[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
HARBOR MAINTENANCE and IMPROVEMENT PLAN TOWN OF SUAMICO Brown County, Wisconsin F EBRUARY 1987 BAY-LAKE Regional Planning Commission serving communities within the counties of: FLORENCE 0 MARINETTE 0 OCONTO 0 BROWN 0 DOOR 0 KEWAUNEE * MANITOWOC *SHEBOYGAN Of VELOY HARBOR MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT PLAN TOWN OF SUAMICO, BROWN COUNTY, WISCONSIN February 1987 Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission Suite 450, Wood Hall, U.W.G.B. Green Bay, Wisconsin The preparation of this document was financed through a technical assistance contract with the Wisconsin Department of Administration Coastal Management Program. oz TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Section I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Section 2 INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS . . ... . . . . . . 5 Physical Setting Location . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 7 Political Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Topography and Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 soils � Soil Conditions - Brown County . . . . . . . . 9 � Soil Conditions - Town of Suamico . . . . . . . 14 Water Resources � Suamico River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � Water Related Recreational Uses . . . . . ... . 15 � Water Resources, Wildlife and Vegetation . . . 17 Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Land Use Generalized Land Use Conditions - Town of Suamico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Generalized Land Use Conditions - Suamico Harbor Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Archeological and Historic Sites . . . . . . . . . 30 Economic Characteristics Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Location of Growth Centers . . . . . . . . . . 30 Water Related Industrial and Commercial Uses in the Harbor Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Proposed Economic Activities . . . . . . . . . 30 Section 3 EXISTING DREDGING INFORMATION . . . . . . . 33 Past Dredging Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Sediment Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Guidance Criteria for In-Water Disposal . . . . 45 Page section 4 - PROPOSED DREDGE MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITING 47 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . 49 Physical Limitations Affecting D@eag; D*i;p@s;l* Siting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Dredge Disposal Options . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Recommended Dredge Disposal Alternatives - Town of Suamico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Reuse and Disposal Options ... . . . . . . . . 52 Summary - Future Considerations . . . . . . . . 55 Deficiencies in Sediment Test Data . . . . . . 55 Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 55 Potential Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Community Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Appendix A - State Regulations Affecting Dredging. 59 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 LIST OF MAPS Page Map 1 Locational Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Map 2 Soil Associations, Brown County . . . . . . 10 Map 3 Public and Private Recreational Boating Facilities and Public Parks .. . . . . . . . 16 Map 4 Nesting Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Map 5 Important Fishery Areas . . . . . . . . . . 19 Map 6 Generalized Land Use-1980, Town of Suamico 24 Map 7 Land Use, Suamico Harbor . . . . . . . . . . 25 Map 8 Growth Centers in the Bay-Lake Region 31 Map 9 Sediment Test Sites, Suamico Harbor 36 Map 10 Areas Suitable for Dredge Material Disposal. 54 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Public and Private Recreation Boating Facilities, Suamico Harbor . . . . . . . . 15 Table 2 Brown County Land Use - 19BO (Acreage) . . . 22 Table 3 Brown County Land Use - 1980 (Percentage) 23 Table 4 Summary Population of Minor Civil Divisions, Brown County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Table 5 Population Projections of Minor Civil Divisions, Brown County . . . . . . . . . . 29 Table 6 U.S. Corps of Engineers Sediment Data . . . 37 Table 7 U.S. Corps of Engineers Sediment Data . . . 38 Table 8 U.S. Corps of Engineers Sediment Data . . . 39 Table 9 U.S. Corps of Engineers Sediment Data . . . 40 Table 10 U.S. Corps of Engineers Sediment Data . . . 41 Table 11 U.S. Corps of Engineers Sediment Data . . . 42 Table 12 U.S. Corps of Engineers Sediment Data . . . 43 Table 13 U.S. Corps of Engineers Sediment Data . 44 I I @ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION I I I HARBOR MAINTENANCE & IMPROVEMENT PLAN Introduction An important part of the BLRPC1s Coastal Manag ement Work in 1986 is the preparation of Harbor Maintenance and Improvement Plans for two harbors in the Commission's 8 county region. The two harbors to be analyzed as part of this work element are the Town of Suamico and Pensaukee Harbors. The purpose of this plan is to assist the Town of Suamico and its officials in making maintenance dredging decisions that are of benefit to both the community and the environment. Because of the continuing sediment placement that is occurring in and around the Suamico Harbor due to the natural flow of the Suamico River, and the littoral drift that occurs in Green Bay, the problem of dredging becomes a reoccurring problem. Not only is dredging a costly process but it is,also compounded with the issue that if dredging is to occur suitable locations for-the disposal of the dredge material must be identified and approved. To address this issue, the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program (WCMP) requested that the Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission undertake a study of the Suamico Harbor, leading to the preparation of a 10 year unpolluted dredge materials disposal plan which will satisfy the requirements setforth in revised NR 347 and proposed harbor dredging legislation which relate to harbor maintenance dredging. The harbor maintenance legislation promotes a planning process that considers long-term maintenance and improvement needs of Great lakes navigation channels. In particular, this planning process should: identify all reasonable means of using or disposing of unpolluted sediment on land or in water; evaluate available options for reducing the volume of sediment in tributary streams; and identify alternatives which provide for the beneficial use of unpolluted sediment that does not create adverse impacts on the environment and is technically and economically feasible. This particular planning effort being undertaken includes an inventory and assessment of the natural resource base and sediment quality data from the Suamico Harbor area, and results in the development of recommendations for environmentally and economically sound disposal options for materials dredged from the river mouth and harbor channel area. It must also be noted that sediments are classified as either unpolluted, moderately polluted, or heavily polluted. While the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) recognizes these guidelines, they are not presently being used for sediment quality analysis of dredge material in Wisconsin. Rather, the WDNR has issued interim guidelines with respect to metals, organic pollutants, and other contaminants in order to 3 assess the pollutant content ol dredge material as it relates to potentialdisposal options. Wisconsin is presently in the process of revising NR 347 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code to include WDNR's own standards for evaluating sediments. 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTION 2 INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS I I I Physical Setting Location The Suamico Harbor facilities are located in the Town of Suamico, which is located about eight miles north of the Green Bay Harbor, on the west shore of Green Bay. It is also the northern most minor civil division in Brown County. U.S. Highway 141-41, provides the Town of Suamico with a convenient southerly route to Green Bay and a northerly route to Oconto, Marinette and the upper peninsula of Michigan. included within the town's boundaries are the Brown County Reforestation Camp and Barkhousen Waterfowl Preserve, the State of Wisconsin West Shore Wildlife Area, Little Tail and Long Tail Points extending southeasterly into Green Bay, large wooded areas, and the Suamico River (see Map 1). Political Jurisdiction The Town of Suamico, a corporate body, exercises its corporate powers through Chapter 60 of the Wisconsin State Statutes. The Town Board consists of a Chairman and two Supervisors. Town officers include a clerk, treasurer, assessor and constable. Chapter 30 of the Wisconsin State Statutes provides a Town Board the statutory authority to establish a Harbor Commission. Harbor Commissions often are given the responsibility for harbor planning, repairs and maintenance. They have exclusive control of the commercial aspects of day to day operations, setting fees and promoting harbors. The activities of the harbor commission are set by resolution of the Town Board and are limited to those items specifically identified in the resolution. All planning and fiscal activity are under the control of the harbor commission but expenditures are subject to the approval of the Town Board. The Town of Suamico has established a Harbor Commission. Topography & Geology The western portion of the Town of Suamico has a rolling topography formed by Valderan glacial ground moraine underlain by Mid-Woodfordian glacial deposits. Nearly level, sandy, glacial lake sediment dominate the east. Dunes formed by wind transported sediments are scattered in a north-south band through the central portion of the Town and along the western shore of the bay. Approximately six small sand and gravel pits are found within the Town of Suamico. The pits utilize the sand and gravel deposits associated with those glacial@ depositions. 