shawano lake 2030 update plandoc - east central …€¦ · shawano lake 2030 sewer service area...

Shawano Lake 2030 Sewer Service Area

March 8, 2011

Prepared by the East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission

in cooperation with the State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

The preparation of this document was financed in part through a Water Quality Planning assistance grant from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and Section 205 ( j ) of the Clean Water Act.

EAST CENTRAL WISCONSIN REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION

Dick Koeppen, Chair Marshal Giese, Vice-Chair Eric Fowle, Secretary-Treasurer COMMISSION MEMBERS - 2008/2009

CALUMET COUNTY WAUPACA COUNTY Bill Barribeau Dick Koeppen, Chair Pat Laughrin Duane Brown Clarence Wolf Brian Smith DuWayne Federwitz MENOMINEE COUNTY WAUSHARA COUNTY Elizabeth Moses Norman Weiss (Jeremy Johnson, Alt.) Walter Petersen Ruth Winter Neal Strehlow Robert Hermes OUTAGAMIE COUNTY WINNEBAGO COUNTY Toby Paltzer Mark Harris Clifford Sanderfoot David Albrecht Tim Hanna Ernie Bellin Helen Nagler Frank Tower Jim Steineke (Mark Rohloff, Alt) Paul Hirte Jim Erdman Ken Robl SHAWANO COUNTY Marshal Giese, Vice Chair Ken Capelle M. Eugene Zeuske

ABSTRACT

Plane Title: SHAWANO LAKE 2030 SEWER SERVICE AREA Authors: Todd A. Verboomen/ SSA Planning Joe Huffman, GIS /SSA Planning Subject: Sanitary sewer service area delineation for future community

growth. Date: March 8, 2011 Planning Agency: East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission 400 Ahnaip Street, Suite 100 Menasha, WI 54952 (920) 751-4770 This plan updates and supersedes the 1999 Shawano Lake Sewer Service Area Plan which is an element of the Water Quality Management Plan, which for this area includes the Wolf River Basin Water Quality Management Plan (2001). The plan was prepared by the East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission and was certified by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources on March 8, 2011 as part of the Statewide Water Quality Plan. It provides population and land use projections and delineates future growth areas for the Shawano Lake Sewer Service Area. Also identified are environmentally sensitive areas which should not be developed. Policy recommendations encourage cost-effective and environmentally sound development patterns.

This report, including maps and other related information on Sewer Service Areas and the East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, is available on our website at www.eastcentralrpc.org.

This page intentionally left blank

CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1

Report format……………………………………………………………………………………….... ................... 1 Purpose……………………………………………………………………………………………... ....................... 1 Background……………………………………………………………………………………….… ...................... 2 Fox River Designated Water Quality Management Area …………………………………….…. .......... 3

Plan, Goals, Objectives And Policies…………………………………………………………………. ............. 5 SHAWANO LAKE OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................... 15 SHAWANO LAKE SEWER SERVICE AREA PLAN ......................................................................... 17 Planning Area Description .................................................................................................. 17 Land Use And Development ............................................................................................... 18 Environmentally Sensitive Areas ......................................................................................... 25 Limiting Environmental Conditions ...................................................................................... 28 Designated Management Areas .............................................................................. 31 Sewerage Collection And Treatment System ............................................................ 35 Forecast Growth And Development ................................................................................... 41 Growth Allocation Areas And 2030 SSA .................................................................. 43 Priority Development Area Mapping .............................................................. 43 Year 2030 SSA ............................................................................................ 47 SSA Future Needs ....................................................................................... 48 Holding Tank Service Areas .................................................................................... 51 Water Quality Assessment And Development Impacts .............................................. 51 Point Source Impacts .................................................................................... 51 Non-point Source Impacts ............................................................................ 51 Groundwater Impacts ................................................................................... 57 Water Quality Protection And Stormwater Management .................................. 57 Plan Implementation And Recommendations .......................................................... 58 SEWER SERVICE AREA DELINEATION AND PLANNING PROCESS ........................................... 61 Identification of Planning Area Limits .................................................................................. 61 Delineation of Environmentally Sensitive Areas .................................................................... 61 Identification and Quantification of Existing Conditions ....................................................... 65 Refinement of Goals, Objectives and Policies ..................................................................... 66 Forecast of Urban Growth ................................................................................................. 66 Public and Community Participation ................................................................................... 70 Adoption and Publication of Final Plans .............................................................................. 70 SEWER SERVICE AREA AMENDMENT And UPDATE PROCESS .................................................. 71 Background ...................................................................................................................... 71 East Central Review And Recommendation ......................................................................... 71 WDNR Review and Approval .............................................................................................. 71

APPENDICES Appendix A – Plane Development And Approval Documentation .......................................................... I Appendix B – SSA Demographic and Acreage Projection Tables ...................................................... XXVII Appendix E – Environmental Assessment of 2030 SSA Allocations ................................................ …….. XLI

TABLES Table 1 - 2008 Wolf Treatment Plant Performance Report ................................................................... 37 Table 2 – Shawano Lake Population, Housing & Employment Projections .............................................. 41 Table 3 - Summary of 2020 & Proposed 2030 SSA Conditions .............................................................. 42 Table 4 - Wastewater Flow Projections ................................................................................................ 53 Table 5 – Shawano Lake SSA– Existing (2005) Non-Point Source Pollution Loading Estimate .................. 54 Table 6 - Shawano Lake SSA – Future (2030) Non-Point Source Pollution Loading Estimate ................... 54 Table 7- Designated Management Agencies ....................................................................................... 58

EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 - Fox River Water Quality Management Area ...................................................................... 4 Exhibit 2 - Shawano Lake SSA – Year 2050 Planning Area Boundary .................................................. 21 Exhibit 3 - Shawano Lake SSA – 2007 Existing Land Use ................................................................... 23 Exhibit 4 - Shawano Lake SSA – ESAs and Limiting Environmental Conditions ................................... 29 Exhibit 5 - Shawano Lake SSA – Political Jurisdictions & DMAs ........................................................... 33 Exhibit 6 - Shawano Lake SSA – WWTF & Infrastructure Locations .................................................... 39 Exhibit 7 - Shawano Lake SSA – Priority Development Areas ............................................................. 45 Exhibit 8 - Shawano Lake SSA – Year 2030 Sewer Service Area ......................................................... 49 Exhibit 9 - Shawano Lake SSA – Year 2030 SSA & Proposed Land Use ................................................ 55 Exhibit 10 - SSA Amendment Standards & Update Procedures Application Area .................................... 72

Figures

Figure 1 - Environmentally Sensitive Area Standards .......................................................................... 64

East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission Shawano Lake 2030 SSA Plan March 8, 2011

1

INTRODUCTION

This is the third update of the Shawano Lake Sewer Service Area Plan (1987 And 1999) which is an element of the State of Wisconsin Water Quality Management Plan, specifically, the State of the Wolf River Basin Plan (WDNR publ. WT-664-2001). In the 30 years since sewer service areas have been in effect, they have provided a guide for sewered development and have had a significant impact in the protection of water quality. Both communities and land developers are now more aware of the purpose of sewer service areas, using the plans and policies in community and development planning. Report Format This plan describes and delineates the Shawano Lake Sewer Service Area. The plan was developed in accordance with state and federal guidelines and involved various community and public input measures including:

o One public informational meeting; o Several ‘working’ meetings; and o One public hearing.

This plan discusses the Sewer Service Area (SSA) characteristics, projected growth levels and the service area plan map. The beginning and end portions of this document discuss traits common to all SSAs, such as:

o Service area goals, objectives and policies; o Service area delineation and planning process; and o Service area amendment and update process.

Purpose This Sewer Service Area Plan updates and amends the 1999 sewer service area planning element of the State of the Wolf River Basin Plan (WDNR publ. WT-664-2001). The updating process is part of a regularly scheduled five-year re-evaluation, the last of which was completed in 1999 (and now again in 2010) according to Wisconsin Administrative Code NR121.07(2)(a)1. Sewer service area plans serve as a basis for Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) approval of state and federal grants for the planning and construction of wastewater treatment and sewerage facilities. They also serve as a basis for WDNR approval of locally proposed sanitary sewer extensions and Wisconsin Department of Commerce approval of private and public sewer laterals. In addition, because the service area plans identify environmentally sensitive areas, they serve as a guide for environmental permit decisions by federal and state agencies.


2

Sewer service area plans are intended to be an important planning and development guide for local communities. The updated plans:

o Identify wastewater treatment and collection needs for sewer service areas for a 20 year or more planning period;

o Forecast the amount and location of future urban development areas; o Identify environmentally sensitive areas which should be preserved; o Contain land use development forecasts and recommendations for implementing

wastewater treatment and collection plans for individual sewer service areas; o Inform developers and property owners of community policies and restrictions before

development is proposed; and o Establish "holding tank" service areas for isolated and rural special uses.

Background The passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment (P.L.92-500) in 1972 marked the beginning of a new approach to the planning, design and construction of municipal wastewater collection and treatment facilities. This law established Areawide Water Quality Management Planning under Section 208 and also the Facility Planning Grant Program under Section 201. The preparation of sewer service area plans for major urban areas and designated water quality management areas were significant parts of this planning process. In recent years, the State of Wisconsin has embodied many of the federal areawide and facility planning requirements in the Wisconsin Administrative Code. These administrative rules set forth clear procedures and standards regarding the preparation of these plans and their implementation. Specific sections of the code directly pertaining to these activities are NR121 which describes water quality and areawide waste treatment planning and management; and NR110 concerning wastewater facility and sanitary sewer extension planning. In June 1977, East Central completed initial sewer service area plans for 23 communities within the Fox Valley area under contract with the Fox Valley Water Quality Planning Agency. These plans delineated sewer service areas through the year 2000. The service area plans were adopted as part of the Point Source element of the Fox Valley Water Quality Management Plan in January, 1979. On December 31, 1989 the Fox Valley Water Quality Planning Agency (FVWQPA) was disbanded and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) took over agency responsibility for the Fox Valley Designated Water Quality Management Area. Therefore, the WDNR now directs, and is responsible for the implementation of sewer service area plans. East Central, as a sewer service area planning agency, has a contractual agreement with the Department which provides that East Central will periodically review, revise and update the service area plans, and review proposed sewer extensions for conformance with the approved areawide water quality plan. The Department's role is to provide a water quality assessment and comment on revisions and updates of the sewer service area plan and to review and approve plans for wastewater treatment facilities and sewer extensions based upon their conformance with the areawide plan. The contract agreement outlines rather broadly the responsibilities of each of the agencies involved in managing sewer service areas. In order to address specific development proposals which impact sewer service area plans on a day-to-day basis, East Central has adopted an "Amendment Policy and Procedure for Sewer


3

Service Areas." The amendment policy and procedures were initially adopted in 1978 and revised in 1984, 1990, 1995, 2001, and 2004. These procedures establish standards and criteria for amending sewer service area boundaries and also describe the process for amending sewer service area plans. The amendment policies (page 69) provide a mechanism whereby communities can alter service area boundaries in response to changes in both the rate and direction of development. The amendment process provides the flexibility for communities to adjust to short-term changes in development trends and thus provides a means of accommodating changing development trends between the five-year updates. Fox River Designated Water Quality Management Area The Fox River Designated Water Quality Management Area comprises major portions of the four urban counties surrounding Lake Winnebago (Exhibit 1). The 1,580 square miles have been specially designated for water quality planning because of the concentration of industries and urbanization along the Fox River and Lake Winnebago. Within this overall area 25 different sewer service areas have been delineated and individual plans prepared (Exhibit 1). The East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission is responsible for preparing, maintaining and updating sewer service area plans within the designated area. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is responsible for plan implementation. While the Fox Valley area is interrelated from a water quality viewpoint, it can be separated into two distinct areas in terms of growth and development planning. These areas consist of the large communities of the Fox Cities, Oshkosh and Fond du Lac and the individual smaller communities of the outlying areas. In projecting future growth, these areas are handled differently in service area plan development.


4


5

Plan Goals, Objectives And Policies In the ten-county region of the East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, sewer service area plans are prepared within the context of the regional comprehensive plan, New Directions for Growth and Development (ECWRPC, 1978). The process used for the 1978 land use plan established goals, objectives and policies formulated in response to citizens' desires and needs brought forth in East Central's public participation program. Appropriate goals, objectives and policies were referenced as the groundwork for the establishment of 104 urban service area plans and boundaries throughout the region. A major review and update of the goals, objectives and policies was completed in 1995 and 1996 and have been incorporated within the Community Facilities Chapter of the Commission’s approved 2030 Regional Comprehensive Plan (Visit www.eastcentralrpc.org for a .pdf copy.) As part of the updating process in 1995 and 1996, the earlier set of goals, objectives and policies have been refined to provide more specific guidance for service area planning. The refinements are a result of additional community and technical advisory committee participation in the service area update planning process. The refinements also reflect various state and federal laws and regulations which impact sewer service area growth and development activities. Four overall goals have been identified. These goals and related objectives and policies pertain to growth management, urban service delivery, environmental resources and open space. Objectives and policies related to the goals point out the significant interrelationship between urban growth and land use, sanitary sewerage planning and the environment. Together, they provide a sound basis for determining a community's future development. Goals represent common community ideals and provide the direction in which planning is aimed. Objectives are more specific targets along the path of satisfying community goals. Objectives may be measurable, adding to the community good. Policies are strategies for accomplishing the stated objectives. Specific policies can be used in the decision-making process. The intent of the Shawano Lake Sewer Service Area Plan is to encourage efficient, orderly and planned land use development patterns which allow for logical, cost-effective sewered development that incorporates sound environmental management practices. The land use element provides direction and integrates four sub-area functional plans which have direct impacts on future land use. These functional areas are Growth Management, Urban Service Delivery, Environmental Resources and Open Space.


6

Growth Management GOAL: ENCOURAGE AN ORDERLY AND PLANNED PATTERN OF COMMUNITY GROWTH AND

DEVELOPMENT. OBJECTIVE: Allocated Growth. Promote balanced allocation of land areas to accommodate current and future urban development needs. Policies: 1. The supply of land allocated for urban development should approximate the current and

future needs as determined from population, employment and land use projections which have been developed in conjunction with adopted comprehensive or urban service area plans.

2. New urban development patterns should incorporate planned areas of mixed use and

density neighborhoods that are clustered and compatible with adjacent uses. 3. Work places, shopping centers, recreational facilities, and community facilities should be

located to provide a mix of land uses for improved accessibility for residents. 4. Urban designs with higher density land use alternatives should be promoted. OBJECTIVE: Planned Urban Communities. Promote planned urban communities which contain centralized, compact, contiguous and compatible urban development patterns. Policies: 1. Vacant developable lands within existing urban areas should first be in-filled, then

development staged outward from the existing development limits. 2. New subdivision development should be encouraged within existing urbanized areas or as

an expansion of existing urban areas concurrent with the provision of necessary facilities and services.

3. The expansion of major commercial and industrial land use activities should be adjacent to

existing areas or in areas designated for such development in adopted comprehensive plans.

4. Natural and man-made features, such as ridge lines, streams and major highways, should

be considered in the expansion and staging of urban development. 5. Urban development should only take place in designated urban service areas. 6. Community development plans should be coordinated in multi-jurisdictional urban areas.


7

7. Urban sprawl in the form of unplanned development which is non-contiguous, low density, scattered and inefficiently served should be discouraged.

OBJECTIVE: Environmentally Sound Development. Promote urban development which protects environmentally sensitive areas and is compatible with the natural resource base. Policies: 1. Urban development should be directed to suitable land and discouraged on unsuitable

land, such as floodplains, wetlands, prime agricultural soils, areas of high bedrock and groundwater, steep slopes, prime wildlife habitat, unique scientific areas and areas of historical or archeological significance.

2. The development of environmentally sensitive areas should be discouraged. 3. Adverse development impacts to surface water and groundwater should be mitigated. 4. Designs and plans for new development should preserve open spaces for public use,

complement the existing landscape, and conserve energy and natural resources.

5. Land reclamation should be required following extractive operations or other uses which significantly alter the land surface.

6. Urban redevelopment activities should weigh environmental, health and safety factors

against associated costs and benefits. OBJECTIVE: Efficient Development. Promote efficient and cost-effective development in urban growth areas. Policies: 1. Urban development should be encouraged at densities adequate to sustain reasonable

urban service costs. 2. Urban development should occur in areas served by adequate public facilities and services. 3. A variety of types, prices and locations of housing should be provided to promote

convenience, choice and affordability. 4. Development patterns and site designs that support multimodal transportation should be

encouraged. 5. Major commercial and industrial areas should be provided with readily accessible major

transportation systems. 6. Community comprehensive plans should be adopted prior to the extension of urban services.


8

OBJECTIVE: Rural Land Development. Preserve rural land uses by requiring planning which considers water and sanitary sewer adequacy. Policies: 1. Agricultural and open space characteristics of rural areas should be preserved. 2. Rural development should be limited to land with suitable physical characteristics and soils

supporting conventional on-site sewage treatment systems. 3. Rural residential housing should be limited to dependent single lot use in agriculture and

open space areas. 4. Rural subdivision development should be limited to areas which do not negatively impact

agricultural or open space uses and the provision of public services. 5. Rural subdivision development should be restricted in urban planning areas until long-term

urban services are provided. OBJECTIVE: Compatibility with the Transportation Network. Encourage development in areas that are served by existing transportation infrastructure. Policies: 1. Infill development and redevelopment projects should be promoted in order to avoid the

need for extension of transportation infrastructure and service. 2. Design standards for infill should be given different consideration for transportation/traffic

requirements compared to "greenfield" development. Urban Service Delivery GOAL: PROMOTE URBAN SERVICES IN AN EFFICIENT, ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND, AND

SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE MANNER. OBJECTIVE: Economical Public Facilities. Provide efficient, economical, and equitable public facilities and services to urban development. Policies: 1. The use of existing public facilities and services should be maximized in the allocation of

future urban growth. 2. Designing of new and upgraded transportation and utility facilities with capacities sufficient

to respond to existing demand levels and to the additional demand generated by planned development should be encouraged.


9

3. A full range of essential urban services and facilities should be provided to urban development areas.

4. The costs of providing urban services should be minimized through higher density

development. 5. Major infrastructure extensions should be staged to coincide with community growth rates. 6. Utilities serving individual developments should be extended consistent with community

water and wastewater system plans. 7. Provision of public facilities and services should be coordinated with the location and

timing of new development. OBJECTIVE: Cooperative Provision of Services. Provide services where efficiency, equity, and economies of scale can be obtained through cooperation and coordination. Policies: 1. Overlapping urban service areas, facility and system capacities and service capabilities

should be discouraged. 2. The proliferation of major public infrastructure facilities should be discouraged. 3. Inter-municipal agreements should be promoted for the provision of joint service. 4. More uniform facility design and service standards should be encouraged for multiple

jurisdiction development areas. Environmental Resources GOAL: PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT AND MANAGE NATURAL RESOURCES IN AN

ECOLOGICALLY SOUND MANNER. OBJECTIVE: Water Quality Protection. Improve and protect surface and groundwater quality. Policies: 1. The quality and supply of groundwater should be protected as the principal source of

water supply and encourage water conservation programs. 2. The use of natural drainage patterns and measures should be promoted to enhance water

quality. 3. Wetlands should be preserved as an essential component of the hydrologic system.


10

4. The risk of groundwater contamination should be reduced in aquifer recharge areas. 5. Lakeshore and streambank erosion should be minimized. 6. Construction site erosion should be controlled and urban stormwater runoff reduced. 7. Non-point source pollution abatement programs should be supported. 8. The adverse water quality impacts of agricultural runoff should be minimized. OBJECTIVE: Air Quality Maintenance. Improve or maintain high air quality throughout east central Wisconsin. Policies: 1. Air pollution abatement programs and air quality regulations should be supported. 2. Geographically coordinated abatement strategies should be encouraged. 3. The public should be provided with information on air quality programs and specific air

quality problems. 4. The increased use of transportation modes that are more efficient and environmentally

sound than the private automobile should be encouraged. 5. Noise pollution should be reduced and noise sources isolated. OBJECTIVE: Environmentally Sensitive Area Protection. Preserve and protect environmentally sensitive areas and promote the linkage of these areas into environmental corridors. Policies: 1. The natural environment should be recognized as an integrated system of interacting and

finite land, water and air resources to protect the health and stability of this system. 2. Shoreland, floodplain and wetland areas should be protected as essential components of

the hydrologic system and their scenic and recreational value preserved. 3. The disturbance of environmentally sensitive areas by utilities and transportation facilities

construction should be minimized. 4. Critical natural areas should be preserved and protected from development and other

adverse impacts. 5. Adjacent land uses which adversely impact sensitive areas should be restricted or

mitigated.


11

6. The interrelationship of adjacent landscape types should be recognized to avoid dividing the natural units or breaking important linkages.

OBJECTIVE: Wildlife Habitat Management. Manage wildlife and wildlife habitat in a manner that maintains ecological stability and diversity, and considers social and economic impacts. Policies: 1. The diversity and population of plant and wildlife species should be maintained and

increased. 2. Critical habitat areas for endangered and rare species should be preserved and enhanced. 3. Wildlife habitat such as fencerows, woodlots and natural areas should be protected and

expanded. 4. Adequate public access to hunting and fishing areas should be provided. 5. Responsible public use of private land should be encouraged. 6. Wildlife and plant populations should be managed in ways that do not impose undue

financial loss to individual property owners. 7. Plant and animal preserves used specifically for educational and observational purposes

should be maintained and expanded. OBJECTIVE: Food and Fiber Production. Preserve land suitable for the production of food and fiber to meet present and future needs. Policies: 1. Land best suited for agriculture or forestry should be preserved for these uses or in other

uses which enable the land to be readily converted to agricultural or forestry production. 2. Ecologically sound and economically feasible farm and forestry management practices

which preserve soil productivity and minimize soil loss should be encouraged. 3. Soil should be recognized as one of the basic and most important resources and programs

to preserve and improve productivity and wise use consistent with soil capability should be developed and promoted.


12

OBJECTIVE: Solid Waste Management. Employ a comprehensive management approach for solid and organic wastes. Policies: 1. The amount of solid waste generated by households, business and industry should be

reduced. 2. Solid waste should be recycled as an alternative raw material for construction,

manufacturing, and energy production. 3. Organic wastes should be used as soil amendments. 4. Waste disposal operations and facilities should be centralized where economically feasible. 5. Cost-effective waste management systems should be provided that are consistent with

development and water and air quality regulations. 6. On-site waste disposal systems should be managed to minimize adverse land use,

environmental, and public health impacts. 7. Health threats from toxic substances in the environment should be reduced. Open Space GOAL: PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PUBLIC OPEN SPACE TO MEET THE RECREATIONAL NEEDS OF

ALL RESIDENTS AND PROTECT AND PRESERVE NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES.

