Harbor maintenance and improvement plan, town of Pensaukee, Oconto County, Wisconsin

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

HARBOR MAINTENANCE
and
IMPROVEMENT PLAN

TOWN OF PENSAUKEE
Oconto County, Wisconsin

FEBRUARY 1987

BAY-LAKE Regional Planning Commission
serving communities within the counties of:
FLORENCE MARINETTE OCONTO BROWN DOOR *KEWAUNEE MANITOWOC SHEBOYGAN

HARBOR.MAINTENANCE

AND

IMPROVEMENT PLAN

TOWN OF PENSAUKEE, OCONTO 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.

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

soils
. Soil Conditions - Oconto County . . . . . . . . 12
. Soil Conditions - Town of Pensaukee . . . . . . 12

Water Resources
� Pensaukee Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
� Water Related Industrial and Commercial Uses 14
� Water Related Recreational Uses . . . . . . . . 14
� Water Resources, Wildlife and Vegetation . . . 14

Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Land Use
� Generalized Land Use Conditions Oconto
County . . . . . . . .
� Generalized Land Use Conditi@n; Pen'sauk*e;
Harbor Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Archeological and Historic Sites . . . . . . . . . 27

Section 3 - EXISTING DREDGING-INFORMATION . . . . . . . 29

. Past Dredging Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
. Sediment Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
. Guidance Criteria for In-Water Disposal . . . . 38

Page

Section 4 - PROPOSED DREDGE MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITING 39

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . 41
Physical Limitations AffecLn*g'Dred'g; D'i;po*sal
Siting . . . * .;p ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Dredge Disposal tions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Recommended Dredge Disposal Alternatives - Town
of Pensaukee . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Reuse and Disposal Options .. . . . . . . . . . . 44
Summary - Future Considerations . . . . . . . . . 46
Deficiencies in Sediment Testing Data . . . . . . 46
Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 46
Potential Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Community Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Appendix A - State Regulations Affecting Dredging. 51

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

LIST OF MAPS

Page

Map 1 Locational Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Map 2 Glacial Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Map 3 General Soil Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Map 4 Important Fishery Areas . . . . . . . . . 17

Map 5 Land Use - Town of Pensaukee . . . . . . . 21

Map 6 Land Use - Pensaukee Harbor . . . . . . . 22

Map 7 Sediment Test Areas . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Map 8 Areas Suitable for Dredge Disposal,
Town of Pensaukee . . . . . . . . . . ... 45

LIST OF TABLES r

Table 1 Land Use, Oconto County - Acreage by
Unit of Government . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Table 2 Land Use, Oconto County - As a Percent
by Unit of Government . . . . . . . . . . 20

Table *3 Population Summary of Minor Civil
Divisions, Oconto County . . . . . . . . 25

Table 4 WDOA Population Projections, 1990-2010,
Oconto County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Table 5 Specific Historic and Archaeological
Sites, Oconto County . . . . . . . . . . 27

Table 6 Detroit Corps of Engineers Sample Data . 33

Table 7 Detroit Corps of Engineers Sample Data . 34

Table 8 Detroit Corps of Engineers Sample Data . 35

Table 9 Detroit Corps of Engineers Sample Data . 36

Table 10 Detroit Corps of Engineers Sample Data . 37

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I

SECTION 1
I INTRODUCTION
I
I
I

HARBOR MAINTENANCE & IMPROVEMENT PLAN

Introduction

An important part of the BLRPC's Coastal Manage ment 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 Pensaukee 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 Pensaukee Harbor due to the natural flow of the
Pensaukee 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 Pensaukee 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 Pensaukee 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

assess the pollutant content of dredge material as it relates
to potential disposal 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.

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 Settin2
Location

Pensaukee is located approximately 22 miles north of the Green
Bay harbor on the west shore of GreenBay at the mouth of the
Pensaukee River. The City of Oconto, Oconto County's largest
community and it's county seat, is located just five miles to
the north (see Map 1).

The harbor area is within an hour drive from the Nicolet
National Forest, and is also adjacent to the waters of Green
Bay.

Political Jurisdiction

The Town of Pensaukee, 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.

Chaptei 30 of the Wisconsin State Statutes allows a Town Board
to establish a Harbor Commission. Harbor Commissions can be
responsible 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. The Commission's expressed authority is limited to
those items specified in the resolution. All planning and
fiscal activity are under the control of the harbor commission
but any expenditures that are identified are subject to the
approval of the Town Board.

As of 1986, the Town of Pensaukee had not yet established a
Harbor Commission.

MAP 1
LOCATIONAL MAP

----------------
SEE- f-i /I
----------- ----------------

L IT' E ......

7 ------------- .........
------------ ,Y-7--

.-LE "LET -..E.

I- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-------------

LEftA LITTLI l..

- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.-I'T *,CZT,*

Slu
IS,
oj.@V ---------------
I.ASI -ILI .-I L
I c
------------- .......
A... III
PENSAUKEE
.............

vc ---

----------------

z@x --- ---------------------- ------
. " .- 11
-GE-A-
-1i--L.. ;

............
.... I.ia :GIBSON
LL..O id-6.1
L

-NILIN
T-

----------
T.. H@....
wh [email protected]
I.TE,

11.E.Tl

IINIEE... :lElTlN-E
MEEME

-- ---- --- -
IT

-LINE
1-1 S.E.... N

Source: BLRPC. 0

Topography and Geology

The entire county of Oconto has been modified by the
Pleistocene Epoch or "Ice Age". Glacial deposits in the county
range up to 300 feet in thickness. The ice sheets changes the
drainage patterns by carving valleys and building moraines on
top of the bedrock formations of the Precambrian, Cambrian and
ordovician periods. As the glaciers melted, water and wind
sorted and redeposited much of the material left exposed.

The present surface land featuresP or topography, are a result
of the fourth glacial stage, the Wisconsin Stage, which
occurred about 10,000 years ago. This was 'the final stage of
glacial activity which began during the Pleistocene Epoch,
about 1,000,000 years ago. All the land features in Oconto
County were formed under the direct influence of the Green Bay
Lobe of the last Wisconsin glacial ice sheet.

The nature of these glacial features, along with the type of
bedrock, place Oconto County in three different physiographic
regions of Wisconsin, the Northern Highlands, Central Plain,
and Eastern Ridges and Lowlands.

The southern and eastern parts of Oconto County, including the
Pensaukee harbor area, are included in the Eastern Ridges and
Lowlands. The glacial drift of this area is underlain by two
low, parallel ridges with gentle slopes on one side, and steep
back slopes of bedrock, referred to as cuestas, on the other
side. The western ridge, called the Prairie du Chien cuesta,
is formed mainly from Lower Magnesian dolomite (a type of
Limestone). The second ridge is composed of Galena-Black River
dolomite and is called the Galena-Platterville cuesta. Neither
of these ridges are prominent features of Oconto County - in
many places they are no more than 50 to 75 feet high. These
cuestas lack height because the ice sheets when passing over
them tended to wear and smooth them down through and erosion
process. Glacial deposits in this region are generally made up
of ground moraines on the west and lake sediments to the east
along the Green Bay shoreline.