7 MAP 1 LOCATIONAL MAP ---- ---------- GREEN BAT -------------- -------------- ------------ -N. L.I. ILI" -------------- ------ --j L.H.11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -T' w. ... LIT Em H.,b.,R- pomv --------------- -LET LE%A LIT". .... IT . . . . . . . - - - - - - 'INDFRIILL -LITI 5-STOPOL L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -s-Er ---------------- LITTLIF -- - - - - - --- - - ---------------- L- SUAMICO ------ : IEIT ....... l l------- .1 .... El ------ I- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - A. It "GLEI-I F-11 C-70" --------------- --- ------------ -11D T --- -------- -------- I-- - . -. , I T.. It.-I. C- -Is -IT-C -01 -1-1 E.- 7 lISSELL : I .-t ;-EL ------- -------- 0 F1, H,,b*, BEIl E -C Source: BLRPC. soils Soil Conditions - Brown County Map 2 delineates the general soil associations that exist in Brown County. A soil association is a landscape that has a distinctive proportional pattern of soils. This map is useful in showing a general picture of the soils of the county and for comparing soil differences in relation to their surface and subsurface geological features. A discussion of the general characteristics of the 10 soil associations is in the following. The descriptions of the soil associations were taken from the Soil Survey of Brown County, Wisconsin. 1. Kewaunee - Manawa Association This association consists of gently sloping to steep soils on glacial.till plains and ridges, and of nearly level or.very gently sloping soils in depressions and drainageways. The soils are deep and vary from well drained to somewhat poorly drained. This association occupies about 39 percent of the county. Kewaunee soils make up about 62 percent of this association, Manawa soils about 15 percent, and minor soils, the remaining 23 percent. The subsoil is dominantly a reddish-brown heavy clay loam or silty clay. The clay subsoil and substratum severely limit the use of these soils for home sites or other non-farm purposes. If the soils are used as a site for a septic tank disposal field, overflow is likely to occur because of the slow permeability of the soil. Also, the high shrink-swell capacity of the soil affects excavation and stability where a foundation is to be constructed. The soils throughout most of this association are cultivated and are suited to all the crops commonly grown in the county. Uncultivated areas are generally in pasture or are wooded. Controlling erosion on the Kewaunee soils and providing drainage on the Manawa soils are important management concerns. Maintaining soil fertility is a management concern for both the soils. 2. Oshkosh - Manawa Association This association consist of deep soils varying from well drained to somewhat poorly drained. It has nearly level to steep soils that have a dominantly clay subsoil. These soils are found on glacial lake plains dissected by narrow V-shaped valleys. This soil's association occupies about 16 percent of the county. 9 MAP 2 SOIL ASSOCIATIONS BROWN COUNTY Town of Suamico 5 10 7\ 5 7 8 4 I KEWAUNEE M ANAWA 2 OSHKOSH MANAWA 3 SHAWANO- BOYER- 93' SISSON 3 4 WAYMOR - HOCHHEIM 5 ONAWAY- SOLONA 6 OSHKOSH- ALLENDALE-TEDROW 7 TEDROW ROSCOMMON 6 8 NAMUR - SUMMERVILLE- 2 KOLBERG 9 CARBONDALE- CATHRO-MARSH 10 SHAWANO - TEDROW ROSCOMMON 4 SCALE IN MILES 9 4 va 0 z 3 .4 2 @f9 9 I Source: Brown County Planning Commission. 10 Oshkosh soils make up about 60 percent of this association, Manawa soils about 9 percent, and minor soils, the remaining 31 percent. The soils throughout most of this association are cultivated and suited to all the crops commonly grown in the county. Controlling erosion on the Oshkosh soils and providing drainage on the Manawa soils are primary concerns in management. Maintaining soil fertility in this association is necessary for the satisfactory growth of plants. The clay subsoil and substratum of soils in this association severely limits their use for homes and other non-farm purposes. These soils present severe limitations for use as disposal fields of septic systems, and the shrink-swell potential affects the use of the soils for excavation where a foundation is to be constructed. 3. Shawano - Boyer - Sisson Association This association consists of nearly level soils on glacial lake plains'and outwash plains and of gently sloping [email protected] soils on outwash ridges. It occupies about 13 percent of the county. Shawano soils make up about 10 percent of the association; Boyer soils, 8 percent; Sisson soils, 6 percent; and minor soils the remaining 76 percent. This soil association is characterized by soils with a sandy to loamy subsoil and substratum. Sisson soils are well-suited to crops and are often used for vegetable crops. Erosion, fertility, and drought are problems when the Shawano and Boyer soils are cleared for cultivation. Use of the soils in the association varies from woodland to farmland to urban and suburban development. The soils in this association have slight to moderate limitations for septic system filter fields and for foundations for buildings. 4. Waymor - Hochheim Association This association consists of deep, well drained, nearly level to moderately steep soils that have a loamy subsoil. it is found on glacial till plains and ridges and occupies about 12 percent of the county. Waymor soils make up about 60 percent of this association, and Hochheim soils, about 8 percent. The remaining 32 percent is composed of minor soils. Most of this association is used for dairy farming. The soils are well-suited to all the crops commonly grown in Brown County. Controlling erosion and maintaining fertility are the main concerns in managing cultivated areas. Soils of this association are often well-suited to urban and suburban development._ 5. Onaway - Solona Association This association consists of nearly level to moderately steep soils with a loamy subsoil. These soils are found on glacial till plains and occupy about 6 percent of the county. Onaway soils make up about 55 percent of this association, Solona soils, 29 percent, and minor soils, the remaining 16 percent. Most of this soil association is cultivated and used for farming. If crops are to grow well, protection from run-off and erosion is needed on the steeper soils, and artificial drainage is needed Pn the wet soils. Solona soils have severe limitations for septic system disposal fields and moderate limitations for building due to the seasonal high water table. Onaway soils are capable of supporting urban and suburban development. 6. Oshkosh - Allendale - Tedro Association This association consists of soils of glacial lake plains in basins that have been influenced in places by recent flooding and overflow. It occupies about 4 percent of the county. Oshkosh soils make up about 30 percent of this association, Allendale soils, about 9 percent, Tedrow soils about 8 percent, and minor soils, the remaining 53 percent. These soils have a clay to sandy subsoil; the Tedrow soil is associa*ted with the sandy subsoil. Slow permeability and shrink-swell potentials are limitations to non-farm development on Oshkosh soil. Wetness limits development of the Allendale and Tedrow soils. Drainage, erosion control and maintaining fertility are agricultural management concerns in this association. 7. Tedrow - Roscommon Association This association consists of nearly level soils and soils in depressions on former glacial lake bottoms and outwash plains. These soils are deep, poorly drained, and occupy about 3 percent of the county. Tedrow soils make up about 50 percent of this association, Roscommon soils about 16 percent, and minor soils the remaining 34 percent. Both the Tedrow and the Roscommon soils were formed in deep sands. The soils in this association are low in natural fertility and commonly are poorly suited to crops. Much of this association is used for pasture or for low-quality woodlots. It is suitable for wildlife habitat, hunting, and other outdoor recreational uses, which are wise uses of these 12 soils, since they have severe limitations for structural development. 8. Namur Summerville - Kolberg Association This association consists of very shallow to moderately deep, nearly level to moderately steep soils that have a loamy to clayey subsoil. These soils are underlain by limestone bedrock and are found on glacial till plains. This association occupies about 3 percent of the county. Namur soils make up about 30 percent of this association; Summerville soils, 20 percent; Kolberg soils, 11 percent; and minor soils the remaining 39 percent. Most of this association is wooded or in permanent pasture. The deeper Kolberg soils are generally cultivated and with proper management produce good yields of crops commonly grown in the county. Controlling erosion and maintaining good tilth are a main concern in cultivated areas. Shallow depths to bedrock and steep slope often restrict non-farm development. 9. Carbondale - Cathro - Marsh Association This association consists of very poorly drained, nearly level organic soils and marshes on plains and in depressions. It occupies about 2 percent of the county. Carbondale soils make up about 52 percent of this association; Cathro soils, 24 percent, Marsh land, 18 percent; and minor soils the remaining 6 percent. Most of these soils are covered with water-tolerant grasses and shrubs. Use of these soils for urban or rural development is severely limited. Wildlife management should be promoted in these areas. 10. Shawano - Tedrow - Roscommon Association This association consists of soils on lake plains, outwash plains, and stabilized dune ridges. These soils were formed in deep sands and, consequently, have a sandy subsoil. This association occupies about 2 percent of the county. Shawano soils make up 50 percent of this association; Tedrow soils' 12 percent; Roscommon Soils, 13 percent; and minor soils, the remaining 25 percent. The soils of this association are generally poorly suited for farming. These soils are much better suited to growing trees than crops. Cleared areas have been planted in conifers; i.e., pine and spruce which grow well on these soils and help to control erosion. Soils in this association are among the best in the county for residential and community development. 