OBJECTIVE: Recreational Opportunity. Provide all area residents an opportunity to partake in a wide range of active and passive recreational activities on a year-round basis. Policies: 1. Recreational facilities should be provided to address the level of activity participation,

facility deficiencies and aesthetic needs of the community. 2. Park sites to fully serve the local and areawide needs of the community should be located

and developed. 3. Safe, convenient and adequate access to all parks and recreation areas should

be provided.


13

OBJECTIVE: Preservation Areas. Preserve areas of unique natural, historical, and cultural significance or unusual beauty for public use and enjoyment. Policies: 1. All significance preservation areas should be identified and mapped. 2. Unique areas should be protected by minimizing the impact of individual development

proposals. 3. Significant natural areas should be preserved as public open space. 4. Public access and use within environmental corridors and drainage ways should be

promoted. OBJECTIVE: Urban Recreation Needs. Plan for the future open space and recreational needs of the urban area. Policies: 1. All municipalities should be encouraged to participate in the development of

comprehensive park and open space plans. 2. Opportunities should be identified for developing a network of recreational trails along

highly attractive environmental corridors, natural waterways, and transportation rights-of-way to link major recreational facilities and residential areas.

3. Coordination between neighboring jurisdictions should be facilitated for development of

parks and recreation facilities and linkages. 4. Future parks and open space areas should be preserved so that suitable and adequate

land will be available to provide active and passive recreational opportunities as growth occurs.

OBJECTIVE: Cost-Effective Recreation. Provide recreational opportunities in a cost-effective manner. Policies: 1. Facilities should be developed which can provide multi-seasonal recreational opportunities. 2. The use of existing recreational facilities should be optimized. 3. Duplicative recreational facilities and programs should be avoided. 4. Grants and funding assistance should be maximized in the acquisition and development of

recreational facilities.


14

5. Municipalities and school districts should be encouraged to cooperate in the development of community recreational and playground facilities.

6. The development of the county park system should be encouraged to complement

recreational opportunities available in local parks. 7. Municipalities should be encouraged to establish capital funding and other parkland

dedication methods to provide for future recreational needs. OBJECTIVE: Attractive Communities. Make individual communities, and the region as a whole, a more attractive place to live, work, and play. Policies: 1. Scenic areas should be preserved and landscaping and other site development

requirements strengthened to promote community beautification. 2. Additional billboard proliferation should be prevented, their placement controlled and a

phase-out program promoted. 3. Community tree planting programs on street terraces and public areas should be

promoted. 4. Waterfront areas should be preserved and redeveloped to promote greater public

recreational use. 5. Scenic easements to protect important viewsheds should be acquired.


15

SHAWANO LAKE SSA PLAN OVERVIEW

Plan Assumptions And Reader Notes The beginning year for this update was 2009, and hence; data was finalized in early 2009 to coincide with this starting timeframe. The plan itself looks out 20 years into the future (2030). The reader should further note that all references to SSA boundaries and acreages are associated with the ‘updated’ (2010) conditions, not with the ‘current’ (1999) plan features. Basically, the plan is written as if it has already obtained WDNR approval. 2030 SSA Population, Development and Acreage Projections In order to ease the reading of this document, all of the detailed demographic and development projection data for each Designated Management Areas (DMA) are contained in a separate appendix (Appendix B). Figures for the aggregate SSA are referenced in the text for descriptive purposes. An attempt was made to have all data reflect conditions as of April 2009. The planning horizon also encompasses a slightly longer time span, rather than the traditional 20 year span. This will allow staff to provide (in 5-year increments) a 20-year population and development projection when reviewing sewer projects and sizing through the Water Quality Management (WQM or 208) review process. Future Land Use Designations The SSA plan has tables and maps which illustrate 2030 SSA’s vacant acreage by proposed land use type. Each community’s land use classification scheme was assessed and simplified so that common land use categories could be compared.


16



17

SHAWANO LAKE SEWER SERVICE AREA

PLANNING AREA DESCRIPTION The Shawano Lake Planning Area (Exhibit 2) is located in Central Shawano County and includes the City of Shawano, Village of Bonduel, Village of Cecil, and portions of the towns of Washington, Wescott, Richmond, Belle Plaine, Waukechon, and Hartland. The updated Shawano Lake Planning Area covers approximately 56 square miles (as compared to 53 square miles in 1999). The Planning area is defined based on individual, or combinations of factors, including, but not limited to representations of the “ultimate service” area of the treatment plant based on capacity; the extent of planned service areas for individual lift stations or interceptor sewers (as indicated on Exhibit 2), and/or; the proximity of nearby clusters of development currently using on-site systems which may have long-term (20+ years) needs for sanitary sewer. This boundary is, conceptually, a much longer-term indication of the service area, generally 40 to 50 years out into the future. Adjustments to the planning area were developed and proposed by staff after a thorough review of information pertaining to the existing and planned wastewater collection system, as well as through discussions with each Designated Management Agency (DMA) during the plan development process. Each modification is discussed below: 1. Planning area additions/expansions: Approximately 2,981 acres were added to the planning

area. (See Exhibit 2 And Appendix B, Table: B-10 and B-11).

a. The Planning area was extended south of the Village of Bonduel encompassing approximately 92 acres. Future growth is anticipated to move south of the Village within the Town of Hartland. There is a proposed lift station located in the southwest corner of the Village. The planning area’s addition encompasses the proposed lift station’s entire service area.

b. Approximately 1,045.7 acres were added to the planning area in the Towns of

Washington and Waukechon to accommodate future growth by the City of Shawano. This area is located to the east and southeast of the City. The Town of Waukechon does not have a future land use designated for portion of the planning area addition south of CTH B, however the City does recognize this area in its highway plans as future commercial growth areas.

c. A great amount of discussion took place in the Plan’s working meetings discussing the

future needs of Shawano County’s Maple Lane Health Care Center located in the Town of Belle Plaine along STH 22. The Maple Lane facility operates an on-site lagoon system for wastewater treatment. Throughout the update process Shawano County representatives were pursuing the possibility of extending public sewer down Rose Brook Road to STH 22. East Central staff directed the County to provide a cost-effective analysis of extending sewer to the facility and asked for the life expectancy and efficiency of Maple Lane’s on-site ponds. The County recently sold the Maple Lane Facility, but will continue to own the on-site lagoon system. Because the County still owns the on-site lagoon system the likely hood of a County led push for public sewer to


18

Maple Lane still exists. For this reason approximately 404 acres were added to encompass the Maple Lane Health Center. Future sewer extensions to this facility will be handled through East Central’s SSA Amendment process.

d. Approximately 444 acres were added within the Town of Richmond along STH 29 and

Maple Avenue. The Town has been discussing a future interchange with the Wisconsin Department of Transportation. If this interchange becomes a reality, this area will be a hot spot for commercial growth. Another 160 acres were added to the south of Walnut Road. This area is currently developed with single family dwellings that utilize on-site systems. This area was added to accommodate the extension of public sewer in the long-term as the existing on-site systems reach their life expectancy.

2. Planning area Deletions/Removals: Approximately 968 acres were removed from the planning

area (See Exhibit 2).

a. A total of 159.1 acres were removed in the Town of Richmond south of STH 29. This area has a large number of wetlands and the Richmond Sanitary District representatives felt that extending sewer to this area would not be feasible.

b. Approximately 583 acres of planning area was removed to the area west of Loon Lake

in the Town of Wescott. This area is a large wetland complex that is owned by the Loon Lake Management District (LLMD). The LLMD bought this area to protect Loon Lake’s west shore from development. If the LLMD should go defunct in the future, ownership of this land automatically will go to the Town of Westcott.

c. A total of 226.2 acres of planning area was removed to the east of Springbrook Road

within the Town of Washington. This area is a large wetland complex and Shawano Lake Sanitary District representatives felt that development and sewer extensions were not possible.

LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT Exhibit 3 illustrates the current (2009) existing land use for the Shawano Lake SSA along with the updated planning area boundary for reference purposes. This information is based on the Commission’s detailed land use inventory with corrections made by each community during the update process. This data corresponds with a timeframe (or ‘snapshot’) of early 2009. In this update, the 2030 SSA contains 10,375 acres of land of which 5,344.6 acres (51.5%) are considered to be developed. The developed lands can be described as follows (Appendix B, Table B-10): 2,231.7 acres of residential land use (21.5% of total SSA); 309.2 acres of commercial land use (3% of total SSA); 322.8 acres of industrial land use (3.1% of total SSA); 1,602.5 acres of transportation/road use (15.4% of total SSA); 869.3 acres of public/institutional/utility use (8.4% of total SSA). A total of 9.1 acres are considered undevelopable wetland buffers. The remaining 1,009 (9.7% of total area) acres are designated as environmentally sensitive areas (ESA).


19

Residential Development Residential development is mainly distributed throughout the City of Shawano, Village of Bonduel, and the Village of Cecil with a large concentration of single family dwellings located around the Shawano Lake shoreline. Newer development within the City has been occurring to the south along Engel Drive. The Village of Bonduel has seen residential development on the northeast side of the Village. Newer development has been occurring both in the northeast side and southern portions of the Village of Cecil. Commercial Development Existing commercial development consists of central or downtown districts or is generally located along the highway corridors. Newer developments have primarily been occurring in the City and Village commercial and industrial parks. Industrial Development Industrial development is primarily found within the City and Village industrial business parks, while the Shawano Lake S.D. has seen recent developments along Green Bay Road. Within the life of this plan, it is likely that the City of Shawano will be pursuing either extending the City’s industrial park to the east or will proceed in the development of a new industrial park. Public/ Institutional Uses Various City and County governmental buildings are located within the City of Shawano including the Shawano County Fair Grounds, Shawano County Court House and the Shawano County Sheriff Department. Municipal buildings and recreation areas also occur within the Village of Bonduel and the Village of Cecil.


20


!.

!.

Ca pi to l Dr

Norto

n Rd

Valle

y Rd

P in e R i dg e Rd

Strauss Rd

Mapl e Lea f Rd

Beech Dr

Pione

er Rd

Raguse Rd

Oak Av

Montoure Rd

Ranch Rd

Waukechon Rd

Fox La

Mc D

onald

Rd

Town Line Rd

Wedge Rd

Sandy La

Curt Black Rd

Springbrook Rd

E H a zel D r

Hilltop La

El m Rd

Maple Av

Beech Rd

Pine La

Chee se Fa c to ry Rd

Freeborn Rd

Oak Park Rd

Cloverleaf Lake Rd

Radl off R d

Timm

Rd

Butternut Rd

Pine Mead Av

Birch

La

Meadow Rd

Bass woo d R d

Cedar Av

Lake Dr

Lark Rd

Woods Rd

Maple

Rd

Old Lake Rd

Swamp Rd

Castle Rd

Box Elder Rd

B roo k Rd

Lily Pond Rd

Broadway Rd

Belle Plain

e Av

Wildlife Rd

Church Rd

Rose Brook Rd

E Flambeau Rd

Evergreen Rd

Clo ve r L a

Poplar Rd

Rods La

Stark Rd

N High Line Rd

Mork

AvPlank Rd

Thomas Av

Buss Dr

Grass Lake Rd

Valley La

W Slab City Rd

Cypress Rd

Waukechon St

Woodland Rd

Loon Lake Rd

S Airport Dr

Old 47 Rd

Walnut Rd

Retr ea t Rd

Shady La

South St

Va lle y R d

R u sc h R d

Pit La

Oakcrest Dr

Northwood Dr

Park Av

Oak D

r

Lake Dr

Lake

Dr

Bran

ch La

Cozy Oaks CirLoon

Lake

Dr

Korth Rd

Moonlight La

Engel Dr

Hazel Dr

Hill cre st Dr

Pine Rd

Apple

Rd

E State St

Sunrise Rd

S Sa wye r S t

W North St

S Union St

B al sa m R d

V a lle y R d

Hill Rd

S M ain S tS Washington St

Sycamore Rd

Porter Rd

E Green Bay St

Cloverleaf Lake Rd

Lake

view

Rd

L oc us t R d

Sunset DrS Weed St

E Slab City Rd

N Lake Dr

A@29

A@29

A@22

A@117

A@22

A@22

A@22

A@22

A@47-55

ILR

ILB

ILBE

ILHH

ILV

ILMMM

ILY

ILCC

ILBE

ILMM

ILCCC

ILB

ILE

ILT

ILK

ILK

Maders CtE Oak LaCircle Dr

Ash Rd

River Dr

E Richmond St

St Johns Church Rd

Swam p R d

N First StS Cecil St

R ou nd Lak e D r

S Hi gh L in e R d

W Nabor Rd

L o o n

L a k e

L o n gL a k e

Mu d L a k e

L u l uL a k e

L i l yL a k e

S c h o e n i c k

L a k e

Wolf R

iver

Red River

Embarrass River

W a s h i n g t o nL a k e

Wolf River

S h a w a n oL a k e

Cityof

ShawanoTown of Richmond

Town of Waukechon

Town of Belle Plaine

Villageof

Cecil

Villageof

Bonduel

Thornton

Town of Richmond

Town of Wescott

Town of Wescott

Town of Washington

Town of Washington

Town of Waukechon

Town of Hartland


Belle Plaine

2050 PLANNING AREASHAWANO-SHAWANO LAKE

SEWER SERVICE AREA

Source: Digital base data provided by Shawano County. Thematic data created by ECWRPC.

This data was created for use by the East Central Wisconsin Regional PlanningCommission Geographic Information System. Any other use/application of thisinformation is the responsibility of the user and such use/application is at theirown risk. East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission disclaims allliability regarding fitness of the information for any use other than for EastCentral Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission business.

MINOR CIVIL DIVISIONS!. Unincorporated Place

City Corporate LimitsVillage Corporate LimitsTownship BoundaryCounty BoundarySanitary District Boundary

PLANNING AREA CONDITIONS2050 Planning Area Boundary 2050 Planning AreaWastewater Treatment Facility

This map and its associated sewer service area descriptions donot obligate a community(ies) to provide sewer service toproperty owners contained herein.

Prepared ByEAST CENTRAL WISCONSIN

REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH, 2011

Shawano County

6,000 0 6,000 12,0003,000

Scale in Feet

¶

Exhibit 2

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Certification Date - March 6, 2011

P:\12XX-SSA\SHAWANO\SSA_2008\SSA\Report_Graphics_Final\Shawano2030SSA_Ex#2.mxd

!.

!.

Ca pi to l Dr

Norto

n Rd

Valle

y Rd

P in e R i dg e Rd

Strauss Rd

Mapl e Lea f Rd

Pione

er Rd

Raguse Rd

Oak Av

Montoure Rd

Ranch Rd

Waukechon Rd

Fox La

Mc D

onald

Rd

Town Line Rd

Wedge Rd

Sandy La

Curt Black Rd

Springbrook Rd

E H a zel D r

Hilltop La

El m Rd

Maple Av

Beech Rd

Pine La


Freeborn Rd

Oak Park Rd

Cloverleaf Lake Rd

Radl off R d

Timm

Rd

Butternut Rd

Pine Mead Av

Birch

La

Meadow Rd

Bass woo d R d

Cedar Av

Lake Dr

Lark Rd

Woods Rd

Maple

Rd

Old Lake Rd

Castle Rd

Box Elder Rd

B roo k Rd

Lily Pond Rd

Broadway Rd

Belle Plain

e Av

Wildlife Rd

Church Rd

Rose Brook Rd

E Flambeau Rd

Evergreen Rd

Clo ve r L a

Poplar Rd

Stark Rd

N High Line Rd

Mork

AvPlank Rd

Thomas Av

Buss Dr

Grass Lake Rd

Valley La

W Slab City Rd

Cypress Rd

Waukechon St

Woodland Rd

Loon Lake Rd

S Airport Dr

Old 47 Rd

Walnut Rd

Retr ea t Rd

Shady La

South St

Va lle y R d

R u sc h R d

Pit La

Oakcrest Dr

Northwood Dr

Park Av

Oak D

r

Lake Dr

Lake

Dr

Bran

ch La

Cozy Oaks CirLoon

Lake

Dr

Korth Rd

Moonlight La

Engel Dr

Hazel Dr

Hill cre st Dr

Pine Rd

Apple

Rd

E State St

Sunrise Rd

S Sa wye r S t

W North St

S Union St

B al sa m R d

V a lle y R d

Hill Rd


Sycamore Rd

Porter Rd

E Green Bay St

Cloverleaf Lake Rd

Lake

view

Rd

L oc us t R d

Sunset DrS Weed St

E Slab City Rd

N Lake Dr

A@29

A@29

A@22

A@117

A@22

A@22

A@22

A@22

A@47-55

ILR

ILB

ILBE

ILHH

ILV

ILMMM

ILCC

ILBE

ILMM

ILCCC

ILB

ILE

ILT

ILK

ILK


Ash Rd

River Dr

E Richmond St

St Johns Church Rd

Swam p R d


S Hi gh L in e R d

W Nabor Rd

L o o n

L a k e

L o n gL a k e

Mu d L a k e

L u l uL a k e

L i l yL a k e

S c h o e n i c k

L a k e

Wolf R

iver

Red River


Wolf River


Cityof


Town of Waukechon


Villageof

Cecil

Villageof

Bonduel

Thornton

Town of Richmond

Town of Wescott

Town of Wescott

Town of Washington

Town of Washington

Town of Waukechon

Town of Hartland


Belle Plaine

2009 EXISTING LAND USESHAWANO-SHAWANO LAKE

SEWER SERVICE AREA



!. Unincorporated Place2050 Planning Area Boundary City Corporate LimitsVillage Corporate LimitsTownship BoundaryCounty Boundary

EXISTING LAND USESingle Family ResidentialMulti-Family ResidentialCommercialIndustrialPublic/InstitutionalMobile Homes - (Parks)AgriculturalFarm OutbuildingsOpen Space/RecreationalVehicle Parking FacilitiesAirport PropertyWastewater Treatment FacilityVacant - DevelopableWoodlandsStormwater Detention FacilityWDNR Designated Wetlands50 Foot Wetland Buffer75 Foot Stream Buffer




Shawano County6,000 0 6,000 12,0003,000

Scale in Feet

¶

Exhibit 3

P:\12XX-SSA_GIS\SHAWANO\SSA_2008\SSA\Report_Graphics_Final\Shawano2009ExLu_Ex#3..mxd



25

ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS Watersheds and Water Features As stated previously, the Shawano Lake Sewer Service Area Planning Boundary encompasses por-tions of four distinct sub-watersheds of the Wolf River Basin. Listed below is a brief description of each watershed and its major features. More detailed information on these resources can be found in the WDNR’s State of the Wolf River Basin Report (Publication # WI 664 200) Shawano Lake Watershed (WR15): A majority of the planning area is contained within this

watershed which encompasses 62 square miles with the 6,178-acre Shawano Lake as the main water resource. Shawano Lake is a hard-water drainage lake, up to 40 feet deep, and is an important year round recreational water-body. This lake experiences excessive weed growth during July and August which is likely associated with non-point source pollution (i.e., phosphorus from lawn fertilizers, etc.). Other small lakes included in this watershed are Loon Lake, Washington Lake, Lulu Lake, White Clay Lake and Lily Lake. Rivers and streams associated with this subwatershed include the Shawano Lake Outlet, Duchess Creek, Loon Creek, and Murray Creek. This watershed has been ranked as being a “high priority” for selection as a Priority Watershed Project.

West Branch Wolf River Watershed (WR17): The majority of this watershed is located

north of the Planning Area Boundary. Only the southernmost portion of this watershed is within the planning area and extends from the mouth of the Red River, south to the City of Shawano (STH 29). The mainstem of the Wolf River is the main water resource feature and is classified as a warmwater sport fishery along its entire reach.

Middle Branch Wolf River Watershed (WR14): Only the northernmost portion of this

watershed is within the planning area for the Shawano Sewer Service Area Plan. This 128 square mile watershed was designated as a high priority area for streams due to animal waste problems and soil erosion. Groundwater concerns were ranked as medium under the priority watershed selection process. The northern 20 percent of the watershed are of highest concern for groundwater contamination due to poor land use practices. The major water feature within the planning area for this watershed is the mainstem of the Wolf River which is classified as a warmwater sport fishery along its entire reach.

Shioc River (WR13): The vast majority of the Village of Bonduel is encompassed by the

Shioc River Subwatershed. The Shioc River’s headwasters are located within Shawano County and is a tributary to the Wolf River. This subwatershed is not ranked according to the selection process for the Wisconsin Source Water Pollution abatement Program.

Lakes Shawano Lake is the most prominent lake within the Shawano Lake SSA which encompasses over 6,000 acres. The majority of the shoreline is developed with residential, (seasonal), uses. The Center for Watershed Science and Education at UW Stevens Point prepared an assessment of Shawano Lake, which found the lake has relatively good water quality for a shallow drainage lake, though increased vegetative growth and introduction of invasive species, particularly aquatic plants, were identified as issues. A number of smaller lakes are clustered around the


26

Shawano Lake area including: Loon Lake, Washington Lake, Lulu Lake, White Clay Lake and Lily Lake. These clusters of lakes are an important natural, recreational, and economical resource within Shawano County. Wetlands Wetlands are essential environmental features providing wildlife habitat, scenic open spaces, flood water retention, and groundwater recharge areas. Wetlands act as a natural filtering system for nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrates. They provide a buffer zone protecting shorelines and stream banks. Significant wetland complexes exist to the north of Shawano Lake in the Town of Wescott, west of Loon Lake, and within the City of Shawano’s industrial park area. Smaller wetland areas are generally associated with stream corridors. Floodplains Mapped FEMA Floodplains are found within various portions of the defined SSA, (Exhibit 4). Areas susceptible to flooding are considered unsuitable for any type of development due to the potential health risks and property damage. As revised in 1984, the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for the incorporated and unincorporated portions of Shawano County identify designated 100-year floodplains. Flood plains are primarily located along the Shawano Lake shorelines and associated with mapped wetland areas scattered throughout the planning area. Soils Soils support the physical base for development within the planning area. Knowledge of the limitations and potential difficulties of soil types is important in evaluating land use proposals such as residential development, utility installation and other projects. Some soils exhibit characteristics such as slumping, compaction, erosion, and high water tables which place limits on development. Severe soil limitations do not necessarily indicate areas cannot be developed, but rather that more extensive construction measures must be taken to prevent environmental and property damage. These construction techniques generally increase the costs of development and the utilities needed to service that development. According to the Soil Survey of Shawano County, prepared by the USDA in 1976, and the Soil Survey of Shawano County (USDA 1982), five major soil series classifications are present within the Shawano Lake SSA:

Onaway-Solona: These soils are located throughout the Village of Bonduel, Village of

Cecil, and the Town of Washington. These soils are well drained to somewhat poorly drained loamy soils. Most areas of these soils are used for cultivated crops, however, areas with steep slopes are often woodland areas. Erosion and wetness are the main hazards and limitations to the use of these soils for growing cultivated crops.

