[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
FINAL REPORT FOR 831.4 CITY OF TWO RIVERS COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DREDGE SPOIL TRANSFER SITE STUDY COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT HAS BEEN PROVIDED THROUGH THE WISCONSIN COASTAL MANAGEMENT PRO- GRAM BY THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1972, ADMINISTERED BY THE FEDERAL OFFICE OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION. TD PREPARED By GARY L. PETERSON AND ASSOCIATES 195 .D72 NOVEMBER 1983 C57 1983 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii I. Introduction to the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 A. Study Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 B. Study Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. Review of Existing Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 A. Physical Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . 3 B. Harbor Use . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 C. Physical Limitations to Dredge Spoil Transfer . 7 D. Government Policies Affecting Dredging 8 III. Dredging History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 A. Frequency and Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 B. Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 IV. Potential Dredging Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 A. Mechanical Dredging . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 B. Hydraulic Dredging . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 C. Suction Dredging (the Hains) . . . . . . . . . 19 V. Transfer Sites for Dredge Spoils . . . . . . . . . . 20 A. Transfer Sites . . . . 20 B. Preliminary Review of Transfer Sites . . . . 21 C. In-depth Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 D. Beach Nourishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 VI. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Appendix - Calculation of Sand Pile Volumes . . . . . . . 45 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE N0AA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413 Property of CSC Library CITY OF TWO RIVERS PETERSON & ASSOCIATES -i- LIST OF FIGURES 1. Map of the Two Rivers Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Table of Harbor Use by Recreational Craft . . . . . . . 6 3. Table of Bridge Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Bar Graph of Dredging History 1956-1981 . . . . . . . 16 5. Table of Dredging History 1956-1981 . . . . . . . . . 17 6. Chart of Not Suitable Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 7. Chart of Suitable Sites . . . e . . . . . . . . . 25 8. Chart of Most Suitable Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . o 26 9. map of Suitable/most Suitable Dredge Transfer Sites . 27 10. Photograph of Mirro Plant-4 Parking Lot (Site 1) 29 ii. Site Map of Mirro Plant 4 Parking Lot (Site 1) 30 12. Photograph of Sewage Treatment Plant (Site 4) . . . . 31 13. Site Map of Sewage Treatment Plant (Site 4) . . . . . 32 14. Photograph of City Dock (Site 7), o . . . . . . . . . 33 15. Site Map of City Dock (Site 7) . . . . . .. . . . . . . 34 16. Photograph of High School Playing Fields (Site 6) . . 36 17. Site Map of High School Playing Fields (Site 6) . . . 37 is. Photograph of 27th Street Boat Ramp (Site 11) . . . . 39 19. Site Map of 27th Street Boat Ramp (Site 11) . . . o . 40 20. Photograph of Coast Guard Site (Site 13) . . . . . . 41 21. Site Map of Coast Guard Site (Site 13) . . . . . . . 42 CITY OF TWO RIVERS PETERSON & ASSOCIATES 1. INTRODUCTION The City of Two Rivers is located at the mouth of the East and West Twin Rivers on the west shore of Lake Michigan six miles northeast of Manitowoc. The harbor and harbor entrance have been dredged a number of times in the past, and can be expected to require regular dredging in the future. Until recently, vacant land at the harbor entrance has been avail- able as an on-land transfer site for dredge spoils. That land will probably not be available much longer as it is being seriously considered for development. A. Study Purpose This report is intended to furnish information on which the City can base its selection of a future dredge spoil transfer site. To prepare for future private or government dredging ef- forts, the City needs to find a site, and soon. The Army corps of Engineers is considering dredging in 1985, and private development might require some dredging before that. Sediment accumulation rates vary, but approxi- mately 60,000 cubic yards of unpolluted sandy sediments accumulate annually if dredging is done annually. B. Study Methods A comprehensive survey of sites was made, starting with a walking tour of the harbor and rivers by an outsider with a fresh eye for land use opportunities. A fresh look at possible sites, with a specific project in mind often uncovers otherwise overlooked opportunities. All vacant land on or near the lower reaches of the rivers and har- bor was investigated and no sites were summarily rejected no matter how remote the possibility of their use seemed at the time. One reason for this is that dredging equip- ment specifications cover such a wide range that marginal sites could perhaps be modified and made useful at a low cost. Information was then collected from federal, state, and regional agencies in order to better assess government programs and policies that affect dredging in Two Rivers. The final sites examined in depth in this report were picked in consultation with City staff, and with careful consideration of the many physical and regulatory factors important here. CITY OF TWO RTVERS GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. Lastly, development cost estimates are provided for the most promising sites. However, no one site has been recommended because circumstances may change before dredging is done. The most promising site might sud- denly become less desirable than it is at the moment and vice versa. For example, beach nourishment may become feasible if the Department of Natural Resources' (DNR) policy toward disposal of dredge spoil in the states' waters changes. CTTY OF TWO RIVERS -2- GARY PFTFRSOM & ASSqC. II. REVIEW OF EXISTING DATA To understand Two Rivers dredging needs, a review of the physical characteristics of the rivers and harbor is neces- sary. This section starts with a description of the harbor and a discussion of sedimentation processes. This is fol- lowed by a review of harbor users, and state and federal policies that affect harbor dredging. A. Physical Characteristics 1. Description of the Harbor The harbor consists of an outer harbor formed by two parallel piers, an inner harbor basin at the confluence of the East and West Twin Rivers, and a channel one half mile in length extending from the basin upstream in the East Twin River to the Twenty- Second Street Bridge. (see Figure 1 on page 4). The Federal navigation project at the Two Rivers harbor was authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Acts of 1871 through 1958. The project defines how deep each part of the harbor should be for use by commer- cial boats. The project calls for an entrance chan- nel and inner basin 18 feet deep; a small stilling (turning) basin beyond the shoreline on the east side of the channel; and a channel 10 feet deep in the East Twin River. 2. Shoaling (Why Sediment Accumulates) Sediment of concern to Two Rivers comes from two sources - in the inner harbor from river transport, and in the outer harbor from lake transport. The East and West Twin Rivers carry sediment from the surrounding farms and villages of Kewaunee and Mani- towoc counties. The amount and quality of sediment is heavily dependent on the number of rain storms and on farming practices, specifically on whether soil erosion control techniques are used. Some of the material from farmland is fine-grained material of special concern. These fine-grained sediments tend to carry with them a higher concentration of heavy metals and organics, which are deposited in the harbor, and also at bends in the river where the current slackens. organics from soil erosion, and from farm animals allowed direct access to the streams and rivers, are a major polluter of the inner harbor sediments. CITY OF TWO RIVERS -3- GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. 