13 Soil Conditions - Town of Suamico A variety of soil types and conditions are found in the Town of Suamico. In the northern and western part of the town, the soils are predominantly Shawano loamy'fine sand becoming Tedrow loamy fine sand and Roscommon loamy fine sand as one goes east. The eastern and southeastern portion of the town is almost entirely Tedrow and Roscommon loamy fine sands. The Shawano loamy fine sand soils are deep, excessively drained, found on sandy plains and having rapid permeability. These soils are F subject to blowing when cultivated. Intermixed with the Shawano soils in the northern and western part of the town are found scattered areas of Alluvial soils, Onaway sandy loam, Keowns silt loam, Allendale loamy fine sand, Yahara fine sandy loam, Wauseon fine sandy loam, Boyer loamy fine sand, Manistee loamy fine sand, Solona sandy loam, and Shawano fine sand. The Tedrow loamy fine sand soils are deep, somewhat poorly drained, and found on sandy lacustrine plains. These soils have rapid permeability and run-off is slow. Wetness is the main hazard when cultivating these soils. The Roscommon loamy fine sand soils are deep, poorly drained, found in depressions on sandy plains and have rapid permeability. Wetness is also a hazard when cultivating these soils. Slopes are mostly zero to six percent. Except for some large and scattered areas of Kewaunee, Keowns, and Sisson silt loam and Manawa silty clay loam, Onaway loam, Onaway sandy loam, and Boyer loamy fine sand soils, the majority of the Town of Suamico has soils not well suited to the crops commonly grown in Brown County and, therefore, are not considered prime agricultural soils. The soils listed above have agricultural capability class ratings 2 and 3, while the remainder of the soils within the town have agricultural capability class ratings 4, 5, and 6. The soils throughout the eastern part of the Town of Suamico have severe to very severe limitations for on-site sanitary systems, due to high water tables and seasonal high water tables. The soils in the western part of the Town of Suamico range from having slight limitations to very severe limitations for on-site sanitary systems. The Onaway sandy loam soils have slight limitations, while the Shawano loamy fine sand and fine sand have moderate limitations and the Boyer loamy find sand has moderate limitations. However, the Onaway, Shawano and Boyer soils cover much of the western part of the town. The limitations on the soils rated severe to very severe are mainly due to high water table or seasonally high water table. 14 Water Resources Suamico River The Suamico River watershed has an area of 45.7 square miles or 29,242 acres in Brown County. The total drainage area of the Suamico River is about 70 square miles with 2.87 square miles in Oconto County, 8.6 square miles in Shawano County, with the remainder in outagamie County. The lower two-thirds of the Suamico River flows in a general easterly direction discharging into Green Bay. The Suamico River's headwaters originate in Outagamie County and are at an elevation of 860 feet above msl. The river flows about 20 miles, discharging into Green Bay at an elevation of 580 feet above msl. This represents a fall of 280 feet, giving it a gradient of about 14-feet per mile. The backwater effect from the Bay is reported to extend upstream approximately 3 miles above the mouth of the river. Very limited flow records for the Suamico River are available. There are presently no known users of the Suamico River water except for waste assimilation and stock watering purposes. Water Related Recreational Uses Public recreational facilities consist of a 2.3 acre, county-owned boat landing on the north bank of the Suamico River at the upstream limits of the federal navigation project and is located approximately 1,600 feet above the river's mouth. Facilities provided at the boat landing include 1 launch lane, parking for 35 cars and toilets. Water depth at the launch lane is approximately 3 feet, however lower depths are experienced in places along the shoreline primarily due to erosion and siltation. There are approximately 10 private boat rental slips along the river. Map 3 delineates the locations of the recreational boating facilities that are found adjacent to the harbor area. TABLE I PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RECREATION BOATING FACILITIES SUAMICO HARBOR Name/Location ownership 1. DeWitt Marina Private 2. Whale's Tale Marina Private 3. Brown County Boat Public Sources: Brown County Planning Commission, Brown County Marina Report. 15 MAP 3 PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RECREATIONAL BOATING FACILITIES AND PUBLIC PARKS SUAMICO HARBOR Brown County, Wisconsin Sunset Seach Rd NOT FOR NAVIGATIONAL USE FEET 0 500 1000 2000 N Suamico River Ram ca Riverside Or STP Outfall CC Numbers refer to.locations listed on page 15. SOURCE: 50AA NAUTICAL CHARIS AND BAY-LAKE EGIONAL PLANNING LOMMISSION Water Resources, Wildlife and Vegetation The bay of Green Bay is the most dominant-surface water resource in the Town of Suamico. The bay constitutes the eastern boundary of the Town and provides thousands of acres of wetlands along the eastern edge. These wetlands provide valuable habitat for waterfowl, upland birds, and mammals. Significant water birds that breed in these wetlands including "little gulls" (see Map 4). Studies indicate that only two or three colonies of little gulls exist -in the United States. Forster's terns also breed in this area and only three colonies of any size of this species are known to exist in Wisconsin. Many significant migrants also use these we'tlands. The peregrine falcon, which is on the endangered species list for Wisconsin and the United States, and the bald eagle have both been sighted along the west shore wetlands. In addition, a great number of diversity of songbirds and waterfowl inhabit the area. These wetlands are used by many diverse species of mammals, and are known throughout the midwest for their important habitat functions. Anothef major water resource in the Town is the Suamico River. The Suamico River changes from a clear, bubbling stream at its headwaters (19.4 miles from its entrance into the bay of Green Bay) to a relatively sluggish, wide, and muddy stream at its mouth. Some of the stream's turbidity is due to bank erosion from cattle pasturing. The upper two-thirds has a rubble and gravel bottom containing many invertebrates and an abundance of crayfish. The lower portion has a sand and silt bottom without many organisms. The fishery on the river's lower end is approximately the same as found in the bay of Green Bay (see Map 5). The Suamico River and its wooded valley and associated ravines add much to the scenic nature of the Town. Several ponds and lagoons are also located in the Town of Suamico. There are two lagoons located within the Barkhousen Waterfowl Refuge. These lagoons help provide refuge for migratory Canadian geese and a variety of North American duck. A small lake can be found adjacent to State Highway 41-141 in Section 27. Another small lake is located in Section 20. The Town of Suamico has the greatest amount of land covered by woodlots within Brown County. In fact, in 1970, 8.914 acres of wooded and vacant land or about 13 percent of 67,278 total acres of woodlot and vacant land in the county, was found in the Town of Suamico. The vegetation within the town varies markedly. The vegetation on the glacial moraine in the western part of the town is characterized by mature stands of white pine, red maple, oaks, and other species in dry mesic classifications. The vegetation in the wetlands of the east portion consists largely of willows, cottonwoods, ash, aspen, and other wet and successional types of vegetation. 17 Usmico A SUBMICO RIV 0 5000 10000 toot CO Map 4 Point ou NESTING AREAS Sable posts Herring Gull Lake Ring-Billed Gull Glee ALittle Gull 0 Common Tern 141 Forsters Tern 41 Black Tern Double-Crested Cormorant 29 0 Green Heron 54 S7 (DGreat Blue Heron 0 Black-Crowned Night Heron Source:"Green Bay Estuary Study" , U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. M M M M M mill 4 ............ .... ......... .............. ........... .......... ......... ............. jtl ................. ................ ....... 57 . .... ... . .. ........ ............ ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .......... ........... . X. ................ .......................... ............ ............. SUBM All .............. 