Cormant-Markey-Wainola: These soils are primarily located around the shoreline of

Shawano Lake. These soils are somewhat poorly drained to very poorly drained sandy and mucky soils, located on nearly level, low-lying flats, drainageways and depressions. Most of these areas are undrained and used for pasture and woodlands. Flooding, ponding and soil blowing are the main hazards. Wetness is the main limitation.


27

Shawano-Rousseau-Wainola: These soils are primarily located within the City of Shawano or within close proximity of the City. These are sandy soils that range from excessively drained to somewhat poorly drained. These soils generally support cultivated crops, however, these soils are primarily developed within the Shawano Lake SSA area. Droughtiness and soil blowing are the main limitations or hazards to the use of these soils. Septic tank absorption fields will function satisfactorily, but there is a danger of ground water pollution because of the rapid permeability.

Shiocton-Bach-Losco: These soils are located along Wolf River. These soils are silty and sandy soils that are poorly drained to very poorly drained located on bottom lands, on flats, and on upland depressions. These soils are used for cultivated crops, pasture and woodlands. Flooding, wetness, and soil blowing are the main limitations and hazards. These areas are poorly suited to residential development because of flooding and the seasonal high water table.

Menahga-Croswell-Mahtomedi: These soils exist in small portions of the planning

area located north of Loon and Washington Lakes. These soils are sandy soils that are excessively drained located on flats, on convex side slopes and in drainageways and depressions on outwash plains. The soils in this unit are suited to trees. Where irrigated and protected from soil blowing, these soils are suited for cultivated crops. Septic tank absorption fields will function satisfactorily, but there is a danger of ground water pollution because of the rapid permeability.

Groundwater and Geology These natural features are closely related and will have the highest impact on future development within the planning area. The existence of generally poorly drained soils on level slopes with highly organic materials draws a concern over the potential for groundwater contamination. Failing on-site waste disposal systems, abandoned and active landfills, agricultural practices and other land uses can be a direct source of contamination of groundwater. The Wolf River Basin contains three of the four major aquifers of Wisconsin. Formed during the Ordovician and Cambrian Periods, the bedrock geology is comprised of the sandstone and dolomite aquifer and overlain by the shallow, mostly unconsolidated, sand and gravel aquifer. Most groundwater uses for residential, industrial, and agriculture are fulfilled by the sand and gravel aquifer. This aquifer is the most environmentally at risk in the basin due to the shallow depth to groundwater and the high permeability of most of the subsurface materials. This may increase the possibility that contaminants at the surface will percolate through the ground to contaminate groundwater. While there are sandy soils in the planning area, there is also high groundwater present in many areas. These conditions limit the use of individual septic systems and development in many of the desirable areas. Bedrock located near the surface is not of major concern within the planning area. If present, it may not only hinder development due to the cost of rock excavation, but it also coincides with a lack of soil which can filter pollutants before they reach groundwater; thus, the potential for groundwater contamination in high or exposed bedrock areas can be extremely high. Several areas of steep slope are also identified in both the planning area and sewer service area but are limited in size and will not have a severe impact on future development.


28

LIMITING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Limiting environmental conditions for development are found throughout the Shawano Lake planning as indicated on Exhibit 4. Areas of steep slopes, high groundwater and high bed rock are scattered throughout the planning area.

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!! ! !

!

!

!!

!

! !

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!!!!!!!!

!

!

!!

!

!!!

!!!!!

!!!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!!!!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!!!!!!!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!! ! !

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

! !!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!

!

!!

! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!! ! ! !

! !

! !

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!!

!

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!!!

!!!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!!!!

!!

!!

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

! !

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

! !!

!!

!

!

!

!

! ! !!

!

!

!!

!

!! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!

!!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!!

!

!

!!!!!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

! !

! !!

!

!!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!

!!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

! !!

!

!! !

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!!

!

!! !

!!

!

!

!!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

! !

!

!!

!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

! !

!

! ! !

! !

!!

!

!

!!

!!!

!

!

!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!!

!

!

!!

! ! !

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !! !

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

! !!

!

!

! ! !! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!! !

!!

!!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!!

!

!

!!!!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

! !

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

! !

! !!

! ! !!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

! !

!

!!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!!!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

! !

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!!!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!! !

!!

!

!!

! !

!

!!

! !!

!! ! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

! ! !!

! !!

!!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

! !! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

! !

!!

!

!

!!

!!

! ! !! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!.

!.

Ca pi to l Dr

Norto

n Rd

Valle

y Rd

P in e R i dg e Rd

Strauss Rd

Mapl e Lea f Rd

Pione

er Rd

Raguse Rd

Oak Av

Montoure Rd

Ranch Rd

Waukechon Rd

Fox La

Mc D

onald

Rd

Town Line Rd

Wedge Rd

Curt Black Rd

Springbrook Rd

E H a zel D r

Hilltop La

El m Rd

Maple Av

Beech Rd

Pine La


Freeborn Rd

Oak Park Rd

Ra dl off R d

Timm

Rd

Butternut Rd

Pine Mead Av

Birch

La

Meadow Rd

Bass woo d R d

Cedar Av

Lake Dr

Lark Rd

Woods Rd

Maple

Rd

Old Lake Rd

Castle Rd

Box Elder Rd

B roo k Rd

Lily Pond Rd

Broadway Rd

Belle Plain

e Av

Wildlife Rd

Church Rd

Rose Brook Rd

E Flambeau Rd

Evergreen Rd

Clo ve r L a

Poplar Rd

Stark Rd

N High Line Rd

Mork

AvPlank Rd

Thomas Av

Buss Dr

Grass Lake Rd

Valley La

W Slab City Rd

Cypress Rd

Waukechon St

Woodland Rd

Loon Lake Rd

S Airport Dr

Old 47 Rd

Walnut Rd

Retr ea t Rd

Shady La

South St

Va lle y R d

R u sc h R d

Pit La

Oakcrest Dr

Northwood Dr

Park Av

Oak D

r

Lake Dr

Lake

Dr

Bran

ch La

Cozy Oaks CirLoon

Lake

Dr

Korth Rd

Moonlight La

Engel Dr

Hazel Dr

Hill cre st Dr

Pine Rd

Apple

Rd

E State St

Sunrise Rd

S Sa wye r S t

W North St

S Union St

B al sa m R d

V a lle y R d

Hill Rd


Sycamore Rd

Porter Rd

E Green Bay St Lake

view

Rd

L oc us t R d

Sunset DrS Weed St

E Slab City Rd

N Lake Dr

A@29

A@29

A@22

A@117

A@22

A@22

A@22

A@22

A@47-55

ILR

ILB

ILBE

ILHH

ILMMM

ILCC

ILBE

ILMM

ILCCC

ILB

ILE

ILT

ILK

ILK

Maders CtE Oak La

Ash Rd

River Dr

E Richmond St

St Johns Church Rd

Swam p R d


S Hi gh L in e R d

W Nabor Rd

L o o n

L a k e

L o n gL a k e

Mu d L a k e

L u l uL a k e

L i l yL a k e

S c h o e n i c k

L a k e

Wolf R

iver

Red River


Wolf River


Cityof


Town of Waukechon


Villageof

Cecil

Villageof

Bonduel

Thornton

Town of Richmond

Town of Wescott

Town of Wescott

Town of Washington

Town of Washington

Town of Waukechon

Town of Hartland


Belle Plaine

ESA &LIMITING CONDITIONS

SHAWANO-SHAWANO LAKESEWER SERVICE AREA




City Corporate LimitsVillage Corporate LimitsTownship BoundaryCounty Boundary

ENVIRONMENTAL LIMITATIONSFloodplain Areas50 Foot Wetland BufferWDNR Designated Wetlands75 Foot Stream BufferGroundwater Within 2 Feet of SurfaceSlopes 12 Per Cent and Greater

! ! ! ! ! ! Subwatershed BoundaryStreams

SERVICE AREA CONDITIONS2030 Sewer Service Boundary2050 Planning Area Boundary Wastewater Treatment Facility




Shawano County

6,000 0 6,000 12,0003,000

Scale in Feet

¶

Exhibit 4

P:\12XX-SSA_GIS\SHAWANO\SSA_2008\SSA\Report_Graphics_Final\Shawano2030ESA_Ex#4..mxd



31

Designated Management Areas Exhibit 5 illustrates the existing Designated Management Agency (DMAs) within the Shawano Lake SSA. DMAs are the legal entities (communities, sanitary districts, or utility districts) that are responsible for the collection and/or treatment of wastewater. Within the SSA Planning Area there are thirteen governmental entities, six of which are DMAs.

1. City of Shawano* 8. Town of Hartland 2. Village of Bonduel* 9. Town of Richmond 3. Village of Cecil* 10. Town of Washington 4. Shawano Lake Sanitary District* 11. Town of Waukechon 5. Richmond Sanitary District* 12. Town of Westcott 6. Belle Plaine/ Waukechon Utility District* 13. Shawano County 7. Town of Belle Plaine *indicates DMA designation

Short descriptions of each DMA, including basic information on their involvement in land use planning and intergovernmental cooperation activities is contained below:

City of Shawano - The City of Shawano covers an area of approximately 7 square miles, or 4,252.9 acres. In 2005 the City of Shawano had a population of 8,515 persons with 2.2 persons per household. Residential development totals approximately 866 acres with newer development occurring on the south side of the City. Commercial and industrial (C/I) developments are generally located along the highway corridors, Main Street and within the City’s industrial park totaling approximately 393 acres. East Central’s 2009 land use analysis accounted for approximately 991 acres of vacant/developable lands within the City. The City of Shawano has annexed the approximately 55 acres of the Wescott, (Wolf River), Sanitary District #1 since the 1999 Shawano Lake SSA Plan Update. Village of Bonduel - The Village of Bonduel covers an area of approximately 2.1 square miles or 1,317.3 acres. In 2005 the Village of Bonduel had a population of 1,460 persons with 2.41 persons per household. Residential development totals approximately 175 acres and is slowly becoming a younger family bedroom community. There is a total of 96.3 acres of C/I developments that are generally located along the STH 47 and STH 29 highway corridors. East Central’s 2009 land use analysis accounted for approximately 387 acres of vacant/developable lands within the Village. Village of Cecil - The Village of Cecil covers an area of approximately 1.6 square miles, or 1,039.9 acres. In 2005 the Village of Cecil had a population of 525 persons with 2.33 persons per household.


32

Residential development totals approximately 99.7 acres. Commercial development is primarily located along the STH 22 highway corridor totaling approximately 19 acres. East Central’s 2009 land use analysis accounted for approximately 60 acres of vacant/developable lands within the Village. Shawano Lake Sanitary District - The Shawano Lake Sanitary District is made up of portions of the Town of Westcott and the Town of Washington. The District’s Sewer Service Area covers an area of approximately 30.1 square miles or 19,263.1 acres. In 2005 the District’s population was projected to be 4,951 persons with 2.32 persons per household. Residential development totaling approximately 885 acres is primarily located along the shoreline of Shawano Lake. It is anticipated that the District will continue to see a shift from seasonal/vacation dwellings to permanent single family homes around the lake. There are a total of 49.8 acres of commercial developments and 20.7 acres of industrial developments within the District. At the time of this update the Sanitary District had a total of 916.4 acres of vacant/developable lands. Belle Plaine/Waukechon Utility District - The Belle Plaine/Waukechon Utility District is made up of portions of the Town of Belle Plaine and the Town of Waukechon. The District’s Sewer Service Area covers an area of approximately 4.4 square miles or 2,803.8 acres. In 2005 the District’s population was projected to be 3 persons with 2.6 persons per household. Residential development totals approximately 41.2 acres while 7.6 acres are considered C/I land uses within the district. At the time of this update the Sanitary District had a total of 213.6 acres of vacant/developable lands. Richmond Sanitary District - The Richmond Sanitary District is made up of portions of the Town of Richmond. The District covers an area of approximately 5.9 square miles or 3,789.7 acres. In 2005 the District’s population was projected to be 603 persons with 2.5 persons per household. Residential development totals approximately 171 acres which is primarily located along the shoreline of the Wolf River and the CTH MM corridor. There are a total of 34.4 acres of C/I developments within the District. At the time of this update the Sanitary District had a total of 330.8 acres of vacant/developable lands.

!.

!.

Ca pi to l Dr

Norto

n Rd

Valle

y Rd

P in e R i dg e Rd

Strauss Rd

Mapl e Lea f Rd

Pione

er Rd

Raguse Rd

Oak Av

Montoure Rd

Ranch Rd

Waukechon Rd

Fox La

Mc D

onald

Rd

Town Line Rd

Wedge Rd

Sandy La

Curt Black Rd

Springbrook Rd

E H a zel D r

Hilltop La

El m Rd

Maple Av

Beech Rd

Pine La


Freeborn Rd

Oak Park Rd

Cloverleaf Lake Rd

Radl off R d

Timm

Rd

Butternut Rd

Pine Mead Av

Birch

La

Meadow Rd

Bass woo d R d

Cedar Av

Lake Dr

Lark Rd

Woods Rd

Maple

Rd

Old Lake Rd

Castle Rd

Box Elder Rd

B roo k Rd

Lily Pond Rd

Broadway Rd

Belle Plain

e Av

Wildlife Rd

Church Rd

Rose Brook Rd

E Flambeau Rd

Evergreen Rd

Clo ve r L a

Poplar Rd

Stark Rd

N High Line Rd

Mork

AvPlank Rd

Thomas Av

Buss Dr

Grass Lake Rd

Valley La

W Slab City Rd

Cypress Rd

Waukechon St

Woodland Rd

Loon Lake Rd

S Airport Dr

Old 47 Rd

Walnut Rd

Retr ea t Rd

Shady La

South St

Va lle y R d

R u sc h R d

Pit La

Oakcrest Dr

Northwood Dr

Park Av

Oak D

r

Lake Dr

Lake

Dr

Bran

ch La

Cozy Oaks CirLoon

Lake

Dr

Korth Rd

Moonlight La

Engel Dr

Hazel Dr

Hill cre st Dr

Pine Rd

Apple

Rd

E State St

Sunrise Rd

S Sa wye r S t

W North St

S Union St

B al sa m R d

V a lle y R d

Hill Rd


Sycamore Rd

Porter Rd

E Green Bay St

Cloverleaf Lake Rd

Lake

view

Rd

L oc us t R d

Sunset DrS Weed St

E Slab City Rd

N Lake Dr

A@29

A@29

A@22

A@117

A@22

A@22

A@22

A@22

A@47-55

ILR

ILB

ILBE

ILHH

ILV

ILMMM

ILCC

ILBE

ILMM

ILCCC

ILB

ILE

ILT

ILK

ILK


Ash Rd

River Dr

E Richmond St

St Johns Church Rd

Swam p R d


S Hi gh L in e R d

W Nabor Rd

L o o n

L a k e

L o n gL a k e

Mu d L a k e

L u l uL a k e

L i l yL a k e

S c h o e n i c k

L a k e

Wolf R

iver

Red River


Wolf River


Cityof


Town of Waukechon


Villageof

Cecil

Villageof

Bonduel

Thornton

Town of Richmond

Town of Wescott

Town of Wescott

Town of Washington

Town of Washington

Town of Waukechon

Town of Hartland


Belle Plaine

POLITICAL JURISDICTIONSand DMA's




2050 Planning Area Boundary SANITARY DISTRICTS

Belle Plaine/Waukechon Utility DistrictRichmond Sanitary DistrictShawano Lake Sanitary District

MINOR CIVIL DIVISIONCity of ShawanoVillage of BonduelVillage of CecilTown of Belle PlaineTown of HartlandTown of RichmondTown of WashingtonTown of WaukechonTown of Wescott

!. Unincorporated Place




Shawano County

6,000 0 6,000 12,0003,000

Scale in Feet

¶

Exhibit 5

P:\12XX-SSA_GIS\SHAWANO\SSA_2008\SSA\Report_Graphics_Final\Shawano2050MCD_Ex#5.mxd



35

Sewerage Collection And Treatment System The Shawano Lake Planning Area consists of the City of Shawano, Village of Bonduel, Village of Cecil and three separate Sanitary Districts covering areas adjacent to the city and areas surrounding Shawano Lake. All six entities are joint owners and share costs in the operation and maintenance of a regional treatment facility known as the Wolf Treatment Plant. The plant is located adjacent to the Wolf River in the Town of Belle Plaine and discharges treated waste into the Wolf River. The Wolf Treatment Plant was constructed in 1972 and utilizes a conventional activated sludge treatment system with a wet air oxidation (Zimpro) treatment process. In 2001 upgrades were completed adding an aerobic digester and clarifiers for phosphorus removal. These upgrades increased the plant’s capacity to 3.71 million gallons per day (mgd). Sludge disposal is done by land spreading on nearby agricultural property. Each DMA has a buy-in capacity agreement in place; however the original capacity amounts are seldom looked at because there is not an issue with capacity. Should capacity become an issue in the future, these buy in totals would need to be addressed. The average daily flows for each DMA is listed below:

City of Shawano = 0.765 mgd Village of Bonduel = 0.079 mgd Village of Cecil = 0.04 mgd Richmond S.D. = 0.045 mgd Shawano Lake S.D. = 0.817 mgd BPWUD = 0.07 mgd

The Wolf Treatment Plant facility consistently meets permit limits for all parameters. Based upon a 2008 observation period, the facility has removal efficiencies of 96.66% percent biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), with an average monthly effluent of 5.67 mg/l. Total suspended solids (TSS) effluent averaged 4.08 mg/l per month and Phosphorus effluents averaged 0.625 mg/l per month. Clearwater flows into the plant do not appear to have a significant effect on treatment performance. As noted below the Wolf Treatment Plant’s WPDES Permit expired on March 31, 2010. The WDNR has temporally stalled issuing the Wolf Treatment Plant a new WPDES Permit until the WDNR’s proposed phosphorus limits are established and understood. The proposed phosphorus reduction mandates are expected to be confirmed in late 2010. At that time the WDNR will issue the Wolf Treatment Plant a new WPDES Permit. Until this time the Wolf Treatment Plant will continue to operate under parameters within the Plant’s WI-0030490 Permit that would have expired on March 31, 2010. Discharge permit information and design characteristics of the plant are as follows: WPDES Permit Number: WI-0030490 Expiration Date: March 31, 2010 Receiving Water: Wolf River Design Flow: 3.71 mgd Average Flow: 2.07 Treatment Type: Secondary treatment by activated sludge process with effluent limits

for BOD, TSS, NH3, Sludge Treatment: Anaerobic digestion Sludge Disposal: Agricultural spreading


36

Listed below is a general description of each DMA’s sewer collection and transport system: City of Shawano: The city infrastructure consists mainly of 8-inch PVC and clay pipe gravity

sewers. A 30-inch interceptor, located along CTH B, and into the treatment plant. The sewer infrastructure is maintained by the City, for example half the system is jetted on a rotating yearly timeframe. The City does have issues with inflow and infiltration (I & I) in the northern portions of the City where the sewer is 50-plus years old. These areas are currently being replaced along with areas along South Lafayette Street.

Village of Bonduel: The Village of Bonduel connects to the Wolf Treatment plant through

nine mile forcemain located primarily along Porter Road. Only dwellings along the original forcemain are allowed to hook on at the time of private on-site system failure (this accounts to approximately 150 hook-ups to the forcemain). The Village consists primarily of 8-inch PVC and clay pipe gravity sewers although some sections of 12-inch sewer are present in various portions of the Village. Before the forcemain was constructed the Village utilized nine lift stations. Now only two are required. The Village does not experience a large I & I problem, however the older sections of the downtown area require more maintenance such as root removal.

Village of Cecil: The wastewater collection system for the Village of Cecil consists of entirely

8-inch PVC and clay pipe gravity sewers with two lift stations. The Village corrected problems with I & I by fixing private lateral problems and disconnecting sump pump connections. The Village’s waste is carried through the Shawano Lake Sanitary District infrastructure to the Wolf Treatment Plant.

Shawano Lake Sanitary District: The District’s collection system consists of mainly 8-inch

PVC gravity sewer with pump stations and forcemains located along both the northern and southern shores of Shawano Lake. The collection system eventually directs waste to a 30-inch interceptor sewer and into the Wolf Treatment Plant.

Richmond Sanitary District: This district, created in 1968, is located wholly within the Town

of Richmond. The district’s collection system is comprised of mainly 8-inch PVC gravity sewers with one forcemain. The district maintains five lift stations. A lot of work has been completed in the past few years to correct I & I problems. The Village maintains a contract with the Shawano Lake Sanitary District for infrastructure maintenance.

Belle Plaine/Waukechon Utility District (BPWU): The District only has four hook-ups (the

hotel, restaurant, the Shell station/car wash and one residential dwelling) which are all gravity fed. There are eight homes along the river in the Town of Belle Plaine that utilize on-sites that are reaching life expectancy. Sleeves and stubs for laterals are already in place for these dwellings. The BPWU contracts with the Shawano Lake Sanitary District for the Utility’s infrastructure maintenance.


37

TABLE 1: WOLF TREATMENT PLANT 2008 PERFORMANCE/CAPACITY ANALYSIS

INFLUENT EFFLUENT

BOD Removal EfficiencyMonth

Average Monthly Flow

(mgd)

Average Mo. (C)BOD

Concentration (mg/l)

Average Monthly (C)BOD Loading

(lbs/day)

Average Monthly

(C)BOD (mg/l)

Average Monthly TSS

(mg/l)

JAN 2.068 160 2,764 5 4 96.88% FEB 2.009 161 2,705 5 4 96.89% MAR 2.208 158 2,908 5 5 96.84% APR 2.748 136 3,123 5 5 96.32% MAY 2.456 157 3,220 5 3 96.82% JUN 2.281 159 3,032 6 4 96.23% JUL 2.213 168 3,097 7 4 95.83% AUG 1.879 186 2,918 5 2 97.31% SEP 1.748 188 2,740 5 3 97.34% OCT 1.698 190 2,685 6 4 96.84% NOV 1.722 190 2,725 7 5 96.32% DEC 1.784 187 2,779 7 6 96.26%

Total 24.81 2,040 34,696 68.00 49.00 11.60 Average 2.07 170 2,891 5.67 4.08 96.66%

Max Month Design Flow

(mgd) = 3.71 BOD Permit Limit (mg/l) = 30 90% of Design = 3.339 90% of Permit Limit = 27

Design (C)BOD (lb/day) = 3,984 TSS Permit Limit (mg/l) = 30 90% of Design = 3,586 90% of Permit Limit= 27

Note: Average of Monthly Avg. Flow is 55.7% of design flow. Source: Wolf Treatment Plan, 2009


38


!.