3 Figure 1 Map of Two Rivers 4. Harbor 91 C@ I Re-P _J Z7 It, 3 th 5ftp@ Dock Me-* 2 S 25 5 2 2 2 _24rK 4 2 7 L21m S, 2373 N -223 d 3 9 @2,lna ............. 2 2@, I' I IPIFI TA to F@ 21 21.t-S, N -4 3 all 20 - SA 2 14 ow 'A Iwo 7m 171h OL It, 51 sh- 10 17 13 117 f% . 15 190 4 2 to 0 12 17 7 \\4 67 16 ZJ T135 9 12 14 2313 W9 42 5Ab65613 10 '. 1@6 12 13 VP \10 19 61@\ 13 9'a 3 10 13 \19 4 a 20 3 G 4 5 6 22 20% a 1319 5 7 01 19 "'22 6 5 7 7 a ifit 22 -A 220 1610, 11 14 16 20 22 21 - - - - Limits of Federal Navigation 00 15222 Project 1 12 13 422 21 21 21 12 23 23 Source: NOAA Nautical Charts and Bay-Lake 11 14 0 21 22 23 Regional Planning Commission FEET 5w:::@ . 17 22 24- 27 27 16 CTTy np TIJr) RTVERS -4- GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. The patterns of sedimentation in Lake Michigan are well known. The nearshore zones are very ener- getic, resulting in considerable erosion in many areas and sorting of sediments according to particle size. The Wisconsin shoreline of Lake Michigan is characterized by almost continual erosion of the underlying glacial till and the clay cliffs. The circulation patterns driven mainly by the southwesterly prevailing wind transfer much of the fine grained materials to the deep waters of the lake and deposit the coarser material as dunes on the eastern shore. (Kewaunee Beach Nourishment Project Proposal). Along the Two Rivers shoreline, the offshore cur- rent is moving from southwest to northeast, eroding the shoreline on both sides of the harbor and depositing sediment near and in the harbor entrance piers. Much of the beach erosion occurs during storms, and thus the magnitude of erosion and deposition varies widely from year to year. The volume of sediment being deposited will automati- cally increase as natural fluctuation causes the presently high Great Lakes water levels to fall. It is also found that dredging does not create a static bottom configuration, and extensive dredging causes quicker deposition of sediments. (Bob Mundelius). B. Harbor Use The City's central business district is adjacent to the harbor area. other adjacent land uses include a commer- cial fishing village, heavy industry, recreational boating facilities, and a City park. The City's economic base is industrial, with large manu- facturing properties located on the harbor or on the first reaches of the East and West Twin Rivers. Gener- ally, operations do not take advantage of their harbor location; the harbor is not used for shipping by these companies. one minor exception to this rule is a City-owned dock that has been used for the unloading of petroleum' prod- ucts and caustic soda. A pipeline from the dock con- nects with a 212,000 barrel petroleum storage facility located upstream on the East Twin River. But, these facilities have not been used for several years. ('TTY OF TWO RIVERS GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. Major use of the harbor is made, however, by commercial and recreational fishing boats * Eleven commercial fishing operations have licenses to operate out of Two Rivers and in 1981, they caught $719,826 worth of fish. In 1982, the total value was $754,356. (Michael Tonys, DNR). Recreational fishermen can operate out of any of the private marinas in Two Rivers, or they can use the City boat ramps at Eighteenth Street (Municipal Marina) and Twenty-Seventh Street. Figure 2 Table of Harbor Use by Recreational Craft in 1983 of Boats # of Average Daily Marina Moored Ramps Launchings Private a Two Rivers Sports 25 1 d = 10-12 and Marine e = 20 M & M Marina 12 0 n/a Twin Cities Marina 64 1 d = 10-15 e = 50-75 Stop In Dock 72 6 d = 24-40 e = 75 Public b 18th Street n/a 5 d = 12.8 e = 65.25 27th Street n/a 2 d = 3.1 e = 15 Note: d = weekday, e weekend Source: a = Telephone Survey by Gary L. Peterson and Associates, September, 1983 b = Howard Perry, Recreation Department, City of Two Rivers rTTY OF TWO RTVERS -6- GARY PrTFRqON & At the larger four private marinas, listed in Figure 2, there are now 173 boats moored. Rough estimates from the managers of each marina put daily launchings between 45 and 65 boats on weekdays, and 150 to 160 boats on weekends. other facilities, both public and private, are available as support services for recreational fishing boats. A more accurate survey was done by the City of Two Rivers this summer of the public boat ramp usage. From August 23, 1983 through September 5, 1983, the two marinas saw 479 boats launched from the seven ramps. Weekday launchings averaged 15.8, and weekend days saw 80.25 boats launched. After September 9th, the usage decreased dramatically. Both commercial and recreational fishermen are making use of the Two Rivers harbor. It is expected that recrea- tional fishing use will increase; commercial fishing trends are more difficult to predict because DNR regula- tions change and because fish populations fluctuate so much. C. Physical Limitations to Dredge Spoil Transfer Certain physical limitations to navigation exist in the East and West Twin Rivers that reduce the number of ,feasible dredge transfer sites. It was found that the existing bridges would not constrain barge traffic; only the Twenty-Second Street bridge would constrain tug traffic because it is so low. When the bridge is open, however, there would be no problem with tugs getting through. Figure 3, details the five bridge crossings of the East and West Twin Rivers. The smallest clear height is nine feet on the Twenty-Second Street Bridge; the narrowest span openings are fifty feet on the Chicago and Northwestern Railway Bridge. Water depths, however, would be a constraint. Figure 1, on page 4 is a map of the Two Rivers Harbor with some water depth information included. While this map is not up-to-date, it does provide some idea of water depths in the two rivers and along the shores of Lake Michigan. Further discussion of limitations as 'they affect speci- fic sites can be found in Section V of this report. CTTY OF TWO RIVERS -7- GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. Figure 3 Table of Bridge Specifications Bridge Miles Draw or Span Openings- Clear Location Above Clear Width in Feet Height and Name Mouth Proceeding Upstream Above of Low-Water River Right Left Center Datum East Twin River 17th Street 0.3 70 14.5 22nd Street 0.65 70 9.0 West Twin'River Washington Street 0.34 54 14.2 Chicago & North- 0.45 50 50 western Railway 16th Street & 0.63 70 14.0 Madison Street All bridges open to allow river traffic through except the Washington Street Bridge. Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Pilot, Great Lake, 1981 D. Government Policies Affecting Dredging 1. Federal Policies Federal agencies that regulate dredging and harbors are the Army Corps of Engineers, the U. S. Coast Guard, and the Environmental Protection Agency. a. Army Corps of Engineers The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers is a divi- sion of the Department of the Army and is in charge of flood-control improvements and the administration of laws for the protection and preservation of navigation and navigable waters of the United States. The Corps has the responsibility of issuing permits, con- ducting research and special studies of water related issues, and actual construction of water related improvements. CTTY OF TWO RIVERS -8- GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. Authority for the Corps is derived from several laws among which are the following: 1. The River and Harbor Acts of 1899, 1902, and 1968. 2. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953. 3. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (Section 404). 4. The Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. Corps permits will be required when dredging at Two Rivers takes place. Permits are gen- erally required for work on structures in all areas channelward of the mean waterline on the Great Lakes. The mean high waterline is defined as being four feet above the low water datum for Lake Michigan,at an.elevation of 576.8 feet. Permits are also required for projects where fill or dredged material is deposited into any "water of the United States" or its adjacent wetlands. Although not to be considered a legal definition, Sewaters in the United States" can generally be considered as all rivers and streams in the United States and their tributaries, to the headwaters; and all lakes over ten acres in size, such areas to include the adjacent wetlands. Some of the projects for which permits are required are as follows: 1. Constructing piers, wharfs, docks, dolphins and mooring cells. 2. Excavating and commercial sand or gravel dredging. 3. Filling and disposal of dredged material. 4. Placement of riprap, groins, revetments, retaining walls', breakwaters, levees, or fishing reefs. 5. Constructing wires or cables over the water. 6. Clearing channels and upland canal connections. rTTY OF TWO RIVERS -9- GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. 7. Placing intake or outfall pipes and structures. 8. Providing navigational aids (except those established by the U. S. Coast Guard), platforms, ramps, signs and fences. 9. Transporting dredged material for ocean dumping. 10. Pipeline crossing (natural gas, eletrical conduits, etc.) 11. Cable crossing (electrical cables, telephone cables, etc.) As part of its responsibility for the protec- tion and preservation of navigation, the Army dredges harbors that it deems important for commercial purposes. However, commercial and recreational fishing are not included in their commercial use calculation. For Two Rivers, this is unfortunate, because it is a harbor that is heavily used by fishing vessels. The fishing activity adds diversity to the local economy and brings tourists to the area who patronize other businesses. Now being considered in Congress is a bill that would require a user fee for recreational and commercial fishing vessels in order to pay for their share of harbor dredging. b. U. S. Coast Guard The U. S. Coast Guard is responsible for numerous duties such as approving marine events (e.g. regattas), permitting private aids to navigation, and permitting the construction of bridges and causeways. of special relevance here is their responsi- bility to approve the establishment of Special Anchorage Areas for the mooring of small craft. These areas are designated by local government, and may also be regulated under a local ordinance. The turning basin next to the Coast Guard station might be a prime candidate for designation as a Special Anchor- age Area. ( 'Harbor Study, Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission, November, 1982) rTTY OP TWO RTVERS -To- CARY MPIPI-Irll_r)@i C. Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regula- tions come into play when dredged material is polluted. The Two Rivers inner harbor and river dredge spoil is usually found to be pol- luted when tested, because of organic sediment transported down the rivers. However, it probably will not be grossly polluted (con- taining toxic or hazardous contaminants) and therefore can be put in a Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) such as the diked area offshore at Manitowoc. Grossly polluted materials would have to be placed in a licensed hazar- dous waste disposal facility, but, again, this probably does not apply to Two Rivers. Further disposal restrictions are based on the source of the dredged materials. Only those materials dredged for commercial navigation purposes from federal project areas and clas- sified by the EPA as polluted may be placed in a CDF constructed totally with federal money. Polluted material from outside the federal project area cannot be placed in the Manitowoc CDF, and must be otherwise managed. 2. State Policies The DNRIS specific role in dredging and dredged material disposal is outlined by several major laws and administrative codes. The preservation of public rights or interests including unobstructed waterways and good water quality was the Legisla- ture's main concern in passing the laws which regulate dredging. a. General Dredging Regulations Removal of material from beds of navigable waters is covered under Section 30.20, Wis- consin Statutes. Removal of any material from the bed of any navigable lake requires a contract with, or permit from, the DNR. Dredging contracts/permits specify methods of disposal which help minimize or eliminate adverse effects of dredging on water quality, habitat and recreation. CITY OF TWO RIVERS GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. Dredging projects on the beds of waterways is regulated by NR 347, Wisconsin Administrative Code. This rule provides legal definitions of dredging-related terms, lists required project and environmental information, and specifies standards and procedures to assist dredging project applicants and DNR staff. NR 347 outlines 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. b. Water Quality-Related Laws Wastewater treatment facility plans require approval under 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 dredge material disposal facility may require plan approval since it can involve treatment of water-borne pollutants. Solid and hazardous waste management programs, (Section 144.43 through 144.784 Wisconsin Statutes), can also affect dredging operations. This group of laws directed the DNR to develop standards for permitting and licensing the con- struction 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 based on the amount of dredged material and the potential for contami- nation 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. ('T'PY OF TWO RTVERS -12- GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. The Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination System, (Chapter 147, Wisconsin Statutes), directly bears on dredging operations. 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 per- mit," which establishes basic effluent limita- tions that must be met. For dredging projects not receiving the general permit, a permit is processed and individual effluent limitations are established. The water quality certification program, (NR 229, Wisconsin Administrative Code), is an attempt to coordinate state and federal pro- grams. The Federal Clean Water Act of 1977 requires projects requiring federal approval in state waters to meet state water quality laws. The administrative rule establishes the stand- ards and procedures for determining whether federally-issued permits meet the requirements of state laws. C. Obstruction-Related Laws Establishment of bulkhead lines is regulated by Section 30.11, Wisconsin 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 shorelines as nearly as practicable. In the Great Lakes and other waterways where the Corps of Engineers main- tains 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. CTTY OF TWO RTVERS -13- GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. The rule governing structures and deposits in navigable water, (Section 30.12, Wisconsin Statutes), is being reviewed, and might be changed in the next couple years. 