0 5000 10000 lost .. .... ...... /4! MAP 5 Point ou Sable IMPORTANT FISHERY A R 141 Commercial Fishing 41 43 57 Spawning and Nursery 29 S4 Sport Fishing GREEN BAY 57 00&k Source:"Green Bay Estuary Study", U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Vegetation along the bayshore varies from submergents to Shrub Swamps. Inland there is a gradation to Southern Wet and Southern Wet Mesic vegetation. Nearing CTH "J", the Aspen/Ash classification dominates in many areas. On Little-Tail and Long-Tail Points, the vegetation is similar to the shore areas. The vegetation along the Suamico River is largely classed as a Tension Wet Mesic or Southern Wet Mesic forest. The land north of the Suamico River and west of State Highway 41-141 is nearly entirely wooded. This tract includes the Brown County Reforestation Camp, which as numerous acres of Norway pine, jack pine, and white pine planted from the year 1942 and after. Natural vegetation in the Reforestation Camp varies from wet lowland communities dominated by American elm, black ash, and trembling aspen to drier highland communities of aspen, paper birch, and red maple with scattered native,white pine, red pine, and red oak. The vegetation south of the Suamico River F and west of CTH "HSI' is similar, but is not as abundant as that in the northwest quadrant of the town. Climate The climate of the Town of Suamico is continental and is characterized by marked changes in the weather that are common to locations in the interior of large land masses of the middle latitudes. The nearby waters of Green Bay and to some extent Lake Michigan, exert a modifying influence on the climate. In spring months when northeast winds are common, these waters do have an effect on cooling the area. But conversely, during the late fall months, these waters provide a warming effect to the area. Winters are cold and snowy but summers-are mostly warm with some periods that are hot and humid. The average annual precipitation approximates 26 inches, most of which falls in the five month period of May to September. Annual precipitation varies considerably; one year in ten will likely have as much as 6.5 inches more or less than the average. Snowfalls occur from October to May, but occur most frequently from December through March, Snowfall averages about 40 inches in a season. The growing season, defined as the number of days between the last freeze in the spring and the first in the fall, averages 161 days. Prevailing winds are from the northwest in winter and from the southwest for the remaining months. The average wind speed ranges from 13 miles per hour in April and November to 10 miles per hour in August. Extreme winds usually blow from the west, southwest, or south. 20 Land Use Generalized Land Use Conditions - Town of Suamico In 1980, the Town of Suamico had over 1,700 acres in residential use, 72 acres in commercial use, 30 acres in industrial use, over 2,400 acres in outdoor recreation or open space use, almost 6,000 acres in a natural state and almost 12,000 acres in agricultural production. These acreage figures amount to over seven percent of the town devoted to residential use, 10.4 percent to outdoor recreation in a natural state and 51 percent in agricultural use (see Tables 2 & 3). Suamico is not atypical rural agricultural community with Brown County. . A large concentration of residential subdivisions and scattered residential non-farm residences are located within the town. Also, dense residential development is located along the bay shore as well as in the unincorporated community of Suamico. A generalized land use map for the Town has been developed and is identified as Map 6. Generalized Land Use Conditions - Suamico Harbor Area This section describes the various land uses adjacent to the Suamico River, from the river's mouth to the fixed CTH J highway bridge. Development along the river occurs in two clusters separated by farmland and woodland. The first development is located adjacent to the dredged river channel and the upstream limits of the federal navigation project. Development consists of single family residences, marinas, and commercial fishing facilities. in general, development along the river consists of one tier development between the shoreline and roadways, which parallel the shoreline. Land uses to the north and south of the river consist of wetlands, woodlands and farmland. Map 7 identifies the various land uses that are found adjacent to the harbor area. Starting at the river's mouth on the south bank, land uses consist of a 3,200 foot strip of residential development with berthing facilities for commercial fishing boats. The next 1,600 feet of shoreline is occupied by a mink farm. Land uses along the next 2,800 feet of shoreline to the CTH J bridge consist of a mix of residential structures, small boat marinas, and commercial fishing facilities. Starting at the river's mouth on the north shore, land uses consist of a 1,200 foot strip of residential development. The next 800 feet of shoreline consist of commercial'fishing docks and a public launch with parking. The next 2,000 feet of shoreline is vacant and is comprised of woodlands that are followed by a 3,100 foot strip of land that is comprised of low density development consisting of six residences, farmland, and commercial fishing docks. 21 Table 2 BROWN COUNTY LAND USE 1980 ACREAGE Residential Commercial Industrial Inst./Gov. Transp. Out. Rec. Natural Agricultural Total TOWNS Allouez 1.132.111 67.910 6.228 204.616 509.788 272.438 634.400 51.595 2,879.086 Bellevue 727.678 170.912 45.130 3.197 763.671 40.352 741.093 6,646.229 9,138.262 De Pere 546.008 42.905 217.833 14.543 652.955 145.526 1,314.768 8,341.335 11,275.873 Eaton 378.878 20.409 12.919 19.829 520.585 140.150 696.387 13,572.627 15,361.784 Glenmore 343.714 38.169 66.593 16.199 635.878 3.330 1,035.813 18,633.746 20,773.442 Green Bay 370.860 25.041 11.005 17.198 494.293 70.370 2.517.318 10.465.875 13,971.960 Hobart 1,359.169 34.234 140.741 913.510 848.742 310.726 3,590.906 14,380.839 21,578.867 Holland 373.934 29.669 21.134 12.745 722.198 549.330 3,939.683 17,391.683 23,040.376 Humboldt 439.572 19.386 14.586 13.888 517.057 40.000 841.271 13,474.755 15,360.515 Lawrence 440.678 19.199 83.265 35.660 774.135 194.250 319.090 9,886.571 11,752.848 Morrison 446.734 21.017 16.388 39.659 631.400 38.600 3,529.357 18,317.345 23,040.500 New Denmark 510.700 85.569 185.921 38.176 1,084.778 442.070 2,255.570 17,447.158 22,049.942 Pittsfield 821.799 21.940 67.632 97.267 737.237 120.000 2,663.172 17,027.934 21,556.981 Rockland 336.765 5.940 8.238 1.000 466.830 31.119 825.368 12,461.428 14,136.688 Scott 536.692 28.849 80.386 123.178 525.130 138.454 2.475.382 8,396.398 12,304.469 Suamico 1.708.140 72.472 30.469 53.173 1,178.634 2,433.328 5.920.016 11.967.188 23,363.420 Wrightstown 448.967 37.770 20.509 13.195 695.294 73.939 2,037.232 18,346.331 21,673.237 TOWN TOTAL 10,922.399 741.391 1,028.977 1,617.033 11,758.605 5,043.982 35,336.826 216.809.037 283,258.250 DO VILLAGES Ashwaubenon 1,113.545 502.387 403.336 368.047 1,344.881 149.207 1.673.962 437.485 @,992.850 Denmark 170.002 28.813 15.309 48.445 127.599 45.531 87.327 463.312 986.338 Howard 1,236.625 253.256 198.100 130.249 1,361.362 176.015 4,192.900 4.561.293 12,109.800 Pulaski -185.567 24.916 37.703 91.021 178.545 30.793 105.133 344.278 997.956 Wrightstown 153.568 21.789 7.234 51.685 116.794 22.205 346.880 645.103 1.365.258 CITIES De Pere 1,105.222 228.373 191.745 323.914 816.?17 127.583 1,122.890 .1,196.710 5.113.154 Green Bay 5,947.920 905.714 1,972.924 1.165.,169 4.719.093 1.7,65.649 472.430 11,670.845 28.619.744 URBAN TOTAL 9,912.449 .1,965.248 2,826.351 .2,178.530 8,664.991 2,316.983 8,001.522 19,319.026 55,185.100 METRO AREA 11.799.792 2,157.401 2,897.849 2,316.370 10,040.642 2,669.699 11,313.057 32,960.555 76,163.038 TOTAL COUNTY TOTAL 20,834.848 2,706.639 3,855.328 3,795.563 20,423.596 7.360.965 43,338.348 236.128.063 338,443.350 Source: Brown County Planning Commission NOTES1 1. Residential includes single family. two family. and multi-family. 2. industrial includes light industry. heavy industry. mining, and excavation. 3. Transportation includes railroads, roadways. and streets. 4. Natural includes woodland, vacant land, and river area. 5. Outdoor Recreation includes park and recreation open space and quasi-public open space. 6. Institutional/Governmental inc ludes schools, public buildings, churches, institutions, and cemeteries. M I IM IM E --- N_ -1 - 14 Tabl,e 3 BROWN COUNTY LAND USE 1980 PERCENTAGE Residential Commercial Industrial Inst./Gov. Transp. Out. Rec. Natural Agricultural Total TOWNS Allou0z 39.321 2.361 0.221 7.111 17.71% 9.46% 22.031 1.79% 100.00% Bellevue 7.96% 1.871 0.49% 0.041 8.36% 0.44% 8.11% 72.731 100.00% De Pere 4.841 0.381 1.931 0.13% 5.79% 1.29% 11.66% 73.981 100.00% Eaton 2.471 0.131 0.09S 0.13% 3.39% 0.91% 4.531 88.351 100.00% Glenmore 1.65% 0.181 0.321 0.08% 3.061 0.02% 4.991 89.70% 100.00% Green Bay 2.65% 0.18% 0.081 0.12% 3.54% 0.50% 18.02% 74.91% 100.00% Hobart 6.30% 0.16% 0.651 4.24% 3.93% 1.44% 16.64% 66.64% 100.00% Holland 1.62% 0.13% 0.091 0.061 3.14% 2.38% 17.10% 75.48% 100.00% Humboldt 2.86% 0.13% 0.09% 0.09% 3.37% 0.26% 5.481 87.72% 100.00% Lawrence 3.751 0.161 0.711 0.30% 6.59% 1.659 2.72% 84.12% 100.00% Morrison 1.941 0.091 0.07% 0.17% 2.74% 0.17% 15.32% 79.50% 100.00% New Denmark 2.321 0.391 0.841 0.17% 4.921 2.00% 10.23% 79.13% 100.00% Pittsfield 3.81% 0.10% 0.31% 0.45% 3.421 0.56% 12.36% 78.99% 100.00% Rockland 2.38% 0.04% 0.061 0.01% 3.30% 0.221 5.64% 88.15% 100.00% Scott 4.36% 0.23% 0.65% 1.00% 4.271 1.13% 20.12% 68.241 100.00% Suamico 7.31% 0.311 0.13% 0.231 5.04% 10.42% 25.34% 51.221 100.001 Wrightstown 2.07% 0.17% 0.10% 0.061 3.21% 0.34% 9.40% 84.651 100.001 TOWN TOTAL 3.86% 0.261 0.361 0.571 4.151 1.78% 12.48% 76.541 100.00% r'.) VILLAGES Ashwaubenon 18.58% 8.391 6.73% 6.141 22.44% 2.49% 27.931 7.301 100.001 Denmark 17.24% 2.92% 1.55% 4.91% 12.94% 4.62% 8.85* 46.971 100.00% Howard 10.211 2.091 1.641 1.08% 11.24% 1.451 34.62% 37.671 100.00% Pulaski 18.591 2.50% 3.78% 9.12% 17.89% 3.09% 10.53% 34.50% 100.00% Wrightstown 11.25% 1.601 0.53% 3.78% 8.55% 1.63% 25.41% 47.251 100.00% CITIES De Pere 21.621 4.471 3.75% 6.33% 15.97% 2.50% 21.96% 23.40% 100.001 Green Bay 20.781 3.17% 6.89% 4.,071 16.49% 6.17% 1.65% 40.781 100.00% URBAN TOTAL 17.96% 3.56% 5.121 3.95% 15.70% 4.20% 14.50% 35.011 100.00% METRO AREA 15.49% 2.83% 3.81% 3.05% 13.18% 3.51% 14.85% 43.28% 100.00% TOTAL COUNTY TOTAL 6.16% 0.80% 1.141 1.12% 6.03% 2.17% 12.81% 69.77% 100.001 Source: Brown County Planning Commission NOTESt 1. Residential includes single family. two family, and multi-family. @2. Industrial includes light industry, heavy industry, mining, and excavation. 3. Transportation includes railroads, roadways. and streets. 4. Natural includes woodland, vacant land, and river area. 5. Outdoor Re6reation includes park and recreation open space quasi-public open space. 6. 