!.

$K

$K$K

$K

$K

$K

$K

$K$K$K

$K

$K

$K$K $K

$K

$K

$K

$K

$K

$K$K

$K

Ca pi to l Dr

White Clay Lake Dr

Norto

n Rd

Valle

y Rd

P in e R i dg e Rd

Strauss Rd

Mapl e Lea f Rd

Beech Dr

Pione

er Rd

Lake

Rd

Raguse Rd

Oak Av

Montoure Rd

Ranch Rd

Twin

Creek

Rd

Waukechon Rd

Fox La

Mc D

onald

Rd

Town Line Rd

Wedge Rd

Sandy La

Curt Black Rd

Springbrook Rd

E H a zel D r

Hilltop La

El m Rd

Maple Av

Beech Rd

Pine La


Freeborn Rd

Oak Park Rd

Cloverleaf Lake Rd

Radl off R d

Timm

Rd

Butternut Rd

Pine Mead Av

Birch

La

Meadow Rd

Bass woo d R d

Cedar Av

Lake Dr

Lark Rd

Woods Rd

Maple

Rd

Old Lake Rd

Swamp Rd

Castle Rd

Box Elder Rd

B roo k Rd

Lily Pond Rd

Broadway Rd

Belle Plain

e Av

Wildlife Rd

Church Rd

Rose Brook Rd

E Flambeau Rd

Rus ty La

Evergreen Rd

Clo ve r L a

Poplar Rd

Rods La

Stark Rd

N High Line Rd

Mork

AvPlank Rd

Thomas Av

Buss Dr

Grass Lake Rd

Valley La

W Slab City Rd

Cypress Rd

Waukechon St

Am

ber La

Woodland Rd

Loon Lake Rd

S Airport Dr

Old 47 Rd

Old 22 Rd

Walnut Rd

Retr ea t Rd

Shady La

South St

Va lle y R d

R u sc h R d

Pit La

Oakcrest Dr

Hunti

ng R

d

Northwood Dr

Park Av

Oak D

r

Lake Dr

Lake

Dr

Bran

ch La

Cozy Oaks CirLoon

Lake

Dr

Korth Rd

Moonlight La

Engel Dr

Hazel Dr

Hill cre st Dr

Pine Rd

Apple

Rd

Lake View Cir

E State St

Sunrise Rd

S Sa wye r S t

W North St

S Union St

B al sa m R d

V a lle y R d

Hill Rd


Sycamore Rd

Porter Rd

E Green Bay St

Cloverleaf Lake Rd

Lake

view

Rd

L oc us t R d

Sunset DrS Weed St

E Slab City Rd

N Lake Dr

A@29

A@29

A@22

A@117

A@22

A@22

A@22

A@22

A@22

A@47-55

ILR

ILB

ILBE

ILHH

ILV

ILMMM

ILY

ILCC

ILBE

ILMM

ILCCC

ILB

ILE

ILT

ILK

ILK


Ash Rd

River Dr

E Richmond St

St Johns Church Rd

Swam p R d


R ou nd Lak e D r

S Hi gh L in e R d

W Nabor Rd

L o o n

L a k e

W h i t eC l a yL a k e

L o n gL a k e

Mu d L a k e

L u l uL a k e

L i l yL a k e

R o u n dL a k e

S c h o e n i c k

L a k e

Wolf R

iver

Red River

Embarrass River


Wolf River


Cityof


Town of Waukechon


Villageof

Cecil

Villageof

Bonduel

Embarrass

Thornton

Adams Beach

Town of Richmond

Town of Wescott

Town of Wescott

Town of Washington

Town of Washington

Town of Waukechon

Town of Hartland


Red River

Belle Plaine

WWTP & INFRASTRUCTURELOCATIONS




P:\12XX-SSA_GIS\SHAWANO\SSA_2008\SSA\Report_Graphics_Final\Shawano2050WWTP_Ex#6.mxd

2010 Sewer Service Boundary 2020 Planning Area Boundary

SEWER INFRASTRUCURE10" - 15" Gravity Main18" - 21" Gravity Main23" - 27" Gravity Main29" - 33" Gravity Main36" - 42" Gravity Main4" - 6" Force MainBonduel Force Main

$K Lift Station LocationsWastewater Treatment Facility

MINOR CIVIL DIVISIONSCity Corporate LimitsVillage Corporate LimitsTownship BoundaryCounty Boundary

!. Unincorporated Place




Shawano County

6,000 0 6,000 12,0003,000

Scale in Feet

¶

Exhibit 6



41

FORECAST GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT The Shawano Lake Sewer Service Area is expected to have moderate growth within the planning period. The Shawano Lake SSA population is projected to increase by 2,219, bringing the total population to 19,161 persons by 2030. Demographic projections for the Shawano Lake SSA are listed below in Table 2; Appendix B (Tables B-2 through B-8) offers detailed demographic breakdowns for each entity within the SSA boundary. Population growth, coupled with household size (persons per housing unit), indicates a need for 1,468 dwelling units. It is estimated that 85.3 percent of these, (1,252), units will be single-family; 5.1 percent, (75), will be duplex units, and 9.5 percent, (139), will be multi-family units. Given the residential densities, (Appendix B, Table B-7), of 2.7 single-family units per acre, 5.4 for duplex units per acre and 10.9 multifamily units per acre an additional 490 acres will be needed to sustain future development. With adjustment factors for necessary infrastructure, (road, etc.), at 15% as well as the 20% market factor an estimated 678 acres of additional residential land will be required by the year 2030. Utilizing the above densities and adjustment factors approximately 640 acres single family, 19 acres of duplex and 18 acres of multi-family will be needed. Nonresidential, (commercial and industrial), growth needs were determined by multiplying the existing amount of nonresidential development per capita by the projected 2030 population increase for the sewer service area. An estimated total of 73 acres are needed to support the areas commercial and industrial development. After adding a 15% infrastructure factor and a market factor of 20%, the acreage required increases to 101 acres, (Appendix B, Table B-9).

TABLE 2: SHAWANO LAKE SSA POPULATION AND HOUSING PROJECTIONS

Projection Type

Year Change

2005 -2030

Change w/ 10% of increase

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Total Population 16,942 17,467 17,973 18,402 18,826 19,161 2,441 19,383

Total Households (d.u.) 7,056 7,367 7,687 8,040 8,189 8,390 1,334 8,523

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000; ECWRPC, 2009.

Table 3 lists the acreage allocated to the Shawano Lake 2030 SSA Plan update based on the previous projections. The allocations also take into account local development plans and allocations for public use plans, market conditions and public and institutional projects which are planned by communities. Based upon this there is an excess of 3,144 acres of developable acreage included in the service area most of which is in the residential category. There are 10,375 total acres in the Shawano Lake 2030 SSA. Of this total, 3,922 acres are vacant and allocated for future development.

TABLE 3 - SUMMARY OF 2020 & PROPOSED 2030 SSA CONDITIONS

SSA Characteristic 2020 SSA 2030 SSA2020-2030 Difference

2030 SSA Projected Need

"Excess" (2030-projection)

Developed Land Uses 4,981 5,345 364 n/a n/a

Vacant Lands (see below for breakdown by proposed land use) 2,924 3,922 998 778 3,144

Vacant/Undevelopable Lands (includes 50' wet land buffer) 87 100 13 x n/a

Environmentally Sensitive Areas (wet lands & stream buffer) 444 503 58 n/a n/a

Water Areas 503 506 3 n/a n/a

Total SSA 8,939 10,375 1,436 778.0 3,144

Vacant Land By Proposed Land Use Type 2020 SSA 2030 SSA

2020-2030 Difference

2030 SSA Projected Need

"Excess" (2030-projection)

Single Family Residential (incl. duplex) 1,214 1,791 577 659 1132Multi-Family Residential 100 146 46 18 128Commercial/Industrial 756 905 149 101 804Public Institutional 216 239 23 n/a n/aAgriculture/Undeveloped (assumed to be SF Res.) 638 841 203 n/a n/a

Total Vacant Acreage 2,924 3,922 998 778 3,144 Source: ECWRPC, 2009

Note: Single & Multi-family projections based on 2.5 units/acre

42

East Central Wisconsin R

egional Planning Comm

ission Shaw

ano Lake 2030 SSA Plan M

arch 8, 2011


43

Growth Allocation Areas and 2030 SSA The policy basis for allocating growth areas is described in the Sewer Service Area Delineation and Planning Process, (page 61). These policies take into account a broad range of land use and environmental concerns directed towards encouraging orderly, cost-effective and environmentally sound development. Working within this broad policy base sewer service area planning also considers sewerage system capacities, land development market trends, development plans and preferences of individual communities. East Central may recommend that conditions be attached to WDNR sewer extension approvals, where needed, to preserve designated environmentally sensitive areas or other significant natural features that lie within the growth allocation areas. Priority Development Area Mapping During the SSA Plan update a thorough assessment regarding the phasing or ‘priority’ areas of development was determined by each community. During the working meetings with each DMA and community, a map was developed which indicated their general thoughts of development timing based on their local comprehensive plan, landowner knowledge and planned capital improvements. Three levels of ‘priority’ were assigned to overall areas requested for addition to the 1999 SSA and can be simply described as follows: #1 – generally felt to develop in the next 5 to 10 years; #2 – generally felt to develop in 10 to 20 years, and; #3 – generally thought to develop in 20 or more years, primarily based on the need for and timing of major sewer infrastructure. For the entire SSA, the ‘priority area requests’, were as follows:

o Priority #1 areas – 918.78 acres; o Priority #2 areas – 1,119.15 acres; and o Priority #3 areas – 1,711.95 acres.

Exhibit 7 indicates the ‘priority level’ which was assigned to each community’s acreage request. The 2030 SSA growth allocation areas encompassed a total of approximately:

o 918 acres of Priority #1 areas; o 192 acres of Priority #2 areas; and o 95 acres of Priority #3 areas.

While East Central will not formally hold each community to these development priorities, they will serve to remind the Commission, community and public of the basic thoughts of development timing determined in 2009. It should be noted that East Central may and, in some cases, has recommend that conditions be attached to WDNR sewer extension approvals where needed to deal with conflicts related to development timing issues or to preserve designated environmentally sensitive areas that lie within the growth allocation areas.


44


!.

!.

Ca pi to l Dr

Norto

n Rd

Valle

y Rd

P in e R i dg e Rd

Strauss Rd

Mapl e Lea f Rd

Pione

er Rd

Raguse Rd

Oak Av

Montoure Rd

Ranch Rd

Waukechon Rd

Fox La

Mc D

onald

Rd

Town Line Rd

Wedge Rd

Sandy La

Curt Black Rd

Springbrook Rd

E H a zel D r

Hilltop La

El m Rd

Maple Av

Beech Rd

Pine La


Freeborn Rd

Oak Park Rd

Ra dl off R d

Timm

Rd

Butternut Rd

Pine Mead Av

Birch

La

Meadow Rd

Bass woo d R d

Cedar Av

Lake Dr

Lark Rd

Woods Rd

Maple

Rd

Old Lake Rd

Castle Rd

Box Elder Rd

B roo k Rd

Lily Pond Rd

Broadway Rd

Belle Plain

e Av

Wildlife Rd

Church Rd

Rose Brook Rd

E Flambeau Rd

Evergreen Rd

Clo ve r L a

Poplar Rd

Stark Rd

N High Line Rd

Mork

AvPlank Rd

Thomas Av

Buss Dr

Grass Lake Rd

Valley La

W Slab City Rd

Cypress Rd

Waukechon St

Woodland Rd

Loon Lake Rd

S Airport Dr

Old 47 Rd

Walnut Rd

Retr ea t Rd

Shady La

South St

Va lle y R d

R u sc h R d

Pit La

Oakcrest Dr

Northwood Dr

Park Av

Oak D

r

Lake Dr

Lake

Dr

Bran

ch La

Cozy Oaks CirLoon

Lake

Dr

Korth Rd

Moonlight La

Engel Dr

Hazel Dr

Hill cre st Dr

Pine Rd

Apple

Rd

E State St

Sunrise Rd

S Sa wye r S t

W North St

S Union St

B al sa m R d

V a lle y R d

Hill Rd


Sycamore Rd

Porter Rd

E Green Bay St

Cloverleaf Lake Rd

Lake

view

Rd

L oc us t R d

Sunset DrS Weed St

E Slab City Rd

N Lake Dr

A@29

A@29

A@22

A@117

A@22

A@22

A@22

A@22

A@47-55

ILR

ILB

ILBE

ILHH

ILMMM

ILCC

ILBE

ILMM

ILCCC

ILB

ILE

ILT

ILK

ILK

Maders CtE Oak La

Ash Rd

River Dr

E Richmond St

St Johns Church Rd

Swam p R d


S Hi gh L in e R d

W Nabor Rd

L o o n

L a k e

L o n gL a k e

Mu d L a k e

L u l uL a k e

L i l yL a k e

S c h o e n i c k

L a k e

Wolf R

iver

Red River


Wolf River


Cityof


Town of Waukechon


Villageof

Cecil

Villageof

Bonduel

Thornton

Town of Richmond

Town of Wescott

Town of Wescott

Town of Washington

Town of Washington

Town of Waukechon

Town of Hartland


Belle Plaine

PRIORITY DEVELOPMENTAREAS




2010 Sewer Service Boundary 2020 Planning Area BoundaryWastewater Treatment Facility

MINOR CIVIL DIVISIONSCity Corporate LimitsVillage Corporate LimitsTownship BoundaryCounty Boundary

!. Unincorporated PlacePRIORITY REQUESTS

First Priority Request by DMASecond Priority Request by DMAThird Priority Request by DMA




Shawano County

6,000 0 6,000 12,0003,000

Scale in Feet

¶

Exhibit 7

P:\12XX-SSA\SHAWANO\SSA_2008\SSA\Report_Graphics_Final\Shawano2050PRI_Ex#7.mxd



47

Year 2030 Sewer Service Area The year 2030 Sewer Service Area for the Wolf Treatment Wastewater Plant is illustrated in Exhibit 8 and contains a total of 10,375 acres. Of this total, 1,009 acres have been designated as environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs) and 3,921.5 acres are considered to be vacant/developable areas. If one removes the vacant acreage that is reserved for public or institutional uses based on community requests (239.4) from this total, a final figure of 3,682.1 acres are left to accommodate traditional residential, commercial, and industrial development. This compares to a calculated vacant acreage need of 778 acres for these types of development; therefore, an ‘excess’ of 3,144 vacant acres exists within the 2030 SSA. A more detailed listing of SSA allocations are contained in Appendix B, (Table: B-10). A short description of the major acreage allocations and growth areas are provided below (see Exhibit 8 regarding acreage allocation locations):

City of Shawano. A total of 132.9 acres were allocated to the City, of this total 30.8 acres are considered vacant/developable acres. The majority of the vacant acres (30) are slated for residential uses, while 0.9 acres are designated for industrial uses. The City’s agreed growth areas are located within the surrounding Towns and therefore acreage allocation totals are accounted for in Town allocation descriptions below.

Village of Bonduel. A total of 92.4 acres were allocated to the City, of this total 78.9

acres are considered vacant/developable acres. The majority of the vacant acres (50.9) are slated for residential uses, while 28 acres are designated for commercial and industrial uses. The vast majority of allocations are located south of the Village.

Village of Cecil. Large areas within the Village’s corporate limits were outside the 2020

SSA boundary. During the Plan’s working meetings it was apparent that a rather large area needed to be allocated, so that the Village could extend public sewer versus continue the current trend of developing with the use of on-sites within the Village. A total of 269.6 acres were allocated to the Village, of this total 233.8 are considered vacant/developable acres.

Town of Washington. A total of 144.6 acres were added to the Town of Washington;

of this total 99.6 acres are considered to be vacant/developable acres. These acreage allocations will be serviced by the Shawano Lake Sanitary District and the City. Allocations areas are located to the east of the City’s current City boundary and south of CTH B.

Town of Wescott. A total of 278.2 acres were added to the Town of Wescott; of this

total 135.8 acres are considered to be vacant/developable acres. Future service for these areas will be provided by the Shawano Lake Sanitary District. Allocation areas are located north of Pine Mead Avenue. A portion of the allocations acreage is owned by the local school district. The district does not have plans to build and will likely sell this land for residential purposes in the future.

Town of Richmond. A total of 120.8 acres were allocated to the Town that will be

serviced by the Richmond Sanitary District. A total of 98.4 acres are considered


48

vacant/developable acres. The majority of the vacant acres (88.7) are currently considered to be agriculture or unplanned, but are presumed to be residential areas in the future.

Town of Belle Plaine. A total of 97.1 acres were allocated to the Town, which will be

serviced by the Belle Plaine/Waukechon Utility District. A total of 56.4 acres are considered vacant/developable. The majority of the vacant areas are slated for commercial uses located adjacent to the STH 22 corridor.

Town of Waukechon. A large amount of acres (408.9) were allocated within the

Town of Waukechon; however only a small portion of the allocations will be serviced by the Belle Plaine/Waukechon Utility District in the future. The majority of allocated acreage is located south of CTH B. This allocation area is slated for a mix of residential and commercial uses. The area is recognized as a City growth area and it is well known that public services to this area will be provided by the City of Shawano in the future.

Town of Hartland. A total of 22.5 acres were allocated to areas within the Town of

Hartland. These areas are considered growth areas for the Village of Bonduel which will provide public services as the Village grows.

The WDNR has requested that a 100 foot buffer be placed along all sewer lines that are located outside adopted SSA boundaries. Due to this, a 100 foot buffer has been added to the Village of Bonduel’s forcemain running east and west to indicate its inclusion in the 2030 SSA. The forcemain transports the Village’s wastewater westerly to the Wolf Treatment Plant. Although the forcemain is technically within the 2030 SSA boundary individual connections to the forcemain are limited to properties that existed adjacent to the forcemain at the time of construction.

SSA Future Needs As discussed above potential future needs exist for Shawano County’s Maple Lane Health Care Center located in the Town of Belle Plaine along STH 22. At the time of this plan’s completion East Central did not have records indicating the existing performance of the lagoon system and therefore the need for alternative treatment has not yet been considered. East Central will consider a SSA Amendment to the Shawano Lake 2030 SSA Plan should further facility studies and cost-effective analysis justify a need to provide this facility with public services.

!.

!.

Ca pi to l Dr

Norto

n Rd

Valle

y Rd

P in e R i dg e Rd

Strauss Rd

Mapl e Lea f Rd

Beech Dr

Pione

er Rd

Raguse Rd

Oak Av

Montoure Rd

Ranch Rd

Waukechon Rd

Fox La

Mc D

onald

Rd

Town Line Rd

Wedge Rd

Sandy La

Curt Black Rd

Springbrook Rd

E H a zel D r

Hilltop La

El m Rd

Maple Av

Beech Rd

Pine La


Freeborn Rd

Oak Park Rd

Cloverleaf Lake Rd

Radl off R d

Timm

Rd

Butternut Rd

Pine Mead Av

Birch

La

Meadow Rd

Bass woo d R d

Cedar Av

Lake Dr

Lark Rd

Woods Rd

Maple

Rd

Old Lake Rd

Swamp Rd

Castle Rd

Box Elder Rd

B roo k Rd

Lily Pond Rd

Broadway Rd

Belle Plain

e Av

Wildlife Rd

Church Rd

Rose Brook Rd

E Flambeau Rd

Evergreen Rd

Clo ve r L a

Poplar Rd

Rods La

Stark Rd

N High Line Rd

Mork

AvPlank Rd

Thomas Av

Buss Dr

Grass Lake Rd

Valley La

W Slab City Rd

Cypress Rd

Waukechon St

Woodland Rd

Loon Lake Rd

S Airport Dr

Old 47 Rd

Walnut Rd

Retr ea t Rd

Shady La

South St

Va lle y R d

R u sc h R d

Pit La

Oakcrest Dr

Northwood Dr

Park Av

Oak D

r

Lake Dr

Lake

Dr

Bran

ch La

Cozy Oaks CirLoon

Lake

Dr

Korth Rd

Moonlight La

Engel Dr

Hazel Dr

Hill cre st Dr

Pine Rd

Apple

Rd

E State St

Sunrise Rd

S Sa wye r S t

W North St

S Union St

B al sa m R d

V a lle y R d

Hill Rd


Sycamore Rd

Porter Rd

E Green Bay St

Cloverleaf Lake Rd

Lake

view

Rd

L oc us t R d

Sunset DrS Weed St

E Slab City Rd

N Lake Dr

A@29

A@29

A@22

A@117

A@22

A@22

A@22

A@22

A@47-55

ILR

ILB

ILBE

ILHH

ILV

ILMMM

ILY

ILCC

ILBE

ILMM

ILCCC

ILB

ILE

ILT

ILK

ILK


Ash Rd

River Dr

E Richmond St

St Johns Church Rd

Swam p R d


R ou nd Lak e D r

S Hi gh L in e R d

W Nabor Rd

L o o n

L a k e

L o n gL a k e

Mu d L a k e

L u l uL a k e

L i l yL a k e

S c h o e n i c k

L a k e

Wolf R

iver

Red River

Embarrass River


Wolf River


Cityof


Town of Waukechon


Villageof

Cecil

Villageof

Bonduel

Thornton

Town of Richmond

Town of Wescott

Town of Wescott

Town of Washington

Town of Washington

Town of Waukechon

Town of Hartland


Belle Plaine

2030SHAWANO-SHAWANO LAKE

SEWER SERVICE AREA



P:\12XX-SSA\SHAWANO\SSA_2008\SSA\Report_Graphics_Final\Shawano2030SSA_Ex#8.mxd


Wastewater Treatment Facility2050 Planning Area Boundary City Corporate LimitsVillage Corporate LimitsTownship BoundaryCounty Boundary

SERVICE AREA CONDITIONS2030 Sewer Service Boundary2030 Sewer Service Area




Shawano County

6,000 0 6,000 12,0003,000

Scale in Feet

¶

Exhibit 8



51

Holding Tank Service Areas There are numerous sewage holding tanks and individual on-site septic systems within the Shawano Lake Planning Area. According to Wisconsin Administrative Code NR113 septic pumpage from these systems are directed to the regional treatment facilities. The Wolf WWTF accepts approximately 350,000 gallons of septic sewage from private haulers each day. In addition, large holding tanks exceeding 3,000 gallons per day need a special holding tank service area designation. There are no large holding tanks present in the Shawano Lake Planning Area. Water Quality Assessment and Development Impacts Continued urbanization of the Shawano Lake Sewer Service Area will impact surface and groundwater resources. Surface water runoff and pollutant loadings are likely to increase and groundwater recharge is likely to decrease. The scope of these impacts cannot be precisely determined because specific future development characteristics (location, type, density and site mitigation) are unknown. However, it is possible to generally estimate water quality impacts by applying assumptions relative to the nature of future development. Point Source Water Quality Impacts Population growth and commercial/industrial development will increase wastewater flows and loadings to the treatment plant and ultimately to the Wolf River. Without a wastewater engineering assessment it is not possible to analyze specific flows for the different existing land uses and estimate future flows for comparison to treatment plant design capacity. A rough estimate comparing existing average daily flows of current development to a percentage increase in overall future development can be made (Table 4). Based upon this analysis, the average flows are expected to increase by 0.95 mgd which is within the capacity of the current treatment facility design. Non-point Source Water Quality Impacts The Shawano Lake SSA includes portions of three sub-watersheds. Various land uses within these watersheds contribute significant urban and agricultural runoff to the Wolf River. Sediment loads, nutrients and other pollutants are carried through storm sewers and drainageways throughout the SSA. Surface water runoff and pollutant loadings will increase with the forecasted growth for the 2030 SSA. The placement of roads, buildings and parking areas increase the amount of impervious area, and hence, more water runs off the land surface carrying organic and inorganic pollutants associated with these more intensive urban uses. The Department of Natural Resources has general guidelines for estimating unit area loadings of pollutants by land use categories. Within the Shawano Lake SSA, four pollutants have been analyzed for seven land use categories. The estimated loadings address both existing and future land uses. The estimates only relate to land uses within the service area with resultant impacts on the local rivers and streams. Specific subwatershed analysis has not been attempted. The estimated annual pollutant loadings for the existing development area (based on 2009 land use) within the Shawano Lake SSA are listed in Table 5. The land uses within this area consist


52

primarily of older development with significant infrastructure therefore stormwater mitigation is more difficult and costly in these areas. Table 6 illustrates the future annual pollutant loadings expected based on the total amounts of development which could occur by 2030 within the Shawano Lake SSA if all the available vacant lands were developed. The pollutant loadings are estimates for the proposed land uses with no significant stormwater mitigation measures or practices adopted. Utilization of stormwater detention facilities, site development controls, preservation of green space and other measures can help mitigate urban non-point source impacts on water quality. These loadings can serve as a baseline for proposed areawide stormwater reduction efforts.