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 estab- lished 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 generally prohibited. A submerged land lease, (Section 24.39(4), Wisconsin Statutes), was obtained at Manitowoc for their Containment area. Under this sec- tion, the Board of Commissioners of Public Lands may lease rights to use the beds of Lakes Michigan and Superior to a municipality for a maximum of 50 years. Rights to the bed, including the right to fill the lakebed, can be leased for improving recreational facilities related to navigation for public use. The state holds the beds of lakes in trust for the public. The state legislature has entrusted the DNR with ensuring that uses of leased lakebed areas are in the public's interest. (Great Lakes Dredging, DNR, September, 1982) CTTY OF TWO RTVERS -14- GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. III. DREDGING HISTORY A. Frequency and Volume As already mentioned, the Army Corps authorized a Fed- eral Navigation Project at Two Rivers, as outlined on the map on page 4. The project outlines the area to be dredged, and the depths to which each section should be dredged. Controversy over financial responsibility for the disposal of unpolluted dredged materials halted dredging in the Two Rivers Federal Project Area after 1973. By 1977, fuel oil barges could no longer enter the harbor. Annual accumulation in the East and West Twin Rivers part of the Federal Project Area is moderate (65,000 to 95,000 cubic yards), however, these sediments are classified as heavily polluted. The greatest need for dredging is in the entrance channel; these sediments are classified as unpolluted. The Two Rivers entrance channel has the largest annual deposition (approximately 20,000 cubic yards) of unpolluted sediments of any harbor in the region. According to existing Corps policy, the expense of the state-required on-land disposal of these unpolluted sediments was not justified by the commodity movements in Two Rivers. Two Rivers did not become eligible for Corps dredging until July, 1979, when the Corps adjusted their economic justification policy to allow for state environmental standards which were more restrictive than federal standards. The State of Wisconsin then appro- priated $325,000 to assist the City in the development of on-land disposal sites. Dredging of the Two Rivers Federal Project Area resumed in 1980 and 1981. The area to be dredged was also expanded to include the entire authorized project to the Twenty-Second Street Bridge. Figure 4 on page l6l "Dredging History 1956-1981", presents the material volumes removed each year from 1956 through 1981. The accompanying Figure 5 on page 17 indicates where the dredging was done in each of these areas. It is important when looking at these figures to remember that each dredging cycle did not return the harbor to the Corps Navigation Project specifications. The Project was almost complete in 1961; all parts of the Project were dredged to their authorized depths, except for the 10 'foot width along either side of the lakeward portion of the entrance channel between the piers. The 1930 and 1981 dredging was the first time that the East River portion of the project was dredged to the authorized depth. CTIPY OF TWO RTVERS _15- GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. Figure 4 Bar Graph of Dredging History 1956-1981 150,000 140 130 120 c 110 100 c r y 90 a r d 80 rA r 70 e m 0 60 v e d 0 Imor 0 z I '10 40 rlz:@, OF104f Z00 zo F7 0@0, or 00F P, "00 or .30,000 20,000 0 0 /1.0 0 .0@ 0 @0'0 0/00 @Ilv /@ 10,000 e0l, .00 11,4 @/ @/,00 1956 '58 '60 '62 '64 66 '68 70 72 74 76 78 '80 181 J-LLLU-1 I I I I LLLk LLL I year CTTY OF TWO RIVERS -16- GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. Figure 5 Table of Two Rivers Dredging History 1956-1981 Cubic Yards Year Location of Dredge Spoil 1981 Harbor and River 130,717 1980 outer and Entrance Channel 99,571 1973 Outer Harbor 14,400 1972 Outer Harbor 18,350 1971 Outer Harbor 74,100 1969 Outer Harbor 62,225 1968 River and Outer Harbor 67,575 1967 River and Outer Harbor 43,150 1966 Outer Harbor 24,012 1966 Outer Harbor and River 11,550 1965 Outer Harbor and River 43,700 1964 Outer Harbor 17,427 1964 Outer Harbor 50,573 1964 Outer Harbor 6,620 19,@3 Outer Harbor and River 43,560 1962 Outer Harbor and River 51,258 1961 outer harbor and River 47,462 1960 River 69,986 1960 Outer Harbor and River 45,075 1959 outer Harbor and River 43,750 1958 Outer Harbor and River 49,250 1957 Outer Harbor and River 54,885 1956 Outer Harbor and River 71,570 Source: Bob Mundelius, Army Corps of Engineers CTTY OF T140 RTVERS -17- GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. B. Methods The Army Corps has generally used their suction dredge, the Hains, for the work they have done in Two Rivers. It has recently been decided by the Corps that the Hains will be mothballed, and any dredging will be done by local contractors. A discussion of the capabilities of local contractors can be found in Section IV of this report. Permits filed since 1978 indicate private dredging was done in the West Twin River by the Stop and Dock Marina. Schwarz Marine, a boat builder on the East Twin River, also has a permit to-dredge 5,000 cubic yards of sedi- ments, and has done some work under this permit. A private developer has applied for a permit to dredge 36,000 cubic yards of material for a marina/condominium project on the south side of the harbor entrance, and would use the dredged material as fill on the property. However, this project is behind schedule and is now on hold. These private dredging operations are not included in Figures 4 and 5 because they are insignifi- cant compared to the Army Corps of Engineers dredging volumes. C7TTY OF TWO RTVERS GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. IV. POTENTIAL DREDGING METHODS Because different dredging methods produce spoil with dif- ferent handling requirements, these methods need to be dis- cussed. Another reason to discuss dredging methods before discussing specific sites is because some of the potential dredge spoil transfer sites could only be available for certain types of dredging operations. Also discussed here are the capabilities of private contractors who might be doing the work. A. Mechanical Dredging Mechanical dredging makes use of a clamshell or bucket- like crane mounted on a barge to lift the underwater material from the river, dump it into a barge, and then transport the material to a dredge spoil transfer site. Material is then unloaded with another crane onto the land, or directly into dump trunks that haul it to its final destination. This is the type of dredging equipment most widely used by private contractors. Roen Salvage Co., Durosher Dock & Dredge, Harbor Marine Ltd., and E. E. Gillen Construc- tion Co. all have mechanical dredge equipment. B. Hydraulic Dredging With hydraulic dredging, underwater material is agitated with a cutter device, then pumped to the surface through a "vacuum" pipeline and transported to an on-shore dis- posal site through a series of pipelines set on floating pontoons. If the material is to be pumped a significant distance, a boosterbarge is placd in line to boost material further distances. Harbor Marine Ltd. has a small hydraulic dredge which they prefer to use over their mechanical dredge. C. Suction Dredging (the Hains) Suction dredging is a form of hydraulic dredging, but it produces a dredge spoil that is not as water-logged as most hydraulic dredge spoil. The Hains, belonging to the Army Corps and used in the past for dredging at Two Rivers, was a suction dredge. This equipment is now mothballed for the indefinite future. CITY OF TWO RIVERS _19- GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. V. TRANSFER SITES FOR DREDGE SPOILS A. Transfer Sites There are three sets of activities involved in using a transfer site that affect selection of a site: 1. Moving the dredge spoil to the on-land site from the dredging operation in the river; 2. Transferring the spoil from the river to the land