUBLIC DEV c ARE@A PICNIC, AfTA A nLi MILWAUKEE CO. fARK COMMISSIU.11, 1`0D FLAY APEA EL A4 IF .... COjSULTAFS:j jRS@N7& ASSRIi Ef, IM 71, LANP6PA-EP Fi-IFFER APSA FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. V. 511111-,W TO FILTRATION PLANT AMERICAN APPRAISAL CO. 2t ac 00 10 = 0Soo -4-- Lights 4744 FUNDING ASSISTANCE: -WISQO .-wggn- fdAMAGEME NI NT Powerplant c=1 ac 0 00@ -0 EEK2, ERF ANT BM 693 MIR X T. 5 N. ---------- -MI-1,WAUKEE" xli- T 5 N! 723 T 4 N ME-&7 TA (5, t A v BR -;13 T. 5' N. X . ..... M 642', 650 vel P t 2 Gra T 64@11 _J Grav0 pit 171 T-7I iRAIVSON@ it -kdl 4752 PARK@ R Hi, S'_ 55' n 10 7;@ RA 56_ 5_ Golf Cou se Wt r 0 _A@tA I)et _d- V L % C, Q WT* Is all 'SOUTH MILWAUKEE TIMA i H AE 4751 li@ Pot cONW-T 10 exb7im ev_yar TrNi, 42 \7 MItInNO VMr.H pffA c0mmv_rT" TO fm" 91@ S p L Ell 7 fAfWNM AVN OMON ei FAMR5 PAnrill6l MINA loo 224 6TA9 WMWS PIE5 K)ONNCI _!5TA1 M111 OZ4 Ton wonw, * OT RS FARKINC, Am 5) C Bm pis 66 -101 --/FCOT FAT PARK PRIM, H 0 Q L c2 J -15 J6 14 "t (-.041 FORE7T E F77 47 Fo,est H 49 Memoria@'P.irk@ Pit Ld "raft `XMa0N -7 Lu 11\1 0* WHERE C 0 6OUTH Tm BEACH& BLUFF STABILIZATION OF PUBLIC LANDS 00 APRIL,, 1990 FU E T Z L 330000 FEET 'r "Ib 4748 Crib ......... . Ivil e z r 2 REEK c 2 2 23 r-0, St Ma;ihewIs: -,,,j ch:. 191 )2'30@' St Matth ws Cew, 47000m.N. 2 2j pii 696 10 MaAW sr. ftwy )co p< _VW VUft WP5 OD On N 0! VA m"Ymel 7PA KWfA W44TI" 6 47 140 ?1M M00FYNrj5 / _T V 46 . i_ 27 @7,? 1*7111.0=!@ Al N CR',@E-K., _mcffLF1/1Wr FM RAW PRIM R.: , - 1 1, 1 '! ! :. @" 2 /Ir 0. ACtr6i PRIM 0 F, =in N SHORE'L-M 4745 FAE MICHIGA 979-80 GRANT PARKTO, BEN SHORE PROTECTION PUBLIC A-95A De J9 1. -in @@RK COMMISSIO .15 C02 MILWAUKEE C 6 L __@67 a alms) NMO* I ASSOCIATES, INC:) -- r FOUNDATION EN 1UNG"411C. AMERICAN AF= CO. C) .771 Lights 4744 T-0 - .-WISCONSI JUNDING ASSIST ON ------------------ INIE/ M Powerplant ro 790 CID _93 T. 5 N. KEi - -L111A x 6 @11' it CI E Ca COUN T Y L N 4 - AT, rights by utilizing part of the 2400 foot wide band of "submerged land rights" given by the State of Wisconsin to the County of Milwaukee under Chapter 194, the Law of 1935. The resulting lagoons, with access to the balance of Lake Michigan, would preserve private riparian rights of water access to the Lake. As blocks of private owners later decided to sell their lands to the public, or to at least sell their riparian rights, bluff stabilization could proceed on the shore side of the lagoons, assuming fill and public funds are available at that time. Thus Scheme C is intended to be flexible should the response of private land- owners be quite variable. The off-shore approach of Scheme C has another important basis -- it achieves the restoration of a fairly uniform lakeward shoreline from the point at Grant Park to the fill by WEPCo. on the Racine County Line. Finally Scheme C has one of the desirable features of Scheme B -- environmental diversity in the shoreline treatment, with sheltered lagoons, and opportunities for some fish and waterfowl habitat improvement, etc. The key access point at American Avenue is omitted since it cannot be reached without traversing private beachland. This omission leaves a stretch of shore- land of two miles between emergency vehicle access points, a drawback for Scheme C. Scheme C will require about 8 million cubic yards of fill assuming no treatment of bluffs presently in private ownership other than the WEP Co. lands south of Oakwood Road which might become public if Oak Creek's city plans are realized. Armor stone weighing at least 5 to 8 tons each would be the highest cost on this plan due to the need to shield both sides of the outer lagoon breakwater: Scheme Armor Stone, Lineal Feet A 32,000 B 32,500 C 45,600 This report is limited to the above three schemes because of the budgetary restraints of this particular study. However it is possible to take parts of each scheme and combine them into further variations. These additional variations can be assembled and evaluated at such time as the MMSD is able to express its interest in undertaking such a program as the method for dis- posing of its fill, and as private landowners give expression to their interest in sale of their lands , or at least of their riparian rights, to the public. Since the values of riparian rights are only rarely evaluated separately from the full value of a shoreline property, the Appendix of this report contains a 23 study by the American Appraisal Company's headquarters office in Mitw,a,ukee which pursues the concept of riparia.n values separate from 61t other values (such as the,rest of the lot, the, improvements thereon, mineral rights, air rights, etc.). The study concludes that nominal to $ 100 per foot of shore- line is the general range of riparian value alone, which can become the basis for negotiation with property owners in the study area. However, since the least expensive plan, Scheme A, costs some $ 1800 per foot as discussed in the next chapter, it is possible the net value of riparian rights, possibly even of full title rights, are negative, that is worth less than the cost to protect them from erosion. 24 IMPLE MENTATION AND CO STS Achieving any one of the plans presented in the preceding chapter wilt be a complicated and costly undertaking. Normally the cost alone, discussed below, would be discouraging for Milwaukee County. What makes the whole concept worth considering is the possible con- tribution by the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District of the rock and earth fill they will be generating anyway in the treatment expansion mandated upon them by the DNR, and by the federal court lawsuit brought by Illinois. Participation by MMSD would thus be a double blessing on top of the basic water quality improvement the MMSD expansion program is to achieve: *water quality improvement from lessened land erosion into Lake Michigan. *improved shoreline esthetics, recreation, and environmental diversity. Thus the initial step of implementation by the County Parks depends greatly upon the enthusiasm MMSD shows toward this kind of a use for its excess rock rubble and earth fill. In addition to MMSD participation, the County Parks in pursuing approval of this plan will have to obtain a "404" permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers. The permit application to the Corps (for permission to fill in a navigable body of water) will automatically involve other related Federal agencies such as the Environmentat Protection Agency, and the US Fish & Wildlife Services. In the event that the Corps should later need an Environmental Impact assessment or statement of the project, the MMSD can be of great help by including this project in its EIS process already underway for its entire program. In addition to this Federal approval, consultation and possibly approvals witt also be necessary with the two municipalities -- the City of South Milwaukee and the City of Oak Creek, plus of course negotiations with private owners. For the remaining discussion of this chapter - costs - reference is made to Foun- dation Engineering Inc.'s Feasibility Report No.3 in the appendix. It must be stressed that this very cursory study has not generated enough geotechnical data for definitive cost estimates. As outlined on Page 13 of Report No. 3, from a quarter to over a half million dollars of additional geotechnical studies have to be performed to adequately address all the design and construction issues. Nevertheless, using a very broad-brush approach, and relying upon its experience in similar work, Foundation Engineering, Inc. has estimated costs of $33 mitlion for Scheme A, $72 million for Scheme B, and $48 million for Scheme C. These costs do not include the marina facilities, though they do include the protective- landfills that form the marina area. 25 These costs assume free fill, but include all trucking costs, plus armor stone. To the extent that MMSD were to take over the responsibil-ity for the project's construction, the accounting for these costs may change. Reductions may be possible through the transfer of the costs from the project, to the disposal function which MMSD or its contractors must achieve in any case. 26 j Sk At" 4 *40 4, -t'l";' 04 it, U, VA' @Al F FOUNDATION ENGINEERING., INC SOIL- ROCK CONSULTANTS FEASIBILITY REPORT NO. I LAKE MICHIGAN SHORELINE STUDY 1979 1980 GRANT PARK TO BENDER PARK COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CONTRACT 79102-8.2 PREPARED FOR MILWAUKEE COUNTY PARKS COMMISSION REPORT NO. FE7997 JANUARY 29, 1980 2116 WEST CORNELL STREET MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN 53209 TELEPHONE 414-445-6672 FEASIBILITY REPORT NO. 1 LAKE MICHIGAN SHORELINE STUDY 1979 1980 GRANT PARK TO BENDER PARK INTRODUCTION The purpose of the investigative study by Foundation Engineering, Inc. is to ascertain the feasibility of ustng recycled rubble and rock materials f9r stabilization of the Lake Michigan-shoreline between Grant Park and Bender Park. Our firm. is undertaking three sequences of work. Sequence 1 is described in this report and includes bluff inspections, geological review, field soil sampling, preparation of geological profiles and laboratory soil classification tests. Sequence 2 of the study will include four test borings for two bluff sites where major erosion is occurring. Piezometers will be installed at these sites to define groundwater levels and refined laboratory tests and stability calculations will be performed to ascertain the quantities and configurations of fill needed for stabilization. Sequence 3 will include preparation of schematic drawings and cross- sections of the two sites which will show proposed fill design and construction proposals. Also, preliminary cost estimates will be developed in relation to available sources of rubble and rock in this study sequence. SEQUENCE I STUDY A. Sources of Information The study area includes 4.7-miles of shoreline extending from the southern limit of Bender Park to the northern end of Grant Park. It is apparent that the geological conditions vary significantly along this distance, and therefore, we have utilized as much test boring data as possible from previously existing sources as an aid to preparing the soils interpretations. We emphasise that more test borings are required, beyond those planned for Sequence 2, to .4.7 fully evaluate stabilization treatment of the -miles of shoreline. We have explored the' following sources of 'geological information: 1. Foundation Engineering, Inc. - Job Files 1959 - 1979 2. University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee - Geol. Dept., Prof. N. Lasca 3. Milwaukee Expressway Commission - Files 4. Milwaukee City Engineer's Office 5. Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (M.M.S.D.) 6. U.S. Coast & Geodetic Survey - Files 7. Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) 8. Wisconsin Coastal Zone Management Committee 9. Wisconsin Electric Power Company 10. City of Oak Creek - Engineering Dept. 11. City of South Milwaukee - Engineering Dept. 12. Marquette University - Dept. of Engineering, Prof. W. Murphy 13. University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee - Library 14. Milwaukee Central Public Library Technical Publications 15. "Shoreline Erosion & Bluff Stability Along Lake Michigan & Lake Superior Shorelines of Wisconsin", Appendix 3, Appendix 8 Wisconsin Coastal Management Shore Erosion Study - February, 1977 16. "Stratagraphic & Engineering Study of the Lake Michigan Shore Zone Bluffs in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin" Master of Science Thesis by Robert H. Klauk - 1978 Only a few of these sources yielded pertinent test boring information. We were helped by the City of Oak Creek Engineer and the City of South Milwaukee Engineer, who supplied logs of test borings for their respective sewer and 2 water.treatment plants. Also, we have purchased two sets of U.S. Geological Survey maps of the area to ascertain bluff elevations and cross-sections of field sampling sites and future drilling sites. Ve have also prepared cross- sections through the bluffs based upon the above-referenced technical publications B. Bluff Ins2ection Initial reconnaissance of the bluffs was made at lake level by traversing the study area from the north end. South of Ryan Road, hillside inspection, was made from the top of the bluff due to the absence of beach or lower hill. Photographs were taken to identify severe shore erosion areas and general notations were recorded of seepage layers, slump blocks, general site conditions and locations suitable for drilling or field sampling. Field sampling sites were selected where the entire height of the bluff is accessible, as shown on Drawing FE7997-1. The sites are referenced 1A, 4F, 7L, 8N, 11R and 12V. Field sampling was performed at all prominent soil interfaces evident from top to bottom of the bluffs and each layer was given an alpha-numerical notation, as ahown on Drawing FE7997-2. A summary of the important site statistics is given in Table 1. Bag samples of each soil layer were returned to our laboratory for testing, which included natural water contents, liquid limits, plastic limits and sieve analyses. From these tests each soil was classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System. All soil data are reported on Drawing FE7997-1, and -a simplified subsoil prof ile has been prepared on Drawing FE7997-2. The depth of each stratum in the profile has been determined by measuring the length of the stratum of the bluff (L) times the sine of the angle of the .3 stratum to the horizontal .(a), i.e. Depth = L sine 0. The altitude of the bluff at each location has been estimated from the U.S. Geological Survey maps of the area. Corr elations of the strata in the subsoil profile are based on the physical properties and color as determined by the soil classification tests. Correl ation was also aided by technical publications 15 and 16, referred tp in the previous section of the report., C. Simplified Subsoil Profile The subsoils in the study area consist of clay tills, glacial lacustrine clays and silts, glacial outwash sands and gravels, with intermittent layers and lenses of loess. Altitudes of the bluffs range from Elevation 650.0 at sampling site 1A to 630.0 at site 7L and rise to Elevation 700.0 at site 12V. Between sites 1A and 7L the subsoils are predominantly sands and silts which are probably glacial outwash. From site 7L south to 12V the soils consist predominantly of glacial till with lenses of loess and there are no significant layers of outwash sand and gravel. Topsoil cover to the shoreline study area ranges in thickness from 1-foot to 5-feet. No data are available at this time on the groundwater levels in the bluffs, but some guide is available from the seepage observations recorded in Table 1. The simplified subsoil profile will be supplemented with future test boring information. Test borings will be drilled within Sequence 2 of our work in Grant Park and Bender Park. As part of this drilling program, piezometers will be installed and soil strength tests will be made. FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. ""John M. Murphy@ William T. Painter, Ph.D., P.E. Geologist President LAKE MICHIGAN SHORELINE STUDY 1979-80 GRANT PARK TO DENOER PARK IA SHORE PROTECTION & PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT MLWAUKEE CO. PARK COMMISSION 4F M0mm TABLE s ----------- 12v Ti 12V C2 ZT-21 14.71 12.5 i-1-1 12VI 12V C3 27.1 1431 12.0 1 2 IrV2 �2-V C4 24A 13-1 1 13.7 4*4 1 :--:: 1 12V3 12V C 4 25.6 -13.71 11.0 15.4 -1- - f2V4 4 31.0 15.1 @15.9 19-0 - - - 12VS 12V C 2V US -ce -1 0 42.4 576 12VG 12VI C4 25,0 11 1 - - - 12V7 -T2-VT C-4-731-3 If's - - - I 12VG 12VI S6 I- - 0 ".2 .8 12V9 NOTE: SAMPLES WERE RECOVEF40D By I Ce 1 24.0 13.1 149 104 - -1 - 112VII 7L - SAMI - I I lot T I HAND NLIING METHODS Ila C2 27.5 16.1 11.4 19.6 - - flat SHORELINE BLUFFS WHERE ACCESS PERMITTED ALL "W loop C-i--i35 2-0 12.7 12-1 - - IIR2 I In C3 21.0 132 7.8 13S - 11 ;l, I TEST WERE PERFORMED AT itill C4 25.3 110 14.3 14.1 IIP14 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING WC- fix C4 28.0@ I 13D 20-0-,- 1 IR5 LABORATORY ON DISTU@ -I!N TI - I - - - - - SAMPLES ON Ml? - - - 1 .8 0 6.6 1 93.4 1 SNI am c 2 316 16.7 14.9 20.1 0 217 16.6 ON2 ---------- ON -4 iO2 39 -Ls-2. - - TL TI - - 7 i t- 70 L C 29.9 1463 134 2 - ?L SIO - -I- - 41.6 54L 4 0 71-2 71. Chill 1 -18.3 11.41 6.9 11. 9 - - ?L3 C4 24.1 13.1 1 W9 - 71-4 4F T I - - - - 4F SIO - 0 61.1 1 18.9 1 4FI 4FTS 1-0 - 0-6 114.0 1 1.2 1 41`2 4F I C12 34 817 WZI'9.06 22A[ -1 -1-1 41`3 mom 1k - PE: CENT LIQUID LOST "- PE CENT PLASTIC LIMIT 14 - PER CENT PLASTIC MMX W%-PER CENT NATURAL WATER CONTENT SEE DRAWING FET"7-2 FOR LOCATION OF THE SON, LAYERS IN THIE 9 IS' IS 9 .2 TS.2 5 5, .60 2V ?L ?L r7L FOUNDATION ENGINEERING INC. LOCATIONS OF SAMPLING SITES AND 2116 W. CORNELL STREET SUMMARY OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION MILWAUKEE. WISCONSIN 53209 MILWAUKEE SOUTH SHORELINE SCALE: f. 1000' 10RATM BY: j MURPHY I CHECKED BY: FE 7997-1 MMM OEM MM MMM M M M M M M M TABLE SAMPLING SITE STATISTICS -SAMPLING SITE (See Drawing FE7997-1) 1A 4F 7L 8N 1IR 12 Elevation at top of bluff 650.0 640.0 630.0 660.0 660.0 700.0 Number of soil layers visible 6 7 6 6 7 11 M13 M5 Seepage layer(s) (See Drawing FE7997-2) S14 S14 CM11 M17 None S6 619.5 652.0 658.0 Elevation of seepage(s) 628.0 605.0 610.0 620.0 - 640.0 Approximate average hillside slope 520 430 550 470 440 700 lower rapid slow mud-flows slumped rapid 50-ft sheet sheet erosion Slope condition slumped erosion erosion slumps faulted sheet flow slump some all storm all storm storm storm waves waves all waves @ all waves waves Wave erosion waves Beach width 40-ft. 20-ft. 10-ft. 5-ft. 0 20-ft. 50% grass Vegetation trees none 20% grass 5% grass n.one 5% grass some running some concrete unstable unstable Notes instabilit) sand layers instability rubble at for full for full base height height LAKE MICHIGAN SHORELINE STUDY NOTE: NOTIE: DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL 1979-80 GRANT PARK TO BENDER PNW THIS IS A PREL"MARY SMN%NXD ACCORDING TO THE USGS, GURML elg= FOR APPROMMATIELY QUADRANGLE MAPS Of &VILMUME SHOW PROTECTION 0 PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT 4.7 MILES OF LANE MICHIGAN SHORE- III RACNK- MORTK ALL $OIL LIM AND AS SUCH SHOULD NOT M CLASSIFICATIONS ARE W ACCORDANM AMLWAUKEE CO. PARK COWISSION USED FOR DESIGN Olt GENERAL WITH THE UNIFIED $OIL ENGINEER0106 PURPOWS. HAND- tCLASSIFICATION SYSTEK NO SITES INCLUDED W THS IPRWLE RANGE FROM 2050 FEET TO 0000 FEET APART. PREVIOUS GEO- LOGICAL SURVEYS 64AVE BEEN AN AID TO FOOFeLf PREPOXATION. ELEVATWN IN FT as-&$ DATUM MY IL 4? IA red 641d aft Be Ow" TEST HIS ARE.PLAWIED TO FULLY DEFINE SOL STRATA a" AT SITES BETWEEN 12V ANDIIK APA 7L AND 4F. FOR SLOPE 620 COMPUTATIONS. THE r STAIDILITY PROFILE WILL BE AMIENDIED ADDITIONAL SOL WRING DATA 14 BECOMES AWMAIMILE r 400, IFUTURE STUDIES, 8 0dum was" T i Topsom. SOO WILL TO POORLY GRAM SAM AM SILTY SWO ca wmm To smwmq omm wry CLAY. TRACE OFr ORAVIL CU CNIII OMM ONAX SM AND BROWN GMMgLLY SILTY CLAY Is CLAVEY SILT 4CL-NU CS mom" sommum OLTY CLm (Cu cit ancom OLTY CLAF (CL) C4 &bay mumme " am ROCKY Slav CLAW tu 0113 OCT WITH SMALL CLAY. SUM 0 ONANCL SUM VAU as 2@ @-PLASTIC IL $44 poofty amm" some a CLAVEY somm, (lP_Sc) 84 WELL UNKO BMW OW) CM15 DARK 000" ftTV CLAV* "AMY OLT ICL-WIJ M C? 00111APPISH ORAY SLTY CLAY. lrAACt OF GRAVEL 4cu us BROWN OLTV Sommo (3w Cm ROCKY wry CLAY MTW Mms OF SLY. gram a 07 BROWN IoNt-FLASTIC 'LOEW Ij C9 an@ a FAD %NNW - Low $&TV cLw ftyy saw FOUNDATION ENGINEERING INC. PRELIMINARY SIWLIFIED SUBSOIL PROFILE LAKE 2116 W CORNELL S I ET ONO-IIGAN SHORELINE -GRANT PARK TO BENDER - FARK MILWAUK WISCONSIN 53209 Now. mc:RLcAmwiIow.9c":r-xr lwvmlIY::;_u@wCm@r-wTP FOUNDATION ENGINEERING., INC SOIL-ROCK CONSULTANTS FEASIBILITY REPORT NO. 2 LAKE MICHIGAN SHORELINE STUDY 1979 - 1980 GRANT PARK TO BENDER PARK COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM - CONTRACT 79102-3.2 PREPARED FOR MILWAUKEE COUNTY PARKS COMMISSION REPORT NO, FE7997 MARCH 26, 1980 A* oo 2116 WEST CORNELL STREET MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN 53209 TELEPHONE 414-445-6672 FEASIBILITY REPORT NO. 2 LAKE MICHIGAN SBORELINE STUDY 1979 1980 GRANT PARK TO BENDER PARK INTRODUCTION This report describes Sequence 2 of the soil investigation required to ascertain the feasibility of using recycled rubble and rock materials for stabilization of the Lake Michigan shoreline between Grant Park and Bender Park. Sequence 2 includes four test borings to further define geological conditions in the Grant Park area; installation of two piezometers to observe groundwater fluctuations in two of these borings; survey profiles of the bluffs made by Milwaukee County personnel; UW-Ma.dison preliminary stability analyses of the Bender Park shoreline bluffs, and a description of tentative construction planning and proposals. SEQUENCE 2 STUDY A. Soil Borings Four test borings, numbered BI through B4, were drilled to depths of 11-feet, 80 -feet, 45-feet and 45-feet respectively, at the locat ions shown in Figure 1. 