TABLE 4: WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS

SHAWANO LAKE SSA - PROJECTED 2030 RESIDENTIAL WASTEWATER FLOWS

SSA

2005 Population

2030 Population 2005-2030 Increase gallons per day (gpd)

millions of gallons (mgd)

gallons per day (gpd)

millions of gallons (mgd)

C. Shawano 8,515 9,223 708 779 62,304 0.062 249,216.00 0.249

V. Bonduel 1,460 1,657 197 217 17,336 0.017 69,344.00 0.069

V. Cecil 525 700 175 193 15,400 0.015 61,600.00 0.062

Shawano Lake S.D. 4,951 5,851 900 990 79,200 0.079 316,800.00 0.317

Richmond S.D. 603 733 130 143 11,440 0.011 45,760.00 0.046

BPW U.D. 3 3 - 0 - 0.000 - 0

Totals 16,057 18,167 2,110 2,321 185,680 0.186 742,720 0.743

Source: ECWRPC, 2009

SHAWANO LAKE SSA - PROJECTED 2030 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL FLOWS

Gallons per day (gpd)Millions of Gallons per

Day (mgd)

C. Shawano 904.7 906 1 1 1,188 0.001

V. Bonduel 237.9 268 30 36 39,732 0.040

V. Cecil 40.6 41 0 - - 0.000

Shawano Lake S.D. 81.6 117 36 43 46,860 0.047

Richmond S.D. 50.5 51 1 1 660 0.001

BPW U.D. 61.9 154 92 110 121,308 0.121

Totals 1,377 1,536 159 191 209,748 0.210

Note: C/I acreage totals include vacant/developed lands which are slated for C/I development delineated by the City and Town Comprehensive Plans.

SHAWANO LAKE - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED FLOWS & WWTF CAPACITIES

SSA

Additional Residential Flows (mgd)

Additional Comm/Ind. Flows (mgd)

Total Additional Flows (mgd)

Existing WWTF Flows (Avg. of 2008mo. Avg.

flows - mgd)*

Existing / Planned* WWTF Design Capacity (mgd)

Difference (Ex. / Planned Capacity -

Existing & Projected Flows)

Shawano Lake SSA 0.743 0.210 0.95 2.07 3.710 0.69

* WWTF design flow based on 2008 CMARSource: Wolf Treatment Plant 2008 CMAR; ECWRPC

Projected Flows (@ 1100 gal./ac./day)

Additional Flows (@ 80 gallons per day per person)2005-2030 SSA

Population Increase (includes additional 10% of

2005-2030 increase)

Peak Flows (@4.0 factor)

SSA

2005 C/I Acreage

Totals

2030 C/I Acreage

Totals Difference + 20%

Market Factor*

Difference

53



ission Shaw


arch 8, 2011

2009 Calculated LoadingsAcres Development Type Sediment Phosphorus Zinc Lead Sediment Phosphorus Zinc Lead

2,074.6 Medium Dens Res. (2-6 units/ac, no alleys) 190.0 0.5 0.2 0.2 394,174.0 1,037.3 414.9 414.9114.8 Multi-Family Res. (3+ units / 1-3 stories) 420.0 1.0 0.7 0.8 48,216.0 114.8 80.4 91.8300.4 Commercial (strip/downtown) 1,400.0 1.5 2.1 2.7 420,560.0 450.6 630.8 811.1320.6 Manufacturing Industries 900.0 1.5 2.1 2.4 288,540.0 480.9 673.3 769.4

1,293.5 Freeways / Local Roads 600.0 0.9 1.9 2.5 776,100.0 1,164.2 2,457.7 3,233.82,923.7 Undeveloped / Vacant 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 73,092.5 12.9 0.0 6.5

868.7 Institutional / Governmental 700.0 0.5 0.6 1.1 608,090.0 434.4 521.2 955.6

7,896.3 TOTALS 2,608,772.5 3,695.0 4,778.3 6,283.1Tons 1304.39 1.85 2.39 3.14

Source: ECWRPC, 2008Note: Total SSA acres is less than previously noted due to water features not being included in these calculations.

Calculated LoadingsAcres Development Type Sediment Phosphorus Zinc Lead Sediment Phosphorus Zinc Lead

2,116.9 Medium Dens Res. (2-6 units/ac, no alleys) 190.0 0.5 0.2 0.2 402,211.0 1,058.5 423.4 423.4114.8 Multi-Family Res. (3+ units / 1-3 stories) 420.0 1.0 0.7 0.8 48,216.0 114.8 80.4 91.8309.2 Commercial (strip/downtown) 1,400.0 1.5 2.1 2.7 432,880.0 463.8 649.3 834.8322.8 Manufacturing Industries 900.0 1.5 2.1 2.4 290,520.0 484.2 677.9 774.7

1,602.5 Freeways / Local Roads 600.0 0.9 1.9 2.5 961,500.0 1,442.3 3,044.8 4,006.33,921.5 Undeveloped / Vacant 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 98,037.5 39.2 0.0 19.6

869.3 Institutional / Governmental 700.0 0.5 0.6 1.1 608,510.0 434.7 521.6 956.2

9,257.0 TOTALS 2,841,874.5 4,037.4 5,397.3 7,106.9Tons 1420.94 2.02 2.70 3.55

Source: ECWRPC, 2009Note: Total SSA acres is less than previously noted due to water features not being included in these calculations.

TABLE 5: SHAWANO LAKE SSA - EXISTING (2009) NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION LOADING ESTIMATE

TABLE 6: SHAWANO LAKE SSA - EXISTING (2030) NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION LOADING ESTIMATE

Unit Area Loads by Land Use (lbs/acre/yr)

Unit Area Loads by Land Use (lbs/acre/yr)

54



ission Shaw


arch 8, 2011

!.

!.

Ca pi to l Dr

Norto

n Rd

Valle

y Rd

P in e R i dg e Rd

Strauss Rd

Mapl e Lea f Rd

Raguse Rd

Oak Av

Montoure Rd

Ranch Rd

Waukechon Rd

Fox La

Mc D

onald

Rd

Town Line Rd

Wedge Rd

Curt Black Rd

Springbrook Rd

E H a zel D r

Hilltop La

El m Rd

Maple Av

Beech Rd

Pine La


Freeborn Rd

Oak Park Rd

Ra dl off R d

Timm

Rd

Pine Mead Av

Birch

La

Meadow Rd

Bass woo d R d

Cedar Av

Lake Dr

Lark Rd

Woods Rd

Maple

Rd

Old Lake Rd

Castle Rd

Box Elder Rd

B roo k Rd

Lily Pond Rd

Broadway Rd

Belle Plain

e Av

Church Rd

Rose Brook Rd

E Flambeau Rd

Evergreen Rd

Clo ve r L a

Poplar Rd

Stark Rd

N High Line Rd

Mork

AvPlank Rd

Thomas Av

Buss Dr

Grass Lake Rd

Valley La

W Slab City Rd

Cypress Rd

Waukechon St

Woodland Rd

Loon Lake Rd

S Airport Dr

Old 47 Rd

Walnut Rd

Retr ea t Rd

Shady La

South St

Va lle y R d

R u sc h R d

Pit La

Oakcrest Dr

Northwood Dr

Park Av

Oak D

r

Lake Dr

Lake

Dr

Cozy Oaks CirLoon

Lake

Dr

Korth Rd

Moonlight La

Engel Dr

Hazel Dr

Hill cre st Dr

Pine Rd

Apple

Rd

E State St

Sunrise Rd

S Sa wye r S t

W North St

S Union St

B al sa m R d

V a lle y R d

Hill Rd


Sycamore Rd

Porter Rd

E Green Bay St Lake

view

Rd

L oc us t R d

Sunset DrS Weed St

E Slab City Rd

N Lake Dr

A@29

A@29

A@22

A@117

A@22

A@22

A@22

A@22

A@47-55

ILR

ILB

ILBE

ILHH

ILMMM

ILCC

ILBE

ILMM

ILCCC

ILB

ILE

ILT

ILK

ILK

Maders Ct

Ash Rd

River Dr

E Richmond St

St Johns Church Rd

Swam p R d


S Hi gh L in e R d

W Nabor Rd

L o o n

L a k e

L o n gL a k e

Mu d L a k e

L u l uL a k e

L i l yL a k e

Wolf R

iver


Wolf River


Cityof


Town of Waukechon


Villageof

Cecil

Villageof

Bonduel

Thornton

Town of Richmond

Town of Wescott

Town of Wescott

Town of Washington

Town of Washington

Town of Waukechon

Town of Hartland


Belle Plaine

YEAR 2030 SSA &PROPOSED LAND USE




!. Unincorporated PlaceSewer Service Boundary Line2050 Planning Area Boundary City Corporate LimitsVillage Corporate LimitsTownship BoundaryCounty Boundary

2030 PROPOSED LAND USEProposed CommercialProposed IndustrialProposed Multi-Family ResidentialProposed Open Space/RecreationalProposed Public/InstitutionalProposed Single Family ResidentialProposed to Remain WoodlandsProposed to Remain in AgricultureVacant - DevelopableExisting Development50 Foot Wetland Buffer75 Foot Stream BufferWDNR Designated WetlandsWastewater Treatment Facility




Shawano County

6,000 0 6,000 12,0003,000

Scale in Feet

¶

Exhibit 9

P:\12XX-SSA_GIS\SHAWANO\SSA_2008\SSA\Report_Graphics_Final\Shawano2050ProLu_Ex#9..mxdWisconsin Department of Natural Resources Certification Date - March 8, 2011


57

Groundwater Impacts According to Shawano County’s Land And Water Resource Management Plan, 2009 Revision, Shawano County’s groundwater resources are generally of good quality and supply although draw downs in the Fox Valley and Wausau areas threaten the County’s groundwater quantity. Glacial drift aquifers are the major source of groundwater in the western ¾ of the county. The glacial drift over much of this area is 50 to 200 feet thick and produces well yields of 100 to 1,000 gallons per minute. There are some areas that have rock outcroppings or bedrock close to the surface, which hampers getting an adequate supply of potable water. The bedrock aquifer is the major source of ground water in the eastern ¼ of the county. The Cambrian sandstones, the Prairie du Chien Group, and the St. Peter sandstone form the principal bedrock aquifer in this area. In general, these rock units are hydraulically connected and act as an aquifer to produce well yields of 100 to 500 gallons per minute. There are some karst features in the area which need to be protected such as adequate set back distances and buffering of sink holes.1 While there are no significant negative groundwater impacts anticipated with increased development in the service area, there may be localized impacts as areas develop. The City of Shawano, Village of Bonduel and Village of Cecil utilize high capacity wells to obtain thier potable water supply. Development in the Sanitary Districts and surrounding Towns utilize private wells. An investigation of the public water supply system was performed by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources in November of 2000. The inspection report notes that there have been concerns regarding declining water levels. Increased development of the recharge areas could have long-term impacts on the groundwater recharge. Conversion of rural/agricultural lands to urban uses may impact both the quality and quantity of groundwater as development continues. Groundwater recharge will decrease as areas are paved over or built upon. At the same time, withdrawal of groundwater on a regional basis is likely to increase for domestic, commercial and industrial use. Water Quality Protection And Stormwater Management Cumulative impacts, including loss of baseflow in streams, from increased development of impervious surfaces and enhanced stream flashiness, and the resulting streambank erosion from alterations to headwaters and tributaries, will occur with full buildout of the sewer service area. Stormwater management actions other than large-scale detention ponds are available for older urban areas such as enhanced street sweeping, comprehensive stormwater management and other nonstructural best management practices. East Central recommends receipt of preliminary subdivision plats for review for a conformance check with the sewer service area and water quality plan. Recommendations would be made for final plat approval based on water quality, stormwater management, environmental and cultural resource concerns. East Central also provides mandatory sewer extension review comments. Where sanitary sewer extensions are proposed in mapped environmentally sensitive areas or on other lands whose physical characteristics indicate susceptibility to erosion or flooding, or where development of such 1 Shawano County’s Land & Water Resource Management Plan, 2009


58

lands is likely to impair surface or groundwater quality or uses, East Central may identify mitigating conditions to be incorporated into the development proposal. East Central may also request the WDNR to attach such conditions to any sewer extension approval for the proposed development. Where the impacts of development pose significant water quality impacts or negatively impact environmentally sensitive areas, the Commission may recommend denial of the proposed extension. Voluntary preliminary plat review and mandatory sewer extension review are the primary mechanism for service area plan implementation and the attainment of water quality plan objectives. Plan Implementation And Recommendations Plan Implementation Although sewer service area planning was initiated at the state and federal levels, successful implementation of each plan rests at the local level. In the state-approved Areawide Water Quality Management Plan for the Fox River Valley, certain local units of government are assigned water quality management functions. Entities with adequate authority to plan, construct, operate and maintain wastewater collection and treatment facilities are designated as management agencies for portions of the planning area within their jurisdictions. The City of Waupaca and the Chain ‘O Lakes Sanitary District are currently designated. The functions of the respective units concerning sewerage system management are shown in Table 7:

Table 7: DESIGNATED MANAGEMENT AGENCIES

Governmental Unit Category of Designation Management Function

Shawano Lake S.D. III Collection And Treatment

City of Shawano I Collection

Village of Bonduel I Collection

Village of Cecil I Collection

Belle Plaine/Waukechon U.D. I Collection

Richmond S.D. I Collection


59

Plan Recommendations The City, Villages and Sanitary Districts, as the designated management agencies for the wastewater treatment and collection systems, and the City, Villages, Towns and County, as the agencies responsible for development policies and regulations, should do the following:

1. Adopt the Shawano Lake 2030 Sewer Service Area Plan update;

2. Review and update development policies and regulations in light of the sewer service plan boundaries and recommendations;

3. Submit preliminary land subdivision plats to East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning

Commission for review for consistency with sewer service area plans for the area;

4. Submit sanitary sewer extension requests to the East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission for review for consistency with sewer service area plans prior to being submitted to the WDNR for approval; and

5. Submit wastewater facilities plans and amended plans to the East Central Wisconsin

Regional Planning Commission for review for consistency with sewer service area plans prior to submittal to the WDNR for approval; and

6. Carry out their management responsibilities for treatment facilities and collection systems

as specified by state and federal requirements.

7. Sewered development should be developed at 2.5 units/acre single family, 5 units/acre duplex and 10 units/acre multi-family as designated in this plan.

In addition to implementing sewer service area plans, local government may exercise other authority conferred upon them by state statute to preserve and protect water quality. Local governments may use this authority to plan and manage land use and development through subdivision, zoning and other development ordinances. Criteria can be written into existing ordinances or new ordinances can be adopted which promote orderly development and address water quality concerns. Additional actions by local units of government which are recommended for water quality protection include the adoption of construction site erosion and stormwater management ordinances and the preservation of greenways along existing drainage corridors.

1. All communities should review and address issues and recommendations identified in the Upper Wolf River Basin Integrated Management Plan.

2. Monitor development amounts and rates to better determine the need for WWTF Facility

Planning.

3. Continue to address issues and regulatory methods for the management of on-site system development within the 2050 Planning Area to better recognize the existing investment in sewer infrastructure.


60

4. Complete and/or update as necessary, local and county ‘smart growth’ comprehensive plans and incorporate information as necessary from the 2030 SSA Plan.

5. Intergovernmental cooperation should continue between the City of Shawano, Village of

Bonduel, Village of Cecil, Shawano Lake S.D., Richmond S.D., Belle Plaine/Waukechon Utility District, and Towns of Belle Plaine, Richmond, Wescott, Washington, Waukechon, and Hartland to establish such things as:

Growth agreements; WWTF capacity agreements; Municipal service agreements; Annexation agreements; Wellhead protection plans/ordinances; Sanitary sewer agreements; etc.

6. Consider the utilization of various regulatory tools to ensure the timely planning, financing,

and extension of public utilities for new development:

a. Sewer Use Ordinance – should be updated and enforced including such things as: Enforce a mandatory sanitary hook-up when public sewer becomes available; Develop payout policies for the remaining life expectancy of on-site systems

when public sewer becomes available.

b. Subdivisions Ordinance – particularly with respect to interim development serviced by on-site systems within the 2050 Planning Area in order to ensure the logical extension of future sanitary sewer mains. Things to consider, from a design perspective include: Lot size; Lot frontage; Potential for future lot splits; Allowance of ‘cluster developments’ with a single community well and treatment

system (conservation subdivisions); Reservation of easements for future sewer extensions; Road patterns which allow for effective extension of sewer in the future.


61

SEWER SERVICE AREA DELINEATION AND PLANNING PROCESS

A sewer service area is a geographic area which is currently served or anticipated to be served with sanitary sewers within a 20-year planning period. Sewer service areas, called "urban service areas," were first delineated for the east central region in 1978 in the plan New Directions for Growth and Development. In the initial plan, a generalized methodology was used for the estimation and allocation of growth which led to the identification of service area boundaries. Various state and federal guidelines, as well as regional policies, were utilized in the planning process. Since the initial delineation of service areas, the planning and management process has become much more complex and multi-faceted, thus greater detail in the explanation of the updating process is required. The process of updating and refining sewer service area plans consists of the following major steps:

1. identification of planning area limits; 2. delineation of environmentally sensitive areas; 3. identification and quantification of existing conditions; 4. refinement of goals, objectives and policies; 5. forecast of urban growth and redefinition of service area limits; 6. public and community input; and 7. adoption and publication of final plans.

IDENTIFICATION OF PLANNING AREA LIMITS The first step in delineating sewer service areas is the outlining of broad planning areas which include all feasible options for where urban growth might occur within the 20-year planning period (through the year 2030). Planning area boundaries generally include all areas within existing city, village and sanitary district limits. Undeveloped lands surrounding these entities are also included based on the potential ability to provide sewer service in the long-term future according to the existing/planned wastewater treatment and collection system. Additionally, clusters of nearby, existing development may be included if sewer may be warranted in the future due to failing on-site systems. Planning areas also serve as the study areas for wastewater facilities planning efforts. DELINEATION OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS Environmentally sensitive areas are geographic areas consisting of all lakes and streams shown on the USGS quadrangle maps and adjacent shoreland buffer areas as defined in Figure 1. All wetlands shown on the state Wisconsin Wetland Inventory Maps and floodways as delineated on the official Federal Emergency Management Administration Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps are also designated environmentally sensitive. The environmentally sensitive areas are mapped on the sewer service area file photos and are also shown on the maps contained in this plan.


62

The purpose of designating environmentally sensitive areas is to preserve significant environmental features from encroachment by sewered development. Environmentally sensitive areas perform a variety of important environmental functions including stormwater drainage, flood water storage, pollutant entrapment, and the provision of wildlife habitat. They can also provide desirable green space to enhance urban aesthetics. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources through Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 121.05(g)(2)(c), has developed guidelines which serve as minimum criteria for the identification and delineation of environmentally sensitive areas. The WDNR’s code guidance document states:

"Environmentally sensitive areas will be used for all environmental features that should be excluded from sanitary sewer service areas."2

East Central, after deliberations with technical and policy advisory committees, defined environmentally sensitive areas in a manner that complements existing local, state and federal regulations which protect various environmental amenities. While NR 121 authorizes sewer service area plans to identify a broad array of natural features as environmentally sensitive areas, only those features which were believed vital in the East Central Wisconsin Region to preserve environmental quality were so designated. Although the delineation of environmentally sensitive areas is intended to provide adequate long term and uniform environmental protection for all sewer service areas within the East Central Wisconsin Region, the environmentally sensitive area classification may be changed in two ways in response to specific local development proposals. First, the classification can be removed provided that the conditions outlined in Section (E) of the Sewer Service Area Amendment Process are met. This re-designation is considered a major change. Major changes have the potential for significant impacts on water quality and would require the concurrence of the East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission and the Department of Natural Resources before these changes would become effective for the purpose of reviewing sanitary sewer extensions. Examples include:

1. Removal of any mapped wetland area for sewered development, unless resulting from an activity exempted by state administrative rules governing wetland protection [NR 117.05(2)] or state approved rezoning of wetlands;

2. Reduction of a delineated floodway of any navigable stream or river, or removal of any

area below the ordinary high water mark of a navigable stream, pond, or lake; and

3. Total removal or change in the continuity of any corridor segment including floodways, wetlands, shoreland buffer strips or steep slopes adjacent to water bodies. The water quality benefit associated with the portion of the corridor removed must be provided in the development proposal.