1 nsti tutional /Governmental includes schools, public building-s, churches, institutions, and cemeteries. MAP 6 weneralized Land Use 1980 TOWN OF SUAMICO 0 LITTL SUAMICO COUNTY TWN. SU MAW 11 01 INTY TWN. J 7 4@ For detail see page 37 io 73 1" VA. 6 Lal LEGEND - Residential Industrial - Churchels' & Institutions, Cemeteries, Public Parks, Playgrounds & Open Space, Schools & Public Bldas., Airports Quasi-Public Open Space - Woodlands & Wet1and3 Mining & Extracting - Commercial Agriculture & Vacant Land Source: Brown County Planning Commission. 24 MAP 7 LAND USE SUAMICO HARBOR Brown County, Wisconsin NOT FOR NAVIGATIONAL USE . ..... FEET 0 500 1000 2000 ... . .. .................. S X@ y Ri;mp LEGEND Cc Residential commercial SOURCE: NOAA NAUTICAL CHAR S AND BAY-LAKE Industrial @XR me'@2?8n" 'VA EGIONAL PLANNING @OMMISSION V.Te7M Natural Areas Agricultural Vacant/Other Transportation Within the Town of Suamico, U.S. Highway 41 and 141 provide the area with a major north-south transportation corridor. This four-lane highway is located .9 miles west of the river's mouth. Two county highways, CTH J and CTH B, provide the harbor area with north-south and east-west transportation routes respectively. Sunset Beach Road provides a route north of the river to the bay, while Riverside Drive provides a similar route south of the river. There are two airports open for public use that serve the F Suamico area. Austin Straubel Airport, a large regional airport, is located approximately 7 miles southwest of the Suamico harbor area in the village of Ashwaubenon. Carter Airport, a small privately owned airport, is located about 5 miles west of the harbor in the Town of Pittsfield. Two privately owned airports, Plainview Airport and Bayside Airport, are located approximately 2 miles south and 1 mile north of the Suamico Harbor respectively and are available for private use only. Two railroads, the Chicago and Northwestern Transportation Company and the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Railroad Company currently run on tracks through the Town of Suamico. However, there is no direct rail service to the Suamico harbor area. Waterborne transportation originating from the Suamico harbor does not currently exist. 26 Population The town has consistently grown in population since the 1930's. Between 1970 and 1980, Suamico's growth rate was 41.45 percent. The Wisconsin Department of Administration's population estimates indicate that between 1980 and 1984 the town grew from 4,003 to 4,462 people. A comparison of the Town's 1930-1980 population figures to the other minor civil divisions in Brown county is found on Table 4. Based on the most recent Wisconsin Department of Administration (WDOA) population projections for the Town of Suamico indicate a rather significant rate of population growth through the year 2010. From the 1984 population estimate ot 4,462, it is projected that the town population will increase by almost 80 percent to 8,01S by 2010 (see Table 5). To accommodate this projected large increase in population, it has been estimated that over 2,000 acres of land would be needed for future residential development in the town. of this total acreage, 650 acres can be expected for sewered develo@ment while the remaining 1,500 acres would be unsewered. At the present, there does not exist enough non-agricultural lands within the Town of Suamico to accommodate over 2,000 acres to be developed for residential use. 27 TABLE 4 SUMMARY POPULATION OF MIN13P CIVIL DIVISIONS Brown County, Wisconsin 1930-1980 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1900 Allouez (T) 21621 37561 51315 95557 1311753 141082 Ashwaubenon (V) 685 900 13080 21657 10,042 141486 Bk-].Ie',,'LJP (T) 6 101 6 .1342 099 11007 1,736 41101 Denmark: 0)) 779 8614 1,012 1006 1@364 11475 De Pere (C) 5@521 E:, 13 73 87146 10.1045 13,309 141.1092 De Pere (T) 736 700 891 11109 13365 1,535 Eaton (T.) 1)040 11040 928 950 1)049 11106 Gleninore (T) 130132 953 991 11035 111110 1)04.6 Gt-r!en Bay (C) 371415 46,235 523735 62@888 87@009 871899 Preble (T) 4,074 4,116 71176 12, -245 Gr@-,en Bay (T) 734 1-3 16 764 006 958 1 1 106 Hobart. (T) 111113 1)683 21061 2,343 27599 3$765 (T) 11041 17060 13016 11070 13211 1 1 206 Hi--iward (1J) 11410 1,803 20447 -33405 4011 85240 00 Humboldt (T) 090 876 093 908 12011 lj281 Lawrence (T) 1)062 1030 11220 1,571 1)622 1,431 Morrison (T) 1,314 13264 1@332, 11351 1.1473 1)565 New Denmark (T) 1@293 15254 13106 1080 1,203 11420 Pit (T) 1.1147 131131 15100 1@273 1.1647 2,219 Pulask:i 039 979 1 , 10 11540 11717 11875 (T) 639 641 625 777 '31-33 802 (T) 1.4005 1, 402 1,626 1 Y (169 1,969 11929 Suami-::,.-@ (T) 11214 11318 11654 2,073 211830 4 003 Wrightstot,in (T) 1,291 11304 1)250 11301 1.1463 13705 @4riqht-sLoi,jn (V) 612 718 76- 1 840 111020 1 1169 Brown County 701249 133009 90.1314 125@082 158,154 175)290 (C) City, Totin, (V) = V i 11 age *'T,-.-ii,.in of Preble tjas annexed to the City of' Green Bay between 1960 and 1970. Source: U.S. Census of Population TABLE 5 Minor Civil Population Projections Divisions 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 T Allouez 16492 17061 17581 17947 18278 T Bellevue 5853 6686 7495 8590 9539 T De Pere 1718 1782 1836 1893 1944 T Eaton 1132 1114 1093 1075 1056 T Glenmore 1041 990 937 893 848 T Green Bay 1214 1285 1350' 1399 1444 T Hobart 4920 .5602 6275 6892 7499 T Holland 1338 1349 1354 1361 1363 T Humboldt 1485 1550 1607 1672 1732 T Lawrence 1322 1275 1224 1150 1077 T Morrison 1629 1629 1622 1616 1606 T New Denmark 1577 1677 1770 1837 1899 T Pitt@;field 2812 3134 3445 3733 4013 T Rockland 877 833 788 748 708 T Scott 1887 1801 1713 1638 1562 T Suamico 5359 6044 6710 7367 8015 T Wrightstown 1997 2057 2103 2183 2256 V Ashwaubenon 16668 17639 18658 19621 20606 V Denmark 1615 1660 1698 1733 1763 V Howard 9957 10901 11900 12954 13998 V Pulaski 2081 2144 2197 2252 2300 V Wrightstown. 1317 1362 1401 1443 1481 C De Pere 17346 18316 19190 20033 20802 C Green Bay 91866 91739 91290 90856 90219 COUNTY TOTALS 193503 199630 205237 210786 216008 29 Archeological and Historical Sites Within the Town of Suamico, approximately 57 historical and archeological sites exist, along with three historical structures. Of these sites, several are located within the dredge disposal study area. Economic Characteristics Introduction As a portion of the Overall Economic Development Program, the Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission recognizes the fact that there are specific urban centers in the region that provide the potential for economic growth and development beyond their respective boundaries. Within the 1980 OEDP Annual Report, five economic development growth centers were identified. These included the city of Green Bay urban area as the largest economic development center, and the urban areas associated with the cities of Sheboygan, Manitowoc, Marinette, and Sturgeon Bay. Location of Growth Centers The Green Bay urban area growth center is comprised of the cities of Green Bay and De Pere, the villages of Ashwaubenon, Allouez, and Howard, and the towns of Bellevue, Hobart, and Suamico (see Map 8). Water Related Industrial and Commercial Uses in the Harbor Area The only commercial activity that exists in the Suamico Harbor area is.commercial fishing. There are currently no industrial uses in the immediate harbor area. Proposed Economic Activities As part of the 1986 OEDP Annual Report, several potential community projects were identified for the Town of Suamico. These include: utility improvements for industrial development; commercial redevelopment; and harbor improvements. 30 MAP 8 GROWTH CENTERS IN THE BAY-LAKE REGION ---------- ----- ........... .... IE IS. @E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - EEC.I. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - cl.111 J . . . . . . 1I.Ta" -ET 1 7 .......... ------ @MARINETTE _4 ------- - ------------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - ......... IS--- EA L.IT11 ------ ------- .............. .. ......... 111LES E3 711" STURGEON BAY -- -------------- ------- ........... Emi ....... ------- -------- LIE", CASCO GREEN BAY ------- I------- .... ..... .. ------ FL . ....... 'E.AU,EI -WIT ---------- 'I C ... :CASE. o lo LA, F- 1 " M ANITOWOC i ""11E A A. SHEBOYGAN @E. 4 [email protected] yo S1.TI "E, Source: Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission. 31 a I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - I SECTION 3 EXISTING DREDGING INFORMATION I 1, I Past Dred2ing Efforts The Big Suamico Harbor has been dredged three times in the past 30 years as part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dredging program. The frequency of these dredging efforts and the exact amount of material dredged are identified in the following: Fiscal Year Cubic Yards 1957 6,815 1961 9,575 1965 12,772 Total 29,162 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has revised the dredging frequency for the Big Suamico area and is now scheduled at 20 year intervals. Based on this revised interval, the harbor area should have been dredged in 1985. Sediment Data Map 9 and Tables 5-13,are the most recent test data of sediment conditions that has been compiled by the Corps of Engineers. The Suamico harbor is scheduled for re-sampling of sediment data in 1989. in addition to the most recent test data, the interim criteria, as developed by WDNR for in-water disposal of specified substances are also listed for comparison purposes (see Table 9). 35 MAP 9 HEAD Or NAVIGATION CARP POND' CAR CARP A014, po 0 C, QC dr tz LOCALITY MAP SCALA IN ftt'r Is goes seall V.-Srwum twir frAlroAl, 10*0jf er 4 J. D B WL 4 2 ,,e GREFE N 010 BA K % 3 Ov$ COUNT, 'ore*:: @p 3 C P*OJECT DEPTHS AND SOUNDINGS ARE REFERRED TO LOW WATER DAfW 3715.8 FEET ASOVE MEAN WATER LEVM AT FATHER POINT. QUCSEC. I.G.L.D. ( t955 I INTERNATIONAL GREAT LAKES DATUM) m I C m I G A N .4 GLAOST'll.- As." CEO" LAKE ACTS AwTKORIZERC DOCUMENTS MENOW It 19,17 A. Doe'. .96. %te, CW4.. la SE.S. o MICHIGAN STURCEON A-1 &AT CA$dAL, PENSAUKEE'l yl CINITY MAF BIG SUAMICO RIVER SCALE Of MILES i WISCONSIN _jo 0 IN I SHEET SHEET 000. 1 SCALE OF Ftt? C I .E E @11 _1000 U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT. DETROIT 30 SE"Llurit 36 TABLE 6 BENTHOS ANALYSIS SUAMICO, WISCCNSIN July 27, 1983 SITE: B EQUIPMENT: Ponar (1) SAMPLE NO.: DEPTH: 9.3' DATE ENUMERATED: 9/l/83 VOLUME: 3200 mls DESCRZPTION: 65% fine sand,. 