'The borings were advanced with 3.25-inches I.D. hollow-stem augers, using a CME 55 rotary rig, and standard penetration tests were made generally at 5-feet intervals within the augers, according to ASTM Specif ication D-1 586, for recovery of soil samples and to define relative consistency and density of the soil strata, A log for each borehole is enclosed in this report. Soil strata at each test location were found to be in general accordance with the soil classified in the preliminary simplified subsoil profile presented on drawing FE7997-2, given in our Feasibility Report No. 1, dated January 29, 1980. B. Piezometers Piezometers consisted of 1.25-inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC pipe connected to 5-foot long slotted screens wrapp ed with Typar filter cloth, and were installed at depths of 20-feet and 25-feet at boring locations B2 and B4 respectively. Details of subsurface installation are shown in Figures 2 and 3. Groundwater levels will be recorded in the piezometers by Milwaukee County personnel. We advise that readings are taken each two weeks or following heavy rainstorms from hereon.. Both piezometers have been protected with steel pipe vandal covers with screw tops. C. Survey Profiles Two bluff profiles,referenced A-A and B-B,have been prepared by the Milwaukee County Architectural-Engineering Division for the locations shown in Figure 1. Two additional profiles are required for future stability analyses of the Grant Park shoreline at the positions of borings Bl and B4. Profiles A-A and B-B are presented in Figures 4 and 5, respectively. D. Bender Park Stability Analyses Figures 6,'7, 8, and 9 give the results of slope stability analyses for Bender Park - Profile No. 1, prepared by Robert Sterrett as part of his UW-Madison Ph.D. thesis work. These studies are considered suitable for preliminary decisions relating to construction planning along the Bender Park shoreline. In view of this study, our stability analyses will be made for Grant Park only,under Sequence 3 of the feasibility investigation. 2 Tentative Construction Planning Enquiries have -revealed that approximately 5-million cubic yards of rock and earth spoils could be available from the sewer tunnel construction projects planned by the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Commission. Precise descriptions of the type, quantity and size of spoils expected, will be delineated when we have meetings with the Sewerage Commission next month. Tentative construction plans for breakwaters and shoreline protection are being developed by ourselves in conjunction with Nelson and Associates, and are expected to be available for the meetings. FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. William T. Painter, Ph.D., P.E. President 3 IA PROFILE A-A ,% 93 B 2 (PIEZOMETER 4F LL PROFILE B-B < X c/I B3 B4 (PIEZOMETER #2) El= F-1 FIGURE I. LOCATION OF TEST BORINGS, SURVEY PROFILES, a PIEZOMETERS FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. . CONSULTING ENGINEERS LOG OF TEST BORING PROJECT Milwaukee County - South Shoreline Study DATE 1-24-80 LOCATION BORING NO. B1 BORING POSITION See Plan JOB NO. FE7997 DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION ELEV. SAMPLE OF LABORATORY RESULTS DEPTH STRATA (Ft.) NO. TYPE TO N qu W LL PL CENTER (ft.) TSF *4 "'o YO Fine SAND (SP) .1A SS 1.0 16 1.5 _(firm moist) 6.8 1B SS 1.5 Coarse SAND (SP) 9.1 2 SS 3.5 12 3.0 (f irm. - - m 17'.9 NP NP Fine silty SAND (SP SM) (firm - Wet) 5. 0 3 SS 5.5 17 SAND with clay layers (SP) 20.4 4A SS 7.5 21 (firm - moist to wet) 14.6 4B SS 8.5 21 21.6 9.0 5 SS 9.5 19 BrowDish-grey silty CJAY (CL - CH) 4.5+ 17.7 46.5 23.1 10.0 .(ver_y stiff-to-e-xtremely stiff - moist) Grey silty CLAY, traces of gravel with black organic seams of clay (CH) 6 SS 14.5 50 -5+ 1.2 50.0 20.9 4" 15.0 Grey silt, .7 CLAY, some gravel (CL) 7 SS 19.5 37 4.5+ 17.3 27.0 13.5 8 SS 24.5 39 8.1 23.6 22.3 12.2 25.0 PROJECT DATA NOTATIONS WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Drill Ri qu Unconfined Strength SS Split Spoon At Drilling: 21 911 19: Murihng - 114" Tn hollow stem augers w Water Content ST Shelby Tu6e Hrs. After Drilling LL Liquid Limit A Auger Cave-in @ 3v 41' Driller: S. Tromp Pl. Plastic Limit NR No Recovery Engineer: W. T. Painter N-SPT Blows/Ft. Scale: 1" = 4' FOUNDATION ENGINIZZERING, INC. - CONSULTING ENGINEERS Pa e LOG OF TEST BORING PROJECT Milwaukee County - Soith Shoreline Study DATE 2-25-80 LOCATION BORING NO. B2 BORING POSITION See Plan JOB NO. FE7997 SAMPLE DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION ELEV. LABORATORY RESULTS OF STRATA (Ft.) DEPTH NO. TYPE 70 N qu W IL PL CENTER (Ft.) TSF % % % 640.0 d 639.5 Fine SAND & SILT 3.0 Silty SAND, some clay, traces of gravel 637.0 1 SS 4.5 10 (firm - moist) 8.0 Fine silty gravelly SAND (firm - moist)' 632.0 2A SS 9.5 13 2B SS 10.0 13 9.7-9 630L 25 Slightly Mottled greyish-brown silty CLAY, I CL 2-1 (s t-i f f - moi q I J_!@_ 629.75 Stratified SILT, SAND & silty CLAY (firm - moist) 3 SS 14.5 16 15.0--- 625. 0 Greyish-brown gravellly CLAY (very stiff - moist) 4A SS 19.5 25 4B SS 20.0 25 19.5 Coarse SAND 620.5 (firm - moist) 22.0 618.0 Grey very silty CLAY, traces of gravel 5 SS 24.5 9 (stiff - moist) 1 ST 26.5 - 6 SS 29.5 12 PROJECT DATA NOTATIONS WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Drill Ri g- C SS Split Spoon ,Mg 49 pow,r qu Unconfined Strength At Drilling: 1.1ngon TT) holljow w Woter Content ST Shelby Tube Hrs. After Drilling qt-PM atigers L Liquid Limit A Auger [Driller: S. Tromp PL Plastic Limit' NR No Recovery Engineer-. 31_ N-SPT Blow&/Ft. Scale: 1" = 51 T., Paint *possible sand seam or layer at tip FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS page 2 LOG OF TEST BORING PROJECT Milwaukeb- County - South Shoreline Study DATE 2-25-80 LOCATION BORING NO 32(contd) BORING POSITION 'See Plan JOB NO. FE7997 SAMPLE DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION ELEV. Of LABORATORY RESULTS TKATA DErTH NO, TYPE 70 N qu W IL PL CENTER (ft.) 7SF % % % Grey very silty CLAY (Stiff - moist) 2 ST 37.0 - 37.0 603.0 Grey silty CLAY (very stiff moist) 7 SS 39.5 17 3 ST 46.5 - 8 SS 49.5 17 9 SS 54.5 23 10 SS 59.5 26 63.0 577.0 PROJECT DATA NOTATIONS WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS P Drill Rig: CME 45 Power qu Unconfined Strength -SS Split Spoon At Drilling: WaEon - 31-," ID hollow w Water Content -ST Shelby Tube I-Irs. After Drilling stem augers LL Liquid Limit A Auger Driller: S. Tr ]@ Pl. Plastic Limit NR No Recovery om Engineer: W. T. Painter N-SPT Blows/Ft. Scalp.* 5' FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. - CONSULTING ENGINEERS page 3 LOG OF TEST BORING PROJECT Milwauke6 County South Shoreline Study DATE 2-25-80 LOCATION BORING NO 7B2(contd) BORING POSITION JOB NO. See Plan FE7997 SAMPLE DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION ELEV LA BORATO RY RES ULTS OF STRATA (Ft.) DEPTH (Ft.) NO, TYPE TO qu W LL PL CENTER (ft.) TSF % % % Fine grey very silty sandy CLAY 11 Ss 64.5 42 (hard - moist) 66.0 57410 Grey silty CLAY i(very stiff to hard moist) 12 SS 69.5 28 13 SS 74.5 22 14 SS 79.5 31 80.01 560.0 PROJECT DATA NOTATIONS WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Drill Rio: cmF qu - Unconfined Sirength SS Split Spoon At Drilling: 7. je ontd) 45 Power Wagon W - Water Content ST Shelby Tube Hrs. After Drilling L Liquid Limit A Auger Driller: PL Plaslic Limit NR- No Recovery Engineer: N-SPY Blows/Ft. Scalp-: I" - 51 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. - CONSULTING ENGINEERS page LOG OF TEST BORING PROJECT Milwaukee County - South Shoreline Study DATE 3-03-80 LOCATION BORING NO, B3 BORING POSITION See Plan JOB NO. FE7997 SAMPLE DEPTH SQIL DESCRIPTION ELEV. LABORATORY RESULTS OF STILATA (Ff.) DEPTH (Ft.) NO. TYPE TO N qu W LL PL CENTER TSF % % 0/0 665.0 Light brown mottled silty CLAY, traces of gravel. (very stiff very dry) 1 SS 4.5 10 2 SS 9.5 26 3A SS 14.5 21 3B 18. 647.0 4 SS 39.5 134 1 @Light brown fine SAND, traces of gravel 11(dense - moist) 5 SS 24.5 2 640.0 PROJECT DATA NOTATIONS WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS J f 7N( Drill Rig: CME 45 - 3Y' ID qu Unconfined S4rength SS Split Spoon At Drilling: hollow stem au w Water Content ST Shelby Tube Mrs. After Drilling LL Liquid Limit A Auger 2 wks. after drilling Drillers S. Tramp PIL Plastic Limit NR No Recovery cave-in @ 15' Engineer: W., T. Painter N-SPT Blowii/Ft. Scale: 1" FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. - CONSULTING ENGINEERS page 2 LOG OF TEST BORING PROJECT Milwaukee,County - South Shoreline Study DATE 3-03-80 LOCATION BORING NO. B3(contd) BORING POSITION See Plan JOB NO. FE7997 DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION ELEV. LABORATORY RESULTS SAMPLE OF STRATA (Ff.) DEPTH (Ft.) NO. TYPE TO N qu W LL Pl. CENTER TSF % % % (Ft.) Brown gravelly SAND (firm - moist) 27.0 638.0 Fine SAND, some silt (dense dry) 6 SS 29.5 49 7 SS 34.5 44 8 SS 39.5 37 4.1.6 Grey clayey SILT 623.5 9 SS .44.5 50 (hard - dry) 45.0 620.0 PROJECT DATA NOTATIONS WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Drill Rig: CME 45 3:':Z" Tp qu Unconfined Strength SS Split Spoon At Drilling: hollow stem augprq w Water Content ST Shelby Tube I-Irs. After Drilling LL Liquid Limit A Auger 2 wks after drillinia Drillert S. Tromp Pl. Plastic Limit NR No Recovery cave-in @ 15' Engineer: W.T. P.ainter N-SPT Blows/Ft. IScalea I" = 4' FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page LOG OF TEST BORING PROJECT -4q71@2qMq-qiqiqwauqkee County South Shoreline Study DATE 3-19-80 LOCATION BORING NO, B4 BORING qP4qOqS2qM8q001q1 JOB NO. qiqiSee Plan FE7997 SOIL DESCRIPTION ELEV. LABOqPATORY RESULTS qFqVqV.q@PqLE OF STPAIA (Ft.) O0qMW No. TVPE TO qu 4qW qLL qPqE CENTER TSF % % % ,Topsoil brovin gravelly silty CLAY It 2.0 638.0 Brox4r, fine sandy SILT q@(stlf-qf moist) I qSqs 4.5 14 qi 631.0 2 SS 9.5 26 ,Mottieqd q!)ro,,.rn clayey GRAVEL lq'q(very stiff - moist) 628.5 :;Brown medium SAND qlqiq(qloose moist) 3 SS q14.5 q8 17.0i 623.0 'brown CLAY and SAND & GRAVEL q(fqjj-jq CqiSqt) 4 SS 19.5 17 5 S4qS 2q24.5 4q14 qPqR6qOJqE I4qY DAM WA ER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Fq@ Drill Rig; qqu Unconfined Sqiqrqen0qgth SS Split Spoon At Drilling: None 4qV0qVqCqJqIq@qCq7 Cq@qnqtuqiq-q,qt 6qST Shelby Tube Hrqs. After Drilling A Auger 'I Liquid Limit Driqlqlen 2qS qP2qL Plastic: Limit NR- 16qW.q-6qAq. 2qPqa6qjqrqrq@er 04qNq-4qS4qPY 2qs2qlqowqs0q/8qFqt. 1 41 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. - CONSULTING ENGINEERS page 2 LOG OF TEST BORING PROJECT Milwaukee County - South Shoreline Study_____ DATE 3-19-80 LOCATION BORING NO. B4(contd) BORING POSITION See Plan JOB NO. FE7997 DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION ELEV. LABORATORY RESULTS SAMPLE OF STRATA (Ft.) DEPTH NO. TYPE TO N qu W LL PL CENTER (Ft.) TSF % w % Stratified brown CLAY and SAND & GRAVEL (firm - moist) 28.5 611.5 6 SS 29.5 17 Grey silty CLAY, little gravel (very stiff moist) 7 SS 34.5 20 8 SS 39.5 17 9 SS 44.5 23 45.0 595.0 PROJECT DATA NOTATIONS WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Drill Rig: CME 45 - 3:1.41, Tp qu Unconfined Strength SS Split Spoon At Drilling. None 'hollow stem augers w Water Content ST Shelby Tube I-Irs. After Drilling LL Liquid Limit A Auger Driller: S. Tromp PL Plastic Limit NR No Recovery Engineer: W.T. Painter N-SPT Slows/Ft. IScalea I" = 4' B 2 VANDAL COVER 1 1/4" PVC PIPE 0 10 WSCREEN' z ZZZ4 20 30 --40 --50 TOPSOIL SANDY SILT SAND CLAY 60 SILT BENTONITE CEMENT PEA GRAVEL 70 80 FIGURE 92. DETAILS OF PIEZOMETER I -------- B4 VANDAL COVER 1 1/4" P VC PIPE 0 -10 0 0 fit -5 SCREEN 20 t cl> -30 40 --45 SILT SANDY SILT TOPSOIL SAND GRAVELMA@ SPOILS LIM BENTONITE M PEA GRAVEI 2@@j CLAY FIGURE 3. DETAILS OF PIEZOMETER 2 FIGURE 4 PROI ILE A-A :Of LA Q@ FIGURE 5 PROFILE B-B olV lo 14 03 2 Pmf iln T2 '12 It N TMuff Top 10 00 shelter(> 0 WeU Location It 0 00 00 17 11'ro f il 4 Oakwood ;toad FIGURE 6, LOCATI ON MAP (STERRETT. 