Whitefish Bay boat ramp improvements, Town of Sevastopol, Door County, Wisconsin

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

FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR
WHITEFISH BAY
BOAT RAMP
IMPROVEMENTS

TOWN OF SEVASTOPOL
DOOR COUNTY
r- WISCONSIN
COASTAL ZONF
ll,TFORMATION; CENTE-q

TD ROBERT E. LEE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
195 CONSULTING ENGINEERS
363 Box 2100 Green Bay, WI 54306
W55
1982

FEASIBILITY STUDY

WHITEFISH BAY BOAT RAMP
IMPROVEMENTS

TOWN OF SEVASTOPOL
DOOR COUNTY, WISCONSIN

JULY, 1982

This study was accomplished in part through the financial
40 assistance provided by the Coastal Management Program under the
Department of Administration, State of Wisconsin; the Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972 as amended, administered by the
4=) Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration; and through volunteer time and
equipment usage of the Harbor Advisory Committee and citizen
participation.

ROBERT E. LEE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
307 NORTH BROADWAY, POST OFFICE BOX 2100
GREEN BAY, WI 54306 (414) 432-6338

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION . . . . .
Sources of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
CHAPTER 2 EXISTING FACILITY . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . 3
Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Physical Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

CHAPTER 3 PROTECTION ALTERNATIVES ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Design Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Types of Protective Structures . . . . . . . . 9

CHAPTER 4 ON-LAND IMPROVEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

CHAPTER 5 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Social Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Economic Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

CHAPTER 6 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Development Cost . . ' ' ' * *' ' * 23
Operations and Mainten;nce*Cost' . . . . . . . . 24
Revenue . . . * * ' * * ' ' ' ' * * ' ' '. . . 24
Development Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

CHAPTER 7 RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

DRAWINGS
Location Map
Conceptual Plan
Development Plan

ROBERT E. LEE CONSULTING ENGINEERS

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The use of public boat launching facilities in Door County has

increased dramatically during the last decade. Tourism in the County

has sharply increased, but more significantly, the revival of sport

fishing along the Lake Michigan shoreline has put a heavy demand an

smaller launch facilities along the Lake shore. These smaller launch

facilities can generally handle boats 20 feet in length and under, as

is the case at the Whitefish Bay boat ramp in the Town of Sevastopol.

The main objective of.the study is to determine the feasibility

of constructing a breakwater at the ramp to provide protection from

wave action for people retrieving their boats when the waves increase

in size. The intent of any breakwater at this ramp is not to provide

an all-weather harbor.

The scope of this study includes:

1) A review of the existing facility, both the ramp and the

on-land parking area.

2) Determine the types and configuration of breakwater

alternatives.

3) Develop a plan for land improvements such as parking and

sanitary facilities.

ROBERT E. LEE CONSULTING ENGINEERS

4) Environmental analysis of construction and operation.

5) Economic analysis of demand, development cost, and revenue.

6) Recommendations.

SouCces of Infgrmation

The data used in preparing this report was obtained from on-site

surveys and input from the local Harbor Advisory Committee of the Town

of Sevastopol. Public information was obtained from the U.S. and

Wisconsin Geological Surveys, Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Door County Planning

Commission, Bay Lake Regional Plan Commission, the Coastal Zone

Administration, and the City of Sturgeon Bay.

ROBERT E. LEE CONSULTING ENGINEERS

CHAPTER 2

EXISTING FACILITY

Location

The Whitefish Bay boat ramp is located in the Town of Sevastopol,

Door County, Wisconsin, on Lake Michigan just south of the outlet of

Logan Creek. A smaller ramp with less adequate access is located

approximately 4-1/2 miles south. Larger ramps capable of handling

boats larger than those 20 feet in length are located in the City of

Sturgeon Bay (15 miles south) and at Baileys Harbor (12 miles north).

Cottages and summer homes, as well as year-round residential

properties, exist along the shore of Lake Michigan on each side of the

ramp facility at Whitefish Bay.

Physical Features

The existing ramp was constructed in 1968 by the Town of

Sevastopol with financial assistance from the Carlsville Rod and Gun

Club. After subsequent improvements, the ramp exists as a concrete

surface contained by steel sheet piling an each side. Extension of the

ramp to a launchable water depth is accomplished with a steel grating

type ramp which is removable. The ramp is totally exposed to wave

action in Lake Michigan. Because of this exposure, boat launching can

ROBERT E. LEE LEE: CONSULTING ENGINEERS
3

For V-ICMP Stall Use
WI-scon
tIn Cocstal r,-tanagoment program - WCMP i1i oierr Number:

Date Received:
port

AD-CM 4(5180)
Submit this Progress Report to: -onsin DaPt. f Admini
office of Coastal Management
101 S. Webster Street, 7th Floor
lviadi;on. Wl 53702
Purchase Order Number;
p
@"-Trotection -6-f Whi-t'@efish Bay Boat Ramp 1063
uration in MONTHS: Report Period From: To:
12 months- Final Report
CMP funds spent to date: % of budgeted funds:
Project Type (Check one of more):
$89cco.cc' i CC)%
Match spant to date: % of budgeted funds
/,.Prove SCA Management SCA Number 10
____L
� Implement State Lavy $2597..50 icli.9%
� CEIP (Coastal Energy impact Project) Signature of proje t nager:
0 Demonstration

1, Objectives Of Project (as contracied);

The Town of Sevastopol seeks the preparation of a professional engineering
landscape archite-ctural report and plans which meet the needs and requiremen-It-s
.of the Town, Army Corp, Dept. of Natural Resources and Wcmp relative
to; 1 . ) investigating the feasibility (from engineering, environmental
and economic DerDectives) of protecting the existing boat ramp at Whitefish
-Bay@and 2.) developing a detalled management planf8i the s i t, -a-,*

2. Thoroughly discuss progress made toward accomplishing objectives during this reporting period:
We have determined that to provide a long lasting maintenance
free breakwater., a steel sheet piling or steel binwall enclosure be
constructed. Both containments be filled and capped with concrete.
Provisions should be made for flow-thru structures to minimize the
deposition of littoral drift, which would help maintain the integrity of
the shoreline as well as minimize the need for periodic dredging at the
ramp.

I Prcblerns/Concerns Ilssuas, proiect, or earnintstrative conceruw.

the pro-j*ec-,U- is of the most co ce
L 611
Funding 'or .1 6 6 n rn. A'11' programs
that would be available to help fund a project of this nature,, are
no longer in existence or are out of money.

.4. Impact thus far. if zny. cf the project an the shoreline. coastal re:ources. or coastal residents:

To date there seems to'be no impact.

:,ignat r
0 r lu nds:
ed t
0 r

only be done under calm conditions. However, conditions on Lake

Michigan can and do deteriorate rapidly, thus making retrieval of boats

under adverse conditions very hazardous to both equipment and their

operators. Broken bones and severe lacerations as well as damaged

boats have occurred in the past.

The parking facility and ramp access utilizes a 90 foot wide lot

owned by the Town of Sevastopol and the existing roadway right-of-way

that extends to the shoreline at a width of approximately 66 feet. The

land is partially improved with a gravel base for parking.

Usane

The majority of boaters using the ramp come from the local

year-round population, and to a lesser degree, tourists. The ramp is

in close proximity to two popular fishing areas on Lake Michigan,

namely the 'Bank" northeast of the Sturgeon Bay ship canal and the Cave

Point area. These two areas draw considerable users of the ramp from

Brown and Kewaunee Counties, 'as well as the local Door County area.

No daily user count has ever been taken at the facility.

However, local users have indicated that the maximum count for a

morning ranges from 15-20 vehicles with trailers in the lot at one

time. The season for boating activity at the ramp occurs from April

through October, with minor usage in the months of March and November

R7
ROBERT E. LEE R CONSULTING ENGINEERS
21

dependent on weather conditions. Available days per year are thus 150

weekdays and 60 weekend days. Assuming that 25 percent of these days

are lost to rough water conditions, there are approximately 112

weekdays and 45 weekend days that the site is used per year.

ESTIMATED YE ARLY LAUNCHES

Days Users/Day Total

Weekdays 112 x 15 1680

Weekends 45 x 35

TOTAL LAUNCHES PER YEAR 3255

It is projected that if breakwater and on-land improvements are

made at the facility, usage could increase by as much as 50 percent,

the main reason being a much safer retrieval site if Lake conditions

deteriorate, as well as more consistent quiet water to launch.

Launching under 2-3 foot wave conditions will be possible with the

breakwater, while it is presently difficult.

ROBERT E. LEE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
LIE:

CHAPTER 3

PROTECTION ALTERNATIVES

Design Reguirements

As previously stated, the objective of wave protection at the

ramp is not to produce an all-weather harbor, but to provide protection

for retrieval of boats after lake conditions have deteriorated. For

launchings that have occurred under 0-1 foot wave conditions, it is

conceivable that wave conditions could increase to the 2-4 foot range

before these boaters could return to the ramp site. These wave heights

make it extremely difficul t to retrieve a boat under existing

conditions since the waves prevent adequate control of the boat.