20% silt -15% detritus VEG.ETATION: none ORGANISMS RECOVERED . NUMBERS VOIAJM-@' (Ml) CLASSIFICATION KEY* ACTUAL PER SQ. METER ACTUAL PER LITER Oligochaetae Lumbriculus variegatus 1 135 2579 1.3 0.41 Megaloptera (too damaged for further 1 1 19 <0.1 -- .Gastropoda Lymnaea sp 1 a 153 3.3 1.03 Viviparus so 1 1 19 0.5 0.16 Diptera Chironimus so 1,3 6 115 0.1 0.03 Trichoptera house 1 1 19 -- -- Amphipoda Haustoriidae Pontoporreia hoyi 1 1 .19 <0.1 Pelecypoda 1 1 19 <0.1 8 taxa TOTALS: 154 2941 5.3 1.63 *see listing in Appendix 37 TABLE 7 BENTSOS ANALYSIS SUAMICO, WISCONSIN july 27, 1983 SITE: C EQUIPMENT: Ponar (1) SAMPLE NO.: - DEPTH: 8.751 DATE ENUMERATED: 9/6/83 VOLZME: 3200 m*ls DESCRIPTION: 65% fine sand, 20% silt 15% detritus VEGETATION: ORGANISMS RECOVERSO NUMBERS VOUTME (ml) =LSSIFICATION KEY* ACTUP.L PER SQ. ME7ER ACTUAL PER LZTER Oligochaetae Lumbriculus variegatus 1 312 5959 3.4 1.06 Pelecypoda "nionidae 2 38 550 172 Gastropoda Physa sp 1 2 38 0.3 0.09 Pleurocera so 1 4 76 1.4 0.44 .Amphipoda Pontoporreia hoyi 1 9 172 <0.1 -- Coleoptera Cocelatus sp 1,2 2 38 <0.1 'Hydracarina. Hydrachna'sp 1 3 adults <0.1 5 imnature 153 <0.1 Diptera Pentaneura so 1 4 76 <0.1 Psychoda sp 1 1 19 <0.1 Copepod cy .clops Sp 1,2 1, 19 <0.1 -- 10 taxa TOTALS: 345 6589 >555.1 >173.6 *see listim in APPendix 38 TABLE 8 BEMHOS ANALYSIS SUAMICO, WISCONSIN July 27, 1983 SITE: D EQUIPMENT: Ponar (1) SAMPLE NO.: - DEPTH: 9.4' DATE ENUMERATED: 9/7/83 VOLUME: 5500 mls DESCRIPTION: 90% loose silt w/detritus 10% very fine sand VEGMTION: none ORGANISMS RECOVERED NtDGERS VOLUME (ml) CLASSIFICATION XEY* ACTUAI, PER SQ. METER ACTUAL PER LITER oligochaetae Naididae Dero fE 1 S 96 <0.1 -- Aeolosomatidae Lumbriculus variegatus 1 47 898 0.2 0.04 &.ptera Chironomus sp 1,3 3 57 0.2 0.04 Psychoda sp 1,3 2 38 <0.1 -- Hydracarina Hydrachna sp 1 2 38 <0.1 5 taxa TOTALS: 59 .1127 >0.4 >0.08 *see listing in Appendix 39 TABLE 9 DL-ZROIT CORPS OF MIGINEERS Harbor Big Suamico Sample Type__.�ediment Date Collected _L/_27/83 Site WDNR Parameter Interim ExceeTs A B C D Criteria Criteria % Solids 75.8 64.8 62.8 52.2 Total Volatile Solids 0.51 2.16 2.91 5.2E Suspended Solids Dissolved solids 1.11CC 1000 11,700 14.qnO ii .,inr BOD COD 3190 26.900, 41,900 77.70 Oil & Grease i -knn I f;75 AA1Q < i non Cvanide <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 e0.1 Phenols <0.08 <0,0Q <0.08 Total Phosphorous 12 122 169 513 Dissolved Phosphorous 10-10 1410-- TKN 2135 A=nonia 7.9 69.6 62.7 110 Arseaic 2.49 4.04 5.05 5.36- 10 Iron 2260 38001 4450 7410 Cadmium 1.6 1.8 3.2 <2- @@1,0 Copper 3.2 5.9 14@R - i@j 00 Chromium <5 7.1 9.7 11.1 L100 Nickel <5 <61 8.6 15.1 @Lioo Manganese 54.1 104 119 181 Lead 2.27 4.31 5.02 7.72- [email protected] Mercury <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 :L0.1 c 9.6 17.0 18.9 35.8 51. 10 0 Total PCB's- <0.01 <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.05 Chlorinated Pesticides Lindane <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.05 Heptachlor <0.01* <0.01 <0.01 <0.'Ol <0.05 Aldrin <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Dieldrin <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Hepta-chlor epoxide <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01" <0.05 Methoxycilloz <0.01 <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 DDT <0.01 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01 U.U1 DDE <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Fecal Coliform (#/gram) <3 9 39 21 Density -(g/ml) 1.86 1.69. 1.60 1.38 Grain Size M >0.42 Mm 4 2 <1 5 0.42-0.25 mm 6 3 2 11 0.25-0.15 mm 58 41 16 23 0.15-0.07= 19, 52 1 60 361 <0.07 mm 31 13 1 26 2 1 22 241 90 <0r 0 -1 <0 I 08 0 12 i;282 V 0 1-8 @4 7.1 <0 01- @`o < 0 000411: values are vg/g dry weight except as noted. *Present but <0.01 Ug/g. 40 TABLE 10 BIG SUAF1ICO - SEDIMENTS DUPLICATES / 1745-18200 Parameter site Samole Value DuRlicate Value Total Solids M C 62.8 61.8 Total Volatile C 2Al 2.92 Solids (%) Total Phosphorous 467 450. Cyanide <0.1 <0.1 Ammonia 63.3 61.6 Mercury C <0.1 <0.1 TOC 55,600 54,800 TKN 1010 1380 COD 20,500 22,100 Arsenic 7.16 9.17 Iron 10,600 16,200 Cadmium 9.6 8.0 Copper 29.9 1.2 3 Chromium 27.2 21.0 Nickel 17.9 26.2 Manganese 392 377 Lead 40.2 31.6 Zinc 92.9 93.5 Values are vg/g. Where no site is identified the duplicate was run on a sample from another project. 41 TABLE 11 DETROIT CORPS or mnnmn Harbor Big Suamico Sample Type .. Llutz'iates Date Collected 7/27/83 Site Parameter A B C D Solids Total Volatile Solids Suspended Solids '76 '77 Dissolved solids 176 216 21A 256 110C 1A I A BOD COD 68 59 85. 31 Oil & Grease 14 8 Cyanide- <0,005 <0,005 <0,nns <n-nnq Phenols 0-007 Q-Q07 0-007 n-nnq Total. Phosphorous 0.10 0.18 0.21 0.16 Dissolved Phosphorous TKN <5 <5 7.0 <5 Ammonia 0.86 4.27 5.43 6.59 Arsenic 0.003 <0.002 <0.002 0.004 Iron 2.49 .2.78 2.75 3.81 Cadmium 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.001 Copper 0.006 0.004 0.006 0.004 Chromium .0.002 0.006 0.006 <0.002 Nickel 0.004 0.004 0.006 0.007 Manganese 0.043 0.415 0.481 0.802 Lead <0.002 0.007 0.0081 <0.002 Mercury 0.0003 0.00031 0.0003' 0.0002 =3 0.032 - 0.021 0.043 0.035 Total PCB's :0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Chlorinated Pesticides -:0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001.<0.0001 Lindane Heptachlor Aldrin Dieldrin Heptachlor epoxide Methoxychlor DDT DDE Fecal Colif orm #/100 Ml <10 <101 730 400 Density Grain Size >2 mm 0.43-2 mm -Z-.17-0.43 mm 0. 074-0.17 mm <0.074 mm Values are mg/l except as noted. 42 TABLE 12 BIG SUAMICO ELUTRIATES DUPLICATES 1745-18200 Parameter site Sample Value Duolicate Value Arsenic A 0.003 <0.002 Iron A 2.49 2.66 Cadmium A 0.004 0.004 Copper A 0.006 0.007 Chromium A 0.002 0.006 Nickel A 0.004 0.004 Manganese A 0.043 0.064 Lead A <0.002 <0.002 Mercury A 0.33 0.33 Zinc A 0.032 0.035 Suspended Solids 40 so Cyanide <0.005 <0.005 Total Phosphate 0.02 0.03 Total Dissolved 20 22 Solids PCBs A <0.0001 <0.0001 Pesticides A <0.0001 <0.0001 values are mg/l. Where no site is listed, the duplicate is from another project. 4.3 TABLE 23 DETROIT CORPS OF MINEERS Harbor Big Suamico Sample Type_KLtg.,@ Date Collected 7/27/83 site Parameter A B solids Total Volatile Solids j Suspended Solids 6 Dissolved solids 200 17A TOC 117 BOD COD <20 <20 Oil & Grease <5 <5 Cyanide <0.005 <0.005 hengls 0.008 ---0,009 Total Phosphorous 0.09 0.07 Dissolved Phosphorous TKN <1 <1 Ammonia <0.05 0.06 Arsenic <o.ob2 <0.002 Iron 0.155 0.138 Cadmi= <0.001 <0.001 Copper 0,002 0.002 Chr=i= <0.002 <0.002 Nickel <0.002 0.016 Manganese 0.029 0.038 EFIT <0.002 0.002 Mercury- -:0.0002 <0.0002 f='c 0.028 0.018 Total PCB's .:0.0001 <0.0001 Chlorinated Pesticides Lindane @:0.0001 <0.0001 Reptachlor 40.0001 0.0001 Aldrin 40.0001 0.0001 .Dieldrin 0.0001 0.000i Heptachlor epoxilye-- 0.0001 0.0001 Methoxychlor 0.0001 0.0001 DM 0.0001 <0.0001 DDE 0.0001 C0.0001 Pecal Coliform (#/100 ml) <10 <10 Dens ty Grain Size >2 mm 0.43-2 mm mm 0.074-0.17 mm <0.074= Values are mg/l except as noted. 44 Guidance Criteria for In-Water Disposal Based upon*current knowledge regarding in-water disposal of dredge materials, the WDNR is considering the possibility of allowing in-water disposal of clean dredged material. A WDNR technical subcommittee has developed guidelines for evaluating the in-water disposal option for dredged material. These guidelines are as follows: If any pollutant, or group of pollutants, of concern is found in concentrations greater than 125% of the interim criteria for that pollutant, in-water disposal will not be allowed. If three or more pollutants are found in concentrations greater than 110% of the interim criteria for those pollutants, in-water disposal will not be allowed. If one or two pollutants are found in concentrations .within the range of 110-125% of the interim criteria for those same pollutants, in-water disposal will be determined on a case-by-case basis. If all pollutants are found at concentrations of 110% or less than the interim criteria for those same pollutants, in-water disposal may be allowed. For on the beach disposal, the particle size of the dredged material must meet the following criteria: the average percent of spoil material finer than .074 mm must be within 10-15 percent points of average disposal site material finer than .074 mm. For in-water disposal, particle size matching is not required. For near shore disposal, 50 percent or more of sand is required by WDNR (as per proposed revisions to NR 347). 