Map 2 details the surficial glacial features found in Oconto
County. Pitted outwashes were formed from deposits from
glacial melt water and streams. The deposits are stratified
and sorted consisting of sand and gravel. The topography of
pitted outwash consist of knobs, kettles and minor ridges and
in some cases are quite similar to end moraines. Pitted
outwash coming from the Cary Stage is also found in the
northern portion of the county.

End moraines are glacial landforms composed of unsorted sand,
gravel, cobbles, and boulders that were deposited at the
terminus of the glacial ice. Acting as an enormous bulldozer,
the ice pushed and mounded this material into substantial
hills. F.T. Thwaites, in Pleistocene of Part of Northeastern

Wisconsin, Bulletin of Geological Society of America, Volume
54, 1941, pages 86-144, describes terminal moraines in
northeastern Wisconsin as consisting of ridges up to several
hundred feet high whose topography is-for the most part
extremely chaotic and irregular. A series of Cary end moraines
orientated north to south can be found in the northern portion
of the county.

Ground moraines, like end moraines, are composed of unsorted
material; however, ground moraines are considerably thinner
deposits and have an irregular, gently rolling surface as
compared to the more pronounced topography of end moraines.
Valders ground moraine most generally occurs in the central and
eastern portion of the county.

Eskers were formed from the deposits of streams running between
ice walls in the glaciers. Eskers are generally in the shape
of narrow continuous ridges. Eskers in Oconto County can be
found running east to west through the towns of Little River,
Lena, and Spruce. F
Drumlins are oval hills consisting of unstratified glacial
,drift, whose longer axis is parallel to the direction of ice
movement. Drumlins in Oconto County trend northeast-souteast
and can be found in the eastern portion of the county in the
northwestern corner of the town of Little River.

Glaciolacustrine deposits are composed of sand, silt, and clay.
These sediments were deposited by glacial lakes and can be
found in an extensive area adjacent to the Oconto River and the
Peshtigo Brook in the western portion of the county and along
the Green Bay shoreline in the eastern portion of the county.

Map 2
GLACIAL GEOLOGY

VO
OCONTO CO

601

-FA

LEGEND

Outwash

Pitted Outwash

L. -,. JGround Moraine
L, J End Moraine

L-J Glaciolacustrine Deposit
A"\"

Esker AV Drurnlin Physiographic Region
Boundary

Source: F.T.Thwaites, Pleistocene of Part of Northeastern Wisconsin, Wis. Dept. of Admin., and Wis. Geological and Nat ura I History Survey.

SOILS
Soil Conditions - Oconto County

Map 3 delineates the 8 soil associations of Oconto County and
provides a brief description of each soil association. Because
of the small scale of the map, only broad areas that have the
same pattern of common characteristics are shown. These common
characteristics include major soil types., topography and
drainage patterns. Within each mapping unit there are two or
three major soils, as well as some additional minor soils.
This generalized soil map is not suited for specific site
analysis, but rather it provides a general picture of the major
soil group distributions.

In general, soils in the northern portion of the county lie the
Northern Highlands, are comprised of three mapping units, all
of which are nearly level to very steep and are well drained.
They are Menahga-Rousseau, the Padus-Pena, and Lennan-Keweenaw
units. The Padus-Pena unit comprises the majority-of soils in
the northern highlands.

The Onaway-Solona-Seelyeville soil unit comprises the majority
of the soils in the central portion of the county, the central
plains. These soils are nearly level to very steep, well
drained to somewhat poorly drained and very poorly drained,
loamy and mucky soils on uplands. Menahya-Rousseau, Tilleda-
Menominee and Seelyeville-Marley Soils are also found in this
areal all to the north and west of the Onaway-Solona-Seelyville
unit.

In the eastern portion of the county in the Eastern Ridges and
Lowlands, the Solona-Onaway-Iosco is the predominant soil unit.
The soils are nearly level to gently sloping, well drained to
somewhat poorly drained, loamy and sandy soils on uplands.

Soil Conditions - Town of Pensaukee

The Town of Pensaukee lies within the eastern portion of the
county where the Wainola-Cormant and Solona-onaway-Iosco soil
types are predominant.

Wainola-Cormant soil, which is found in the Pensaukee Harbor
area, has several distinct characteristics. They are usually
sandy soils, somewhat poorly to very poorly drained. These
areas are usually almost level and are found on flats and
bottomlands.

The other soil type found in the Town of Pensaukee, the
Solona-Onaway-Iosco is found in areas of nearly level to gently
sloping terrain. This soil type is well drained to somewhat
poorly drained and is of sandy or loamy make-up.

Map 3
GENERAL SOIL MAP

"QP
F

OCONTO CO

G, $Vol Oa-
o a J@-

CO v CIS

LEGEND
I 0-ay-Solona-Seelyeville well drained t sotnewhat poorly drained and very poorly drained,
"Illy I'll, 11 very ""I, Pand, and
,..my am mucky soils; in depressions.
2. Wooa-Onaway-l.- ro GANA C?
lllrl@ lelepl to Wily llppin@, .111 drained to Somewhat poorly drained, lomay and sandy
on , nds.

3. Mendhg.-R ... seau
Nea,rly level to very steep, excessively drained and moderately well drained, sandy Oils;
.n p 1-6.
4. Waloola-Cormant
Nearly level, somewhat poorly to very poorly drained. sandy soils; on flats and bottomlands.
5. S-1yoville-Markey
Nearly level, very poorly drained, mucky soils, in depressions and on bottomlands.
S11

6. Tilled.-Hemani-
Nearly level to moderately steep, well drained, loamy and sandy soils, on uplands.
7. Padus-Pence
Nearly level to very steep, well drained, loamy soils, on uplands.
8. Sarona-Keweenaw
Nearly level to very steep. well drained, loamy and sandy soils. on uplands,

Source: Oconto County Sol I Conservation Service.

Water Resources
Pensaukee Harbor

The federal project channel at Pensaukee is 3,700 feet long.
The sediment in the initial 900 feet of upstream river bed is
considered polluted by EPA and the sediments in the remaining
2,800 feet are considered unpolluted. There is an estimated
17,000 to 37,000 cu. yds. of polluted sediment accumulated with
an annual deposition of 3,000 cu. yds. The unpolluted area has
a backlog of 49,000 to 91,000 cu. yds. and with an annual
deposition of 7,000 cu. yds. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
has indicated that dredging of 40,000 cu. yds. of material will
be needed sometime after 1985. The large volume of unpolluted
material makes the Pensaukee area a potential area for an
innovative disposal demonstration project. Also, if the
dredged material could be sold; a site is available for a
transfer station if potential users can be located.

The major harbor user, Shilling Fish Company, has undertaken
private maintenance dredging activities on an annual basis.
The dredged material was placed on adjacent upland site owned
by the company.