Therefore, it is recommended that the breakwater be designed to provide

adequate protection for boat retrievals against a maximum wave of 4

feet. In addition, the structure must be substantial enough to

withstand the maximum wave height expected for the area. Even though

there is significant fetch (+ 230 statute miles) to produce a 25 foot

wave, the maximum design wave for this area will depend on the design

high water elevation. That is, the wave will be restricted to

approximately 0.80 times the water depth in front of the proposed

structure, at which point it will break.

ROBERT E. LEE CONSULTING ENGINEERS

Maximum design water level is based on the "Standardized

Frequency Curves for Design Water Level Determination on the Great

Lakes' by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit, Michigan, May

1979. Using a frequency of 100 years, the maximum design water level

is 582.30 I.G.L.D. This elevation is derived by combining the water

elevation for a frequency period and the peak rise for a frequency

period at Sturgeon Bay. A check of the high water elevation using a

frequency of 50 years only reduced the HWL to 582.0 or a reduction of

0.30 feet. It is, therefore, recommended that the 100 year frequency

be used in determing the maximum wave.

The maximum wave that could occur is estimated as follows:

Maximum Design Water Level 582.3 feet

Minimum Lake Bed Elevation,

Seaward Side of Proposed

Breakwater 575.0 fe@t

MAXIMUM WATER DEPTH 7.3 feet

Therefore, the maximum wave height is 7.3 feet x 0.80 or 5.8

feet.

ROBERT E. LEE CONSULTING ENGINEERS

For each foot less than maximum design water elevation, the

maximum wave would be reduced 0.80 feet. As an example, when the field

elevations were taken on April 7, 1982, the water level was 579.3 with

a bottom elevation of 575.0, therefore the maximum wave would be

(579.3 - 575.0) x 0.80, or 3.4 feet.

To determine the top elevation of any stationary structure, it is

necessary to look at the stage duration curve for the area in the

"Great Lakes Basin Framework Study" Appendix II, by the Great Lakes

Basin Commission. Figure 11-8 in that report shows that from 60

percent to 10 percent of the time, the water elevation equals or

exceeds a range of 578.3 to 580.5. This range is on the high side of

the curve, and is recommended for use since the water levels on Lake

Michigan tend to be at the higher levels during the second and third

quarters of the year, which coincides with the maximum use of the

facility. Using the highest elevation of this range (580.5), the

maximum wave would be (580.5 - 575.0) x 0.80, or 4.4 feet. The top of

this wave would therefore be at 580.5 + 2.2 feet, or 582.7. It is,

therefore, recommended that the top of any stationary structure be

placed at an elevation of approximately 583.0 I.G.L.D. This compares

to a mean water datum of 578.5 and a low water datum of 576.8.

ROBERT E. LEE CONSULTING ENGINEERS

Types of ftotective Structures

The five types of,protective devices that will be investigated

for the ramp site are: 1) Rubble-Mound, 2) Wood Cribbing, 3) Steel

Binwalls, 4) Steel Sheet Piling, and 5) Floating Tire Breakwater.

Rubble-Mound Breakwater

The rubble-mound breakwaters have been used extensively for

shoreline wave protection on large bodies of water such as Lake

Michigan. The big advantage is a long and relatively maintenance free

design life. The disadvantages are that it is generally a very massive

structure using valuable space and therefore very costly. For use in

protecting the Whitefish Bay ramp, the size of the rubble-mound system

would depend an purchasing the adjacent vacant lot to the south of the

Town property, as the existing south property line does not provide

sufficient width next to the ramp. For discussion purposes, a cost

estimate for 185 lineal feet of the rubble-mound system is based on

1981 construction at the Brown County Bay Shore Park breakwater.

Estimated Cost = 1391 c.y. x $63.30/c.y. $ 88,050

Plus Flow-Thru Structures 12,000

TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $100,050

OF RUBBLE-MOUND

This estimate does not include the additional property required.

ROBERT E. LEE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
LEE:
9

Wood Cribbing with Stone Fill

Wood cribbing has also been used extensively for shoreline wave

protection. The advantages are relatively low material cost in

cribbing construction but very labor intensive. A disadvantage for use

at this site is the affect of ice on the wood exterior. The design

life for a wood structure is dependent an the severity of the ice

conditions and the deterioration of the wood above the water line that

is subject to wetting and drying. Therefore, the installation of this

type of structure should include some type of ice protection, and the

wood above the total subm ergence line should be treated with a

preservative to extend its life. The estimated cost is as follows:

1) Construction of Cribbing

1700 s.f. of Face (I side) @ $17.00/s.f. $28,900

(889 c.y. or 24,000 c.f.)