45 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTION 4 PROPOSED DREDGE MATERIAL I DISPOSAL SITING I I Methodology in order to develop a map of potentially feasible dredge disposal sites in the Town of Suamico, it is necessary to accumulate as much of the appropriate information pertaining to the physical nature of the Town as is possible. Unless a potential dredge disposal site is physically investigated through the use of detailed soil borings, it is impossible to be assured of its acceptability. For that reason, this plan will identify specific reuse options but only identify potential dredge disposal locations. if this plan would be carried on to the implementation phase, more detailed review and analysis would be required to determine the suitability of specific sites. If must be noted that in all probability, not all of the potential dredge disposal sites have been identified in a plan of this scope. By the very nature of the base data, portions of the Town identified as having moderate probability for a site might in fact have several most probable locations. Physical Limitation Affecting Dredge Disposal Siting For various reasons, there are a number of physical features such as wetlands, floodplains, soils and critical habitat areas that may limit the placement of dredge disposal sites. These factors are especially true when dealing with contaminated dredge material. A summary of these conditions include: Within 1,000 feet of any navigable lake, pond or flowage, Within 300 feet of any navigable river or steam, Within an area that has been identified as floodplain by WDNR and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Within wetlands that are delineated on the Brown County Wetland maps, Within critical habitat areas that have been delineated, Within areas where there is reasonable probability that the disposal of dredge material will have a detrimental effect on surface water and/or groundwater, and Within areas where the prominent soil types are not conducive to support a dredge disposal site or solid waste land fill site. 49 General Dredge Disposal Options Once all of the necessary permits permits and approvals have been obtained for the dredging of a particular area, disposing of the dredge material in a safe and efficient way is of primary concern. The following is a compilation of disposal options: 1. When dredged material is polluted according to EPA criteria, two disposal methods exist: Polluted dredged material that doesn't contain toxic and/or hazardous contaminants can be disposed of in a CDF or other licensed facility. Polluted dredged materials containing high levels of PCB's, heavy metals or other toxic materials may require special care in disposal, such as placing them in a specially-designed and licensed toxic and hazardous waste disposal site. 2. When dredged material is unpolluted by EPA standards, many options exist under existing laws for the disposal of the disposal of the material, including many beneficial uses: Permanent upland disposal site - Filling abandoned gravel pit or creating a diked disposal area are examples of permanent upland disposal. This option requires a solid waste license or waiver under @Chapter 180, Wis. Adm. Code. Upland disposal sites might require a pollutant discharge permit under Chapter 200, Wis. Adm. Code, if the site has a discharge to a waterway or to the groundwater. Transfer/reuse site - A permanent site for storage of reusable materials requires a solid waste license (or waiver of license). if the site is located on the bed of a waterway, a structure permit (s. 30.12, Stats.) would be required. Shore protection - Using dredged material in riprap or other shore protection projects does not require a permit if the dredged material is placed above the ordinary high-water mark (OHWM), behind an approved bulkhead line, or is used to replace shoreline material which has eroded in the past year. Fill behind bulkhead lines - Dredged material may be used as fill behind an approved.bulkhead line. A pollutant discharge permit or solid waste license may be required. Marsh restoration/creation - Instead of creating dry land, fill may be used to create or restore wetland 50 conditions. Restoration might be possible without permits or authority if the purpose of the filling is ,to reclaim suddenly lost shoreland. In this case, filling must be done within one year.after the damaging erosion event. Marsh creation might be possible by combining a submerged lands lease and a bulkhead line. Littoral drift continuation - Breakwaters and similar structures interrupt the natural long shore transport of sediment by currents (littoral drift) - causing sediments to accumulate and increasing down drift erosion. If the dredged materials are clean, depositing them down drift from the artificial barrier would preserve an important natural process. Littoral drift continuation might be possible by combining a submerged land lease and a bulkhead line. Beach nourishment - Clean dredge materials may be used to nourish an existing beach as a shore protection methods. This use requires no permit if the dredged material is placed above the ordinary highwater mark or behind an approved bulkhead line. Beach nourishment is commonly used to offset damage caused by coastal structures that interfere with littoral drift. 3. Other options for the disposal of dredged materials that might be permitted include: Construction of breakwaters, jetties, groins, etc. Construction of marinas and harbor facilities. Construction of bridges and/or causeways. Construction of bridges and/or causeways. Construction of parks, roads, sewage treatment facilities, etc. Surface application on agricultural land as a soil conditioner. Capping for landfill. Economically used for highway ice control. In-water, near-shore disposal of clean dredged material may be an option if NR 347 is revised to permit such activity. 5 1 Recommended Dredge Disposal Alternatives - Town of Suamico Based on the test data that was compiled back in 1983 from the reuse options identified previously and from discussions with WDNR Personnel, the future disposal of dredge material from the Suamico Harbor should be limited to upland disposal sites. Specific reasons for this recommendation include: 1. The current language contained within Chapter 30.12 of the Wisconsin State Statutes states that in water disposal of dredge material is not permitted; 2. WDNR staff have reevaluated the sampling data that was prepared in 1983 by the Corps of Engineers and have determined that the presence of Oils, Grease, Cadmium, PCB's and DDT make the dredge materials from the harbor area unsuitable for in-water disposal. Reuse and Dis2osal Options Several specific reuse options and upland disposal sites have been identified for the dredge material from the Suamico Harbor. 1. (a) Beach nourishment would be suitable during periods with normal water levels. But at the current time, the high water has consumed many of the original shoreland areas and has resulted in many of the beaches being under several feet of water. Also, the quality of the dredge material for beach nourishment is questioned because of sediment conditions. When water levels subside and the se*diment conditions are more accurately known, the potential reuse of clean dredge material for beach nourishment should be reevaluated. (b) Allowing property owners to fill behind bulkhead lines is also possible. The problem with this option is that many of the landowners in the Suamico area need little or no fill. (c) Wetland restoration is another possible reuse option. With current water levels, several wetlands in the area can be restored to their once natural state. (d) Restoration/protection of Long Tail Point is another option. Much of this effort would involve the placement of clean material on Long Tail Point to protect it from the record high Bay levels. (e) A final reuse option is the placement of dredge material around the lighthouse. This would provide protection for the facility from the immediate effects of high water. It must be noted that some type of containment would be needed to keep the dredge material in place. 2. Several upland areas exist in the vicinity of the Suamico harbor that appear to have suitable soil conditions to accommodate dredge material disposal. Also, these areas have been evaluated as to their relationship to nearby 52 development and land uses (see Map 10). These upland areas include raising the elevations of developed areas that are along the river and bay shoreline, and in the nearby Howard Industrial Park. Some of the developed areas adjacent to the Suamico harbor are very low and are in need of fill. A significant problem does exist in that many of these areas are now under several feet of water and current WDNR regulations do not permit the in-water placement of fill material. When water levels do subside, these areas should be reevaluated as upland disposal sites for clean dredge material. A second upland disposal site for clean dredge material is the Howard industrial Park which is located approximately four and one half miles to the southwest. Some of the industrial park is located in a 500 year floodplain. Fill could be placed in the park which would permit better . utilization of some of the park sites while not inhibiting the water retention capabilities of the floodplain area. In addition to these areas, there are a number of low areas in the Suamico area that could be filled. But, the uie of dredge material for fill purposes should not occur at this time until new test data can determine the overall effect of the before-mentioned contaminants in the dredge material. 53 MAP 10 AREAS SUITABLE FOR 1 1 41 DREDGE MATERIAL DISPOSAL -0A X. .00 0.0:. .0 00 000 LIT. . . .. . ........... TAI L xx IR' PT. X.. X.. -X. X.X. :-X- tM .. ....... ....... . .... % %%: ... LEGEND X %%: X Most Probable For Dredge Disposal Site X. X. 0* jModerately Probable For Dredge X: sposal. Site X Least Probable For Dredge X, *00 Disposal Site .0 00 x 0 0-0 00 00 0 X.. LONG %V: 0 1/2 TAIL 1b: DEAD X. HORSE PT. miles BAY % Source: Brown County Comprehensive Solid 0 HOWARD INDUSTRIAL PARK X. - -- 1. . @ 1@ M M fill I Summary - Future Considerations Based on the data that has been assembled, several factors need further consideration. These include: deficiencies in the sediment testing data, costs, potential funding sources and community involvement activities. Deficiencies in Sediment Testing Data The sediment data listed earlier for the Suamico harbor is deficient in several ways. First, the location of the test sites are not completely correct. Site C is located in close proximity to the outfall pipe of the sewage treatment plant. The sediment tests may, therefore, be skewed. Also, the areas that need dredging most are found in the vicinity to sites B, C and D. Some dredging may also be required in the upstream area of the river but no current sediment test data is available. Based on these deficiencies, additional sediment test data must be obtained to better indicate the location and physical makeup of the dredge material. Costs Sediment Testing: Before dredging of material can actually occur in the Suamico Harbor, better sediment data must be obtained. It has been estimated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that new sediment sampling and testing would cost between $7,500-10,000. Dredging: Based on the amount of material needed to be dredged from the Suamico Harbor is approximately 30,000 cubic yards and an estimated dredging cost of $5.00/cubic yard, approximately $150,000 would be needed based on current dollar estimates to dredge all of the existing material from the Suamico Harbor and move the material to one or more upland areas. Potential Funding Sources A number of potential funding sources exist that may be applicable for the funding of sediment testing and dredging in the Suamico Harbor. These possible funding sources include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wisconsin Waterways Commission, Harbor Assistance Program and Wisconsin Coastal Management Program. In addition to these outside sources, the Town of Suamico could be viewed as potential funding source for future dredging and dredge related activities. 