Water Related Industrial and Commercial Uses

There are approximately 12 commercial fishing boats that
utilize the Pensaukee Harbor. All but one of the fishing docks
are located on the south bank of the Pensaukee River within
2,200 feet of the mouth. A fish processing plant is also
located on the south bank at the river's mouth. There are no
other commercial uses of the harbor.

Water Related Recreational Uses

There are two boat launching ramps located across the river
from one another approximately 2,000 feet upstream of the
river's mouth. The ramp on the north bank is in a state of
disrepair and is unusable. There are no other public or
private recreational boating facilities in the harbor.

Water Resources, Wildlife and Vegetation

There are four drainage basins within Oconto County, with all
of the water draining into Green Bay. The Peshtigo River
Drainage Basin drains a very small portion of the county in the
Town of Brazeau, Lena, Little River, Lakewood, and Riverview.
.The Oconto River Drainage Basin drains the majority of the
northern and central portion of the county, draining
essentially everything north of the Oconto River. The Duck
Creek-Suamico-Pensaukee Rivers Drainage Basin drains the
southern portion of the county south of the Oconto River. The
Wolf River Drainage Basin drains a very small part of the
extreme western portion of the county.

Lakes and streams comprise the surface water resources of
Oconto County. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
prepared a report on the surface waters in Oconto County called
Surface Water Resources of Oconto County. The following is
from that report.

The area of surface water in Oconto County is 12,709.5
acres. Of this total, 10,969.5 acres are found in 379
lakes and impoundments and 1,740.0 acres in 191 streams.
Stream length in the county is 556.6 miles, of which 316.1
miles are classed as trout stream. Stream frontage (both
sides) amounts to 1,113 miles, while lake frontage amounts
to 301.5 miles. A comparison between available water area
of lakes and streams in relation to frontage finds 3,377
feet of stream frontage and 145 feet of lake frontage per
acre of water respectively.

Three hundred sixty-eight natural lakes account for 82
percent and 11 impoundments 18 percent of the total lake
surface area. Size classes and acreage of natural lakes
and impoundments are noted in Table 3. Lakes under 10
a6res represent 63 percent of the total number, butonly 7
percent of the acreage. only 24 lakes (6 percent) are 100
acres of larger, however, they comprise 60 percent of the
lake acreage.

In Oconto County, 39 percent of the lakes are under 8 feet
in depth, however, they include only 6 percent of the lake
acreage. Natural lake depths range from less than one
foot in spring ponds to a maximum depth of 65 feet in
Little Archibald Lake. White Potato is the largest lake
with 978 acres, and the Oconto River the largest stream
with 567.8 acres.

Oconto County has 25 miles of shoreline on the west'shore of
Green Bay. The west shore of Green Bay from the mouth of the
Fox River in Brown County to the Wisconsin-Michigan border is
an area which possesses an exceedingly rich heritage.
Characterized by a low, level terrain, this 53 mile segment of
Wisconsin's coastline contains one of the most valuable
remaining freshwater ecosystems in the Great Lakes region.

Along Wisconsin's 495 mile Lake Michigan shoreline, there are
less than 30 linear miles of remaining coastal wetlands, a
large percentage of which occur along the West Shore of Green
Bay. Although estimates vary, the West Shore area may contain
80 to 90 percent of the existing wetlands on the entire Lake
Michigan shore. This is of special significance because of the
somewhat unique character of freshwater coastal wetlands, which
contain many of the elements common to inland glacial marshes,
yet are subject to the dynamic physical forces of the shoreline
regime.

The Pensaukee River has been categorized as a hard water river
because of its slightly alkaline compositions. Fish species
known to inhabit the river include northern pike, panfish, carp
and various types of forage fish (see Map 4). Animals found in
the area include deer, rabbit, squirrel and partridge as well
as a variety of migrant birds. The specific kinds of birds
found in the Pensaukee area include scaup, ring-neck, ruddy,
redhead and canvasback ducks.

Vegetation that can be found in the watershed of the Pensaukee
River is primarily agricultural in nature. Some forest and
wetland areas are also found.

Climate

The Town of Pensaukee's climate is typically described as humid
continental, which is characterized by extremes in temperatures
and moderate amounts of precipitation. Average annual
temperatures are in the low 40's with average high temperatures
in the high 60's and low 70's and average low tempe6atures in
the0teens. Extreme temperatures can range from -30 F. to
100 F. Precipitation is in the form of rain and snow with an
average annual amount of 30 to 34 inches. Generally,
precipitation amounts and temperature extremes are greater in
the northern portion of the county. Conversely, the growing
season is longer in the southern portion of the county. This
due, in part, to longitudinal differences and the moderating
effect of Green Bay and Lake Michigan.

MAP 4
TANT FISHERY AREAS

...........

..... .....

141
Oconto 30
..... . . . . .
..........
conto
41
.............
.. .............
OCONTO S N
...................
..................
...................

......................
......................
...............
A

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

@Te
......................

.......................... .......
...... ........
SS
,@Lee ........

....... ..........
...........
ArO'Dks ide
.................

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

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

..........
S .......

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

PEN
31
SAUKEE
.................. .............
... ...........

... .......
6
................ ...

.............
7
S

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

............
. .....................
............................
...............
S
...............
...........
.......... :......
Sua 160
............
.. ............
.... ..........
.......... ....
............. .. ........................
............

Commercial Fishing
Spawning and Nursery -N-
Sport Fishing

0 2
Source, "Green Bay Estuary Study", U.S. Fish an@ Wildlife miles
Service
17

Land Use
Generalized Land Use Conditions - Oconto County

According to the 1975 County Land Use.Inventory, Oconto County
consists of approximately 653,446 acres of 1,021 square miles.
Approximately 33,631 acres or 5 percent is considered to be
developed (i.e. classified in the residential, commercial,
industrial, transportation, institutional/governmental
facilities or outdoor recreation categories) while the balance
of 619,816 acres or 95 percent is classified as either
agriculture/silviculture or natural area (See Tables 1 and 2).

Looking at the land use in the Town of Pensaukee's 22,805
acres, indicates a similar breakdown of land uses as that of
the county's (see Map 5). Residential land uses, consisting of
single family and multi-family dwellings, farm residences, and
mobile homes, account for 314.28 acres or 1.38 percent of the
total area of the town.

Commercial land uses include the use of land for retail sales
or trade of goods.and or services. only 9.46 acres.of 0.04
percent of the town's total area is comprised of this category.

Industrial land use includes the use of land for manufacturing,
wholesaling, storage and extractive industries. Approximately
26.79 acres or 0.12 percent of the town's area is in this
category.

Transportation land uses are comprised of federal, state, and
local roads and highways, airports, rail lines, parking areas
and marine related transportation facilities. Approximately
711.69 acres or 3.12 percent of the town's area is in the
transportation category.

The communications/utilities land use category is comprised of
such uses as electrical power plants, water treatment
facilities, sewage treatment facilities, electric power
transmission line right-of-ways, natural gas transmission
pipeline right-of-ways, and landfills. Approximately 57.97
acres or 0.25 percent of the town's area is within this
category.