and then into trucks for transport to its final destination; and 3. Moving the trucks through the City streets. The first set of activities, a method of getting the dredge spoil to shore, will depend upon the type of dredging--hydraulic or mechanical--that-is used. If the material has been dredged hydraulically, it may be pumped through a pontoon-supported pipeline to a transfer site within a mile of the dredging operation. Hydraulic dredging would allow the use of a transfer site not directly on the shore - the pipeline can go overland and even across roads. The contractor could burrow under roads, or build ramps over pipes lain across roads, with good results. To transport material a distance of one mile or more, mechanical dredging must be used. The material is placed in a barge, which is then moved by tug to the transfer site, where a crane then unloads the barges directly into trucks, or onto the ground. The second set of activities, transferring the spoil from the river to the land and then into trucks, would also depend on the type of dredge used. Hydraulic dredging would simply require the construction of a dike to contain the wet material, and some outlet to allow the excess water to drain back into the river. A front end loader would then be used to load trucks for the final journey. Front end loaders have certain relevant characteristics. They make some noise while in use; they also work most efficiently on a firm foundation, preferably pavement. Because of the wetness of the dredge spoil, it is easy for a site's foundation material to get waterlogged. Any tendency towards muddiness should be avoided if possible, by picking a site that is paved or graveled. CTTY OF TWO RIVERS -20- GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. Mechanical dredging might involve the use of a front-end loader for loading trucks, but it would also involve the use of a crane for off-loading the barges. More equip- ment noise would be produced that would impinge to some degree on close residential neighbors, if any. The third activity, moving the trucks through the city streetst should be done as efficiently as possible. The trucks will track some sand onto the streets, and increase noise levels along their route. The shorter the distance they must travel on residential streets the better, but since a final disposal site has not been chosen as yet, this factor cannot be fully evaluated for each site. B. Preliminary Review of Transfer Sites This section is a discussion of the decision process whereby the sites are divided into categories, based on suitability factors. Three meetings with City officials occurred at which possible tranfer sites were discussed and divided into "unsuitable", "suitable" and "most suitable" sites. Each list is catalogued, and the reasons for each site being on the particular -list are mentioned. Those in the "unsuitable" category were only minimally investi- gated--the information collected on these sites is presented in Figure 6 on page 24. Those sites in the "suitable" category, presented in Figure 7 on page 25, also have some drawbacks, but could be made feasible with certain modifications. "Most suitable" sites, presented in Figure 8 on page 26, are, logically, those with the greatest number of positive features and least number of drawbacks. Those sites on the "most suitable" list are examined in greatest detail. Figure 9 on page 27 is a map of "suitable" and "most suitable" site locations. CTTY OF TWO RIVERS -21- GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. Not Suitable Sites a. Riverside Park - Water is currently too shallow, and would only be feasible if the area leading to the Park was dredged; care would have to be taken so that items con- structed with federal funds would not be destroyed. b. Mirro Plant 1 - Power lines make the site unusable. If they are relocated for some reason, the site should be re-evaluated. C. Two Rivers Sport Marine - Site not big enough; existing business would be disrupted. d. City Owned Lot-Madison Street - Poor access and small. e. Eggers Sites - Eggers management currently indicates no possibility for a dredge transfer site on their property. f. M & M Parking Lot - Site on the river is not available. The Lake Street Triangle is possible with a hydraulic dreging system. 9- Fairview Drive Site - Too much dredging needed to get to the site, and it is too far from main harbor. h. Brick Warehouse (Crescent Woolen Mills) - Currently occupied by a building; poor truck access. i. Schwarz Marina Parking Lot - Would interfere with existing businesses. Water too shallow. j. Twenty-Third Street End - Site is too small. k. Rogers Street Susie Q Truck Storage - Site is too small; and activities would interfere with surrounding land use. A building is on the site and in the way. 1. Turning Basin - Better used for marine purposes. 2. Suitable Sites a. Mirro Plant 4 (Site Number 2) - Site currently occupied by buildings. -TTV ()F TWq RTAIFRS _2?_ nARY PPTERqnM @ AqqqC. b. Lake Street Triangle (Site 3) - Possible from September through May only. Problems with runoff and barge access. C. Schmitt Lumber (Site 5) - some distance from dredging operation; may be wetland. d. Municipal Marina (Site 6) - Site is developed for public use; would be feasible in spring when fishing demand is low. e. Hamilton Property (Site 8) - Not best use; site is larger than needed; currently occupied by buildings. f. Guimer Property (Site 10) - Possible wetland; some distance from dredging operation. 9. Harbor Street Park (Site 12) - Weak sea wall could be further damaged by drainage from the dredge material; poor truck access. 3. Most Suitable Sites a. Mirro Plant 4 Parking Lot (Site Number 1) - Compatible neighbors; boats must maneuver past the Washington Street Bridge and the Railroad Bridge. b. Sewage Treatment Plant (Site 4) - Compatible neighbors; close enough to pump spoil directly to site if using hydraulic dredge. C. City Dock (Site 7) - convenient to dredging operation;-access drive might need to be modified. d. High School Playing Fields (Site 9) - Some distance from dredging operation; dredge spoils would destroy the grass; temporary road would have to be constructed. e. 27th Street Boat Ramp (Site 11) - Possible wetland; some distance from dredging opera- tion. Land would have to be acquired. f. Coast Guard Station (Site 14) - Probably close enough to pump spoil directly if using hydrau- lic dredge. CITY OF TWO RIVERS -23- GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. Figure 6 Sites Not Suitable for Dredge Spoil 21-ansfer Name Si ze 11ruck River Planned Adjacent HDdifications Environmental Access Access Uses Land Uses Needed Regulations Riverside Park medium possible shallow water park residential dredging n.a. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I Mirro Plant 1 large good obstructions abandoned industry remove n.a. (power lines) (under study) buildings ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------- Two Rivers medium possible good marina commercial, remove n.a. Sport Marine recreation piers ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- City Owned Lot - small traffic good none retail, power line n.a. Madison Street problem residential obstruction ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ Eggers Parking Lot medium possible good as before industry needed by Eggers n a . ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- Log Yard & 20th Street End (Eggers medium possible good as before commercial needed by Eggers n.a. & City Owned) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ....................... I M & M Parking Lot small possible obstructions parking commercial, remove n.a. lot recreation piers ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ Fairview large possible shallow water future residential dredging, lo wer possible Drive Site development telephone cable wetland ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- Brick Warehouse (Crescent Woolen small poor good as before residential remove n.a. Mills) building ------ ----- ------------------------ Schwarz Marina small possible shallow water as before industry dredging n.a. Parking Lot I ----w ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i------------------------ 23rd St. End (City small possible shallow water as before residential dredging n.a. & Privately Owned) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rogers Street none commercial, enlarge site, n.a. Susie Q Truck small possible shallow water recreation faulty sea wall Storage I ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------- - --------- I Turning Basin medium poor good as before U.S. Coast build contain- n.a. Guard ment wall Source., Gary L. Peterson and Associates, September, 1983 CITY OF TWO RIVERS -24- GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. Figure 7 Suitable Sites for Dredge Spoil kansfer Site I Name Si ze Planned Zoning Adjacent Modifications 11- uc k River 1 Multiple Use Opportunity Uses Land Uses Needed Access Access Possibilities Costs industrial, h-good 2 Mirro Plant 4 large but may Ii Industry, residential , good truck good m-needs some needs study needs study change commercial recreation access dredging ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Lake Street small parking Ii Cement plant, drainage to good hydraulic empty lot, ruin 11-iangle lot restaurant, park lake dredging only parking grass ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- h-too f ar 2 5 Schmitt large undeveloped 12 lumber yard, dredge okay m-needs some none destroy Lumber tank farm channel dredging wetland ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- special traffic h-too far2 lose use of 6 Vets Park small as before park park, utility, control good m-needs some parking and boat ramp Launching Ramp parking at bridge dredging boat ramp for several weeks ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hamilton industrial, good 8 property south large but may Ii industry remove good h-good none commercial of 17th Street change buildings m-good space ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- h-too far 10 Guimer large undeveloped R3 residential dredge fair m-needs much none destroy Property house lots channel dredging wetland ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- faulty sea lose use 12 Harbor Street small park R3 & residential wall needs poor h-good none o f park, Park park repair m-good ruin grass Source: Gary L. Peterson and Associates, September, 1983 1 h = hydraulic dredging needs m = mechanical dredging needs 2 The distance from the Federal Navigation Project is too far to pump without a booster barge. Using a booster barge would be possible, but more expensive. CITY OF IWO RIVERS -25- GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. Figure 8 Most Suitable Sites for Dredge Spoil 1@ansfer Site Name Size Planned Zoning Adjacent Nodifications Truck River Nultiple Use Opportunity (ft2) Uses Land Uses Needed Access Accessl Possibilities Costs residential, h-good 1 Mirro Plant 4 - 35,000 industrial; ii commercial minimal good m-needs some under study under study Parking Lot under study recreation dredging dredging ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sewage h-good 4 Treatment 32,000 sand pile, Ii utility none goo d m-needs sand pile none Plant undeveloped dredging there now ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7 City DDck 62,000 park Ii residential, work around steep h-good parking lose retail steep road road m-good parking --------------- 7--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- t ----------------- build 9 High School 200,000+ as before R1 residential temporary h-too far2 play fields Playing Fields road, poor m-needs much after ruin dredge dredging reseeding grass ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27th St. Boat Ramp needs needs 11 and St. Joseph's 65,000 vacant lot, R3 residential much goo d much boat destroy Athletic Association boat ramp dredging dredging ramp wetland ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ improve h-good 13 Coast Guard 25,000+ undeveloped R 1 residential, truck and poor m-needs some compatible none Property recreational barge access dredging with beach Source Gary L. Peterson and Associates, September, 1983 1 h = hydraulic dredging needs m = mechanical dredging needs 2 The distance from the Federal Navigation Project is too far to pump without a booster barge. Using a booster barge would bo possible, but more expensive. CITY OF TWO RIVERS -26- GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. Figure 9 Map of Suitable/Most Suitable Sites for Dredge Spoil Transfer KU SUITABLE MOST SUITABLE DREDGE SITE MAP PREPARED BY a GarY L. Peterson and Associates 5 17@ F-1 Z] [J.E. I M P F71 @7 El -LJ F-1 0 3 L 0 L@ 0 11 6 L@ 5i] L-.J F1 El /7 [J F--] N F-1 IL 14 F@ F-1 F _-j C; @J Ell MAP C, arTHE '04-TwaRAT WISCONSIN 0 1000 2000 feet ('TTY OF TWO RTVERS -27- GARY PETRRSON & ASSOC. C. In-Depth Evaluation The following information on the most suitable sites can 'be used, along with the information 'in Figure 81 to com- pare the sites relative advantages and disadvantages. No overall rating was given each site because of the uncer- tainty about when a selection will be made, and the pos- sibility that some factors will change before that time. However, positive (+) and negative (-) ratings were given to factors that affect the site's suitability. Mirro Plant 4 Parking Lot (Site 1) Availability The future use of this site is uncertain. A reuse study, just completed by Donahue and Associates, desig- nates the parking lot of Mirro Plant 4 for continued use as a parking lot. The City might buy it, but even if the property stays in private hands, it is projected to remain a parking lot. If, as a part of redevelopment, it is in high demand as a parking lot, it would be dif- ficult to arrange for use of the space for a dredge spoil transfer site. Therefore, obtaining an easement or acquiring the site before development occurs would ensure the use of this site for dredging operations. Cost Estimates No acquisition costs are involved, and the only modifi- cation needed is a minor amount of dredging. Decision Factors The following factors, (+) positive and (-) negative, should be considered in evaluating this site: + The site is located directly on the rivers and is therefore appropriate for mechanical or hydraulic dredging. + The site is paved, and would therefore be better for heavy equipment operation. + Industrial neighbors are compatible with the trans- fer operation. + Use as a parking lot could be made of the site the rest.of the year; low opportunity cost. rTTY OF TWO RTVFRS -28- GARY PETERSON & IkSSOC. May be incompatible with future use of Mirro Plant 4 buildings. Minor extra dredging would be needed. This site doesn't border the Federal Navigation Project. Figure 10 Photograph of Mirro Plant 4 Parking Lot (Site 1) CITY OF TWO RIVERS -29- GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. Figure 11 Site Map of Mirro Plant 4 Parking Lot (Site 1) Fourteenth Street River frontage - 325 feet Site area - 35,000 square feet Possible sand volume - 8,000 cubic yards 1 inch = 100 feet CTTY OF TWO RIVERS -30- GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. Sewage Treatment Plant (Site 4) Availability The property is City-owned, and therefore available. cost Estimates No acquisition costs would be involved here. Barges would be needed if mechanical dredging is used and would require a moderate amount of extra dredging. Hydraulic dredging would not require extra dredging. Decision Factors � Compatible adjacent uses. � Excellent truck access. � Low opportunity cost; no other uses are planned. - Requires dredging if mechanical dredging done. Figure 12 Photograph of Sewage Treatment Plant (Site 4) CITY OF TWO RIVERS -31- GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. Figure 13 Site Map of Sewage Treatment Plant (Site 4) ........... .......... ........... ........ .......... . ...... .......... ........... ........ . ..... .............. ........... .......... ........... ........... ...... ........... ...... . ............... . .......... . ........... .......... .......... ........... 01, . ......... . ............. .......... ...... ............ ...... ............. ..... ............ .. .......... nCO .......... ....... ... 0 106 VA 0 0 River frontage 350 feet 0 Possibe sand volume 6,350 cubic yards Site area - 32,000 square feet Y" L CITY OF TWO RIVERS -32- GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. City Dock (Site 7) Availability The property is City-owned. The present lease to Hamilton of the property for employee parking is no longer necessary because of their slow down in operations. Cost Estimates No acquisition costs and no extra dredging are needed because the site directly borders the Federal Navigation Project. The entrance road is rather steep for fully loaded trucks to ascend, but it is quite possible the trucks can be loaded at the top of the incline. Decision Factors + Borders Federal Navigation Project, therefore less time must be taken by the barges to move from the dredge site to the off loading site, if a mechanical dredge is used. - Residential and commercial neighbors will be aware of addition dirt and noise. - Steep access road. - Trucks will have to travel through the downtown streets to leave and enter the site. Figure 14 Photogragh of City Dock (Site 7) 2"', z 0,6i? 40,430 'My '77 CITY OF TWO RIVERS -33- GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. Figure 15 Site Map of City Dock (Site 7) ............ .. ......... .. ... ..... . ...... ..... ........... ............ ,Q^Y .. ........... K, ........... River frontage 900 feet Possible sand volume - 10,800 cubic yards Site area - 62,000 square feet ('TTY OF 'PW-) RTVFR.3 -34- (-,ARY PFTERSON High School Playing Fields (Site 9) Availability This land belongs to the City; it would not have to be acquired. Cost Estimates 'No acquisition costs are involved. Transportation costs for moving the dredge spoil up the river need to be con- sidered. For mechanical dredging, an extra channel would have to be dredged from the end of the Federal Navigation Projejct at Twenty-Second Street to the high school. Approximately 6,250 cubic yards would have to be removed, at an estimated cost of $47,000 (using a figure of $7.50/cubic yard, and making a channel 30 feet wide.) This estimate does not include the total transport cost nor the extra time required to move the barges up and down the river. This estimate also does not include the cost of lowering the buried telephone cable at Twenty-Third Street. For hydraulic dredging, no extra dredging would be required, but this site would require more piping and more labor. Estimates for this are not available. Decision Factors - School use of fields would be temporarily disrupted if dredging is done during the school year. - operation would destroy the grass. - Temporary road would have to be built for trucks to climb the bank. - Unpaved working area for heavy equipment is not optimal. - Residential neighbors would be aware of additional dirt and noise. - Extra dredging would be required. CTTY OF TWO RIVERS -35- GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. Figure 16 Photograph of High School Playing Field A"96 CITY OF TWO RIVERS -36- GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. Figure 17 Site Map of High School Playing Fields (Site 9) temporary road ... . ...... .... .. . ... . ...... ..... .... ... .. ::.. ........ ...... X. .. .. ... ............ 3 5 *. . . . . . . ..... . . . . . ..... % ex . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . ..I :. . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . ... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . River frontage 375 feet Possible sand volume - 93,300 cu. yds. Site area - 200,000+ square feet -590' OTTY OF TWO RTVERS -37- GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. 27th Street Boat Ramp_(Site 11) Availability , The northern section of the property is City-owned; the larger, southern portion is owned by St. Joseph's Athletic Association and is presently a field. There is some possibility that St. Joseph's will use the property for a parking lot, or sell it in the forseable future. Cost Estimates Acquisition of the St. Joseph land will cost about $15,000. Dredging costs for developing a channel from the edge of the Federal Navigation Project to the Twenty- Seventh Street Boat Ramp would cost approxi- mately $47,000 (see "Cost Estimates" on page 35). This estimate does not include the cost of lowering the buried telephone cable at Twenty-Third Street. Decision Factors Factors to consider in evaluating this site are: � Truck access is good. � The site is directly on the river, and is therefore appropriate -for mechanical or hydraulic dredging. The site is not paved and therefore heavy equipment operation would be made more difficult. - The site is not wholly City-owned, and would require acquisition money. - Residential neighbors will be aware of additional dirt and noise. The site does not border the Federal Navigation Project. The spoil would have to be transported to the transfer site by barge or pipe. Hydraulic dredging would probably-require a booster barge, at additional expense. Much extra dredging would be needed for barge access. The field might.be a wetland, and activities might require a DNR permit. ('TTY OF TWO RIVERS -33- GARY PETFRSnN & A@-,snc. Figure 18 Photograph of 27th Street Boat Ramp (Site 11) n 'ad@ Vwv, CITY OF TWO RIVERS -39- GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. Figure 19 Site Map of 27th Street Boat Ramp (Site 11)" L Twenty-Seventh Street ..... ....... .. .. ...... ....... ..... ....... .... 586: ...... .... ...... ....... ... .... ....... ... ............ ....... ... ............ .................. ... .......... ....... .... ........... ...... . ..... ........... .... ........... ......... ........... .... ............ En .. .......... . ... ...... ........... .......... .......... ... ........ .......... . :. .......... ...... .......... 01 586 . .......... Twenty-Sixth)Street 58 5801,584 River frontage - 325 feet Possible sand volume - 22,500 cubic yards Site area - 65,000 square feet CTTY OF TWO RIVERS -40- GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. Coast Guard Station (site 13) Availability The Army Corps of Engineers presently owns the property adjacent to the Coast Guard Station. Initial conversations with Coast Guard officials indicate that the site is availabile for use. Cost Estimates No acquisition or modification costs are needed. Decision Factors � The site borders the Federal Navigation Project, therefore less time would be required to transport the dredge spoil from the dredge site to the transfer site. � No other uses for the property are planned; therefore opportunity costs are low. - Residential neighbors will be aware of additional dirt and noise. - Truck access is poor because of narrow streets. - The site is not paved. Figure 20 Photograph of Coast Guard Site (Site 13) -4 pa"', T 4 Z ... ..... .. i@ NMI "M I i 01 CITY OF TWO RIVERS -41- GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. Figure 21 Site Map of Coast Guard Site (Site 13) . ......... 