2 ”Guidance for Approving Sewer Service Area Plans and Plan Amendments." WDNR Correspondence, February, 1982.


63

In the second instance, the environmentally sensitive areas may be modified by a minor change. Refinements and minor changes do not require prior approval of the East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission or the Department of Natural Resources. However, as part of the sanitary sewer extension review process, East Central has to be informed of the change before it is effective. East Central is then responsible for informing the Department of Natural Resources of the change. Refinements and minor changes are generally of two types. The first type involves changes resulting from revised, improved or more detailed background resource information to include:

a) Improved or revised WDNR certified floodway delineations resulting from revised flood studies; and

b) Revised wetland boundaries on the Wisconsin Wetland Inventory Maps resulting from

field inspections by WDNR personnel or resulting from an approved rezoning. The second type involves changes which would not seriously affect water quality and are the result of specific development proposals to include:

a) Relocation of a non-navigable stream or drainageway as long as the environmental integrity of the stream or drainageway is preserved.


64

Figure 1


65

IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS The ability to inventory existing conditions both quantitatively and qualitatively are paramount to evaluating land use and development trends and impacts. Aerial photos are the basis for identifying and quantifying land uses within the East Central region. Comparing aerial photos at different time intervals can establish trends in types and magnitude of land uses. East Central's 2008 aerial photography and land use inventory was the last complete coverage of the Fox River Valley and the region. For the most up-to-date coverage, aerial photography flown by individual counties at various times is utilized. This information is supplemented by land use maps prepared from spot field surveys. Acreages for major land use categories are computer digitized and aggregated by section-township-range. Totals are also calculated for each town, town sanitary district, village, city and county within the planning area. In conjunction with the land use mapping program, all village and city municipal boundaries, as well as sanitary district limits, are identified on the aerial photos and transferred to the sewer service area digital maps. Sanitary sewerage systems for all communities are identified on the sewer service area GIS data files. The location and size of most sewer collectors, mains, and interceptors (18” or larger), as well as forcemains are mapped in detail. In addition, the locations of all lift stations, pump stations and wastewater treatment facilities are shown. These maps are continually updated as new sewer extensions are reviewed by East Central. Additionally, "holding tank" service areas, if they exist, are identified on the GIS system within the planning areas. Important for analyzing the planning areas, existing urban development areas are delineated on digital maps based on land uses shown on the 2000 aerial photos. Urban development areas consist of all concentrations of development within the planning area, together with undeveloped lands which are sewered or otherwise committed for short-term development. These urban development areas are, in most instances, the minimal land areas which should be designated as sewer service areas. In addition to the development information included on the digital maps, existing sewer service area boundaries are identified to determine the location and amount of land currently available for development outside of the urban development areas. This land, in most instances, is the area which has been the primary long-term growth area forecast in the 2030 sewer service area plan. These lands are automatically included within the updated sewer service area. In addition to the designations of environmental sensitive areas (shorelands, wetlands and floodways), other areas with natural characteristics which could impact environmental quality or development potential are identified. These areas are termed areas with "limiting environmental conditions" and include lands with seasonal high groundwater (within one foot of the surface), floodplain areas, lands with shallow bedrock (within five feet of the surface) and areas with steep slopes (12 percent or greater). Unlike the environmentally sensitive areas, development is not excluded from land with limiting environmental conditions. The primary purpose of identifying these areas is to alert communities and potential developers of environmental conditions which should be considered prior to the development of such an area.


66

Complementing the information placed upon the digital maps, additional data is collected on existing population, numbers of dwelling units, mixes and densities of residential development, existing employment by type and amount, and densities of industrial, commercial and institutional development. Much of this information is available from the 2000 and later census materials; other information is gathered from state and local sources. This data is contained in East Central's data and GIS files for each sewer service area. REFINEMENT OF GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES The conceptual and philosophical bases for sewer service area planning are the goals, objectives and policies. As stated earlier, the service area planning process has become much more complex since it was first initiated. In response to changing conditions, major refinements were made to the original 1990 goals, objectives and policies over the years. This effort was accomplished early in the planning process in order to give direction to decisions involving the amount of growth in a given service area, especially the allocation and location of future growth. A significant policy change involves the requirement of adopted community comprehensive plans prior to SSA plan updates in the urbanized areas for the year 2000. An additional change involves urban service delivery criteria which recommend thresholds and standards for levels of urban services. The goals, objectives and policies are included in Appendix D of the plan. FORECAST OF URBAN GROWTH The forecasting of urban growth and development within the East Central region involves two primary analytical processes. These are 1) population projections and related dwelling unit and employment estimates, and 2) allocation of land use acreage. This process answers the question of the quantity and location of new growth. The process utilizes the sewer service area policies and various planning and development standards as a technical basis. Population Projections Population projections are the key factor in forecasting urban growth. The projections used are the 2000-2030 Department of Administration (DOA) population projections by five year increments for individual counties. DOA utilizes the cohort component method of population projection. These are the official state projections, consistent with U.S. Bureau of Census State of Wisconsin projections. The DOA county projections are required to be used as control totals in accordance with Wis. Admin. Code NR-121 for the development of sewer service area plans. A detailed description of the population projection process is included in the East Central report Population Characteristics of the East Central Region, October, 2004. The official DOA projections have been updated for this plan using the DOA annual population estimates for the counties and individual MCD's. East Central has developed a process for distributing the county population projections to the minor civil division (MCD) level. This estimating process uses the "share-of-the-county trending methodology." This methodology is used for all communities within the East Central region, with


67

the exception of the Fox Cities, Oshkosh, Sherwood and Fond du Lac. In these areas, a special procedure is used which establishes "urban area" control totals. These control totals are then allocated to Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ's) in the Fox Cities, Oshkosh and Sherwood areas and Special Analysis Zones (SAZ's) in the Fond du Lac area. This special projection process is needed because of the complex jurisdictional interrelationships of cities, villages and sanitary districts within these areas. Residential Development In addition to population projections, household size and housing densities are required to determine residential land needs. Household formation rates are estimated and translated into household size. The household size thus represents a typical dwelling unit which can be compared to population projections for estimating future dwelling units. The household size for the East Central region has been steadily declining and is anticipated to continue to decline. Thus, an anomaly occurs in which a community may not experience an increase in population, but still form new households which require new housing construction. Once household size is established, residential development densities and the mixture of single-family/multifamily uses is determined. The number of dwelling units per acre is determined from existing residential development densities for the three major urban areas using recent subdivision plats for calculation purposes. Planned (future) densities are based on either locally adopted land use plan policies or, in the case where plans did not exist or a density was not specified, an assumption was made that existing densities will continue into the future. The mix of residential development is determined from existing land use and building permit records from the various communities. The residential mix varies greatly from community to community. Community specific mixes are used for freestanding communities; however, standardized splits for the Fox Cities, Sherwood and Fond du Lac areas are developed and applied within the growth forecast method. Population projections divided by household size establishes the number of dwelling units. The number of dwelling units by type (single or multifamily) divided by the density per acre results in the number of acres of residential land required. The resultant acreage is allocated as residential growth for land areas within each planning area. Non-Residential Development Forecasts of nonresidential development are also based upon population projections for sewer service area planning. There is, however, a significant difference between the methodology used for the three urban areas and the outlying rural planning areas. Within the urban areas the population projections plus a commuter variable serve as a basis for estimating future employment. These employment estimates are used in conjunction with documented employment densities (number of employees per acre) for various land use types and employment categories to determine acreage needs for future nonresidential employment. Similar to the household participation rates for calculating dwelling units, labor force participation rates are used to calculate employment for various employment categories. After future employment is estimated for


68

commercial and industrial uses, densities are applied (employees per acre) and total acres of the land needs are calculated. This acreage is then allocated within particular planning areas. In the outlying areas, a much simpler process for forecasting nonresidential growth is required, because of deficiencies in labor force and employment data available for small communities. Furthermore, because these communities have a small commercial and industrial base, a refined process for estimating future employment could be subject to extreme error. Local initiative for promoting development is a greater factor in future growth than statistical trends. A simple forecast method is used which calculates the existing amount of nonresidential development per capita within the area then multiplies this amount by the population growth for the planning period resulting in the amount of non-residential acreage required. Growth Allocation After the amount of growth is calculated for residential and nonresidential uses within each planning area, the process of allocating this growth acreage is undertaken. The allocation process (where growth should occur) is complex, and must integrate service area growth policies, planning standards and criteria, local politics, as well as historical and market growth trends for a particular planning area. The allocation process establishes the future growth areas within each sewer service area. A major product of the allocation process is the mapping of growth areas. Again, the project’s GIS files are used to designate these growth areas. The following criteria and standards are utilized in the designation of growth areas: 1. All areas within a planning area which are currently served with public sanitary sewers shall be

designated sewer service areas. Areas along existing and proposed (WDNR approved) sewer collector or interceptor lines (forcemains excluded) shall be designated sewer service areas. The depth of the sewer service area boundary line shall be to the average lot depth (maximum 400 feet) bordering the sewer or where average lot depths cannot be distinguished to line 200 feet from the sewer line. Development within this area is generally considered to be serviceable by a private sewer lateral.

2. Unsewered areas of development within close proximity to existing sanitary sewer lines where

the cost-effectiveness of the extension of sewers is not questionable shall be included in the service area. These areas have generally been designated as an urban development area. Where the cost-effectiveness of sewering areas of existing development is questionable, these areas shall be designated with the approval of WDNR wastewater facility plans.

3. Areas of existing development with approved wastewater facility plans shall be designated

sewer service areas. (Note: Various areas of existing development previously designated have been dropped because of lack of approved wastewater facilities plans.)

4. The acreage allocations of future development areas should approximate residential,

commercial, industrial and institutional growth projections. Once final acreage is determined a


69

20% "market factor" of developable acreage will be added to adjust for land development flexibility, unless otherwise noted.

5. Environmentally sensitive areas shall be excluded from the sewer service area.

6. Holding tank service areas shall be designated for existing large holding tanks defined in NR113

and for areas of existing development where no cost-effective alternative to the installation of a large holding tank is available. The cost-effective analysis is to be prepared by the owner. All large and individual holding tank wastes are disposed of in accordance with NR113.

The standards and criteria for allocating future growth areas are policy based. These considerations are: 1. Urban development patterns should incorporate planned areas of mixed use and density that

are clustered and compatible with adjacent uses. 2. The allocation of future urban development should maximize the use of existing urban facilities

and services. 3. Future urban development should be encouraged to infill vacant developable lands within

communities and then staged outward adjacent to existing development limits. 4. Future commercial and industrial development should expand upon existing areas and be

readily accessible to major transportation systems. 5. The boundaries of urban development should consider natural and man-made features such as

ridge lines, streams and major highways. 6. Residential land use patterns should maximize their accessibility to public and private supporting

facilities. 7. Urban development should be directed to land suitable for development and discouraged on

unsuitable land, such as floodplains, areas of high bedrock, and areas of high groundwater. 8. Environmentally sensitive areas shall be excluded from the sewer service area to protect water

quality. 9. Future urban development should pose no significant adverse impacts to surface or groundwater. 10. Urban development should be located in areas which can be conveniently and economically

served by public facilities. 11. The waiver of acreage allocations based on density standards for large lot developments will be

considered if the installation of sewers is cost-effective and the community adopts a specific site development plan and subdivision plat for the area specifying no smaller subdivision of parcels will be allowed.


70

12. The allocations should be consistent with adopted local comprehensive plans within the

planning area. Combined with the policy-based criteria for allocating future development areas are various considerations involving the direction of growth trends and short term "market" factors. These considerations primarily involve experienced judgments by planning staff and consultations with local planning and development officials. Early in the service area planning process, a policy decision was made that the total allocated growth acreage for individual sewer service areas as delineated in the 1995 adopted plans and subsequent amendments would not be reduced in quantity. This policy was applied to all sewer service areas which have a sewerage system or which have WDNR approved wastewater facilities plans for a sewerage system. The impact of this policy is that the areas available for future growth in various sewer service areas sometimes are greater than the updated forecast growth which is to be allocated. The result of this policy is that there are fewer service areas where the existing service area boundaries need to be expanded. PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION Citizen participation during the update of the service area plans has been and is encouraged throughout the process. In this service area planning update, Goals, Objectives and Policies were refined in conjunction with the Transportation/Land Use Plan update process. Ad hoc Technical Advisory Committees (TACs) were formed and refined the policies during 2004 and 2005. General public participation is sought from communities and counties during the plan update process through individual meetings with the entities. Public information meetings were held for each sewer service area once draft maps were completed. The purpose of sewer service area planning, the planning process, existing conditions of the service area and growth forecasts are explained. As a follow-up to these meetings (in smaller communities these meetings are com-bined) additional meetings are held for communities within each sewer service area to address specific issues. The designated service area boundaries are reviewed as part of these meetings. Public information meetings are listed in Appendix A of the service area plan. A final public hearing is noticed and held as part of the Community Facilities Committee meeting and approval. ADOPTION AND PUBLICATION OF FINAL PLANS Each individual sewer service area is adopted by the East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission as an element of the Commission's regional land use plan. After adoption, the plans are submitted to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for certification as an element of the Fox River Water Quality Management Plan or appropriate river basin plan. After WDNR certification the plan becomes effective and copies of the final plans are distributed to the affected communities.


71

SEWER SERVICE AREA AMENDMENT AND UPDATE PROCESS – August, 2004

BACKGROUND The East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission has adopted "An Amendment Policy and Procedure For Sewer Service Areas" to enable sewer service area plans to be amended in response to changing conditions and community plans. This procedure provides a flexible, yet equitable and uniform basis for revising sewer service area boundaries. This chapter was updated, with input from the Land Use Advisory Committee, during 1999/2000 as part of addressing policy issues related to the Long-Range Fox Cities, Oshkosh, and Fond du Lac Transportation/Land Use Plan Addendum and certain provisions will apply to the communities illustrated in Exhibit 10. When an amendment is requested, East Central recommends that a representative from the government entity with Designated Management Agency (DMA) status meet with East Central staff to discuss the proposal prior to submission. Most documentation and questions needed for the evaluation of the amendment can be addressed at that time. EAST CENTRAL REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION East Central's Community Facilities Committee will review the proposed amendment within approximately 30 days of receipt of the request. The review will include a staff evaluation of the consistency of the proposal with East Central's amendment policies and criteria. The review will also include an evaluation of comments and recommendations received from local units of government and agencies notified of the proposal by East Central. The applicant may be requested to appear at the Community Facilities Committee meeting if there are significant issues involved. The Community Facilities Committee shall recommend approval or disapproval of the amendment. Upon approval, the amendment request and Commission recommendation(s) shall be submitted to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to request revision of the applicable Water Quality Management Plan. WDNR REVIEW AND APPROVAL The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources will review the East Central recommendations for the service area amendment. If the service area amendment does not involve an area greater than 1,000 acres or greater than 5 percent of the total service area the Department should approve the amendment and certify the applicable Water Quality Management Plan within approximately 45 days after submittal. If the proposal is over 1,000 acres or 5 percent of the total service area, and/or if the project involves the development of an Environmentally Sensitive Area the Department may require the preparation of an environmental assessment statement under NR-150 with public comment period on Type 2 Actions. This may lengthen the approval period to three months or greater. Once WDNR decision is made, and if approved, East Central can review sewer extensions and submit comments to the WDNR for sewer extension plan approval.


72

Exhibit 10– Sewer Service Area Amendment Standards And Update Procedures Application Area

C. OSHKOSH

HARRISON

CALUMETNEKIMI

T. VINLAND

T. CLAYTON

EMPIRE

BROTHERTOWN

BLACK WOLF

FRIENDSHIP

GREENVILLE

TAYCHEEDAH

C. NEENAH

T. GRANDCHUTE

T. KAUKAUNA

BUCHANAN

ALGOMA

APPLETON

T. FOND DU LAC

T. MENASHA

LITTLE CHUTE

V. N FOND DU LAC

NEENAH

OSHKOSH

C. MENASHA

C. FOND DU LAC

T. VANDENBROEK

V. SHERWOOD

C. KAUKAUNA

V. COMB.LOCKS

KIMBERLY


73

The formal Sewer Service Area amendment process includes the following elements: Section I: Amendment Policies

A. Sewer service area boundaries may be modified (acreage swap) provided no increase in the total acreage of the specific sewer service area occurs. The newly added area shall have Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) delineated prior to the amendment approval. The land comprised of an ESA will not require a swap for and equal amount of acreage. Acreage swaps may occur on a regional basis within the same sewer service area. (i.e., added and deleted acreage does not have to be within the same community). Swap amendments less than 100 acres in size which do not have designated ESAs within, or immediately adjacent to, the area to be added may be approved by the Community Facilities Committee only and shall not require the approval of the WDNR so long as they are non-controversial and are consistent with the community’s adopted comprehensive plan. The WDNR will be notified of all Commission approved swaps and will allow 14 days for any voluntary WDNR review and comment prior to Commission staff sending out approval letters. All review procedures and criteria still apply to such amendments (policy amendment approved by WDNR on 08/26/04).

B. Sewer service area boundaries may be swapped on an acre for acre basis (vacant,

developable lands only) provided a documented need for a sanitary sewer collection system exists for areas of existing urban development. Newly added area will have Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) delineated prior to the amendment approval. The land comprised of an ESA will not require a swap for and equal amount of acreage. Acreage swaps may occur on a regional basis within the same sewer service area (i.e., added and deleted acreage does not have to be within the same community).

C. Sewer service area boundaries may be expanded (overall increase in net developable

acreage) provided a documented need for sanitary sewers to serve a proposed unique facility or development exists.

D. Sewer service areas may be expanded (overall increase in net developable acreage) to

provide the flexibility to accommodate unanticipated short-term development based upon accelerated growth which exceeds the forecasted total service area growth rate in the plan. The requesting DMA shall have the community(ies) certify that the proposed amendment area is required for reason-able community growth and is consistent with locally adopted land use plans.

E. Sewer service area boundaries may be modified by the re-designation of previously

identified environmentally sensitive areas consistent with all the following standards:

1. The environmentally sensitive area is immediately adjacent to an existing sewer service area.

2. Appropriate local, state and federal environmental permits are granted for the proposed development prior to the final approval of the amendment request.


74

3. Major re-designations shall pose no significant adverse water quality impacts. Major re-designations include:

a. removal of any mapped wetland area for sewered development unless

resulting from an activity exempted by state administrative rules governing wetland protection [NR 117.05(2)] or state approved rezoning of wetlands.

b. any change which would reduce a delineated floodway of any navigable

stream or river, or which would remove any area below the ordinary high water mark of a navigable stream, pond or lake.

c. any change resulting in the total removal or in the continuity of any corridor

segment including floodways, wetlands, shoreland buffer strips or steep slopes adjacent to water bodies. The water quality benefit that was associated with the portion of the corridor removed must be provided for in the development.

4. The re-designated acreage will be added to the Sewer Service Area’s total acreage.

F. Sewer service area boundaries may be modified or expanded to correct an error in the

maps, data, projections or allocations of the adopted Sewer Service Area Plan. Section II: Amendment Criteria Any proposed amendment shall be reviewed according to the following criteria:

A. The cost-effectiveness of the proposed amendment will be compared to other alternatives. East Central may require this determination from the applicant. Amendments submitted under Policy B shall require such a determination from the applicant, and;

B. The environmental impacts of the proposed amendment shall be assessed in

accordance with the criteria established in the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources environmental assessment checklist. The Commission will evaluate the ability of the existing sewerage facilities to transport and treat the projected flows and will provide a water quality evaluation statement. East Central may also prescribe safeguards or impose additional conditions deemed necessary to protect the water quality in the area.

C. Amendments within the Urbanized Area SSA’s (see Exhibit 10) should be consistent

with East Central's Long-Range Transportation/Land Use Plan Addendum’s goals, objectives and policies, particularly for density standards, as follows:


75

Policy 1.3 conformance:

a) The average net residential density of the buildable plat area is more than or equal to 1 unit per acre; or

b) The community has illustrated that development proposal meets the density

requirements by being part of an overall “mixed density” concept documented in its local land use plan which meets the policy intent. (Note: Should amendments occur over time primarily for low density development which does not meet the one acre requirement, and no higher density development occurs, Section V, Urbanized Area Standard (1)(d) will apply at the next scheduled plan update).

c) If an amendment takes place which includes lands planned for residential

development, without being platted prior to the amendment, ECWRPC will require an assurance from the community in the form of a resolution stating that the development will meet these requirements. At the time of platting, ECWRPC will require that a copy of the preliminary plat be submitted for review.

D. Amendment areas under Section I Policy A And D shall have a common boundary with

the current sewer service area and shall not create a void within the service area.

E. Policy B (existing development) amendments must be contained within an approved SSA Planning Area. This boundary can be reviewed and considered for modification as a separate process if necessary.

F. Amendment areas under Section I Policy A and B involving the "swap" of land acreage

shall, to the extent possible, utilize consistent land use areas on an acre for acre basis, based on the community’s locally adopted and Commission certified Comprehensive Plan (for Urbanized Area communities). Should the community not have enough of a particular type of land designated in its locally adopted Comprehensive Plan to allow for a swap, the community should consider utilizing the “regional swap” policy prior to submitting the amendment under Policy D. Any community affected by a “regional swap” shall be notified and given an opportunity to comment prior to Commission approval of the amendment.

G. Amendments submitted under Policy C – Unique Facilities, not only fit the definition

contained in this plan, but the applicant must also submit additional information which illustrates that all impacts, including secondary land use impacts, and their effects on water quality, transportation, and public service provision be addressed prior to the Commission recommending approval of the amendment. Such amendment requests must also be consistent with locally adopted Comprehensive Plans. Amendments under this policy may be approved conditionally by the Commission so that other necessary approvals can occur concurrently.