2) Cribbing Installation, 6 days @ $1600/day 9,600

3) Stone Fill Material, 1000 c.y. @ $8.00/c.y. 8,000

4) Stone Basecourse and Rip-Rap Toe

Protection, 200 c.y. @ $10.00/c.y. 2,000
5) Concrete Surface,.2775 s.f. @*'$2.00/s.f. 5,550

6) Flow-Thru Structure(s) 12,000

TOTAL COST - WOOD CRIBBING, STONE FILLED $66,050

ROBERT E. LEE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
RE
10

Steel Binwalls

The steel binwall structure is very similar in nature to the wood

cribbing, except for the materi als that are used to construct the

containment vessel. The construction is less labor intensive, and the

structure is less susceptible to ice damage, and, therefore has a

longer design life as compared to the wood cribbing. The estimated

cost of construction is as follows:

1) 2060 s.f. of Face @ $25.00/s.f. $51,500

2) Installation, 5 days @ $1600/day 8,000

3) Stone Fill Material, 1000 c.y. @ $8.00/c.y. 8,000

4) Stone Basecourse and Rip-Rap Toe

Protection, 200 c.y. @ $10.00/c.y. 2,000

5) Flow-Thru Structure 12,000

6) Concrete Surface, 2775 s.f. @ $2.00/s.f. - 5,550

TOTAL COST - STEEL BINWALL, STONE FILLED $87,050

ROBERT E. LEE R_ CONSULTING ENGINEERS

Steel Sheet Piling

A breakwater of this type would involve an enclosure constructed

of two parallel lines of sheet piling driven into the lake bed. The

sheet piling is then tied together with cross connectors, and the

containment area filled with stone and capped with concrete. This type

of structure would provide a long-term, maintenance free, structure

which would not be severely affected by ice. The estimated cost for

this type of structure is as follows;

1) Material, 3800 l.f. @ $9.00/l.f. $34,200

2) Installation, 185 ft. @ $40.00/ft. 7,400

3) Fill Material, 1900 c.y. @ $8.00/c.y. 8,000

4) Stone Basecourse and Rip-Rap Toe

Protection, 200 c.y. @ $10.00/c.y. 2,000

5) Flow-Thru Structure 12,000

6) Concrete Surface, 2775 s.f. @ $2.001s.f. 5,550

TOTAL COST - SHEET FILING, STONE FILL $69,150

ROBERT E. LEE CONSULTING ENGINEERS

Floating Tire Breakwater

There has been considerable interest in the past 10 years in

floating breakwaters constructed of discarded tires and steel or wood

poles, connected with a system of belting, and anchored to the lake

bed. The big advantage of this system is a relatively low cost in

comparison to the other mo re conventional systems. The cost of a

pole-tire system constructed at the State University of New York in

Buffalo in 1979 amounted to approximately $30 per lineal foot excluding

the mooring system. This particular breakwater was 46 feet wide,

constructed in module dimensions of 46 feet by 13 feet. If the system

was capable of affording adequate protection at the Whitefish Bay ramp,

the construction cost would be in the area of $15,000, assuming no cost

for the tires. However, the floating pole-tire system does have the

following limitations:

1) Previous studies have generally determined that the floating

pole-tire system is technically feasible for wave protection in short

fetch or semi-protected areas, which is not the case at the Whitefish

Bay ramp.

2) Because of the -ice conditions, the system would more than

likely have to be removed and reset each fall and spring to protect it

from ice damage. This would be a costly effort each year.

ROBERT E. LEE CONSULTING ENGINEERS

3) Aesthetically, this system Is not as acceptable, as the

structure collects considerable floating debris compounded by the

appearance of floating tires itself.

Because of these limitations, a floating tire breakwater system

is not recommended.

ROBERT E. LEE CONSULTING ENGINEERS

CHAPTER 4

ON-LAND IMPROVEMENTS

The most important on-land improvement in conjunction with a boat

launching ramp is parking facilities. The existing area does have

sufficient area to handle existing usage, but needs to be expanded and

improved to facilitate an increased usage in an orderly and more

maintenance free manner.

Within the confines of the existing Town property, it is possible

to develop,24 parking spaces without over crowding the ramp facility.

During times of high usage, it may be POBSible to park an additional

3-5 vehicles with trailers, but resulting in considerable congestion

near the launch facility.

To provide an uncongested parking facility, it is proposed to

expand these areas that currently exist as sad with gravel subsurface,

add additional amounts of gravel to ar eas that are deficient, fine

grade the entire area and provide two inches of hot-mix asphalt

pavement. This will provide the Town with many years of a maintenance

free parking area. Once the area is paved, the parking spaces would be

delineated by striping, and concrete curb stops would be provided to

control vehicles. These markings make it more likely that users will

park in an orderly fashion, thus utilizing the area to its maximum.