1979) Figure 3.13 Bender Park Field Pore PI-essures F"2 .000 3 000 .00 .00, ow W--, CV0 (D Plezometric Surfaces Y /3 C.- /18 7 6s. ft@ FIGURE 7. PROFILE NO.I. STABILITY ANALYSIS BENDER PARK (STERRETT,1979) Figure 314 BLMER PqM, qFqRqCqFqnqX #1 Revised Pore Prqeqs8qsurq#' qClq) to 6qFSq1.69 qC8qO qu a 96ql q(6qn ;128qW to 6qu2ql I in* 2q20 fte qc4qn qCqlq) oat dO so qwo OV SOW q18q28q2 8q0=39 FIGURE 8. PROFILE NO, STABILITY ANALYSIS BENDER PARK (STERRETT.) 19 312 Bender Park Static Case 0qC'qa 0q0 ;268qi qj z qP- 6qCa8qo ;180q:q.q-q- q- q- 26qbqo-q- co q1q187 q1-6q4-2q10qW FIGURE 9.. PROFILE NO. STABILITY ANALYSIS BENDER PARK (STERRETT, 1979) FOUNDATION ENGINEERING., INC SOIL-ROCK CONSULTANTS FEASIBILITY REPORT NO, 3 I-AKE MICHIGAN SHORELINE STUDYj 1979 1980 GRANT PARK TO BENDER PARK COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM - CONTRACT 79102-8.2 PREPARED FOR MILWAUKEE COUNTY PARKS COMMISSION REPORT NO, FE7997 AUGUST 81 1980 2116 WEST CORNELL STREET MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN 53209 TELEPHONE 414-445-6672 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION... ......... PAGE SEQUENCE III STUDY ......... A. Bluff Recession 2 B. Bluff Stability Analyses .... 2 C Methods of Stabilization ...... o...o ....... o ... toot.. 3 it Slope 3 ii. Rubble and Rock Fillo., ...o..... o..4..oo ...... 4 iii.Sea Walls ..... ..*.o ................... 4 Do Potential Construction Schemes ........... - ........ 5 it Scheme A ..... o...o... o ....... *..* .......... *...* 6 ii. Scheme B .................... o.0.0 ..... 00 ....... 0. 7 q18qH.Scheme C ...... 0.0 ........... 7 iv. Construction Costs ........ #... too ... 00 ... o.o..o..q8 E. Required Additional Study.oooooo*oooooooooo*oo6.6.46 q8 CONCLUSIONS .... 9 APPENDIX "A Estimated! Costs for Geotechnical Studies, Construction Schemes A, B, q& C ... 12 REFERENCES;;-..; ............ oqoqoqoqoq#q#qoqooq#q*q-qoq.q&q.q.q4q#qtq.q.q#o2qj4 FEASIBILITY REPORT No. 3 LAKE MICHIGAN SHORELINE STUDYo 1979 1980 GRANT PARK TO BENDER PARK INTRODUCTION This report describes Sequence III of the geatechnical investigation required to ascertain the feasibility of using recycled rubble and rock materials for stabilization of the Lake Michigan shore- line between Grant Park and Bender Park. The studies included in this report were completed between May and August, 1980. Feasibility Report,No. 3 summarizes bluff recession rates within project limits; preliminary stability analyses of the bluffs; and includes'sv@luations and tentative cost estimates for potential Construction Schemes A, B, and.C, from Grant Park to Bender Park, developed by Nelson and Associates, Inc. in consultation with ourselves. We have described various methods of shoreline stabilization, and the report concludes with a summary of the main findings of the geotechnical investigation and describes the additional study required before the chosen construction scheme can be implemented. Estimated costs for the additional study are included in Appendix "A". SEQUENCE III STUDY A, Bluff Recession Rates In cooperation with Mr. Thomas Borgwardt of the Milwaukee County Architectural and Engineering Division, we have summarized recession rates between 1836 and 1980 for the proposed project limits. The recession data are incomplete but clearly indicate the magnitude of erosion that has occurred along the south shoreline. The measurements are reported in the enclosed Drawing 7997-4, and have been obtained from the sources noted on the drawing. In a period of 144-years, the maximum recession of the top of the bluff has been 375-feet, for an average of 2.6-feet per year, at Oakwood Road. The minimum recession ha8 been 87-feet, for an average of 0.6-feet per year, at Grange Avenue. B. Bluff-Stability AnaLyses Drawing 7997-3 summarizes the stability analyses for six bluff profiles, humbered I through VI, between ordinate 6300 South and ordinate 10200 South, as located on Drawing 7997-4. The stability analyses are Wised on the method according to Bishop (1955) using effective shear strength parameters and variable groundwater conditions. Trial slip circles have been assumed for each profile and factors of safety against sliding have been calculated. A factor of safety of 1.00 indicateG incipient failure. For design of new hillside profiles for stabilization, a minimum factor of safety of 1.5 is required. The results of these preliminary analyses confirm the generally 2 unstable nature of the surface hillside soils and marginal stability of the bluffs against major rotational slippage. In other words, stabilization of this shoreline will require control of surface ground- water, or surface storinwater, to prevent shallow sliding, and construction of toe-loads to avoid major landslides. To formulate future! landfill profiles to achieve stabilization, stability analyses must be made -using computer programs into which the geometric and geological parameters are incorporated for each variable section of the bluff. Further survey and drilling work is required in this regard. C. Methods Of Stabilization i. Slope Grading In certain circumstances, hillside slopes can be stabilized by cutting the topland to a stable angle to create a continuous slope from top to bottom, or a terraced slope. Such technique requires the use of heavy earth-moving equipment and, therefore, the height and geological conditions in the hill side become of paramount importance, Sections of shoreline bluff,which have layers of wet silts, sands or gravels,cannot be treated this way unless dewatering of the layers can be accomplished within economical means, as was done by MMSD at Puetz Road. Where the hillsides consist of soil materials, such as those present within this shoreline project, the required angle of slope is 20.to 25 degrees to the horizontal. Therefore, much topland has to be sacrificed when the bluffs are 60 to 110-feet in height. 3 Regraded soils, cut from the top of the hill, are not sufficient to withstand wave action at beach level, and must, therefore, be armored with concrete rubble andl.4 to 5-ton pieces of limestone rip rap. In our experience, slope grading is only practical for Lake Michigan bluffs a saximus of 40-feet high, bu`t can be used in conjunction with rubble and rock fill for higher bluffs. IL, Rubble and Rock Fill Stabilization using rubble and rock fill has the distinct advantage that no existing land Is lost and it is easier to accomplish construction even where wet soils and hillside surface water is present. Access roads are built with the fill between the topland and the beach. Toe-load fill can then be transported by trucks to its required dumping spot, thus avoiding double-handling of the material by earth- moving equipment. Rubble can be placed so as to control groundwater and eliminate surface sliding of the hillside soils. Terraces can be constructed, from beach level upward, to eliminate the rotational slippage of hillsides such as present within the project limits. iiI. Sea Walls Where shoreline hillsides have no Internal seepage layers, stabilization can be achieved by using concrete sea walls. Such walls, when properly constructed, provide excellent shoreline protection from wave action, and also act as a retaining structure for the hillside soils. A successful example of sea wall protection to that built by 4 Milwaukee County Parks Commission, along Big Bay Park in Whitefish Bay. This wall has a step configuration and has performed very satisfactorily for more than thirty-five! years. Sea walls must have sufficiently deep foundations below beach level to avoid underscouring by wave action. Neglect of this requirement has led to the collapse of many sea walls constructed in Milwaukee County on private land. Also. sea walj a require engineered backfill and wing walls to avoid flanking and loss of hillside land behind them. Steel sheet piling, of,marine quality, is also suitable for sea wall construction, and has been used frequently in Milwaukee County for harbor, dock and breakwater protection. D. Potential Construction Schemes Consultations with our co-consultants, Nelson and Associates, Inc., have led to the development of three potential construction schemes for public utilization of the shoreline between Grant Park and Bender Park. These three schemes provide for extra marinas, additional recreational area, access to beach level and means of protection and stabilization of the bluffs. Each construction plan requires the use of concrete rubble and rock fill, such as commonly available from razing of buildings, highway restoration, excavations for new construction, or spoil from sewer tunneling. These recycled materials will not, however, be sufficient on their own to complete the proposed facilities. Fill used for bluff stabilization will have to be protected at beach level with armor stone or sea walls, both 5 for aesthetic appearances and wave protection. Likewise, marinas, access roadways and breakwaters constructed off-shore, will require such wave protection. On May 12, 1980, a meeting was held at the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD') to explore their future tunneling plans and probable types and quantities of spoil which may be available for shoreline stabilization. It was,learned that specific tunneling plans have not been finalized, but it is expected that a separated storm and sanitary sewer system will be adopted. This construction scheme will probably generate 5 to 8.6--million cubic yards of gravel-sized rock and roadway rubble. It is not anticipated that any large 4 to 10-ton blocks of limestone, required for beach stabilization and breakwater protection, will be available. On the basis of our experience with lakeshore stabilization during the last six years, it is realistic that recycled rubble can be generated at the rate of 150,000 cubic yards per construction season. Sewer construction could double this qua ntity per year. Although the fill itself can usually be acquired free of cost, trucking charges will be relatively high because of the distance to the south shore from the Milwaukee metropolitan area. The primary features of the three potential construction schemes are as follows: i. Scheme A. Construction Scheme