The institutional/governmental land use category is comprised
of land for public and private facilities for education, health
or assembly and for government facilities used for
administration and safety. Land uses in this category account
for 18.97 acres or 0.08 percent of the town's total area.

The outdoor recreation land use category is comprised of land
for sport and recreational facilities and for camping and
picnicking facilities. outdoor recreation land uses comprise
34.08 acres or 0.15 percent of the town's total area.

T*ABLE. 1.
LAND USE OCONTO COUNTY ACREAGE BY UNIT OF GOVERNMENT

Unit Institutional
of Communications- Government Outdoor Agriculture- Natural
Government Total Acreage Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation Utilities Facilities Recreation Silviculture Areas

TOWNS
Abrams 24,135.87 367.38 9.69 33.65 596.30 59.78 4.40 214.44 8,370.91 14,479.32
Armstrong 46,836.08 610.33 18.66 77.39 1,065.10 177.53 7.35 363.20 2,104.07 42,412.45
Bagley 22,994.48 157.04 1.60 11.76 451.13 45.74 0.58 0.29 2,855.42 19,470.92
Brazeau 46,115.26 761.47 3.35 79.09 1,042.13 188.23 5.87 12.04 13,542.54 30,480.54
Breed 23,000.03 259.05 3.18 4.11 591.48 --- 2.82 73.99 5,478.79 16,586.61
Chase 22,881.09 307.11 3.04 114.35 515.91 50.86 8.22 142.31 16,115.08 5,624.21
Doty 34,915.44 376.46 2.06 7.94' 697.25 12.13 2.36 320.50 2,052.71 31,444.03
Gillett 22,171.75 315.07 2.92 113.78 622.23 167.84 7.20 1.17 14,530.13 6,411.41
How 22,453.19 170.44 1.18 14.26 456.40 5.10 7.79 0.88 10,282.52 11,514.62
Lakewood 46,434.34 648.79 19.84 35.43 901.79 84.88 10.59 167.39 1,592.82 42,972.81
,Lena 21,486.03 224.94 2.35 43.95 524.15 189.24 5.44 17.10 14,632.37 5,846.49
Little River 33,208.74 313.80 4.57 59.53 839.77 180.45 1.84 47.84 16,115.87 15,645.07
Little Suamico 23,900.62 719.09 8.09 111.02 768.43 71,10 20.43 75.44 12,240.87 9,886.15
Lo Maple Valley 22,693.51 248.30 0.29 49.49 520.67 61.10 7.61 36.10 12,336.24 9,433.71
Morgan 22,855.83 207.00 1.32 116.87 525.75 99.22 3.33 9.31 13,634.21 8,258.82
Oconto 23,606.41 264.91 5.94 20.24 814.81 157.17 12.24 84.93 14,392.37 7,853.80
Oconto Falls 21,214.43 276.33 1.18 37.79 544.68 322.50 4.41 13,371.89 6,655.65
Pensaukee 22,805.49 314.28 9.46 26.79 711.69 57.97 18.97 34.08 10,989.73 10,642.52
Riverview 46,334.71 695.49 9.72 15.14 937.87 64.96 1.75 1IiO5 1,781.06 42,817.67
Spruce 22,942.60 300.26 3.39 30.97 526.30 101.92 8.22 19.70 14,002.55 7,949.29
Stiles 22,587.68 366.75 8.36 25.58 627.22 249.34 7.73 152.48 10,176.59 10,973.63
Townsend 27,148.79 844.78 25.40 43.01 1,009.76 3.67 7.34 62.59 3,589.50 21,562.74
Underhill 22,942.17 260.33 1.18 32.45 468.61 8.92 6.61 11.71 10,066.68 12,085.68

VILLAGES
Lena 484.15 61.19 11.19 13.10 70.88 13.59 7.20 10.89 257.27 38.84
Suring 675.36 84.72 11.48 20.87 74.83 7.75 3.97 77.36 34.47 359.91

CITIES
Gillette 822.77 170.91 14.41 26.85 101.39 9.52 15.99 25.20 187.21 271.29
Oconto 4,154.68 587.49 51.83 99.79 370.46 41.38 67.40 430.82 589.48 1,916.03
Oconto Falls 1,645.09 334.08 14.85 66.60 170.44 30.86 32.54 97.65 96.39 801.59
COUNTY TOTAL 653,446.59 10,247.79 250.53 1,331.89 16,547.43 2,462.75 290.20 2,500.46 225,419.74 394,395.80

Source; Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission, 1975 Land Use Inventory

TAB LE,@ 2
LAND USE OCONTO COUNTY AS A PERCENT BY UNIT OF GOVERNMENT

Unit Institutional
Of Communications- Government Outdoor Agriculture- Natural
Government Total Percent Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation Utilities Facilities Recreation Silviculture Areas

TOWNS
Abrams 100.00 1.52 0.04 0.14 2.47 0.25 0.02 0.89 34.68 59.99
Armstrong 100.00 1.30 0.04 0.17 2.27 0.38 0.02 0.78 .4.49 90.55
Bagley 100.00 0.68 0.01 0.05 1.96 0.20 12.42 84.68
Brazeau 100.00 1.65 0.01 0.1? 2.26 0.41 0.01 0.03 29.37 66.09
Breed 100.00 1.13 0.01 0.02 2.57 - 0.01 0.32 23.82 72.12
Chase 100.00 1.34 0.01 0.50 2.26 0.22 0.04 0.62 70.43 24.58
Doty 100.00 1.08 0.01 0.02 2.00 0.03 0.01 0.92 5.88 90.05
Gillett 100.00 1.42 0.01 0.51 2.81 0.76 0.03 0.01 .65.53 28.92
How 100.00 0.76 0.01 0.06 2.03 0.02 0.04 45.80 51.28
Lakewood 100.00 1.40 0.04 0.08 1.94 0.18 0.02 0.36 3.43 92.55
Lena 100.00 1.05 0.01 0.20 2.44 0.88 0.03 0.08 68.10 27.21
Little River 100.00 0.95 0.01 0.18 2.53 0.54 0.01 0.14 48.53 47.11
Little Suamico 100.00 3.01 0.03 0.46 3.22 0.30 0.09 0.32 51.21 41.36
Maple Valley 100.00 1.10 0.22 2.29 0.27 0.03 0.16 54.36 41.57
NO Morgan 100.00 0.91 0.01 0.51 2.30 0.43 0.01 0.04 59.65 36.14
CD Oconto 100.00 1.12 0.03 0.09 3.45 0.66 0.05 0.36 60.97 33.27
Oconto Falls 100.00 1.30 0.01 0.18 2.57 1.52 0.02 - 63.03 31.37
Pensaukee 100.00 1.38 0.04 0.12 3.12 0.25 0.08 0.15 48.19 46.67
Riverview 100.00 1.50 0.02 0.03 2.03 0.14 0.02 3.85 92.41
Spruce 100.00 1.31 0.01 0.14 2.29 0.44 0.04 0.09 61.03 34.65
Stiles 100.00 1.62 0.04 0.11 2.78 1.10 0.03 0.68 45.05 48.59
Townsend 100.00 3.11 0.09 0.16 3.72 0.01 0.03 0.23 13.22 79@43
Underhill 100.00 1.13 0.01 0.14 2.04 0.04 0.03 0.05 43.88 52.68