0 River frontage - none Site area - 25,000 square feet Water frontage 150 feet Possible sand volume - 8,700 cubic yards Site area - 25,000 square feet CITY OF TWO RIVERS -42-- GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. D. Beach Nourishment (Sites 14 and 15) meant to aid beaches that are badly eroded, beach nourishment is accomplished by placing compatible material on the beach and in the shallow water next to the beach. Dredge spoil from adjacent areas would likely be composed of similar sized particles, and if clean, would be compatible. The present prohibition against beach nourishment exists for two reasons; first to preserve the ecologi- cal integrity of the Great Lakes, and second, to prevent contamination of the lake water by chemical pollutants and particulate matter. Pilot projects in Kewaunee and Superior are being closely monitored by the DNR to determine if the prohibition should be lifted. Methods are also being developed for defining "the (1) critical parameters which should be measured prior to dumping and (2) the need and time for monitoring of the effects of the dis- posal operation." (Kewaunee Beach Nourishment Project Proposal, D.N. Edington and J.V. Klump, Center for Great Lakes Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, April, 1982, page 2.) Beache's on both sides of the harbor in Two Rivers could benefit from bea:ch nourishment, and it would be an easy disposal route f6r clean dredge spoil. Two Rivers will just have to wait and see what the outcome of the pilot projects will be. The DNR may continue to ban the practice, or beach nourishment may become a legitimate disposal route. CTTY OF TWO RIVERS -43- GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. Vi. SUMMARY A comprehensive survey of possible dredge spoil transfer sites was made, and the sites divided into three categories. No one site has been recommended because of the dynamic land use situation in Two Rivers. At the moment,. the City Dock is the site that seems most suitable to recommend. But a lot could happen before dredging commences that would make other sites more suitable, or City Dock less suitable. For instance, with the pending redevelopment of the Mirro properties, it might be necessary to use the City Dock for some related purpose. If City Dock had been recommended as the preferred site, it could then be concluded that the dredge transfer site was gone, which would not be the case. Six sites have been recommended as most suitable for dredge spoil transfer. Beach nourishment would have been included here, except for the current statutory restrictions on this method. Each of these sites has its assets and drawbacks, and it is hoped that these qualities have been described and organized in a way that will make the final choice of a transfer site easier to make. CTTY OF TWO RIVERS -44- GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. "PENDIX I - Calculation of Sand Pile Volumes The calculation of sand pile volumes is based on the following assumptions: 1. Cubic yards of wet material will be roughly equivalent to cubic yards of dry material. This will be true if the material to be put on the transfer site is granular, and therefore dewaters rapidly. 2. The angle of repose will be 300. This angle is appro- priate for uniform fine to medium sand, and also it turns out, for unconsolidated silt. Loose sand and gravel has an angle of repose of 320 to 360, so the figure of 300 is probably on the conservative side. In other words, the sand might pile higher in a given square footage than shown here, and will not pile any lower. 3. Pile shapes are based on suggestions from contractors. They provide an idea of how much sand volume will fit on the sites. Actual use of the sites might warrant somewhat different configurations. Terms Defined h = height volume(cone) Vr2h 3 1 = length cubic yards = cubic feet/27 r = radius h r for 300 angle o Y repose 1.75 v = volume V = 3.14159 rTTY OF TWO RIVERS -45- GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. Calculation of Sand Pile Volume for Site 1 Long Triangular Block: r = 37.5' h = 21.4' 1 = 200' v (h)(r)(1) (21.4)(37.5)(200) 6000 cubic yards 27 27 2 Half Cones: r = 37.51 h = 21.4' V = (r)2h 3 x 27 v = 3.14159(37.5)2(21.4) = 1000 cubic yards 81 Full Cone: r = 37.51 h = 21.4' v = 3.14159(37.5)2(21.4) = 1000 cubic yards 81 TOTAL = 8000 cubic yards CITY OF TWO RTVERS -46- GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. Calculation of Sand Pile Volume for Site 4 Long Triangular Block: r = 251 h = 14.31 = 2301 v (h)(r)(1) = -(14.3)(25)(230) 3000 cubic yards 27 27 Short Triangular Block: h = 21.4' r = 37.51 1 = 62.5' v (21.4)(37.5)(62.5) 1800 cubic yards- 27 2 Half Cones: r = 251 h = 14.3' V Tr(r)2h 350 cubic yards 3 x 27 2 Half Cones: r = 37.51 h = 21.4' V -T((r)2h = 1200 cubic yards 3 x'27 TOTAL = 6350 cubic yards CTTY OF TWO RIVERS -47- GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. Calculation of Sand Pile Volume for Site 7 2 Long Triangular Blocks: h = 7.1' r = 12.51 1 = 5001 v (h)(r)(1) = 1,600 cubic yards 27 Short Triangular Block: h = 25' r = 441 1 = 131' v (h)(r)(1) = 5,400 cubic yards 27 2 Half Cones: r = 441 h = 251 V T((r)2h = 1900 cubic yards 3 x 27 Full Cone: r = 441 h = 25' V 7r(r)2h = 1900 cubic yards 3 x 27 TOTAL = 10,800 cubic yards CD 0 CITY OF TWO RIVERS -48- GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. Calculation of Sand Pile Volume for site 9 Short Triangular Block: h = 60.71 v 40,300 cubic yards r = 106' 1 = 169' Full Cone: r = 1061 v = 26,500 cubic yards 0 h = 60.7' 2 Half Cones: r = 1061 V = 26,500 cubic yards h = 60.7' @D TOTAL = 93,300 cubic yards Calculation of Sand Pile Volume for site 11 Short Triangular Block: h = 39.29' v = 12,500 cubic yards r = 68.751 1 = 125' Full Cone: r = 501 v = 2,800 cubic yards h = 28.57' 2 Half Cones: r = 68.751 v = 7,200 cubic yards h = 39.29' TOTAL = 22,500 cubic yards CITY OF TWO RIVERS -49- GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. Calculation of Sand Pile Volume for Site 13 Short Triangular Block: h = 25' v = 4,000 cubic yards r = 44' 1 = 100' Full Cone: r = 501 v = 2,800 cubic yards h = 28.56' 2 Half Cones: r = 441 v 1,900 cubic yards h = 25' TOTAL 8,700 cubic yards 0 C D CITY OF TWO RIVERS -50- GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. BIBLIOGRAPHY Great Lakes Dredging, Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, Department of Natural Resources, March, 1933. Harbor Study - Commercial, Recreation, Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission, November, 1982. Industrial Needs Study for the City of Two Rivers, Gary L. Peterson and Associates, September, 1980. Kewaunee Beach Nourishment Project Proposal, D.N. Edington & J.V. Klump, Center for Great Lakes Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, April, 1982. Lake Michigan Sport Fishing Support Services Sites and Facilities Study, Gary L. Peterson and Associates, September, 1980. Reuse Study - Mirro Plants 1 and 4, Donahue and Associates, Inc., September, 1983. Telephone Interviews conducted by Susan Jones and Cyndy Roth of Gary L. Peterson & Associates: Robert Mundelius, United States Army corps of Engineers, August and September, 1983. Dale Pfeiffle, United States Army Corps of Engineers, August, 1983. Stanley Jacek, United States Army Corps of Engineers, August 12, 1983. Allen Shea, Wisconsin Department of Ttansportation, August through October, 1983. Carol Cutshall, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, July through October, 1983. Michael Tonys, Department of Natural Resources, August, 1983. Rix Robinson, Harbor Marine Ltd., Ferrysburg, Michigan, October 19, 1983. Charles March, Durosher Dock and Dredge, Cheboygan, - Michigan, August 1, 1983. John Asher, Roen Salvage Company, Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin, October 17, 1983. Don Jackson, E.E. Gillen Construction Company, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, October 19, 1983. CTTY OF TWO RIVERS GARY PETERSON & ASSOC. DATE DUE GAYLORD No. 2333 PRINTED IN U.S.A. NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER LIBRARY 3 6668 14108 2281