ROBERT E. LEE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
R1
15

Because of the close proximity of the parking area to the

existing residence to the east, it is recommended to construct a wood

fence 7-8 feet in height with sufficient closed area (+ 80%) to screen

out the site activity. This would provide the adjacent property owner

with a semblance of privacy. Prior to selection of materials and

construction, the property owner should be given an opportunity to

discuss his ideas relative to the fence to make sure he is satisfied

with the proposal, as long as it is economically reasonable.

The cost of these improvements is as follows:

1) Excavation and Grading, Lump Sum $ 2,000

2) 250 c.y. of Basecourse @ $6.00/c.y. 1,500

3) 200 l.f. of Fencing @ $15.00/l.f. 3,000

4) 24 Concrete Parking Curbs @ $25.00/each 600

5) 325 tons of Asphalt @ $27.00/ton 8,775

6) Striping, Lump Sum 125

TOTAL COST $16,000

There is a strong possibility. that with the breakwater

installation, acceptance of the ramp as a safe launch site could

increase its usage to the point that parking facilities could be

deficient during heavy weekend usage. It may be necessary for the Town

to investigate additional property nearby for parking facilities.

ROBERT E. LEE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
fffs

While other facilities such as picnic tables, benches, refuse

containers, and toilet facilities may be considered in the future, it

does not appear to be a necessity to the function of the ramp. The

addition of these secondary facilities could eventually transform the

property to a park facility, which would add a burden an the Township

with regard to police protection, litter, and potential nuisance

complaints from the local residences. This type of development should

be avoided in order to keep the natural integrity of the shoreline in a

passive state as it exists presently.

ROBERT E. LEE CONSULTING ENGINEERS

aiAPTER 5

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Introduction

The project site is located in Whitefish Bay of Lake Michigan

which is bounded by the headlands of Cave Point, 3 miles to the north

and Whitefish Point, 2.5 miles south. The bay is relatively shallow

with extensive sand beaches and large dune areas. The original 50 foot

long structure was constructed in 1968 in order to provide for a small

boat launching. Various improvements have been made over the years to

upgrade the facility to its existing condition. This project proposes

the construction of an additional 185 feet of pier in an "L" shape for

the purpose of providing a safe recovery for small boats during

increasing seas.

This project is limited in size and scope with an insignificant

impact upon the environment. The facility represents 0.3 percent of

the shoreline between the two headlands. To facilitate the analysis of

the environmental impacts of this project a matrix table has been

developed which assess the magnitude of probable impacts, both

beneficial and adverse. The matrix is divided into three major areas

of effects i.e. social, economic, and natural resources. These effects

ROBERT E. LEE CONSULTING ENGINEERS

are subdivided into 34 specific items. The items are ranked as either

having no apprec iable effect or significance, substantial, or minor

beneficial or adverse impacts. The ranking by necessity is subjective.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REVIEW MAGNITUDE OF PROBABLE IMPACT
WHITEFISH BAY BOAT RAMP IMPROVEMENTS
INCREASING INCREASING
NAME OF PARAMETER BENEFICIAL IMPACT NO ADVERSE IMPACT
<3=3::= APPRECIABLE C=Tz::>
A. SOCIAL EFFECTS SIGNIFICAAT SUBSTANTIAL MINOR EFFECT MINOR SUBSTANTIAL SIGNIFICANT

1. HistOrical/Archaeological Values x
2. Noise Levels x
3. Aesthetic Values x
4. Recreational Op ortunities x
5. Transportation x
6. Public Health & Safety x
7. Co-munity Cohesion (Sense of UnityL x
8. COMmunity Growth & Development x
9. Business and Home Relocations x
10. Existing/Potential Land Use x
11. Controversy x

S. ECONOMIC EFFECTS

1. Property Values x
2. Tax Revenues x
3. Public Facilities and Services x
4. Regional Growth x
5. EmPlOyment x
6. Business Activi ty x
7. Farmland/Food S@P-Ply x
8. Comercial Navigation x
9. Flooding Effects x
10. Ener@y Needs and Resources x

C. NATURAL RESOURCE EFFECTS

1. Air Quality x
2. Terrestrial Habitat x
3. Wetlands x
4. Aquatic Habitat x
5. Habitat Diversity and interspersion x
6. Biological Productivity x
7. Surface Water Quality x
S. Water Supply x
9. Groundwater x
10. Soils x
11. Threatened or Endangered Species x
12. Litt ral Transport x
13. Fish Movement x

ROBERT E. LEE CONSULTING ENGINEERS

Social Effects

Public health and safety has been identified as a significant

beneficial impact of this project.. The existing single pier does not

provide any protection for a boat caught in a storm. By providing a

breakwater facility, significant protection will be provided. The

nearest safe harbors are. 15 miles to the south at Sturgeon Bay and 12

miles north of the project at Baileys Harbor.