VILLAGES
Lena 100.00 12.63 2.31 2.71 14.64 2.81 1.49 2.25 53.14 8.02
Suring 100.00 12.54 1.70 3.09 11.08 1.15 0.59 11.46 5.10 53.29

CITIES
Gillett 100.00 20.77 1.75 3.26 12.32 1.16 1.94 3.07 22.76 32.97
Oconto 100.00 14.14 1.25 2.40 8.92 0.99 1.62 10.37 14.19 46.12
Oconto Falls 100.00 20.31 0.90 4.05 10.36 1.88 1.98 5.93 5.86 48.73

COUNTY TOTAL 100.00 1.57 0.04 0.20 2.53 0.38 0.04 0.38 34.50 60.36

*Less than .01 percent

Source: Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission, 1975 Land Us@ Inventory

M M M M zm M M_ M M @m = .I III I

MAP 5

LAND USE
TOWN OF PENSAUKEE

Crawford R:
@5
M 'C@
. . . . . . . . . ........
95 n
E W I
0
Laa.

Rd. 0 0 l<
a on a luegers Ou a
m

8
.7 -en
9
or detail
AUK see page 29
d. 0 Llej eois I
17 00
t__0
4'Li

OCONTO COUNTY

0 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 $000 6000
D
cc
feet

Kozlowski 30 29 'Q.
M

E
Oak ME
Rd

31 R 3
77--

ou
0
A Sam son Rid. LEGEND-
ERd. a arles Farm Residence Governmental/ Institutional
Pond
0 Non-Farm Residence Recreation

Concentrated Development
AL Commercial
0 Industrial 0 Farmland
+
ouarrjes, Pits Woodland

Welland
Public Utility
G&' each
all

Source. Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission.

MAP 6
LAND' USE
PENSAUKEE HARBOR
Oconto County, Wisconsin

NOT FOR NAVIGATIONAL USE

FEET
i
500 1000 2000
@,5
. , W-4

'Cc. f X- f

C. VTX't'e

VT,
7'@S
x-If

2
.... ......
FOR
WID7-@j
...... UF 100

Z. rx
4r
74.
ft

.... ..... .

SOURCE: NOAA NAUTICAL CHARTS AND BAY-LAKE
REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION

LEGEND

Residential Natural Areas
Commercial Agricultural
Industrial 22 = Vacant/Other

The agricultural/silviculture land use category is comprised of
croplands, pasturelands, other agricultural areas, and
commercial forest. Land uses in this category account for
approximately 10,989.73 acres or 48.19 percent of the town's
total area.
The natural area category is comprised of lakes, rivers and
streams, woodland, wetland, and grasslands. Land uses in this
category account for 10,642.52 acres or 46.67 percent of the
town's total area.

Generalized Land Use Conditions - Pensaukee Harbor Area

The land uses along the Pensaukee River from the river's mouth
to the CTH S Bridge (a distance of approximately one mile),
consists of wetlands, single family residential uses and
commercial fishing docks (see Map 6).
The Shilling Fish Processing Plan is located at the mouth of
the river on the south bank. Land uses include a disposal pond
for-process waters, outdoor storage, docks and the processing
plant. *The next 1,000 feet of shoreline are used by commercial
fishermen for the mooring of boats and outdoor storage. 'This-
is followed by several residential structures, two commercial
fishing docks, and a public boat ramp. At this point the river
bends, forming a peninsula terminating at the CTH S Bridge.
Land uses on the peninsula primarily consist of wetlands,
grasslands and woodlands.

There is no development along the first 1,800 feet of the north
bank of the river from the river's mouth. Land use in this
reach is comprised solely of wetlands and woodlands. This is
followed by a single family dwelling, a public boat ramp, and
commercial fishing dock, and approximately ten residential
dwellings along 2,000 feet of river frontage. The remaining
river frontage upstream to the CTH S Bridge parallels CTH S and
consists of open space.

Transportation

The Town of Pensaukee is intersected by CTH-GS which runs north
and south forming a link between Oconto, five miles to the
north, and Little Suamico, which is approximately eight miles
to the south. Fish House Road, a town road, extends east along
the south bank of the Pensaukee River providing giving access
to the harbor area.

Austin Straubel Airport, a large regional airport is located
approximately 26 miles to the south and services the region
with commercial air service.

One railroad, the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad Company,
provides rail transportation to the community of Pensaukee,
however, there is no direct rail service to the harbor.

Population

Between 1930 and 1970, the Town of Pensaukee grew by 68 persons
or increased by almost 9 percent. Between 1970 and 1980, the
Town grew by almost 20 percent and reached a population of
1,000 by 1980. A comparison of the Town's 1930-1980 population
figures to the other minor civil divisions in Oconto County is
found on Table 3.

Based on the most recent Wisconsin Depart ment of Administration
(WDOA) population projections for the Town of Pensaukee
indicate a fairly stable rate of population growth through the
year 2010. From the Town's 1985 population estimate of 953,
the Town's population is projected to grow to 1,308 by 2,010
(see Table 4).

TABLE 3
POPULATION OF MINOR CIVIL. DIIJISION5
01:13NTO COUNTY, WIS
1930 -- t9co

IIINOP
DIVISII-.,It-4 1930 1940 19.1 0 iric-lo 1970 19130

T. - ABRAMS 83.4 -G-105 759 820 884 1) 11131
'T. FiPM'-TR0M--4 541S 572 0 373 53C, 7 35
T . BAGLEY 15 I*_-- - 242 @21 11 197 209 272
T. B RAZEAU 1 1 OFS 1@135 :@2;3 916 924 110,39
T. BREEO 462 537 422 391 4 0 L--' 5-53
T . C H f I'S. E 1)081 11091 9' 52 932 1 ME, 1,256
T. DOTY 66 125 103 Gil 93 154
T. G I LLETT 1 011-30 1 @ 029 11003 957 1:13E. 11059
T HOW 821 777 746 627 5IS5 5SA 2
T Lflt:".E:WOI'-'[D 411 360 31E 12 351 4 f3'-74 516
T LENA 936 970 E", @ 14 828 077 051
T LITTLE PIVEP I OAS 11011 1104.0 S128 8513 940
T. L ITI'LE SURPI I CC') 1114-H 1)098 11049 989 1,131) 1,9(,-9
T. MAPLE VALLE"i" 909 9 7-5 4 1,3180 742 6-1119 715
T. ME"-NOMINEE 2E.9 2 --'9 5 261 ---
T MlJ[-..GAN 770 :3 1 611-18 E.- 3 3 670 726
T OL'ONTO 972 1@102 993 974 934 937
T 01(71NTID FALLS 5 5 909 ::-111`37 043 a 1 1.1033
T. P E f - 4 -S F i t. J I - --.E E 7 9! J, 822 J.'3160 869 13000
26-0 3-121
T P I VERV I EW 271 243 252 417
T SPPUCE 924. 960 927 834 8 10 '@05
T r.1 L E S 730 80E, :s, 1. C. 792 8,151 1, 26 1
T TOWNSEND 3 10 G 409 3 .013 4 6'. _5 735
T UNI)EPHILL 825 736 1 C"'Clo E. 13 664
V LENA 4 13, 469 526 506 569 505
k). SUP I NG 421 437 513 499 51. 2, 1
C. GILLETT 1,076 1,145 15410 1.1374 11288 1,356
C OCONTO 51030 5 13 6 ":2 54055 41305 .4, 667 4,505
C OCEINTO FF)LL-.'.:-, 1.1921 1, Boo 2,050 2,331 2)517 2,500