76

Section III: Amendment Procedures Proposed sewer service area amendments shall be reviewed according to the following procedure:

A. Requests for sewer service area amendments should be made by the governmental entity that has received Designated Management Agency (DMA) status and that will be expected to serve the area. Units of government seeking an amendment to the sewer service area boundary should transmit a letter requesting the amendment to East Central along with the following documentation:

1. A map of the proposed expansion area and, if required, any area to be deleted

(swapped) which affects the boundary modification;

2. Estimates of existing and anticipated population, wastewater generation and means of collection from the area;

3. A description of the type of existing development and/or the type of future

development expected to occur;

4. Ability of the treatment facility to treat the anticipated wastewater;

5. Methods of stormwater management and regulation for the added service area and surrounding areas which may be impacted; and

6. Documentation that all property owners in areas proposed to be deleted

(swapped) were notified of this request by the unit of government seeking the amendment. Any landowner potentially affected by the removal of property from the SSA shall be notified by the requesting entity at least 14 days prior to the scheduled Community Facilities Committee meeting at which the amendment will be addressed. Failure to do so will result in the tabling of the amendment request until the next regularly scheduled meeting (policy amendment approved by WDNR on 08/26/04).

7. Plan Commission or Board action as required under Section I - Policy D.

8. Amendments submitted under Section 1 – Policy B, for Urbanized Area

communities (see Exhibit) will require that additional information be submitted and criteria be met as follows:

a) Documentation that the community’s locally adopted Comprehensive Plan

illustrates the area as a future urban growth area which will be provided a full range of services as spelled out in the Urbanized Area Long-Range Transportation/Land Use Plan Addendum’s density standards, and;


77

b) A determination of the cost-effectiveness of providing public sanitary sewer versus on-site system replacement. This determination should be consistent with NR-110 requirements, and;

c) Documentation that approximately 30% of the existing on-site systems

within the proposed amendment area be considered failing (direct need), and;

d) Documentation that approximately 30% or more of the balance of existing

on-site systems within the proposed amendment area are subject to failure based on the physical condition of the on-site system itself and / or the physical characteristics of the subject site (indirect need);

Documentation for c) and d) above can be in the form of: copies of County or State orders for on-site system replacement; copies of existing on-site system inspection reports; letters from the County Sanitarian indicating that the systems are failing or have the potential to fail; or documentation of recent private well tests which show bacterial contamination likely resulting from on-site system failure.

B. Based on this information the Community Facilities Committee, designated as the

review committee by the East Central's bylaws, will review the proposed amendment to determine whether it meets the standards set forth in the Sewer Service Area Amendment Process. If no significant adverse water quality impacts are involved, the East Central shall recommend approval of the Plan amendment and submit it to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for State plan certification.

C. Requests for amendments under Policy F pertaining strictly to the addition of

‘transporting sewers’ (i.e. interceptors and forcemains which do not directly service new development) may be initiated by East Central staff upon written request of the DMA and would be submitted directly the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for review and certification without the need for Community Facilities Committee approval. The Department would review and certify such amendments within 5 to 10 working days from receipt of staff’s submittal. Please note that the information needs, as noted above, as well as the conformance with existing review criteria are still required for East Central and the Department to process such amendments (policy amendment approved by WDNR on 08/26/04).

Section IV: Appeal If an applicant feels that a hardship exists in the strict interpretation and application of the amendment standards and criteria, consideration may be given to providing relief through a variance subject to the following requirements:

A. The hardship to the community is significant and widespread owing to substantial pre-existing financial or legal commitments for sanitary sewer service.


78

B. The major objectives of the sewer service area plans can be met.

C. The appeal shall be submitted to the Chairman of East Central for action at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Commission. Further appeals may be submitted to Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

Section V: SSA Plan Update Procedures and Standards Even though local, regional, and state levels of government engage in planning activities to direct their future, individual or multiple conditions can change over time. Some can be predicted and handled proactively (Comm. 83, demographics, etc.), while some occur rapidly and generally without much warning (economic conditions, regional growth patterns and rates, market demands, etc.). Sewer Service Area Plans are meant to be a proactive type of plan which identifies future sewered growth areas based on cost-effectiveness service provision, water quality, and regional cooperation/coordination. When conditions change, these plans need to be updated to reflect those changes. This section describes the conditions under which Sewer Service Area Plans are updated and how previously developed and approved regional goals, objectives, and policies (i.e. Urbanized Area Long Range Transportation/Land Use Plan Addendum) will apply prior to, during, or after the Update process. Minimum Update Procedures and Standards (for all Sewer Service Areas) SSA Plans will be updated on an approximate 5-year interval. Funding, staff availability, urban growth demands, and regional/state policy changes/proposals may alter this time interval. When updated, the following items will be addressed: 1) A review and update of population, housing, and employment trends and projections; 2) A review and update of land use demands based on socio-economic conditions and

projections; 3) A review and update of existing physical conditions, including:

(a) Existing land uses (b) Proposed land uses (based on local, county, regional, and state plans) (c) Water quality and natural resource (ESA) characteristics, changes, and issues;

4) A description of relevant events since the last plan update pertaining to sanitary sewer or

having an impact on future sewer service, including: (a) Major WWTF improvements or changes; (b) Major collection system improvements or changes; (c) Local governmental changes (i.e., sanitary district formations, intergovernmental

boundary / service agreements, Comprehensive Plan updates, regulations and requirements, etc.)

(d) SSA Plan amendments and acreage consumption since the last plan update

5) A review and modification of mapping elements, if necessary, to accommodate future sewered growth and development, including:


79

(a) Proposed major sewer system improvements and/or regional connections (b) A revised twenty-year Sewer Service Area Boundary; (c) A revised forty-fifty year Planning Area Boundary; (d) Environmentally Sensitive Areas

6) A review of local governmental actions and regulations which have implemented the Sewer

Service Area Plan; 7) An update of citizen information/education and participation efforts; 8) A review of the institutional structure for plan update and amendment review and approval

and for plan implementation; 9) A review / revision of goals, objectives, and policies, if necessary; 10) The development of recommendations and strategies for plan implementation.

Urbanized Area Procedures And Standards The Urbanized Area Procedures and Standards will apply to the following communities: City of Appleton, City of Kaukauna, Village of Combined Locks, Village of Kimberly, Village of Little Chute, Town of Buchanan, Town of Grand Chute, Town of Greenville, Town of Kaukauna, Town of Vandenbroek, City of Menasha, Village of Sherwood, Town of Harrison, City of Fond du Lac, Village of North Fond du Lac, Town of Calumet, Town of Empire, Town of Fond du Lac, Town of Friendship, Town of Taycheedah, City of Neenah, City of Oshkosh, Town of Algoma, Town of Black Wolf, Town of Menasha, Town of Neenah, Town of Nekimi, Town of Oshkosh, Town of Vinland. The Urbanized Area Standards and Procedures include the above listed “Minimum” items, plus the following reviews of local conformance with policies and requirements as spelled out in the Urbanized Area Long-Range Transportation/Land Use Plan Addendum, including: 1) Addendum Policy 1.3 Conformance - A review of local development densities within the

SSA occurring between plan updates and their conformance with the minimum residential density requirement will need to be met as follows:

(a) Areas within the SSA prior to WDNR certification date of the 1997 (or subsequent)

Sewer Service Area Plan Update are not required to meet this policy, however; ECWRPC staff will consider new residential developments which have occurred after this date as part of the overall density calculation (therefore this will not penalize communities for recent development meeting the criteria and being “banked” for lower densities elsewhere within the SSA).

(b) Areas allocated and approved as part of the 1997 (or subsequent) Plan Update are required to meet policy

(c) Areas amended to SSA after 1997 update are required to meet policy (see SSA Plan Amendment Policies and Procedures section for additional information)


80

(d) If an individual community does not meet the density requirements spelled out in the Transportation/Land Use Plan Addendum it will not be eligible for additional Sewer Service Area acreage allocations in subsequent plan updates.

2) Addendum Policy 1.4 – A review of local unsewered development patterns and locations and

advisory recommendations pertaining to such information; 3) Comprehensive Plan Guidelines – A review of local land use plan for conformance with the

Guidelines and the communities’ plan certification status.

Section VI: Definitions Sewer Service Area: An area defined and approved by the WDNR under Wisconsin Administrative Code, NR-121 with the assistance, and recommendation from, the East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission and input from the communities involved and the general public. This boundary delineates areas which can be provided public sanitary sewer more cost-effectively than on-site treatment methods over a 20-year period. ECWRPC determines this boundary based on the following information (all of which are not necessarily listed in NR-121):

1) Definition and mapping of Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs); 2) Justified acreage allocations based on projected 20-year growth and development using

ECWRPC accepted methodologies; 3) Projected available 20-year capacity of wastewater treatment plant from publicly sewered

development and established holding tank receiving areas; 4) Facilities Plan listed projects and improvements; 5) Projected available 20-year capacity of interceptor sewers, force-mains, and lift stations; 6) Location of existing sanitary sewer lines; 7) Existing and projected 20-year development patterns (based on local land use plan and

zoning maps; 8) Proximity to development with known failing privately owned treatment works (POTWs)

(also referred to as on-site wastewater treatment systems); 9) Ability to provide recommended levels of urban service per the Addendum matrices. (This

would be addressed further as criteria for future allocations and amendments to the SSA); 10) Intergovernmental growth / service agreements (advisory only); and


81

11) The boundary itself is located, for administrative use, on the location of: a) Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs); b) Watershed, sub-watershed, and drainage basin boundaries; c) One lot depth (200-foot) buffer from existing sewer line locations; d) Quarter-section lines based on the Public Land Survey System (PLSS); e) MCD and Sanitary District Boundaries; f) Road centerlines; g) Lift station service areas (topography and depth); and h) Gravity and interceptor sewer service areas (topography and depth)

Sewer Service Area Planning Area: An area defined and approved by the WDNR under Wisconsin Administrative Code, NR-121 with the assistance, and recommendation from, the East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission and input from the communities involved and the general public. This is an area where urban growth is anticipated to occur over a longer period of time (40 to 50 years) where short-term conflicting land use development should be discouraged. This boundary serves the purpose of delineating long-term (40-50 year), cost-effective, urban growth areas. ECWRPC determines this boundary based on the following information (all of which are not necessarily listed in NR-121): 1) Definition and mapping of Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs);

2) Justified acreage allocations based on projected 50-year growth and development using

ECWRPC accepted methodologies;

3) Projected available 50-year capacity of wastewater treatment plant from publicly sewered development and establish holding tank receiving areas;

4) Projected available 50-year capacity of interceptor sewers, forcemains, and lift stations; 5) Existing and projected 20-year development patterns (based on local land use plan and

zoning maps); 6) Location of existing development with known problems, or potential risk for on-site system

failures; 7) Intergovernmental growth / service agreements; and

8) The boundary itself is located, for administrative use, on the location of:

a) Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs); b) Watershed, sub-watershed, and drainage area boundaries; c) Nearest quarter-section line of the Public Land Survey System (PLSS); d) MCD and Sanitary District boundaries; e) Wastewater treatment plant service areas (when multiple plants available); f) Road centerlines;


82

g) Lift station service areas (topography and depth); h) Interceptor sewer service areas (topography and depth); and i) Extraterritorial review jurisdiction of involved incorporated communities (this

would be utilized only at the discretion of all affected communities).

Existing Urban Development: A geographic area with densities of development suitable for the efficient and economic provision of urban services such as sanitary sewer, water, transportation and storm drainage (e.g. single family residential development greater than two units per gross acre). Unique Facility: A proposed facility that, regardless of location, is considered to be “unanticipated”; and is of “regional importance”. “Unanticipated” is defined as not being illustrated in a local community’s or county’s Comprehensive Plan, and was not anticipated or projected in the Sewer Service Area Plan during the previous update. “Regional importance” is defined as facility which, if constructed, will provide a widespread benefit to multiple local governmental jurisdictions within the Sewer Service Area. Examples of facilities fitting this criteria include state prisons, county landfills, regional public specialty facilities such as EAA, public museums or performing arts centers, churches, private (commercial) specialty facilities such as the Kaukauna dog track, opportunistic park/recreation/open space acquisitions, public golf courses, other state or federal facilities as deemed appropriate. Not eligible are any type of school facility, local government administrative office or facility, residential golf course developments, local parks, private campgrounds, local airports or related facilities. These types and locations of future facilities should be addressed, and their needs quantified, in the communities local land use plans and the sewer service area plan update process. These listings may be added to from time to time based on individual SSA Plan Amendment proposals. Those specific facilities not listed above would be reviewed based on their merits and conformance with the intent of this definition. Expansion Area: The geographic area proposed to be added to the existing sewer service area through the amendment process. Cost-effectiveness: Analysis of the long term costs for providing sanitary sewerage system alternatives. The analysis shall include monetary costs, environmental costs, as well as other non-monetary costs consistent with NR-110. Environmentally Sensitive Area: Geographic areas consisting of all lakes and streams shown on USGS quadrangle maps and their adjacent shoreland buffer areas. Also all wetlands shown on the state Wisconsin Wetland Inventory Maps and floodways as delineated on the official Federal Emergency Management Administration Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps.

I

Appendix A – Plan Development & Approval Documentation

II



VII

SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS

Quarterly Commission Meeting East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission ECWRPC Offices April 30, 2010 The meeting of the East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Dick Koeppen at 10:05 A.M. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. MOMENT OF SILENT MEDITATION III. ROLL CALL

Roll call was taken showing the following attendance: Commission Members Present Bill Barribeau ................................................................................................. Calumet County Patrick Laughrin ............................................................................................. Calumet County Bob Hermes .............................................................................................. Menominee County Robert “Toby” Paltzer ................................................................................. Outagamie County Clifford Sanderfoot ..................................................................................... Outagamie County Tim Hanna ................................................................................................ Outagamie County Helen Nagler .............................................................................................. Outagamie County Paul Hirte .................................................................................................. Outagamie County Ken Capelle .................................................................................................. Shawano County M. Eugene Zeuske ......................................................................................... Shawano County Dick Koeppen ................................................................................................ Waupaca County Duane Brown ................................................................................................ Waupaca County Norman Weiss ............................................................................................ Waushara County Neal Strehlow ............................................................................................ Waushara County Mark Harris ............................................................................................... Winnebago County David Albrecht ........................................................................................... Winnebago County Mark Rohloff (Alt. for Paul Esslinger) ............................................................ Winnebago County Ernie Bellin ................................................................................................. Winnebago County Jim Erdman ............................................................................................... Winnebago County Ken Robl ................................................................................................... Winnebago County Commission Members Excused Clarence Wolf ................................................................................................ Calumet County Ruth Winter .............................................................................................. Menominee County Jeremy Johnson (Alt. for Elizabeth Moses) ................................................... Menominee County Marshal Giese ............................................................................................... Shawano County DuWayne Federwitz ...................................................................................... Waupaca County Brian Smith .................................................................................................... Waupaca County Robert Maloney ........................................................................................... Waushara County Commission Members Absent Jim Steineke .............................................................................................. Outagamie County


VIII

Staff Members Present Eric Fowle ................................................................................................... Executive Director Walt Raith ................................................................................................... Assistant Director Kara Homan ................................................................................................ Associate Planner Dave Moesch ............................................................................................... Associate Planner Kathy Thunes ............................................................................................... Principal Planner Todd Verboomen ....................................................................................................... Planner Tom Baron ................................................................................................................ Planner Nick Musson .............................................................................................................. Planner Trish Nau ....................................................................................................... GIS Coordinator Mike Zuege .................................................................................................... GIS Specialist II Vicky Johnson ................................................................................. Administrative Coordinator Angie Cottrell ........................................................................................................... Controller Others Present Alice Connors ................................................................................................. Calumet County Larry Timm ................................................................................................. Waushara County Mike King ................................................................................................................. WisDOT Matt Halada .............................................................................................................. WisDOT Joe Galarowicz ................................................................................. Kerber, Rose & Associates Chair Koeppen noted that a quorum was present. A. Introduction of alternates and guests.

Chair Koeppen introduced the new commissioners Alice Connors, Calumet County and Larry

Timm, Waushara County. He noted that Jerry Erdmann, Shawano County is also a new commissioner and will be arriving late.

Chair Koeppen introduced Mike King and Matt Halada from WisDOT. IV. Statement of Compliance with Wis. Stats. Sec. 19.84 Regarding Open Meetings Requirements

Compliance with Wisconsin’s open meeting requirements was acknowledged.

V. Public Comment There being none made Chair Koeppen moved on to item VI. VI. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Barribeau motioned to approve the agenda, seconded by Mr. Paltzer. The motion passed

with 20 ayes, 0 nays. VII. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE January 29, 2010 QUARTERLY MEETING Mr. Brown moved to approve the summary of proceedings from the January 29, 2010 Quarterly

meetings, seconded by Mr. Weiss. Motion passed with 20 ayes and 0 nays. VIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS

a. Introduction of New Staff Member, Nick Musson/Other Staff News

Mr. Fowle introduced the Commission’s new transportation planner, Nick Musson.


IX

Mr. Fowle informed the Commissioners that Melissa Kramer Badtke, Transportation Planner/SRTS Program Coordinator, who just returned from maternity leave, will be going to a part time position or 30 hours per week May 1. He also noted that Kara Homan who is expecting her first child will be going on maternity leave in June.

b. Commissioner News Mr. Fowle noted that there have been some Commissioner changes due to the elections.

The most notable is Vice-Chair, Marshal Giese from Shawano County, losing his seat on the County Board. Mr. Giese was in line to be appointed Commission Chair at this year’s Annual Meeting. Jerry Erdmann was appointed to succeed Mr. Giese as the Shawano County Board Chair.

c. Recent Awards & Regulations (WLIA, WAPA, United Way)

Mr. Fowle announced that the Commission received an award from the Wisconsin Chapter of

the American Planning Association (WAPA) recognizing the Commission for its extraordinary efforts in comprehensive planning within the region.

At the Wisconsin Land Information Association (WLIA) Conference, Mike Zuege of the

Commission staff was awarded the President’s Choice Award and first place award in the poster category for the Menominee County/Town comprehensive plan map that he submitted.

Mr. Fowle said that for the second year, the Commission has won the silver award from

United Way. d. Media Reports

Mr. Fowle briefly explained the newspaper articles that were included in the Commissioner’s packets.

IX. PRESENTATION ON USH 41 PLANNING & EXPANSION – Mike King, WisDOT Mr. King handed out a schedule of projects for USH 41 and stated that USH 41 will be under

construction until 2016/2017. He continued by explaining some of the various projects. WisDOT is committed to keeping four lanes open at all times except at non-peak times like at night in Winnebago County. Seventeen miles in Winnebago County will be reconstructed, along with the addition of new lanes, reconstruction of seven interchanges and the addition of roundabouts. Other projects in Winnebago County involve the closing of the HWY 21 interchange in 2012; the three week closure of the north bound ramps in 2011; eight lanes across Lake Butte des Morts; USH 45 interchange reconstruction; and the construction of a twelve foot wide trail adjacent to 41 from 21 to Lake Butte des Morts Drive.

Mr. King highlighted some of the projects that are underway at present, such as the construction

at Washburn and Witzel and the construction of roundabouts on either side of the Witzel Avenue overpass with a completion date of September; the Snell Road overpass; new construction just north of HWY 45 for a new east to west connection which should be open by July; and the construction of one of the three roundabouts at the 45 interchange with a completion date of late August. He noted that there are incentives written into the contracts to encourage contractors to completed projects on time or ahead of schedule.

Mr. King explained in more detail some of the future projects that will be impacting HWY 41 such

as the reconstruction of 45/41 interchange which will result in the temporary closure of HWY 45;


X

and the reconstruction of the Breezewood interchange ramps with roundabouts and the alternate routes the trucks will be using temporarily during reconstruction.

Mr. King said that research on roundabouts have shown that they are much safer than the

traditional intersections. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety states that there are 39 percent less crashes, injuries decrease by 76 percent and fatalities decrease by about 90 percent in roundabouts. The capacity of a traffic signal is lower than a roundabout with traffic speeds being slower in a roundabout in order to maneuver thru. Mr. King stressed it is important to educate individuals on the use of roundabouts and reminded them that the same traffic laws apply as at a traffic signal regarding pedestrians.

Mr. Harris asked how much of these projects were funded with ARRA funds? Mr. King responded

he estimates that for the four major projects that were started last year it is in the $20 or $30 million range. The question was also asked how many people were employed for these projects? Mr. King was not sure, but said that possibly a 1,000, some for a day, others longer.

X. BUSINESS

A. Steering Committee

1. Acceptance of the Summary of Proceedings for the January 22 and March 12, 2010 Meetings.

Mr. Weiss motioned to approve the summary of Proceedings for the January 22 and

March 12 meetings, seconded by Mr. Sanderfoot. The motion passed with 20 ayes, 0 nays.

2. Review and Acceptance of the CY 2009 Audit Report – Kerber, Rose & Associates, S.C.

Mr. Fowle introduced Joe Galarowicz from Kerber, Rose & Associates, the Commission’s new auditor. Mr. Galarowicz briefing explained the 2009 Audit and stated that 2009 financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Commission as of December 31, 2008, and the changes in net assets and its cash flows for the year ended in conformity with accounting principles. Referring to the State of Net Assets he commented the item to note is the long term obligations, the unfunded pension liability, which will be addressed in 2010 and paid off, therefore saving the Commission interest costs. He noted that the budget to actual statement shows that the Commission is operating close to budget.

Mr. Rohloff motioned to approve the CY 2009 Audit Report, seconded by Mr. Brown. The motion passed with 20 ayes, 0 nays.

3. 1st Quarter, 2010 Financial Report

Ms. Cottrell referred to and explained the Income Statement she handed out prior to the meeting.

Mr. Weiss motioned to approve the 1st Quarter 2010 Financial Report, seconded by Mr.

Capelle. The motion passed with 20 ayes, 0 nays. 4. Proposed Resolution No. 05-10: Authorizing Commission Staff to Destroy Public

Records According to the Adopted “Records Retention Policy and Destruction Schedule”


XI

Mr. Fowle explained that when the Commission moved two years ago, a resolution was

adopted to get on course to destroy records in a timely manner. This was not done last year and there are two years of records to be destroyed. He requested the adoption of Proposed Resolution No. 05-10 to authorize the Commission to move forward and destroy the records as indicated.

Mr. Sanderfoot motioned to approve Proposed Resolution No. 05-10, seconded by Mr.

Harris. The motion passed with 20 ayes, 0 nays. 5. Proposed Resolution No. 10-10: Adopting a Public Records Access Policy to Ensure

Compliance with Wisconsin State Statutes 19.34 Mr. Fowle stated that the Commission did not have a Public Records Access Policy. Proposed Resolution No. 10-10 adopts a public records access policy and spells out the conditions and items that are required by the state statutes and has the proper forms and attachments. He noted that in the event that the Commission receives a public record request the Commission will be prepared. This will be posted in order to be in compliance.