A will require 5.5-million cubic yards of 6 4@ landfill and approximately 32,000 linear feet of armor stone construction. The scheme allows for expansion of existing marina facilities south of Grant Park, landfill and toe-load construction for creation of public .beach access adjoining private and public lands, and a new marina adjoining Bender Park. This scheme has the advantage of requiring the least amount of landfill of the three potential schemes, but has the disadvantage that riparian rights must be acquired from private landowners. ii. Scheme B Scheme B requies 14-million cubic yards of landfill and approximately 32,500 linear feet of armor stone. Plans incorporate two marinas, and substantial additional park space near lake level, bathing pools and vehicular access to lake level. Acquisition of riparian rights will be necessary, but substantial park expansion could result. iii. Scheme C Construction Scheme C does not include stabilization of lakeshore bluffs on private lands, and there should be no need to purchase riparian rights. Marina proposals match those of Schemes A and B; additional park space will result; public beach access and beach usability will also be expanded. The required quantity of landfill is approximately 8-million cubic yards, and approximately 45,600 linear feet of armor stone will be needed to protect both sides of each off- 7 shore breakwater and each marina. iv. Construction Costs Assuming that all rubble is acquired free of cost from within a 25-mile radius of the project site, combined costs for trucking and placement of the rubble are estimated at $3.00 per ton. Armor rock will be required in 4 to 5-ton sizes, for protection of landfills against wave action, and in 8 to 10-ton sizes for harbor and break- water construction. It is anticipated that. 4 to 5-ton limestone rock will cost $55.00 per ton for acquistion and placement, and it is available within 30- miles of the project site. The 8 to 10-ton rock will require shipment from the Manitowoc area and it is estimated to cost $100.00 per ton for acquistion and placement. Using the estimated quantities of rubble and armor rock depicted in potential Construction Schemes A, B and C, preliminary construction costs are given in Table 1. E. Required Additional Study Additional geotechnical studies will be needed whichever construction scheme is adopted. For feasibility study purposes, we investigated the general geological strata along the shoreline bluff and and have three pertinent bluff stab)Llity analyses only, i.e. Profiles IT, V and VI. Additional test borings. laboratory soil tests, ground- water measurements and computerized stability analyses will be required 8 for Bender Park, the south end of Grant Park and all shoreline lands which are to be stabilized. Expansion of the marina facilities will require off-shore test borings and soil testing programs to define the pertinent lakebed geology and formulate landfill construction. Designs for fills which will be placed in the lake and the creation of harbors cannot be accomplished until the geotechnical data are available. Off-shore test borings are also required so that designs can be formulated for the breakwaters connecting the marina facilites and public lands. Programs have been devised for the additional*exploratory work, and preliminary costs are included in Appendix "A". The additional geotechnical studies allow for test borings on a 500-foot grid pattern for each of Schemes A, B and C. Piezometers will be required in land borings at 1,000-foot intervals. Bluff profiles must be surveyed at 500-foot intervals and computerized stability analyses will be needed also at 500-foot intervals, where the shoreline is to be stabilized by rock and rubble fill. Off-shore marinas, park areas or breakwaters, will require borings from barges. Soil tests will include shear strength, general classification, consolidation and permeability measurements. A complete breakdown of all.test requirements will be given when the favored construction scheme is selected. CONCLUSIONS 1. The feasibility study performed by ourselves and co-consultants 9 has led to the development @of, three ambitious, but realistic, schemes for utilization of the south shoreline for public facilites and recreation. Cost's of the respective schemes range from $32.6-million to $71.4-million, assuming that the work is undertaken without MMSD participation or financial assistance. 2. The geological studies, although performed with a limited budget, have clearly demonstrated that the public shoreline areas can be stabilized using rock and rubble fill so as to arrest erosion and provide access to the lake over a distance of almost five miles. Estimated quantities of construction material are within reasonable limits so that construction schedules can be planned over a six to twelve year period. A major fraction of the required materials could be obtained from MMSD projects, provided that construction can be co- ordinated with sewer excavation. 3. Additional test borings, soils analyses, and landfill designs are required before the chosen construction scheme can be implemented. Costs of this work could range from $298,000.00 to $576,000.00. The additional geotpchnical work would take from twelve to eighteen months. to accomplish. The required investigations can be scheduled according to the priorites placed upon the respective components of the construc- tion scheme. For example, it may be decided to begin the additional marinas as a first priority and investigations could be undertaken for these facilities first of all. Likewise, construction of the chosen scheme can be divided into several parts. each being assigned a given priority. 10 4. Permits will be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, Wisconsin Department of Natural Reso urces, individual City agencies and-private landowners. Choice of the construc- tion scheme must take account of whether or not riparian rights are to be acquired for private lands. Such requirement can be eliminated by avoiding shoreline stabilization on the private lands. Off-shore break- waters, such as included in Construction Scheme C, will afford wave protection for the private lands without eliminating lake access from such lands. FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. '14 A,,' William T. Painter, Ph.D., P.E. /i2ohn M. Murphy, eol ist, C.S.T. @e o @Iis I I* I I I I I I APPENDIX "A" t . I I ESTIMATED COSTS FOR GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES I CONSTRUCTION SCHEMES A, B & C I I I I I I I I I q- 12 q- I I I V I I I I I APPENDIX "A" I I ESTIMATED COSTS FOR GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES I CONSTRUCTION SCHEMES A., B & C I I I I I I I I I - 12 - I -I- SUMMARY' OF COSTS FOR GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF CONSTRUCTION SCHEME A B C LAND BORINGS $ 80,625. $ 80,625. $ 33,750. PIEZOMETERS $ 3,870. $ 3,870. $ 1,620. STABILITY ANALYSES $ 86,000. $ 86,000. $ 36,000. LAKE BORINGS $ 12,500. $207,500. $125,006. LABORATORY SOIL $139,500. $189,000. $102,000. TESTS ESTIMATED TOTAL $322,495. $566,995. $298,370. COSTS Costs include all geological interpretation and geotechnical calculations and reports. 13 REFERENCES Bishop, A.W. (1955) "The Use of the Slip Circle in the Stability Analysis of Slopes" Geotechnique Vol. 5, No. 1, 1955., p.17 14 PROFILE LOCATIONS LAKE MICHIGAN SHORELINE STUDY 1979-80 GRANT PARK TO BENDER PARK $HOPE PROTECTION 5 PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT MILWAUKEE CO. PARK COMMISSION -------------- RECORD OF RECESSION OF TOP OF BLUFF ALONG SOUTH SHORELINE A L6ql PECE991004 OF TOP OF BLUFF UJRE0qMqWNT 0 TOP LOCATION lam to 1944 1944 to 1965 "qm to 1900 1636 to 19q0 6qlF-,F0qM8q7904. 6qQqT-ige-a 10111,LtOIAI0qZ TqW04AL q"tAL TOTALI&Ffkqfqt TOTAL INqAAL TOTAL APMAL GRANGE 1823 - Iall 1 1790q1 1736 q- I- q- q- 29 L4 54 3.6 or 06 COLLEGE 1049 950 q111110q1 W*q1900 99 2.4 52 0.? q- 149 1.03 RAWSON 300 293+673 q12?7q1 29141 73 1.9 0.9 q1 too 124 DREXEL 1422 q- INC 09? q- Its q1 04 PUEqTZ 1403 q- 1332 q- q- RYAN a" q- too 5q"9 0 9 q- q- 110 568 T4 4.9 sqn 2.0 OAKWOOD qmO - VqM 2205 2205 10 Ole 0 0 3r9 0.0 .4q06q04q4 - --- --------------- SO COuNTq12qm 2ooo i9si - q- isll 4.2 49 1 q1- q17-1 2q04q0 NOTE: q0q9AqSUqMqEqNqEqMq7q9 qAqfqtqg J8qR,qF2qW NOTE: 1836 SURVEY MEASUREMENTS FROM ORIGINAL GOVERNMENT SURVEY 1836 RYAN It 0 1874 SURVEY 4qMEASUREMEN'TS FROM CHAMBERLIN'S GEOLOGY OF WISCONSIN 1944 SURVEY MEASUREMENTS FROM MILWAUKEE COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1965 a 1980 SURVEY MEASUREMENTS FROM MILWAUKEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS - ARCHITECTURAL q9 ENGINEERING DIVISION .1980 SURVEY OF BLUFF TOP 1944 SURVEY OF BLUFF TOP 1836 SURVEY OF BLUFF TOP LAKE LINE q3qz OAK w4qO0qOqD No q8. 8q@ qeqiqo8q@ 2q@qrqwqv FOUNDATION ENGINEERING INC. qr 36, 0"' q6 qIqc 72q\4qW4q00q0q0q4qcq)6q"q, LAKE BLUFF RECESSION 2116 W. CORNELL STREET FROM 1836 TO 19610 MILWAUKEE SOUTH SHORELINE MILWAUKEEqs WISCONSIN 53209 2qi6qSCAL2qEq:8q0q-qicqtocbRAWN 8qBY:JMURPHY2qICH2qECKED 2q9Yq.WqFqAqINTER0qI q79972qT4q! PROFILE I LOCATION: 6300 ST PROFILE FAILURE SAFETY SURFACE TFACTOR RY .00- 4 1 9 206 199 2 1111 - 4qV 3 142 2.91 LAYER r Ic 50 A 240 30 SO- B q:10 200 315 c 1240 38 0 1240 36 E 129 720 26 F 1350 38 0 129 720 26 0 0 i a, qio so 100 ISO so q00 PROFqLE 4qZ IqL LOCATION: 7000 SOUTH PROFILI FAILURE SAFETY SURFACE FACTOR loa SATURATED I MY 1.05 79 .49 q1 q!30 3 326 14.04 AYER Ic 9 A 240 38 50 a q:240 38 so. D C 00 200 _'qW Cq:3r 20 3CL5 E 0 0 124 38 F 129 rqX 26 9 -tZ2 0- 39P C -0 K7 y-133 0-261C-11970641' tod isn PROFILE 8qX LOCAqNIN: 8200 SOUTH PROF FAJLuRE SAFETY Of SURFACE FACTOR 100 1 1.04 2 .'85 'OO_ 3 1.52 4 .87 5 .64 6 .35 7 73 50- 1-139 0 cq:3f 0 I-IZ2 0-39* C-0 C-110?16$Afl `@@q@q@ (AFTER GILES ENqWERING ASSOCS.1979)q1_ 0 LAKE BLUFF STABILITY ANALYSIS FOUNDATION E C-0 D -.0 0 -.33 0-8q: Co.91q.10 LAKE MICHIGAN SHORELINE STUDY 2116- W CORNEL 1979 - 80 GRANT PARK TO BENDER PARK MILWAUKEE, W2qI SHORE PROTECTION 6q8 PARK DEVELOPMENT ROCK-SOIL CONSULTANT! MILWAUKEE CO. PARK COMMISSION DRAWN BY: i MURPHY] VERTICAL CHECKED qSY:-'.,vT PAINI-F8qq_qP@A8qT4qf0q@ TABLE I PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION SCHEMES Aj B 6 C SCHEME RUBBLE (TONS)''PLACEMENT 4-5 TON ARMCR PLACEMENT 8-10 ARMOR PLACEMENT EST. TOTAL COST COSTS ROCK (TONS) COSTS ROCK (TONS) COSTS A 8.25 x 106 $24.75million 60,000 tons 3.3million 5,000 tons $4.5million $32.6 million B 21 x 106 $63million 70,500 tons $3.9million 45,000 tons $4.5million $71.4 million C 12 x 10 6 $36million 97,500 tons $5.4million 70,000-tons $7 million $48.4-million 4 REPORT ON RIPARIAN RIGHTS Milwaukee County Park Commission Milwaukee County, Wisconsin July 1980 A PPRLMSAT, lp THE AMERICAN APPRAISAL COMPANY Corporate Headquarters, Milwaukee, Wisconsin MERICA@N PPIFLAISAX, THE