URBAN TOTAL 8,861 9, 301 91587 9.1529 9,540 9y52-?
TI)WN TOTFIL. 17.,525 17)774 1. 65 E15 1 15158 1 1 E. 10 171 19, 420

TOTAL. 2 Gr. 1 3 01 G 27,075 -2 6 2 Fj 251110 25,553 20,947
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

TABLE 4
WOOR POPUlation Projections-
1990 - 2010
Oconto COUnty

M I NOR
CIVIL 0IVISIONS 1990 1995 2000 "@':'005 2010

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T. ABRAMS 1.1394 11484 11570 11661 11757
.276 1 379
T. ARMSTRONG S149 11065 1.1172 13' 1
T. BA13LEY 315 338 358 377 396
T. BRAZEAU 1,148 1,181 11202 11221 11238
T. BREED 629 656 690 721 750

T. CHASE 11363 11417 11466 1@521 1@570
T. DOTY 216 237 256 281 306
T. GILLETT 1043 11177 1.1200 1,216 1.1229
T. HOW 585 580 570 553 535
T. LAKEWOOD tieo 608 631 651 667

T. LENA 854 .835 009 781 751
T. LITTLE RIVER 981 974 957 949 930
T. LITTLE SURMICO 25723 3,059 33361 3,716 41075
T. MAPLE VALLEY 720 727 e.20 719 708
T. MOR13AN 754 766 773 764
F\)
T. OCONTO 962 975 980 971 ID61
'T. OC1--'1NT0 FALLS 111.84 1,254 1,311 1, .5,66 1@416
T. PENSALk::EE 11105 1075 1@233 1 1'@-72 1-108
T. RIVERVIEW 51G 561 598 637 675
T. SPRUCE 799 787 768 742 716,

T. STILES 11407 11485 11567 11642 15725
T TOWNSEND 01 3 0 0187 943 993 1,043
T UNDERHILL 687 697 700 6139 690
V. LENA 612 623 629 629 628
V. SUR I NG C-5 7 3 6 181 a 695 715 733

C . GILLET'r 11391 11401 1,398 11381 11363
C. OCONTO 43524 41539 4)512 4 `415 41312
C. OCONTO FALLS 2 5A5 2@506 2,444 21 1
1 1 382 2 310
-------------------------------------------------------------
COUNTY TOTALS 31,591 32,682 33)521 341256 34,959
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Small Area Projections prepared at Applied Population Laboratory, UW-Madison,
1'-::.1135, for Demographic Services, Department of AdMinistration, State cif
W i scons i n.
m m m m m

Archaeological and Historic Sites

Historic and archaeological sites comprise an important portion
of the unique cultural heritage of Oconto County. A
recognition of historic and archaeological sites is necessary,
because once destroyed, these sites and structures cannot be
replaced. Table 5 provides a listing of the sites located in
the Town of Pensuakee. Many of the sites may be eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places in
Wisconsin. A few of the sites are listed in the National
Register of Historic Places.

According to the State Historical Society of Wisconsin,
properties are listed in the National Register of historic
Places in accordance with the national Historic Preservation
act and with Section 44.22 of the Wisconsin Statutes. Listed
properties and those determined eligible for listing received
limited protection from encroachment by federally-licensed or
assisted projects. Listed and eligible properties also
received limited protection in state facilities development and
long-range planning under Wisconsin Statutes.

TABLE 5
Specific Historic and Archaeological Sites,
Oconto County, Wisconsin

Town of Pensaukee Site Location/Section

Darr (77) Indian Site T27N, R21E 34
DeKeuster (78) Prehistoric & T27N, R21E 3
Historic Campsite
Ziesmer (79) Not Classified T27N, R21E 10
Cemetery/Mounds (80) Cemetery/Mounds T27N, R21E 10,11
Pensaukee Mound Group (81) Mounds/Menominee T27N, R21E 11
Village Site
Pensaukee Harbor Light (82)Harbor Light T27N, R21E 12
Zirsmer (83) Village T27N, R21E 15
village (84) Village T27N, R21E 17
Brookside Community (85) Community Center T27N, R21E 19
Center/Town Hall
Snyder 1 (86) Indian Habitation T27N, R21E 23
Workshop
Snyder 11 (87) Not Classified T27N, R21E 27
Village (88) Village T27N, R21E 34

SOURCE: Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I SECTION 3 11
EXISTING DREDGING INFORMATION,
I
I
I

Past Dredging Efforts

The Pensaukee Harbor has been dredged two times in the past 30
years. The frequency of these dredging efforts and the exact
amount of material dredged are identified in the following:

Fiscal Year Cubic Yards

1961 12,900
1965 8,395
Total 21,295

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has revised the dredging
frequency for the Pensaukee Harbor and is now at 20+ year
intervals. Based on this revised interval, the harbor area
should be dredged sometime after 1985.

Sediment Data

Map 7 and Tables 6-10 illustrate the most recent test data of
sediment conditions that have been compiled by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. Retesting of the sediment material is
tentatively scheduled for 1992. 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 10).

MAP 7

INEIN 0 or
,VA VI G.4 r/OV

G R E E /V'
c
rL 0 CJVA NAFE1. 3
s MOj/fc BA Y
sea B
2

PIER
Ro

AL'THORIZINC 3OCL-X.%TS
;Wu-sc 2. 1882 H. DOC. Na. 153. 42d CONC.. 3d SESS.