55 Community Involvement BLRPC staff prepared this harbor management plan for the Suamico Harobr in anticipation to changes to legislation that relates to final placement of clean dredge material. This plan was developed with the technical assistance of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and Wisconsin Coastal Management personnel. The direct impact of local officials and residents from the Suamico Harbor area was not pursued. The primary reason for not pursuing local involvement centered around the fact that the legislation needed to support in-water disposal of clean dredge material did not legally exist. Commission and WDNR staff felt that leading communities to believe that in-water disposal was permitted before th laws were changed would do more harm than good. A second factor which contributed to this decision included the fact that the sediment data for the Suamico harbor was inadequate to make an accurate determination if the proposed dredge material is clean or not. A third factor is that current high water conditions found on the Great Lakes do not make dredging a priority issue especially in small communities such as Suamico. Also, there are very limited dollars available to pay for dredging in communities of this size. In many instances, the only dollars now available for dredging are local. With greater competition for state and federal funds that are available to local units of government, greater demands are being placed on local revenues funds for day-to-day administrative uses. The specific reuse options and potential disposal sites that have been developed for this plan should be used as a guide for future dredge disposal planning efforts. Once the legislation has been approved by the Wisconsin Legislature which permits as an option, in-water disposal of clean material, BLRPC and WDNR staff will work with the local unit of government (Town of Suamico) to refine the findings of this document. Only then can specific proposals relating to the siting of dredge material be acted upon. 56 I I I i I I I I I @ I I I I I I I APPENDICES I I I APPENDIX A State Regulations Affecting Dredging The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (herein referred to as WDNR) has the regulatory authority in Wisconsin to oversee all dredging projects that occur in Wisconsin's navigable waterways. A summary of each of these regulations has been developed and is provided in the following: General Dredging Regulations: Removal of material from beds of navigable waters, Section 30.20, Wisconsin State Statutes. Removal of any material from any navigable lake or stream bed -requires a contract with, or permit from, the DNR. Dredging contacts/permits specify methods of disposal which help minimize or eliminate adverse effects of dredging on water quality, habitat, and recreation. Regulations of dredging projects on the beds of waterways, .NR 347, Wisconsin Administrative Code. This rule provides legal definitions of dredging related terms, lists required projects and environmental information, and specifies the implementation (as it applies to dredging of the wastewater treatment facility plan approval program, the solid and hazardous waste management programs and the Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination System. Water Quality-Related Laws: Wastewater treatment facility plan approval, Section 144.04, Wisconsin Statutes. Under this program, all wastewater treatment facilities and sewer extensions constructed for the handling of dredged material disposal must have approved plans prior to beginning construction. Changes to such facilities must also be approved. All treatment facility plans must conform with,existing approved areawide waste treatment management plans under the federal Clean Water Act. A dredged material disposal facility may require plan approval since it can involve treatment of waterborne pollutants. solid and hazardous waste management programs, Sections 144.43 through 144.784, Wisconsin State Statutes. This group of laws directed the DNR to develop standards for permitting and licensing the construction and operation of solid and hazardous waste disposal facilities. From a preliminary discussion of a proposed dredging project, the DNR determines what technical information is required for permitting. This is based on the amount of dredged material and the potential for contamination of the sediments with PCB's or other hazardous substances. The laws provide for county-level solid waste management planning to be coordinated with recycling and other regional plans. Depending on the nature of the dredged 59 material and the disposal site, a solid or hazardous waste license.may be required. Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination System, Chapter 147, Wisconsin State Statutes. To eliminate the harmful effects of pollutants on waters and the organisms that depend on them, the legislature directed the DNR to establish limits on effluent discharges. No one may discharge a pollutant to a waterway without a permit. DNR review of the dredging discharge permit application may determine that the project can be authorized by a "general 0 permit" which establishes basic effluent limitation that must be me. For dredging projects not receiving the general permit, a permit is processed and individual effluent limitations are established. Water quality certification program, NR 299 Wisconsin Administrative Code. The federal Clean Water Act of 1977 requires projects receiving federal approval in state waters to meet state water quality laws. The administrative rule establishes the standards and procedures for determining whether federally issued permits meet the requirements of state laws. Obstruction-Related Laws: Establishment of bulkhead lines, Section 30.11, Wisconsin State Statutes. This statute enables a municipality to pass an ordinance subject to DNR approval establishing an artificial line (bulkhead line) delineating the shore of any navigable water within its boundaries. Waterfront property owners may place solid structures or fill up to such lines if they meet standards for the protection of fish, wildlife and water quality. A bulkhead line must meet two legal requirements: its purpose must be in the public interest and it must follow the existing shoreline as nearly as practicable. In the Great Lakes and other waterways where the Corps of Engineers maintains commercial navigation projects, a submerged lands lease may be combined.with a bulkhead line to allow structures or fill to be placed farther from the shoreline than by bulkhead line alone. Structures and deposits in navigable waters, Section 30.12., Wisconsin State Statutes. This statute prohibits the deposit of any material or the placement of any structure on the bed of any navigable water or beyond a lawfully established bulkhead line without a permit. Structures such as groins and jetties, sand blankets, fish cribs or riprap may be placed in navigable waters by permit. Deposits of materials that have no intended use or form are prohibited. 60 BIBLIOGRAPHY Brown County Comprehensive Plan Continuing Planning Program, Brown County Planning Commission, March 1976 Brown County Comprehensive Solid.Waste Management Plan, Robert E. Lee and Associates, Inc., 1981 Brown County Farmland Preservation Plan, Brown County Planning Commission, June 19, 1985 Environmentally Significant Areas in Brown County, Wisconsin, Brown County Planning Commission, April 1979 Green Bay Estuary Study, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1979 Green Bay West Shore Study-Summary Report, Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission, 1980 Harbor Dredging and Sediment Data, U.S. Army Corps of Engineer, 1983 Harbor Study (Commercial-Recreation), Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission, November 1982 Ten-year Dredged Material Disposal Plan for Lower Green Bay, Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission 61 BAY-LAKE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION COMMISSION STAFF BROWN COUNTY Ralph M. Bergman Samuel Halloin Executive Director Cecil Depeau Sarah Thulin Robert L. Fisher Principal Planner DOOR COUNTY Clifford Delorit Martin W. Holden George Evenson Local Assistance Planner Norman Stegmann Robert L. Kallien, Jr. FLORENCE COUNTY Natural Resource Planner Edwin Kelley Nick Stricker, Pamela J. Landwehr Vice-Chairman Transportation Planner John Zoeller Gail A. Niedzwiedz KEWAUNEE COUNTY Economic Planner Rufus Entringer Clarence Ihlenfeldt Susan A. Olson Paul Wolske, Graphics Coordinator Chairman Nancy L. Senn MANITOWOC COUNTY Transportation Planner Anthony Dufek Stephen Nenonen Jane M. Bouchonville Donald Rehbein Office Coordinator/Bookkeeper MARINETTE COUNTY Krissti M. Benson Cheryl Maxwell Clerk-Typist II Lawrence Theisen Mary Jenny Sandra A. Phillips Clerk-Typist II OCONTO COUNTY Ralph Heller Cindy J. Wojtczak Laurence Rupiper Research Assistant Alvin Bohn SHEBOYGAN COUNTY REPORT PRODUCTION STAFF Dirk Zylman James Gilligan Principal Authors: Richard Schneider Robert L. Kallien, Jr. Contributing Staff: Robert L. Fisher Cindy J. Wojtczak Graphics: Susan A. Olson Typist: Krissti M. Benson ,,NOAA,,COASIAL,S.RVICE8 CIR LI.RARY 5 3 6668 14112822C