AMERICAN APPRAISAL COMPANY Corl)orate Headquarters 525 East Michigan Milwaukee, Wis. 53201 Area 414:271-7240 INVESTIGATIONS * VALUATIONS - REPORTS August 4, 1980 Nelson & Associates, Inc. Milwaukee, Wisconsin Gentlemen: We have made an investigation of the Lake Michigan shoreline, from Grant Park to Bender Park, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, for the purpose of developing the conceptual framework of value-related aspects of a proposed project to develop public recreational lands and in the process stabilize the beach and bluff in this area. At this time, our involvement has been only on a theoretical basis, and no actual appraisals of individual. properties have been made. The appraisal is as of July 1980. The proposed project encompasses approximately 3.66 miles of Lake Michigan shoreline in the southeastern part of metropolitan Milwaukee. The northerly limit of the proposed project is the mouth of Oak Creek at the southeasterly corner of Grant Park in the city of South Milwaukee. The southerly limit of the proposed project is at Oakwood Road at the southeasterly corner of Bender Park in the city of Oak Creek. Land uses along the shoreline are mixed and include marinas, improved residences and vacant lots, industrial properties, municipal and public utility facilities, and parkland. At the present time, we have considered the following: " 8 m' Ap 1 . Identification and ownership of property along the shoreline segment based on public records THE AMERICAN APPRAISAL COMPANY Investigations - Valuations - Reports 2 2. Definition of the rights of property ownership, including riparian rights 3. Methods of valuing riparian rights 4. The relationship of value and possible costs of riparian rights considering different land uses 5. Alternatives in the acquisition process 6. Value of created land to the municipality Theory of Property Ownership The ownership of real property is occasionally expressed as the Bundle of Rights Theory. This theory holds that property ownership may be compared to a bundle of sticks wherein each stick represents a distinct and separate right or privilege of ownership. These rights are inherent in ownership of real property and are guaranteed by law but are subject to certain limitations and restrictions. Rights under this theory are: 1. The right to occupy and use real property 2. The right to sell it in whole or in part 3. The right to lease it wherein the rights of use and occupancy are transferred to another party for a specified time 4. The right to enter it THE AMERICAN APPRAISAL COMPANY Investigations - Valuations - Reports 3 5. The right to give it away 6. The right to refuse to exercise any of these rights Although the legal definition of land implies complete ownership of land and everything attached to it, under it, and over it, legal title to land, in fact, does not convey absolute fee simple title to real property and the unrestricted exercise of the entire bundle of rights. Limitations and restrictions to these rights include governmental restrictions and legal private agreements. The four powers of government are the power of taxation; the power of eminent domain wherein private property is acquired for public benefit after payment of just compensation; the police power wherein private property is regulated to promote public safety, health, morals, and general welfare; and the power of escheat wherein the ownership of private property returns to the state if the owner dies leaving no will and no known or ascertainable heirs. Some of the legal private agreements include deed restrictions, easements, and right-of-way agreements. Riparian Rights are defined as rights and privileges which are incidental to the ownership of land fronting on a body of water. These rights generally include: 1. The exclusive right of access to and from the upland to navigable waters 2. The right of accretion, being the gradual accumulation of land out of the body of water caused by the washing up of sand and soil or the recession of the body of water from its usual water mark 3. The right to the flow of water undiminished in quality and quantity THE AMIRICAN APPRAIIAI COMPANY Inve,figalions * Valualion, * Reporls 4 4. The right of ownership to the middle of the body of water (in the! instance of river riparian rights) subject to the public rights of navigation 5. The right to construct walls, abutments, and protective embankments to prevent loss of soil by the process of erosion 6. The right to erect piers, wharves, landings, etc. In some states, the common law doctrine of riparian rights has been superseded by the doctrine of beneficial use which holds that the water resources of the state must be put to the most beneficial use of which they are capable. In Doemel vs.- Jantz, 180 Wis. 225 (1923), the Supreme Court set out the following rules of law regarding riparian rights in the state of Wisconsin: Ill. The rights of a riparian owner are based upon his title to the ownership of the banks or the uplands. 2. Such ownership gives him exclusive privileges of the shore for the purposes of access to his land and the water. 3. These privileg es are valuable privileges incident to his title to. the land, of which he cannot be deprived for any private use, and which the public can only acquire from him by purchase, prescription, or by the exercise of the right of eminent domain. 4. That such rights include the right of using the D shore for the purposes of building piers, wharves, harbors, or 'booms in aid of navigation, and of T141 AMIRICAN APPRAIIAI COMPANY Investigalion, * Valualions , Repons 5 building walls or other protection so as to prevent loss of soil 'by the process of erosion. He obtains the right and title to the soil formed by accretions and relictions. 5. The title to the soil under water in inland navigable meandered lakes is held by the state in trust for the benefit of the public for navigation purposes and its various incidents. 6. Insofar as the structures erected by the riparian owner into the water interfere with the public rights of navigation and its incidents, he takes and holds such rights subject to the public rights. 7. When the waters in the lake recede to low-water mark, the public has the privilege to use the water up to the water line, and, when they extend to the ordinary high-water mark, such rights in the public are extended accordingly." This case dealt with property on Lake Winnebago. We have not been advised of any court decisions regarding riparian rights for property abutting Lake Michigan, but it would seem that the same conclusions would hold. The State of Wisconsin has deeded the submerged lands along the Lake Michigan shoreline within the Milwaukee County limits to Milwaukee County. It follows that the riparian rights of the owners within this project area have been modified due to the rights of Milwaukee County to the submerged lands. THE AMERICAN APPRAISAL COMPANY Investigations - Valuations - Reports 6 Description of the Proposed Project The proposed project encompasses the westerly shoreline of Lake Michigan, from Grant Park to Bender Park. The location begins approximately 6 miles southeast of the central business district of Milwaukee. More specifically, the proposed project encompasses approximately 3.66 miles of shoreline, The northerly limit of the proposed project is the mouth of Oak Creek at the southeasterly corner of Grant Park in the city of South Milwaukee. Shoreline to the north for approximately 2 miles includes Grant Park and Sheridan Park. The southerly limit of the proposed project is at Oakwood Road at the southeasterly corner of Bender Park in the city of Oak Creek. Shoreline to the south as far as the Racine County line includes the large Wisconsin Electric Power Company Oak Creek Power Station and abutting buffer land. 7 ff 7--1 ,$bar wood. DK-- OL -.. .. . \ IC--;'C@! i: : D- '7 'So CKEEFE AV A. s 1-3 VV 'A U W OSA AV A rf ST WE. 43 a 94 +77 NAIIONAL A A _x MILWAUKEE IELC AV WEE WEST 00 A IS A, 00' LINCOLN AV ;>ol. 94 KLA@OMI" CMLA.O. 0 A AV > 1 6: W-C AV. MORGAN A 1"OLT V 0 s. I % .0W. AV, -0 IL, St, WOWAPD AV z Fte A cis L tommoo 90(94 LAVTON - t L"70% Uj Nft E'Gf ...... T -7 1 -4, J, j Al, AV Holes :c Cudahy 4 z 0 We" AV COLLIG AV U) F. > 0 RAWSON "= RAASCI c CL V.:. th FRANKLIN out AV i1we kee DREXF@ T@ z ;p OAK z CREEK I A R,A% IND OAlWOOr' AD IF COUNTIf Last RD ICOVN@v loot RD 7 MILE 40 1 -IF ov ANI OSA'- "DON JI: MINNESOTA "0011.11E COURS1, WILWA.;KEE AVE AV E. MADISON WISCONSIN A LETON CC PP F=9 AVE It MONTANA WAMER 7- O@EATMEKT I PLAN-T, MARS14ALL AVE Fill! ix "T MA7WI-d-h AVI MAWTOWZ)@ LAKEV!EW I I : AVE IEVERSPITE ELECTRIC SIGN S SCHOO-- MANISTIQUE AVE I @ 11 @HOUSING MACKINAC LITTLE AVE LEAGiE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT co VE MARINA ROAD LAKEVIEVW RD AVE AVE EDGEWOC"- QQQ ot.m, on Ff.." nowfayo. 00) awr Lmr. CA%oC# nil CA9004 ro. 23' 4 SUM- ST &A-F@'S C".O@ Ic CftP.' SCA004 0 CfMr un C, &Vt AMA C.C ;19 Iv j,65' .2- Pe 22 004 fad 01-0c, wok go wAftAN scw"I. c 3'T'SP401231 9L. NO&D MAS 0 , cl- MAD RACAW cowtv THE AMERICAN APPRAISAL COMPANY Investigations - Valuations - Reports 10 Land uses along the shoreline are mixed but are summarized by type as follows: Approximate Linear Feet Percent Occupant of Shoreline of Total City of South Milwaukee - water filtration plant, yacht club marina, and sewerage treatment plant 950 4.9 Privately Held Residential Improved - 5 parcels 499 2.6 Vacant Land - 9 parcels 2)648 13.7 Privately Held Industrial Improved - 5 parcels 4,350 22.5 Vacant Land - I parcel 860 4.5 Privately Owned Marina - I parcel 150 0.8 City of Oak Creek - water intake and storm water drainage ditch 460 2.4 Metropolitan Sewerage Commission - sewerage treatment plant 3,290 17.0 Milwaukee County Park Commission - Bender Park 6)100 31.6 Total 19,307 100.0 A detailed summary of ownership and corresponding plats are contained in an exhibit section at the end of this report. The South Milwaukee water treatment plant and the South Milwaukee Yacht Club aria at the mouth of Oak Creek, at the north end of the proposed project. The location is immediately south of a boat ramp facility at the southeasterly corner of Grant Park. The only industrial facilities in the shoreline project area within the city of South Milwaukee are the large Everbrite Electric Sign Company plant and the South Milwaukee sewerage treatment facility. THE AMERICAN APPRAISAL COMPANY Investigations - Valuations - Reports All of the improved residential properties and vacant residential lots are within the corporate limits of South Milwaukee. This also holds true for the privately held marina. The Metropolitan Sewerage Commission sewerage treatment plant occupies a large area at the northeast corner of the city of Oak Creek near the center of the proposed project. In addition to upland, the