L883 R 6 R Act
44 Aus 2. 1882
I C H I Q A N
GLADSTO@E

4 PROJECT DEPTHS AND SOUNDINGS
ARE REFERRED TO LOW WATER DATUM
CEDAR 576 a FEET ABOVE MEAN WATER LEVEL
0 RIVER 0 THEIR
WASMINGTO" AT FA POINT, QUEBEC I.G.L.D. 41955)
ISLAND (INTERNATIONAL GREAT LAKES ClArum I

4AKE
MiNOM NCE
MICHIG PENSAUKEE HARBOR
OCO m To WISCONSIN
STURGEON
PENSAUXIE SAY CANAL IN I SHEET SHEET M06
BIG SuAmicor C3 VICINITY MAP SCALE Or rEET
SCALE OF WLES 300 IOCO :@Oo 2000
'AUGOMA.
GREEN 6 S U. S. ARMY ENGAIEER 09STR)CT. DETROIT
3C SEPTOGER 1982
32

TABLE 6
DETROIT CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Pensaukee Waters r)ate Collect 3/3/82
Harbor Sample T ed

Site

Parameter
2 3

% Solids NR NR
Total Volatile Solids NR NR
Suspended Solids <1 <1
Dissolved solids 215 367
TOC 9 21
BOD NR NR
COD 19 53
Oil & Grease 8 <4
Cyanide 0.005 0.005 1
Phenols 0.004 0.0o5
Total Phosphorous <0.02 0.02
Dissolved Phosphorous NR NR- j
TKN <1 <1
,Ammonia <1 <1
Arsenic <0.002 1<0.002
Iron 0.0701 0.173
Cadmium <0.000-1<0.0003
Copper <0.001 <0.001
Chromium <0.001 <0.001
Nickel 0.003 0.005
Manganese <0.02 <0.02
Lead <0.0011<0.001
Mercury <0.000;<0.0002
Zinc <0.01 0.030

Total PCB's <0.01003<0.0001
Chlorinated Pesticides:
Lindame C0.0001 <0.0001
Reptachlor '-Q.0001 -<Z-.Z=
Aldrin F0.0001 <0.0001
Dieldrin 0.0001.<0.0001
Heptachlor epoxide 0.0001 <0.0001
Methoxychloc 0.0001 <Q:UUU1
DDT 7U-.0=
DDE 0.0001 <0.0001
Fecal Co iform NR NR
Density NR NR
Grain Size NR NR
>2 mm,
0.43-2
0.17-0.43
0-.974-0.17 mm.
<0.074

Conductivity (pmhos/=) 348 564
*0001
.0
0 N-- RIOZ 00 00 11

Values are mg/1 except as noted.

TABLE 7
3/3/82
Harbor Pensaukee sample Type Elutr4ates Date Collected

Site

Parameter
2 3

Solids NR NR
Total Volatile Solids NR NR
Suspended Solids 100 76
Dissolved 6olids 365 1
TOC A7 38
BOO NR NR
coo 73 69
Oil & Grease 4 14
Cya.nide < () ()n n - 00
Phenols 0-001 n n"
Total Phosphorous 0.29 0.30
fIT-s-solved Phosphozous NR NR
TKN 12.61 11.8
Ammonia 16.21 8.7
Arsenic 0.0091<0.002
Izon 0.815 4.11
C 0.0003 <0.0003
C02per 0.002 0,004
Chromium 0.003 0. Or3j
Nickel - 0.004 <0.002
Mang anese 0.808 0.728
Lead <0.001 0.007
Mercury -:0.0002 <0.0002
Zinc 0.016 0.056

Total PCB's .0.0001 1<0.0001
Chlorinated Pesticides: I
Lindane .:0.0001 <0.0001
Heptachlor .:0.0001 <0.0001
Aldrin :0.0001 <0.0001
Dieldrin .0.0001 <0.0001
Heptachlor epoxide .0.0001 .<0.0001
Methoxychlor U0.0001 <0.0601
DOT 0. 0001 <0.0001
DDE .0.0001 <0.0001
Fecal Colif OrM NR NR
Density NR NR
'-srain Size NR NR
>2 mm
0.43-2- mm
0.17-0-43
0.974;;-0.17
<0.0'74 mm T

Values are mg/1-
0
.5

TABLE 8

DETROIT COE - TASK 50000
PENSAUKEE 'HARBOR
BENTHOS ANALYSES

No. of
Site Identification Organisms

Annelida - Naididae I

Annelida - Naididae - Nais sp 9

Diptera - Chironomidae -
Cryptochironomus sp 5

2 Amphipoda Gammaridae - Gammarus sp 1

Annelida Naididae 6

Diptera Heleidae - Palpomvia
Cibialis

Diptera --Chironomidae
Caironomus

3 Annelida Naididae 22

Diptera Chironomidae
Procladius sp 13

Diptera - Chironomidae
Chiranomus sp 6

TABLE 9
DETROIT CORPS OF ENGINEEPS

Harbor Pensaukee -Sample Type Waters Date Collected 3/3/82

Site

Parametax

solids NR NR
Total Volatile Solids NR NR
Suspended Solids <1 <1
Dissolved solids 215 367
TOC 9 21
BOD NR NR
COD 19 53
Oil & Grease a <4
Cyanide 0.005 0.005
Phenols 0,004 -0.005
Total Phosphorous <0.02 0.02
Dissolved Phosphorous NR NR
TKN <1 <1
Ammonia <1 <1
Arsenic <0.0021<0.002
Iron 0.070 0.173
Cadmium <0.0001<0.0003
Copper <0.001 <0.001
Chromi= <0.00i <0.061
Nickel 0.003, 0.005
Manganese .<0.021 <0.02
Lead <0. OIJ<0.001
Mercury <O.OOOA 0.0002
Zinc <0.011 0.030
Total IPCB's <0.000@<0.0001
Chlorinated Pesticides: I
Lindane 9.00011<0.0001
He,otachlor 0.000-11<0.00Q1
Aldrin 0.0001 <0.0001
Dieldrin 0.0001 <0.0001
Heptachlor epoxide <0.0001
Methoxychlor <Q.QQUI
DDT 0.0001 <U.UUUI
ODE <0.0001 <0.0001
Fecal Colifo= NR NR
Density NR NR
Grain Size NR NR
>2 mm,
0.43-2 mm.
0. 17-0.4.3 mm,
0.974-0.17 mm
<0. 074 =

Conductivity (Pmh0s/=) 348 564
'0

-000,
0-000
0 tio 00 00 1

Values are mg/1 except as noted.

TABLE 10
Harbor Pen;aukee sample Type
---,ediments Date Collected 3/3/82

Site WQNR
Pararmater Interim Exceed!
1 2 3 Criteria Criteria

Solids 79 72 70
Total Volatile Solids(%) 0.39 1.38 1.98
Suspended Solids NR NR NR
'Bisscived 6olids UR NR -lrT-
(DUU --0-70,0-
1110C bUU J 0
BOD NR NR NR
con 3730 15,300 29,200
Oil & Grease <250 <280 <290
Cvanide NR <0.14 <0.14
Phenols NR <0.07 <0.07
Total Phosphorous NR 742 747
fUs-solved Phosphorous -N el 5R,
TKN --1=,-5dU 11 L U
Ammonia NR 81.1 82.1
A,rsenic M10 <7 - -0 <7-n !Q 0
Iron -MR 11 -4 _U. 2
Cadmi= NR 1 -17 Ij !0.0
Copper--- $111D 5.3 4.2 10 0
Chromium NR <4.0 8.3 @@100
Nickel NR 19.1 6.55 S.100
Manganese NR 100 so
Lead mv 1 - 4@1 7.00 St. 5 0
Mercury N'R <0.14 <0,14 @@O.
Zinc 11-7 79 - C; 71=