A substantial beneficial impact is the increase in recreational

opportunities for the community Currently, no protection is available

from the launch ramps during increasing wave conditions, and boat

damage does occur as well as personal injury. By constructing the

proposed project, boaters will be able to utuilize this facility more

frequently under much safer conditions.

A minor beneficial impact has to do with community cohesion that

may develop from construction of the project. The facility is owned

and maintained by the Town of Sevastopol and used primarily by

townspeople. Increased usage will likely faster a greater sense of

unity among townspeople as.they utilize the facility.

In general, the.re.are no appreciable social impacts from the

project.

ROBERT E. LEE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
M
20

A minor adverse impact may be generated relative to aesthetic

values. The construction of additional facilities into the lake may be

offensive to some people. At Its maximum, however, the structure will

be 130 feet off shore and run 100 feet along the shore. It will be a

containment structure of sheet pile or steel containment bins and

maintained by the Town in a neat and orderly manner.

Economic Effects

No economical impacts have been identified for this project.

Natural Resources

A minor beneficial impact relating to habitat diversity has been

identified for this project. There are 5.5 miles of sandy beach and

sand bottom between the two confining headlands to this bay.

Construction of this facility will provide a structure with limited

"edge"' that can provide habitat for small aquatic plants and animals.

The calmer water within the harbor can provide a modified environment

for smaller, weak, and/or Injured fish.

This project would have no appreciable effect upon 11 of the 13

natural resource items.

ROBERT E. LEE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
21

A minor adverse impact to littoral drift transportation may

result from this project. The effect is identified as minor based upon

the observed effect of the existing structure, the variability of the

direction of storms and the design of the.proposed structure. The

existing pier has not created any appreciable erosion on either side of

the structure, due in part to its length and the minor near shore

littoral drift. The facility is located approximately equidistant from

the two headlands, and wave patterns appear to equalize the deposition

of sand on both sides of the structure. The additional facility will

be longer, and by its nature, will provide quiet water which will

result in sediment deposition behind the structure.

To minimize this deposition with Bubsequent erosion, down drift

culverts will be placed through the structure. It is anticipated that

the culvert(s) perpendicular to the shoreline will have adjustable

gate(s) so that they can be closed during the boating season but opened

during the winter when quiet water is not necessary. Winter storms

should provide enough wave energy to scour the littoral drift deposited

during the summer.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the project is identified as having a significant

beneficial impact to the health and safety of the boating public while

having only minor adverse impacts to the environment.

ROBERT E. LEE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
LEE:

CHAPTER 6

ECONOMIC AN ALYSIS

Demand

As discussed under usage of the existing facility, it is

estimated that during the seven month boating period approximately

3,255 boat launches and retrievals take place at the site. With the

nearest improved launch sites being 15 miles to the south and 12 miles

to the north along the shoreline, a usage increase of at least 50

percent does not seem unrealistic if the breakwater is installed. This

increase would bring the yearly launches and retrievals up to

approximately 4,900. It is not anticipated that this increased usage

will occur immediately, but would over a period of 3-5 years as the

word gets around that a 'safe" launch site is available on the Lake

share between Sturgeon Bay and Baileys Harbor. This will be especially

true if the Lake Michigan sport fishing continues to be as spectacular

as it is today, and within reach of the small boat owner.

DeveloDment Cost

Based an estimates of protection alternatives and on-land

improvements previously discussed, development costs are projected as

follows:

ROBERT E. LEE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Es
23

1) Breakwater Construction $ 69,150

2) On-Land,Improvements 16,000

3) Engineering 9,000

4) Contingency 8,850

TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST $103,000

The above cost does not consider any land acquisition for parking

expansion or park related facilities.

Operations and Maintenance Cost

With the construction of a permanent breakwater and installation

of a hard surface parking area, yearly maintenance of the boat launch

facility should be limited to general area cleanup and possibly refuse

pick-up. This type of work would amount to approximately $750 per

year.

Raygnue

The only type of revenue that could be generated from a municipal

owned boat ramp facility would -be through the implementation of user

fees, and only if an economical method of collection could be devised.

Typical launching fees in the area range from 02-$3 daily, with season

passes available at Sturgeon Bay for $20.