facility includes land which has been reclaimed from Lake Michigan. All of the improved industrial properties in the shoreline project area within Oak Creek are situated immediately south of the sewerage treatment plant. These include an industrial adhesives and glues plant of Peter Cooper Corporation, a fertilizer plant of Hynite Corporation, the Vulcan Materials Company metals division plant, the city of Oak Creek water intake facility, and an industrial complex of Allis-Chalmers Corporation including laboratories, testing facilities, and a warehouse. The only tract of vacant industrial land is situated immediately south of the Allis-Chalmers complex. The remainder of the proposed project comprises Bender Park, occupying the shoreline between Ryan Road and Oakwood Road. At the present time, Bender Park has only nominal development consisting primarily of gravel roads. Beyond the proposed project limits, from Oakwood Road south to the Racine County Line, the shoreline is owned by the Wisconsin Electric Power Company. This encompasses approximately 6,000 feet of shoreline, or about 1.14 miles. The large power plant is situated south of Elm Road partly on land reclaimed from Lake Michigan. The power company owns a substantial amount of surrounding land. Topography of the -upland throughout the proposed project varies from level to rolling, and most of the undeveloped land is covered with brush and some woods. The bluff to Lake Michigan varies from approximately 60 to 100 feet. Reportedly, erosion during the past 100 years has claimed as much as 300 feet of the shoreline as a result of wave action below and ground water runoff from above. THE AMIRICAN APPRAIIAI COMPANY Inve,figation, * Valuation, * Repofts 12 At the present time, there are several proposed plans for development of public access and stabilization of the beach and bluff. Common to each plan are an enlarged marina at the present South Milwaukee Yacht Club, a new marina at Bender Park, and a bicycle-foot path over a breakwater which would protect the remaining beach over the length of the project. The various plans differ in the amount of fill required, the extent of bluff stabilization, and the resultant lands and lagoons. Valuation The valuation of riparian rights may consider either or both of two approaches: market analysis or value to an enterprise. Market Analysis This is the most direct method of valuation. In this approach, the appraiser gathers recent transactions involving riparian rights as well as sales or offerings of property without riparian rights. These paired sales are compared with regard to date of transaction, location, size, topography, improvements, utilities, zoning, and prospective use. After proper adjustments for these factors, the differences between the indicated unit prices of the sales with riparian rights and those without would indicate the value of the riparian rights. This preliminary investigation did not reveal any recent sales of any class of land within the project area where the value of riparian rights could be isolated. Approximately ten years ago, Peter Cooper Industries traded their riparian rights to the park commission for fill rights and lakeshore protection. As a part of the agreement, the park commission was to gain title to any land accretion around the breakwater. There are several vacant residential lots along the east line of 3rd Avenue in South Milwaukee which are currently for sale at about $18,000 per lot. These lots have about 90 feet of street frontage, but the usable depth is seriously being affected by the present erosion of THE AMERICAN APPRAISAL COMPANY Investigations - Valuations - Reports 13 the bluff. Whether a building permit could be obtained is questionable. Other residential lots in South Milwaukee, without lake exposure, are currently selling for $15,000 to $22,000 for lots of sizes 60 feet by 120 feet to 66 feet by 130 feet. Residential lots in the city of Oak Creek are currently selling for $20,000 to $25,000 for lots of sizes 65 feet by 140 feet to 100 feet by 160 feet. Based on this limited information, riparian rights do not appear to offer a premium considering the topography. Industrial land in the established Northbranch Industrial Park of Oak Creek is currently selling within the range of $13,000 to $29,000 per acre, with most sales in a fairly tight range of $22,000 to $24,000 per acre. In the Southbranch Industrial Park of Oak Creek, land has been selling within the range of $11,000 to $24,000 per acre. There has not been any industrial land activity in South Milwaukee since 1978. The most recent sales until that time were within the range of $10,000 to $18,000 per acre. The industrial land along the lakeshore within the project area is considered inferior to the industrial parks with regard to freeway access, soil erosion problems, and the proximity to possibly offensive property uses such as sewerage treatment plants. Waterfront industrial land in the Milwaukee harbor, including the Menomonee Valley, has recently sold within the range of $30,000 to $60,000 per acre. Variances in selling prices are generally related to size, location, condition of the bulkhead, and proposed use. A tract of 52.76 acres on the south side of Fitzsimmons Road adjacent to Bender Park is currently for sale at $110,000, or $2,085 per acre. This land does not have exposure to Lake Michigan. Sale of this tract has been curtailed by the lack of the availability of sewer and water Raw residential subdivision land in Oak Greek, with sewer and water available, has been selling within the range of $6,000 to $11,000 per acre. Where these utilities were not available, the selling price range was $1,500 to $7,000 per acre, with most sales within the range of $3,800 to $6,000 per acre. In South Milwaukee, raw residential THE AMERICAN APPRAISAL COMPANY Investigations - Valuations - Reports 14 subdivision land with sewer and water available has been selling within the range of $8,000 to $10,000 per acre. A recent project in the North Shore area of Milwaukee County provides indirect indication to the value of riparian rights when paired sales are considered. The area is along the Lake Michigan shoreline in the village of Whitefish Bay, between East Henry Clay Street on the south and East Silver Spring Drive on the north. For some time, the lake bluff had been eroding, endangering the exclusive mansions in this neighborhood. in about 1975, Foundation Engineering, Inc. , was called upon to attempt to arrest this situation. Work varied from property to property but included buttressing the bluff with concrete block ballast, constructing a limestone breakwater, draining an unstable sand layer which is sandwiched between layers of clay, and terracing the bluff. According to Dr. William Painter, President of Foundation Engineering, Inc., the average cost - er linear foot of shoreline was approximately $150. This unit price reflects, in part, the availability of ballast material in the immediate area from construction projects and the freedom from dumping fees. Current costs in the Grant Park/Bender Park project area could be considerably higher due to inflation and distances involved. Pairing sales of properties within the Whitefish Bay project before and after the beach and bluff stabilization provides some indication of the value of the shoreline and thus the riparian rights. Although rights to the beach were inherent in the properties prior to the stabilization, their use and value were essentially limited due to the topography and erosion. In analyzing these sales, consideration is given to selling prices before and after the stabilization, an allocation between land and improvements based on assessment data, general increase in property values between the sales dates, and the estimated cost of the beach and bluff stabilization. The property at 5240 North Lake Drive was acquired by Stephen King on July 29, 1977, for $220,000. The property consists of an older mansion situated on a land parcel with approximately 250 feet of road THI AMIRICAN APPRAIIAI COMPANY Invesligalions * Valualions * Repoft, 15 frontage and an average depth of about 650 feet. Based on the assessed valuation, the allocated value of this sale is $80,000 for land and $140,000 for improvements. The property is currently under contract for purchase at $360,000. Analysis of this sale is as follows: July 1980 Sale Price $360,000 July 29, 1977, Sale Price 220,000 Difference $140,000 Cost of Beach and Bluff Stabilization 250 feet @ $1.50 = $37,500 Say 402000 $100,000 Increase in Property Value after three years $220,000 @ 25% Say (55,000) (Removes effect of inflation) Enhancement of Property Value as a Direct Result of Stabilization $ 45,000 or $180 per linear foot of shoreline The property at 5530 North Lake Drive was sold by Dorothy Kohner to Curtis J. Schwarten and Jerry C. Schwarte'n (d/b/a Spartan Real Estate Company) on May 20, 1975, for $75,000. The property consists of a single-family dwelling on a land parcel with 95 feet of road frontage and an average depth of about 320 feet. As a result of erosion, the bluff was approximately ten feet from the rear of the dwelling. Based on the assessed valuation, the allocated value of this sale is $25,000 to land and $50,000 for improvements. The property was resold on July 18, 1975, to Lowell C. and Suzanne Norman for $77,500 and again resold on March 5, 1977, to Jay Barrett, Jr. , and William D. Painter for $82,000. Approximately $15,000 of improvements were made to the dwelling in addition to the beach and bluff stabilization. On December 14, 1977, following completion of the stabilization, the property was resold to William D. and Mary Jane Jefferson for $125,000. Analysis of this sale is as follows: THI AMIRICAN APPRAIIAI COMPANY Inve,figalion, Valualion, * Repo,ls 16 December 14, 1977, Sale Price $125,000 May 20, 1975, Sale Price -75,000 Difference $ 50,000 Cost of Beach and Bluff Stabilization 95 feet @ $150 = $14,250 Say 15,000 Increase in Property Value - $ 35,000 Time $10,000 Improvements 15,000 (25,000) (Removes effects of inflation and betterment) Enhancement of Property Value as a Direct Result of Stabilization $ 10,000 or $105 per linear foot of shoreline The enhancement of' property value as a direct result of beach and bluff stabilization may logically be called the value of riparian rights in these two examples since the estimated cost of stabilization has been deducted. Prior to the project, these properties had only limited use of their riparian rights. As a result of the project, the availability for use of these rights is greatly increased in addition to arresting erosion and providing protection for existing improvements on the top of the bluff. Considering locational amenities, these residential properties in Whitefish Bay are superior to those in