Total PCB's NR <0.1 <0.1 <0.05
Chlorinated Pesticides:
Lindane NR <0.1 <0.1 <0.05
Reptachlor NR <0.1 <0.1 <O-OS
Aldrin <0.1 <0.1 <O.Oi
Dieldr3.n <0.1 <0.1 <0.01
Heptachlor epoxide NR <0.1 <0.1 <0.05
Rethoxychlor NR <0.1 <0.1
DDT MR < 0. 1 <0.1 <0_01
DDE NR <0.1 <0.1
Fecal Colifo= (#/gram. wet) 4 <3 4
Density (q/ml wet) 1.79 1.75 1.5s
rrain Size (%)
>2 = 0 0 1.8
0.60-2 0 0 7.1
0.17-0-.150. ME 50.6 48.0 67.2
0.974-0.17 47.1 1 43.4 7,S
V' <0.074 2.0 1--8.4 5.8

Values are Ug/g dry except a s noted.
t1.79
0

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 greaterthan 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 r
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).

SECTION 4

PROPOSED DREDGE MATERIAL
DISPOSAL SITING

Methodology

In order to develop a map of potentially feasible dredge
disposal sites in the Town of Pensaukee, 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.

It 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 data base, 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,

Wi thin 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 official Oconto
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.

Dredge Disposal Options

once all of the necessary 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 general compilation of disposal
options: r
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 r
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
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 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 of NR 347 is revised to
permit such activity.

Recommended Dredge Disposal_Alternatives - Town of Pensaukee
Introduction

Based on the test data that was compiled in 1982, the reuse
options identified previously and from discussions with WDNR
Personnel, the future disposal of dredge material from the
Pensaukee 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 1982 sampling data
prepared by the Corps of Engineers and have determined
that the presence of Cadmium, PCB's, Lindane, Mercury,
DDT, Aldrin, Dieldrin, Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide
(as per WDNR interim criteria) make the dredge materials
from the harbor unsuitable for in-water disposal.

Reuse and Disposal Options

A number of specific reuse options and upland disposal sites
have been identified for the dredge material from the Pensaukee
Harbor.

1. Reuse options include: (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 sediment 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 Pensaukee area need little or no
fill. (c) Wetland restoration is another possible reuse
option. with current water levels, several wetlands in
the area could be restored to their once natural state.
(d) island restoration is another option. Much of this
effort would involve the placement of clean material on
off shore islands to protect them from the negative
impacts of record high Bay levels. It must be noted that
some type of rock containment would be needed to keep the
dredge material in place.

2. Several upland areas exist in the vicinity of the
Pensaukee Harbor that appear to have suitable soil
conditions to accommodate dredge material disposal (see
Map 8). Also, these areas have been evaluated as to their
relationship to nearby development and land uses. These

MAP 8
AREAS SUITABLE FOR

DREDGE MATERIAL DISPOSAL
Town Of Pensaukee

. ..........

. .... .....

................ ..... . .. ... %

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

. . . . . . . . . ...
FARM :X
FIELD
. .........
-nsaukee
..... .. ...%

REUSE AREAS

e.
XX
. ... ...... .......
....... ... .
e.
...... ...................

........... ........ .
Jj
ooksi e

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

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

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

... ...............
X * *,**** ....... .. .
... ...............
.. ...... .......

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

...........
31
-N-

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

0 1/2 1
6
........ miles
............
...........
.......... .. ..........
. ..........

LEGEND
F-1 Sl ight Limitations For Dredge Disposal Site

Moderate Limitations For Dredge Disposal Site

rrrq
Severe Limitations For Dredge Disposal Site

Source: Oconto County Comprehensive Solid Wasfe Management Plan.

upland areas include raising the elevations of developed
areas that are along the river and bay shoreline. some of
the developed areas adjacent to the Pensaukee 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 sites for the disposal of clean dredge material.

A second upland disposal site for clean dredge material is
a farm field in section 9 of the Town of Pensaukee and is
located approximately one mile to the northwest of the
harbor. Fill could be used as a soil-conditioner for the
farm field. Current use of this field is for the growing
of corn and hay. In addition to these areas, there are a
number of low areas south of the Pensaukee Harbor area
that could be filled, but.many of these areas are also
currently under three to four feet of water. Any
placement of fill in these areas should be delayed until
the current water levels subside. Also, the use of dredge
mAterial for fill purposes should not occur until new test
data can determine the overall concentrations of the
before-mentioned contaminants in specific dredge material.

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. Each of these factors are
discussed in the following sections.

Deficiencies in Sediment Testing Data

The sediment data listed earlier for the Pensaukee Harbor is
deficient in several ways. First, the location of the test
sites 1,2 and 3 are where the most contaminated dredge material
can be found. The lakebed area away from the river mouth is
where much of any future dredging is most needed.

Based on this deficiency, additional sediment test data must be
obtained that is east of the harbor to better indicate the
actual location and physical makeup of the actual material to
be dredged.

Costs

Sediment Testing: Before dredging of material can actually
occur in the Pensaukee Harbor, better sediment data must be
obtained. It has been estimated by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers that another round of sediment sampling and test
would cost between $6-10,000.

Dredging: Based on the amount of material needed to be dredged
from the Pensaukee Harbor being about 21,000 cubic yards and an
estimated dredging cost of $5.00/cubic yard, approximately
$105,000 would be needed based on current dollar estimates to
dredge all of the existing material from the Pensaukee Harbor
and move the material to one or more storage or reuse areas.
Since the actual amount of material to be dredged is unknown at
this time, this estimated cost could be incorrect.

Potential Funding Sources

A number of potential funding sources currently exist that may
be applicable for the funding of sediment testing and dredging
in the Pensaukee 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 Pensaukee could be viewed as potential funding source
for future dredging and dredge related activities.

Community Involvement

BLRPC staff prepared this harbor management plan for the
Pensaukee Harbor 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 input of local officials and
residents from the Pensaukee 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. The
Commission and WDNR staff felt that leading communities to
believe that in-water disposal was permitted before the laws
were actually changed could do more harm than good. A second
factor which contributed to this decision included the fact
that the sediment data for the Pensaukee Harbor was inadequate
to make a determination if the proposed dredge material was
actually 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
Pensaukee. Also, there are very limited dollars available to
pay for dredging in smaller communities. 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 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 to refine the
findings of this document. only then can,specific proposals
relating to the siting of dredge material be acted upon.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDICES .I
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

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
permit" which establishes basic effluent limitation that
must be me. For dredging projects not receiving the
general permit, a permit is pro cessed 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.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

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
Engineers, 1983

Oconto County Farmland Pres ervation Plan, Bay-Lake
Regional Planning Commission, February 1985

Ten-year Dredged Material Disposal Plan for Lower Green
Bay, Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission

BAY-LAKE REGIONAL PLANNING C OMM ISSION

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

I
I . JOAA COASTAL, SERVICES CTR LIBRARY
I
@ 3 6668 14112823 3