ROBERT E. LEE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Ee

The small size of the Whitefish Bay ramp facility and the limited

usage projection would make a full-time attendant economically

unfeasible. The only exception may be an weekends during heavy use

times of the season-July, August, and September. The following

assumptions will be used to determine the economic feasibility for a

typical weekend day:

@1) 35 Launches

2) Launch Fee of $2.00

3) Attendant on Duty for 8 Hours

4) 80 Percent of Launches will Occur While Attendant is on Duty

5) Attendant Pay Rate at 63.25/hour

Revenue - 35 1 aunches x 80% x $2.00/launch $56.00

Expense - 8 hours labor @ $3.25/hour 26.00

NET REVENUE $30.00/day

Extending the revenue per day over the 26 weekend days during the

busy period, while projecting 25 percent loss due to weather, it is

estimated that the yearly revenue would be $585.

Another option to consider would be@ to provide a container for

which.users of the facilities could voluntarily make donations for use

of the facility. While this method has been tried with little success

at other similar facilities, it may provide enough revenue to provide

ROBERT E. LEE CONSULTING ENGINEERS

for the yearly cleanup costs of the site. If this method is used,

provisions should be made for daily removal of any contributions. This

option could also be used in conjunction with a part-time attendant.

It is apparent that even though some revenue is possible, the

amount would be insufficient to finance any substantial improvements to

the facility. With this consideration, along with the fact that the

majority of the users presently are residents of Town of Sevastopol,

thought should be given to providing free launch access as it presently

exists. The City of Sturgeon Bay, for example, provides free launching

for City residents, and charges non-residents. At the present time

this would not be economical for the Town of Sevastopol as the volume

of non-residential users would not be adequate to pay for the

attendant.

Whichever method is decided upon by the Town, it should be left

open to periodic review as maintenance costs and usage changes.

Develor)ment Canital

Poor economic conditions have put a strain on all governmental

budgets, whether it be at the local, State,,or Federal level. As a

result, all of the programs that would be available to help fund a

project of this nature, are either no longer in existence or are out of

money. This is not to say that the picture might not change in' the

ROBERT E. LEE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
LEE:

next 12 months. Ironically, while potential assistance grants are

generally not availa ble, the cost of construction for projects of this

nature is currently at its lowest level for the past 4-5 years. Thus,

governmental bodies that are currently able to fund public facility

projects get the advantage of an extremely competitive market, both in

materials and construction.

Two options seem to be available. One option is to finalize and

approve an improvement plan and wait for assistance grants to again

become available. The second option is to try to locally fund the

improvements. If the project is to be funded locally, consideration

should be given to obtaining assistance from Door County. While

presently the majority of the ramp users are from the Town of

Sevastopol, it is likely that once the improvements are made, an

increasing number of boaters from other parts of Door County will

utilize the facility. To some extent it will thus become a County wide

facility, not only for County residents, but also for visiting

tourists, the majority of which would be sport fishermen. There usage

would benefit the County wide economy.

ROBERT E. LEE CONSULTING ENGINEERS

CHAPTER 7

RECOMMENDATIONS

Improvements

In order to provide a long lasting maintenance free breakwater,

it is recommended that the construction utilize an enclosure of steel

sheet piling or the steel binwall method. Both containments would be

filled and capped with concrete. Provisions should be made for

flow-thru structures to minimize the deposition of littoral drift,

which would help maintain the integrity of the shoreline as well as

minimize the need for periodic dredging at the ramp. To provide a true

economic comparison, the two types of construction should be bid as

alternates. This will provide a sound cost comparison upon which a

decision can be made as to which type of construction to utilize.

If matching funds are not available for the project, the on-land

parking improvements and fencing could be done. in phases after the

breakwater is installed, as the projected increase in usage occurs and

requires additional facilities,

The total project could, therefore, be phased in three parts with

the followina.cost breakdown;

Phase I Breakwater $ 87,000

Phase II Gravel Parking and Fencing 7,000

Phase III Asphalt Surfacing of Parking Area 9,000

TOTAL COST $103,000

ROBERT E. LEE CONSULTMG ENGONEERS

Permits

The following agencies require permits prior to construction of a

breakwater at the ramp facilities:

1) Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

2) Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers

At a minimum, 8-12 weeks should be programmed into the project

schedule to obtain these permits.

Financing

Even though assistance grants through State or Federal agencies

are not available at this time, periodic contact with the following

agencies should be continued in event funds do become available in the
future i) Wisconsin Department Iof Natural Resources

Lake Michigan District Office

% Jeff Pagels

Post Office Box 36 00

Green Bay, WI 54303

Telephone: (414) 497-4020

ROBERT E. LEE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Ife

2) Coastal Management Program, Department of Administration

% Allen H. Miller

101 South Webster Avenue, Seve nth Floor

Post Office Box 7864

Madison, WI 53707

Telephone: (608) 266-3687

3) Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission

% Ralph Bergman, Executive Director

Suite 450, S.E. Bldg., U.W.G.B.