South Milwaukee. The investigation did not reveal the differential between residential and industrial land; however, it appears a lesser unit would be appropriate considering the less intensive use. Value to an Enterprise The value of riparian rights to an enterprise can be measured by comparative analysis with similar enterprises not situated on the shoreline, when it can be shown that such location is essential to efficient operation. This in-depth analysis must be done on an individual property basis and is beyond the scope of this report. THE AMERICAN APPRAISAL COMPANY Investigations - Valuations - Reports 17 Alternatives of Acquisition Riparian rights may be acquired through purchase, lease, or easement. Although we have not investigated the legal implications of these procedures, it would seem that individual property appraisals would be required which would set out the value of the property before the acquisition and the value of the property after the acquisition, assuming completion of the improvements in accordance with plans and specifications. These appraisals would logically include consideration of general and special benefits as they relate to the properties in question. Under current eminent domain in the state of Wisconsin, special benefits accruing directly and solely to the advantage of the property remaining after a partial taking may be set off against the severance damages. There is no setoff of general benefits which accrue to the community, to the area adjacent to the improvement, or to other property similarly situated as that taken. Conclusion The proposed plans for stabilization of the beach and bluff in the project area vary, but all include enlargement of the marina at the present South Milwaukee Yacht Club, a new marina at Bender Park, and a bicycle-foot path over a breakwater which would protect the remaining beach. In areas where private property is involved, there are openings in the breakwater to allow ingress and egress to Lake Michigan. It would seem, therefore, that the use and value of the riparian rights to the owners would remain substantially intact, but this is subject to legal interpretation. The breakwater would greatly protect the beach and bluffs from further erosion as a result of wave action, thereby benefiting the property owners. The investigation revealed little data which isolates the value of riparian rights from the total bundle of rights. Analysis of several paired sales in Whitefish Bay before and after beach and bluff THE AMERICAN APPRAISAL COMPANY Investigations - Valuations - Reports 18 stabilization indicate $105 and $180 per linear foot of shoreline. This location is considered superior to the Grant Park/Bender Park project area. on this basis, it is concluded that the value of riparian rights vary from a nominal amount to, say, $100 per linear foot. Considering the intensity of use and locational factors peculiar to different types of property, riparian rights are of value (in descending order of magnitude) for water-related commercial facilities such as marinas, residential properties, industrial properties, and parks. The value of created land would relate directly to adjoining and nearby lands. Based on this limited investigation, it is concluded that this value would fall within the range of $2,000 to $10,000 per acre. Respectfully submitted, THE AMERICAN APPRAISAL COMPANY By 0. W. Liessmann Vice President August 4, 1980 Investigation and Report By R. J. Gemeinhardt @Vice Presiden EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A MILWAUKEE COUNTY PARK COMMISSION Page 1 of 2 SUMMARY OF OWNERSHIP Land Area Approximate Tax Key Frontage Assessed Valuation 1980 Number Location Owner on Lake Acres Zoning Present Use Land Improvements Total Sq. Ft. $ $ $ South Milwaukee 6116 North of Oak Creek Milwaukee County N.A. N.A. Park and Parkway Grant Park Exempt Park Commission 6144 East of Lake Shore Boulevard, City of South Milwaukee 600 9.0+ Park and Parkway City Water Filtration Exempt north of Marshall Avenue Plant and Yacht Club 6145 East of Lake Shore Boulevard, Edwin Benkowski 750 3.12 Park and Parkway Vacant Land, Bl .uff 32,900 - 32,900 south of Marshall Avenue 6146 East of 5th Avenue, south Everbrite Investment 1,100 34.00 M-2, Heavy Everbrite Sign Compan@ 227,900 1,392,500 1,620,400 of Marion Avenue Company Industrial Industrial Plant 6147 East of 5th Avenue, north City of South Milwaukee 350 12.00 -,:-2, Heavy City Sewerage Treatment Exempt of Drexel Avenue Industrial Plant 6173-1 East of 5th Avenue, north Unicare Development 825 21.00+ M-2, Heavy Mostly vacant land, 174,000 17,700 191,700 of Marina Drive Corporation Industrial older house at 3111 5th Avenue 6174 Foot of Marina Drive, east Gary L. Luedtke 150 1.00+ RA, Residential Lake Ridge Apartmentsi 102POOO 527,900 629,900 of 5th Avenue and Lake Ridge Boat I Club Marina 6177 230 Lakeview Road Hilda I. Balbanz and 130 1.50+ RA, Residential Single-family 18@000 18,200 36;200 Helen M. Rollman residence 6180 235 Lakeview Road Edward E. Gouin, Jr. 120 1.25+ RA, Residential Single-family 17,000 28,600 45,600 residence 6181 East side of 3rd Avenue TRB Joint Venture 300 2.80+ RA, Residential Vacant land, 42,000 - 42,000 (as platted) north of inaccessible at Williams Avenue present 6183 East side of 3rd Avenue TRB Joint Venture 200 1.75+ RA, Residential Vacant land, 22,000 - 22,000 (as platted) north of inaccessible at Williams Avenue present 6183-5 East side of 3rd Avenue at Esahage Haidarian 90 0.80+ RA, Residential Vacant lot 13,000 - 13,000 Williams Avenue 6183-3 East side of 3rd Avenue at Paul R. Trautmann 93 0.85+ RA, Residential Vacant lot 17,000 - 17,000 Williams Avenue 6183-1 East side of 3rd Avenue Theresa Accetta 60 0.55+ RA, Residential Vacant lot 14,000 14,000 south of Williams Avenue 6183-2 3709 3rd Avenue Larry R. Johnson 60 0.55+ RA, Residential Single-family -17,300 39,900 57,200 residence 6184 3713 3rd Avenue Michael Varichak 129 1.20+ RA, Residential Single-family 22,000 24,300 46,300 residence 6188-1 3805 3rd Avenue Frank Pinchar 60 0.55 RA, ResidentiaL Single-family 17,400 30,600 48,000 residence EXHIBIT A Page 2 of 2 Land Area Approximate Tax Key Frontage Assessed Valuation 1980 Number Location Owner on Lake Acres Zoning Present Use Land Im rovements Total $ $ South Milwaukee Contd. 6188 3809 3rd Avenue First Bank (N.A.) 60 0.55+ RA, Residential Vacant lot 17,400 17,400 6190 East side of 3rd Avenue Eugene J. Lenda 270 2.40+ RA, Residential Vacant lot 18,000 18,000 at Edgewood Avenue Oak Creek 811-9999 8300 South 5th Avenue City of Oak Creek 100 2.76 M-3, Heavy Storm water drainage Exempt Manufacturing ditch 821-9998 8400 South 5th Avenue Metropolitan Sewerage 1,270 31.78 M-3, Heavy Sewerage disposal Exempt Commission Manufacturing plant 821-9997 8600 South 5th Avenue Metropolitan Sewerage Commission 1,380 76.35 M-3, Heavy Sewerage disposal Exempt Manufacturing plant 866-9999 8740 South 5th Avenue Metropolitan Sewerage 640 32.28 M-3, Heavy Sewerage disposal Exempt Commission Manufacturing plant 866-9992- 9006 South 5th Avenue Rousselot Gelatin 1,650 80.82 M-3, Heavy Peter Cooper Corp. 163,300 638,800 802,100 001 Corporation Manufacturing industrial adhesives and glues 866-9989 4301 East Depot Road Hynite Corporation 430 7.33 M-3, Heavy Fertilizer plant 14,800 30,000 44,800 Manufacturing 868-9999- 9100 South 5th Avenue Vulcan Materials Company 120 22.43 M-3, Heavy Vulcan Materials Co. 45,300 666,600 711,9 00 001 Manufacturing Metals Division Plant 868-9998- 9170 South 5th Avenue City of Oak Creek 360 10.94 M-3, Heavy City Water Intake Exempt 002 Manufacturing- 868-9996- 9180 South 5th Avenue Allis-Chalmers Corporation 1,050 55.10 M-3, Heavy Industrial complex- 96,000 348,900 444,900 001 Manufacturing laboratories, testing@ and warehouse 868-9993 4240 East Ryan Road E. M. Boerke 860 66.32 M-3, Heavy Primarily vacant land 120650 4,150 16,800 Manufacturing 914-9999 4503 East Ryan Road Milwaukee County Park 3,200 67.40 M-3, Heavy Part of Bender Park, Exempt Commission Manufacturing nominal improvements 916-9999- 4501 East Fitzsimmons Road Milwaukee County Park 2,900 92.25 M-3, Heavy Part of Bender Park, Exempt 001 Commission Manufacturing nominal improvements (Total park 283,748 ad,res) Note: Reported assessed value to assessor's opinion of market value: South Milwaukee 70% Oak Creek 18.33% EXHIBIT 8- 1 V QRA%T PARK 4-: - < > APPLETON GOLF ELECTRIC COMPANY COURSE c ADDITION No N TOWNSfTE Of SOUTH MILWAUS i; -7 AVE MICHIGAN- cz MAAQ.@ETTE AVE - h TPAA- A' GRA, PARk I cc,, AST FIR WOODED RAVINE r, R22E M@NT'ANIA AWL T@,p I- > - @Zllll lp!ZE'l; 12'11. C@T_@_XL771`@TION PLANT KEE SOUT M LWAui T7, SOUTH LLL MILWAUKEE MARSHALL SINGLE A WE 'YACHT 24 CLUB 7: - 77@ CHURCH V I@ @% , CIENCE SFR:S t MENOMCNEE AVE .)VACANT I OLLWF Em j! I MARION AVE N.. I PT 43 --ADDITION NO 7 TO THE lo@%,Jf Of 100N EVERBRfTE ELECTRIC SIGNS z In (EVERBRITE INVESTMENT COMPANY) @'l P44 ------ MIL 'VACI CLL CITY OF SOUTH MILWAUKEE -SEWAGE TR&4jtLNj PLAWL_- EXHIBIT B-2 ORML BLVD CEATIFiCD VACANT LAND ,IN @U '/Ey MAP VILLAGE 17 1"@ NNA C @L WF LA rl';ilmv Low -MARINA ,@,VILLiIiE P.0 I E L (E@D VACAN4 -Ilk, Lu LAND VAC. -'Fft SFR VACANT LAND .KEviEw f6tRACE @ACANT LAJYD A iAC. La"EVIEW VAC@ TIE aq f1cf ADD 83. , , @: '2 .ot, % 184 Wft it r- I VACANT log, 'VACANT t.AND SMOREUNE 2@-9999 CITYOV METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE z Commmstow METROPOLITAN SEWERADE COMIWISSION wma EXHIBIT B-3 1PUM ROAD-VfTD1XD) METROPOLITAN SEWAGE COMMISSION (86=6-9992-OID)i PETER COOPER PLANT (ROUSSELOT GELATIN CORPORATION) L; s ROAD 'If HYNITE CORPORATION 67, all. CITY OF OAK CREEK ViULCAN MATERIALS CO' WATERINTAKE METALS DI ISION@,l AMERICAN 'AVE4UE z (13 r. 8- =9996- 001 ALLIS CHALMERS CORPORATION TC DEVELOPMENT LAS COAL GASIFICATION LAB PROCESS TEST CENTER YAREHOUSE E. kt BOERKE ROLLING, BRUSH, z SOME WOODS Vr 'ANT 4-999 SIFR 4-999 0YA06 EXHIBIT B-4 GAN KE PART OF SENDER PARK (NOMINAL DEVELOPMENT) ROLLING, SPARSELY WOODED ROLLING, BRUSH SOME WOODS SHED. PART OF BENDER PARK (NOMINAL DEVELOPMENT) EXHIBIT B- 5 SENDER PARK (NOMINAL DEVELOPMENT) PARTLY WOODED, ROLLING, N SOME MARSH SUCYRUS-ERIE COMPANY VACANT LAND DUCYRUS-ERIE COMPANY DAVID GECHT ETAL (EGLOPMENT TEST FACILITY) IFOR SALE SIGN) ROLLING@ CLEAR 6Ak CREE K RC%AL FIRE STATION S?wc 'ANGwIN EXHIBIT B-6 16AN 0160 AKE VACANT LAND POLLING, WOODED, SOME MARSH -7 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY VACANT WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY LAND C963- 9=9%-00:2) W. E. P CO W. E@ P. CO. VACANT LAND WISCONSIN NATURAL GAS COMPANY VAC LIOUInED NATURAL GAS STORAGE PLANT VAC W E.P. CO Cc SFR'. co 014 91- Vk kA W. E. P. CO C, EXHIBIT B-7 816AN CzE9999 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY OAK CREEK POWER PLANT Li N-1 OF OAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY 3 6668 141108