Green Bay, WI 54302

Telephone: (414) 465-2135

The Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers has a program

under Section 107 by which they will administer the entire project from

the original reconnaissance work to construction and contribute 50

percent funding up to $8,000,000 for a feasible project. The problem

is that each step requires Washington approval, and if every step

progresses smoothly, it could.take a minimum of 5 years to complete.

This source is highly unlikely.

ROBERT E. LEE CONSULTING ENGINEERS

To fund the project locally would of course depend upon the

condition.of the local budget as well as the Town's ability to levy a

tax for this type of improvement. If the money is not presently

available, the least demanding funding method is to obtain the $103,000

through general obligation bonds. If 10-year bonds were able to be

obtained at a rate of 12 percent, the yearly obligation would average

approximately $18,000 per year for the 0-year period. As discussed

previously, user fee revenue would be an insignificant source of

revenue for the development cost. However, any contribution that could

be obtained from the County would offset a portion of the Town's

obligation.

It is further recommended that ifthe Town can fund the project,

it should proceed with development in order to take advantage of the

competitive construction market. Most funding programs, if they are

rejuvenated, will probably return with a maximum contribution of 50

percent. This potential 50 perce nt savings to the Town can quickly be

eroded by inflationary pressures if funding assistance is not available

for the next 3-5 year period.

rg
ROBERT E. LEE CONSULTING ENGINEERS

1,111AL 01 N@ sto oNA canaha
ISlialding 6 River I., jr,
A-- P-0-0 ft

G@ Nadeau

may 23

FUREST A
o
Bill

son c". Nil
c

aus
F
10. A
'14 I.W Bill.
I Sill.
all X
Z3
A fill- 2 6@
4 0 41
GG
IQ Blfth z
c1.k
is
4
T
a.- PERMWLA
0 kmh al.
.Alf Menom c
p F
Is
(3 z pou. morta" A
arin te
AN AL
E "Art.
01cole. S I
!@PROJECT LOCATION'.,'-,
-IX I
A: 41
conto 2 rnn n y AG. 'Ell
Gillet 4 F Ils
U FUTANAT 14
Ar
7 c 56 -1
?@ G- ASS y
cli V.11, E
0
Ad-.

F UPI.
K
s
I D
c I XC
2 AM! x
D
S ula@ki Le
5 E
A. 3
c Nil, C. �oma
N.@ Klh
Gre K K K
[email protected] afdB 4 Casw 0
C
Seymm.
0
IF
54 7 AU rU f
we sd et,
A--
STATE IN Iw jo
C;ack U etratmee
EE DePe S
A
S,
31
6
E
in S S I. Lc
A F I..-.d- . 00 J, G m
41 7(@
to
40 <rn,-
6 3- D"no Be 1.
AM 'The
96 wit.
V 41 C.A.
7
4p
We. " Y@ - -
1 61 nqid
el,
Kell 0
v Anti
.,& Art
G Creek
ena 2

LOCATION MAP
A
72.

ROBERT E. LEE CONSULTING ENGINEERS

140 Rov REVISION DAji APPROV REVISION JD
RS CONCEPTUAL
R S

In
in

C) .......

4ANOS OWNED Or 0
RICHARD rLILL),
....... ...

.@@-SCRN V FENCE
wi

.18
In
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 10 11 12 13 1 IV 16 GRATED STEEL
0 STEEL
1%77 E-STIENS" S

I 4F*
&AAVA FAMIAlff &Or
CONCRETE BOAT RAMP - to
22 2'3 24 4ftb
cy
to 21

-7 T-

-24 OMY
PARK ARE FULL. LANDS "Wro a
"LOGLASS I.ANCI
eel W""

Ni%CMT - LOT

BITUMINOUS ROAD

PROPERTY LINE

EXISTING_ CONTOUR LINE

-0 UTILITY POLE W GUY WIFE.-
Or LIGHT POLE...

C1 STOP SIGN

a SIGN

a TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
NOTE
0 SEPTIC TANK VENT WATER ELEVATION 579 28*
D EXISTING TREE MTERNATICINAL GREAT LAXIES DATUM
0 15 30 60 0 EXISTING I" IRON PIPE APRIL 7. 1982 . 4 30 PM
-a--I
SCALE: 1'- 30'

No DATE &PPRN REVISION NO DATE APPROV REVISION WHITEFISH BAY
Bo DETAIL
L4 AT RAMP IMPROVEMENTS

11,01111110 1
3 6668 14104 9488 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I

i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I