Mr. Robl motioned to approve Proposed Resolution No. 10-10, seconded by Mr. Capelle. The motion passed with 20 ayes, 0 nays.

6. Ratify Resolution No. 12-10: Authorizing the Commission to Enter into a Contract

for the Economic Development Administration (EDA) Grant Administration Services Between the East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission and City of Omro, Wisconsin

Ms. Homan explained that Resolution No. 12-10 has been preapproved and authorized by

the Steering Committee in order to meet the April 26, 2010 EDA requirement. This resolution authorizes the Commission to contract with the City of Omro to provide grant administration services for the EDA grant that the City received to expand their industrial park. The resolution needs to be ratified by the full Commission.

Mr. Sanderfoot motioned to approve Resolution No. 12-10, seconded by Ms. Nagler. The

motion passed with 20 ayes, 0 nays.

B. Economic Development Committee

1. Chairman's Report (Eugene Zeuske)

2. Acceptance of the Summary of Proceedings for the January 13, 2010 meeting.

Mr. Zeuske motioned to approve the Chairman’s Report and the Summary of Proceedings for the January 13 meeting, seconded by Mr. Brown. The motion passed with 20 ayes, 0 nays.

3. Proposed Resolution No. 06-10: Supporting an Independent Study of Wisconsin’s

Economic Development Competitiveness and Positioning, Conducted by the Wisconsin Economic Development Association (WEDA), Competitive Wisconsin Inc. (CWI), Wisconsin Counties Association (WCA), and Wisconsin Economic Development Institute (WEDI)

Ms. Homan said that Proposed Resolution 06-10 states that the Commission supports

and endorses the preparation of the Wisconsin Economic Development Competitiveness and Positioning Study conducted by the Wisconsin Economic Development Association


XII

(WEDA), Competitive Wisconsin Inc. (CWI), Wisconsin Counties Association (WCA), and Wisconsin Economic Development Institute (WEDI).

Mr. Hanna motioned to approve Proposed Resolution No. 06-10, seconded by Mr. Brown. The motion passed with 20 ayes, 0 nays.

4. Proposed Resolution No. 07-10: Authorizing the Commission as an Economic

Development District to formally apply for a Second Supplemental Grant Increase from the Economic Development Administration for its 2009-2011 Planning Partnership Grant, Commit the Required Local Share, and to Execute the Necessary Agreements

Ms. Homan said that the Economic Development Administration indicated that there was an additional $20,000 available that could be added to the Commission’s existing three-year grant. Proposed Resolution No. 07-10 authorizes the Commission to commit the required matching funds.

Ms. Nagler motioned to approve Proposed Resolution No. 07-10, seconded by Mr. Hermes. The motion passed with 20 ayes, 0 nays.

5. Proposed Resolution No. 11-10: Authorizing the Commission as an Economic

Development District to Formally Co-apply for an Economic Development Administration (EDA) Community Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) Grant in Cooperation with the Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission, and to Execute the Necessary Agreements

Ms. Homan stated that Proposed Resolution No. 11-10 authorizes the Commission to assist the Northeast Wisconsin International Business Development Program apply for the EDA Community Trade Adjustment Assistance grant. The Northeast Wisconsin International Business Development Program is a program of the Green Bay Area Chamber of Commerce which covers multiple counties that expand the East Central Regional Planning Commission and the Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission areas. EDA’s grant structure does not allow non-profits to be applicants. Bay-Lake RPC and East Central RPC have applied as co-applicants on behalf of the Northeast Wisconsin International Business Development Program. The total amount of the grant is $133,500 with a matched amount of $66,500 by the Northeast Wisconsin International Business Development Program. She noted that it is written into the grant the East Central will be receiving $5,000 to administer the grant and act as a pass through agency.

Mr. Capelle motioned to approve Proposed Resolution No. 11-10, seconded by Mr.

Hermes. The motion passed with 20 ayes, 0 nays.

6. Economic Development Activities Mr. Fowle noted that Ms. Homan is working on a grant to USDA for funds that is not only

economic development but also includes the Fox River Heritage Parkway Project. Kathy Thunes of the Commission staff has been working with a representative from Foth and several communities in the area to examine the possibility that some DNR monies that are available for abandoned plant rehabilitation or a brownfields type of program would be suitable.

C. Open Space and Environmental Management Committee

1. Chairman's Report (Toby Paltzer)


XIII

2. Acceptance of the Summary of Proceedings for the January 12, 2010 meeting. Mr. Paltzer motioned to approve the Chairman’s Report and Summary of Proceedings of

January 12 meeting, seconded by Mr. Robl. The motion passed with 20 ayes, 0 nays.

3. Open Space and Environmental Committee Activities

Mr. Fowle stated that the Commission did not receive the EPA Regional Brownfield Assessment grant. The majority of the awarded projects were municipal level projects not regional or collaborate type projects, which was assumed to be the focus of the grant. The City of Oshkosh received $200,000. Mr. Fowle said that the Commission will be apply for funding through a new program, a joint effort from HUD, DOT and EPA on a livability initiative and grant program that lends to the sustainability type of aspects.

Mr. Fowle said that a couple of bills that are of importance to groundwater issues were

introduced in the legislation session, but the legislation has ended its session and the bills were not passed. One of the bills would establish provisions for groundwater protection within designated Karst Management Areas, which would include Calumet County. He noted that the nature of the highly susceptible fractured bedrock geology shows the need for this legislation, but suspects that the agricultural community will be opposed.

The second bill establishes standards and a process for designating areas in the state as groundwater management areas. The standards vary depending on whether an area has a confined aquifer or an unconfined aquifer. This bill would put the RPCs in a position to develop the plans and implement them for the groundwater management area although there does not appear to be any money involved.

D. Community Facilities Committee

1. Chairman's Report (Cliff Sanderfoot)

2. Acceptance of the Summary of Proceedings for the January 29, 2010 meeting.

Mr. Sanderfoot motioned to approve the Chairman’s Report and the Summary of Proceedings of the January 29, 2010 meeting, seconded by Mr. Brown. The motion passed with 20 ayes, 0 nays.

3. Status of Darboy S.D. Sewer Service Area Amendment Appeal Mr. Fowle stated that there has been no formal word as of this date. 4. Proposed Resolution No. 13-10: Approving the Updated Shawano Lake 2030

Sewer Service Area Plan Mr. Verboomen said that the Shawano Lake update added 3,000 acres to the planning

area and removed approximately 1,000 acres of planning area that were associated with wetlands and a lake management area that will never be developed. One key area that was added to the planning area was the County’s Maple Lane Health Facility that was identified as a long term need. Interest for public services to the facility subsided; therefore, it was not included in the plan. After the public hearing and after the approval of all the DMAs, interest resurfaced, therefore, if interest continues, this issue will be handled as a SSA amendment.


XIV

The proposed plan added approximately 1,500 acres to the sewer service area, just over

350 acres is considered developed and about 1,000 acres are considered vacant. There was a large portion of the Village of Cecil that was not served by the sewer service area boundary; therefore that acreage was added along with a large portion of the Town of Waukechon.

Mr. Bellin motioned to approve Proposed Resolution No. 13-10, seconded by Mr. Capelle.

The motion passed with 20 ayes, 0 nays.

E. Transportation Committee

1. Chairman's Report (Ken Robl)

2. Acceptance of the Summary of Proceedings for the January 19, 2010 meeting. Mr. Robl motioned to approve the Chairman’s Report and the Summary of Proceedings

of the January 19 meeting, seconded by Mr. Hirte. The motion passed with 20 ayes, 0 nays.

3. Ratify Resolution No. 04-10: Amending the Transportation Improvement Program

for the Fox Cities and Oshkosh Urbanized Areas – 2010

Mr. Moesch said that Resolution No. 04-10 was approved by the Steering Committee in March. He explained that WisDOT awarded a New Freedom grant, which is a transit grant for the disabled to get to and from work, to the “Make The Ride Happen” Program in Appleton. They were awarded operating funds and funds for mobility management. The second portion of the resolution deals with amended funding changes for the Oshkosh Transit System. Mr. Moesch noted that both these changes were required to be included in the TIP document.

Mr. Robl motioned to ratify Resolution No. 04-10, seconded by Mr. Strehlow. The

motion passed with 20 ayes, 0 nays. 4. Proposed Resolution No. 08-10: Amending the Transportation Improvement

Program for the Fox Cities and Oshkosh Urbanized Areas - 2010 Mr. Moesch explained that two highway projects that were in the 2007 TIP and were

delayed have now been split into two projects, USH 10/WIS 441 – E Junction WIS 114 and WIS 114/E Junction USH 10 – S Junction WIS 55. These projects are required to be included in the TIP in order to receive funding. The projects are slated to start this year.

Mr. Robl motioned to approve Proposed Resolution No. 08-10, seconded by Mr. Albrecht.

The motion passed with 20 ayes, 0 nays. 5. Proposed Resolution No. 09-10: Supporting a Constitutional Amendment to

Protect the State of Wisconsin Segregated Transportation Fund Mr. Raith said that the State has been transferring money out of the Segregated

Transportation Fund and using it for unrelated transportation projects. The money has been replaced with bonding. This affects the bonding rate for the State. He explained that Proposed Resolution No. 09-10 shows support from the Commission for an


XV

amendment to the State of Wisconsin Constitution that all funding from the Segregated Transportation Fund be used only for transportation.

Ms. Nagler stated her opposition to Proposed Resolution No. 09-10. Mr. Bellin motioned to approve Proposed Resolution No. 09-10, seconded by Mr. Robl.

The motion passed with 18 ayes, 2 nays (Ms. Nagler and Mr. Rohloff).

F. Regional Comprehensive Planning Committee

1. Chairman’s Report (Norm Weiss)

2. Approval of the Summary of Proceedings for the January 29, 2010 Meeting

Mr. Weiss motioned to approve the Chairman’s Report and the Summary of Proceedings for the January 29 meeting, seconded by Mr. Brown. The motion passed with 20 ayes, 0 nays.

XI. OTHER BUSINESS

A. Nominating Committee Report and Recommendations

Chair Koeppen stated that the Nominating Committee recommended Ken Capelle, Shawano County for Chair for a one year term and Bob Hermes, Menominee County for Vice-Chair for a one year term. Mr. Fowle said that because Shawano County was next in succession for the Chair position on the Commission, the Nominating Committee decided to keep to the order and elect Ken Capelle from Shawano County to the Chair position. He noted that he had discussed this situation with the new Shawano County Chair, Jerry Erdmann.

Mr. Barribeau motioned to approve the recommendations of the Nominating Committee,

seconded by Mr. Strehlow. The motion passed with 20 ayes, 0 nays. Chair Koeppen said he was very honored and humbled to be the Chair of the Commission for the past two years. The experience has enlightened his knowledge of planning and it gave him the opportunity to work with a great group of individuals for the various counties along with the knowledgeable staff of the Commission. XII. ESTABLISH TIME AND PLACE FOR NEXT COMMISSION MEETING

Annual Commission Meeting, Friday April 30, 2010 at ECWRPC Offices (immediately following Quarter Meeting, approximately 11:30 A.M.) Quarterly Commission Meeting, 10:00 A.M., Friday July 30, 2010 at New London City Hall, New London, Wisconsin (this important meeting includes adoption of the Year 2011 preliminary budget and 2011 final tax levy rate – please put this meeting on your calendar!)

XIII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Barribeau motioned to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Bellin. The motion passed with 20 ayes, 0

nays. Meeting adjourned at 11.25 A.M.


XVI

SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS

Community Facilities Committee East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission

April 30, 2010 – 9:00 A.M. Committee members present: Clifford Sanderfoot .................................................................................................. Outagamie County Ken Capelle. .............................................................................................................. Shawano County Ernie Bellin……………………………………………………………………………………………………………Winnebago County Bob Hermes . ........................................................................................................ Menominee County Patrick Laughrin .......................................................................................................... Calumet County Committee members absent, (excused): Others in attendance: Todd Verboomen. ..................................................................................... Executive Director, ECWRPC Kathy Thunes. ............................................................................................................... ECWRPC Staff Joe Huffman . ................................................................................................................ ECWRPC Staff 1. Welcome & Introductions

Mr. Cliff Sanderfoot welcomed everyone and introductions were made.

2. Statement of Compliance/Wis. Stats. Ch. 19, Subchapter V, Sec. 19.84 regarding Open

Meetings. The open meeting law was recognized.

3. Approval of the January 29, 2010 Community Facilities Committee Meeting Summary of

Proceedings. There were no adjustments or edits made to the January 29, 2010 summary whereby Ernie Bellin moved to approve with Bob Hermes making the second. Motion carried unanimously.

4. Public Comment

There were no public comments.

5. Communications

There were no communication items to present for the Committee.

6. Action Item: Resolution No. 13-10; Approval of the Draft Shawano Lake 2030 SSA Plan Update.

Mr. Todd Verboomen reminded committee members of the materials sent to them with regards to the Shawano Lake 2030 Sewer Service Area Plan Update specifically noting the tables and data calculations with respect to the allocation of additional sewer service area acreage. Mr. Verboomen called out Table 4 as the key component in assessing the final update allocations. This table detailed the land use characteristics and breakdown of development within the proposed new allocation areas. Mr. Verboomen then detailed the additions and removals and justifications for the


XVII

decisions that were made. The Maple Lane Health Center was mentioned, as a planning area addition, in light of the on-going debate on the potential of eventually providing sewer service to the facility. Mr. Verboomen outlined the approval process for the allocation areas with each affected DMA within the service area. As the process neared the end, Shawano County personnel interjected the Maple Lane Health Center as a potential service area. Coupled with this request, the County provided a feasibility study for the Maple Lane facility that offered alternatives for sewer routing and projections regarding land use and development potential. Mr. Verboomen, however, cited deficiencies within the report relative to the true cost-effectiveness of sewer routing to the site. It was East Central’s position to move forward with the plan update and subsequently handle the Maple Lane Health Center as a SSA amendment request in the future. As for the feasibility study, East Central has requested clarification on some key cost issues. Mr. Verboomen then made the justifications for allocating additional sewer service area acreage. The Village of Cecil, based on its on-site septic policies, was allocated acreage to reflect the Village’s corporate limit boundary. Questions remained regarding the Village of Cecil and their stance on on-site systems within the sewer service area and Village corporate limits. Mr. Verboomen explained that the Village was resistant to any government intervention; however it seemed that East Central was able to relieve any concerns about policy being dictated to the Village.

Based on the support letters from the DMA’s within this update, Mr. Verboomen requested that

Resolution 13-10 be approved by committee thereby adopting the 2030 Shawano Lake Sewer Service Area Plan update. There being no further discussion, Mr. Bellin moved to adopt Resolution 13-10 and approve the 2030 Shawano Lake Sewer Service Area update. Mr. Capelle made the second. Motion passed unanimously.

7. Staff Activity Update Mr. Verboomen began by stating that the passage of the 2030 Shawano Lake Sewer Service Area

Plan allows East Central to submit the plan and its draft mapping to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for certification. Other plans in progress include the Sherwood Sewer Service Area Plan Update. This plan has stalled due to planning area configurations on the service area’s west side. The Village intends on performing a study for service near the Neenah-Menasha Planning Area Boundary. In addition, the Village has begun the installation of a large water main from Appleton which will provide a new water source for the Village. Planning, starting with a land use inventory has begun for the Fond du Lac sewer service area update. Mr. Verboomen also mentioned that the Freedom Sewer Service Area Plan Update will resume now that the new sanitary district president has had time to settle in.

Mr. Huffman gave a status report on the Maple Lane Health Center issue, based on a meeting with

the Shawano County Administrator, a WDNR Regional official, Ayers Consulting and an official from the Maple Lane Health Center. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss earlier comments submitted by East Central based on the provided sewer feasibility study. East Central had reservations on development assumptions made in this report. Additionally there were no costs associated with/or provided for in the feasibility study for the upgrade/replacement of the existing system at Maple Lane Health Center. The end result of the meeting was that Ayers would take a cursory look at costs for the lagoon upgrade and provide a comparable analysis relative to the other alternatives being presented. Mr. Huffman did reiterate the possibility of an amendment to the service area should Maple Lane Health Center need sewer service. Mr. Capelle then recapped the County Board’s position and the reason for the sale of the facility. Mr. Capelle cited cost overruns and expensive maintenance expenditures as the driving factor in selling the facility. The Town of Belle Plaine’s resistance to this proposed plan was based on two factors, 1) the assumptions made in the feasibility report, in terms of proposed development conflicts with the Town’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and, 2) the Sanitary District is unsure of the loss, if any, purchased capacity at the Wolf River Plant. Mr. Huffman then informed the Committee that updates, when available, would be presented to the Community Facilities Committee.


XVIII

Ms. Thunes mentioned that the Community Facilities Committee would have an expanded role in other issues other than sewer service area work. For example, Ms. Thunes explained a sustainability group’s effort to educate the public on sustainability practices and developments. Ms. Thunes provided a schedule of activities that ECOS was offering and welcomed the Committee to participate. Ms. Thunes also mentioned East Central’s association with the Associated Recyclers of Wisconsin (AROW) and its’ function in community development and sustainability on a regional level.

8. Next Meeting Ms. Thunes stated that a May 12, 2010 meeting would not be an efficient use of time based on the

agenda items, (or lack thereof), for that date. A discussion ensued on a July meeting date. Mr. Sanderfoot preferred waiting until there were substantial items for which to meet. After some discussion it was decided that the next meeting would materialize when there were sufficient agenda items to address.

9. Adjourn A motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Bellin with Mr. Capelle making the second. Motion passed.

XXV

Appendix B – Demographic and Acreage Projection Tables

XXVI


Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % 2050 SSA Planning Area (acres) 33,733.8 4,252.4 1,317.3 1,039.9 5,948.2 13,314.9 3,789.7 1,489.9 1,313.9 1,267.7

Square Miles 52.7 6.6 2.1 1.6 9.3 20.8 5.9 2.3 2.1 2.0 8,938.6 100.0% 3,548.6 100.0% 899.3 100.0% 442.8 100.0% 722.5 100.0% 1,988.1 100.0% 889.5 100.0% 128.2 100.0% 279 100.0% 40.7 100.0%

Single Family & Duplex Residential (including mobile homes) 2,074.6 23.2% 711.1 20.0% 168.9 18.8% 93.4 21.1% 305.5 42.3% 573.5 28.8% 169.8 19.1% 18.0 14.0% 23.2 8.3% 11.3 27.6%Multi-Family Residential 114.8 1.3% 94.7 2.7% 6.2 0.7% 6.3 1.4% 0.6 0.1% 5.5 0.3% 1.5 0.2% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%Commercial 300.4 3.4% 167.7 4.7% 41.9 4.7% 19.1 4.3% 5.2 0.7% 44.6 2.2% 14.4 1.6% 7.1 5.5% 0.5 0.2% 0.0 0.0%Industrial 320.6 3.6% 225.4 6.4% 54.4 6.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 20.7 1.0% 20.0 2.3% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%Public/Institutional (includes park & recreation) 868.7 9.7% 427.1 12.0% 74.3 8.3% 183.3 41.4% 4.4 0.6% 120.5 6.1% 34.7 3.9% 10.9 8.5% 13.5 4.8% 0.0 0.0%Utilit ies 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%Transportation/Roads/Railroads 1,293.5 14.5% 539.5 15.2% 138.1 15.4% 65.3 14.8% 112.5 15.6% 252.5 12.7% 84.0 9.4% 46.1 36.0% 52.4 18.8% 3.1 7.6%Existing/Planned Stormwater Detention Ponds 8.4 0.1% 8.0 0.2% 0.0 0.0% 0.3 0.1% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%Vacant, Undevelopable (75' wetland buffer) 86.6 1.0% 34.4 1.0% 4.1 0.5% 2.3 0.5% 6.9 1.0% 22.4 1.1% 15.7 1.8% 0.3 0.3% 0.6 0.2% 0.0 0.0%Vacant, Developable (includes woodlands, agric. or undeveloped uses) 2,923.7 32.7% 990.6 27.9% 386.8 43.0% 59.9 13.5% 239.7 33.2% 676.7 34.0% 330.8 37.2% 34.3 26.8% 179.3 64.3% 25.6 63.0%ESA - Stream Buffer 58.0 0.6% 12.0 0.3% 13.5 1.5% 0.4 0.1% 7.4 1.0% 10.6 0.5% 11.6 1.3% 0.0 0.0% 2.5 0.9% 0.0 0.0%ESA - Wetland 386.2 4.3% 200.8 5.7% 8.2 0.9% 8.9 2.0% 37.2 5.1% 104.4 5.2% 25.0 2.8% 1.2 0.9% 0.5 0.2% 0.0 0.0%Open Water 503.3 5.6% 137.4 3.9% 2.8 0.3% 3.6 0.8% 3.2 0.4% 156.8 7.9% 182.1 20.5% 10.2 8.0% 6.5 2.3% 0.7 1.8%

Total SSA Developed Acres 4,980.9 55.7% 2,173.5 61.2% 483.8 53.8% 367.9 83.1% 428.1 59.2% 1,017.4 51.2% 324.3 36.5% 82.1 64.0% 89.7 32.1% 14.3 35.2%Total SSA ESA/Water Acres 947.4 10.6% 350.2 9.9% 24.6 2.7% 12.8 2.9% 47.8 6.6% 271.7 13.7% 218.8 24.6% 11.4 8.9% 9.5 3.4% 0.7 1.8%

Acres % Acres % of Acres % of Acres % of Acres % of Acres % of Acres % of Acres % of Acres % of Acres % of SF Residential 1,214.0 41.5% 267.6 27.0% 174.4 45.1% 35.1 58.7% 161.5 67.4% 368.9 54.5% 75.1 11.1% 12.7 1.9% 102.9 15.2% 15.7 2.3%MF Residential 99.5 3.4% 51.2 5.2% 37.4 9.7% 0.2 0.4% 0.6 0.3% 0.2 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 9.9 1.5%Commercial 344.7 11.8% 181.6 18.3% 84.2 21.8% 21.1 35.2% 0.6 0.3% 10.1 1.5% 0.9 0.1% 1.9 0.3% 44.2 6.5% 0.0 0.0%Industrial 411.6 14.1% 330.0 33.3% 57.4 14.8% 0.4 0.7% 0.0 0.0% 0.4 0.1% 15.2 2.2% 0.0 0.0% 8.2 1.2% 0.0 0.0%Public/Institutional (include parks/churches/utilit ies/roads) 216.2 7.4% 73.3 7.4% 33.5 8.7% 1.4 2.4% 0.0 0.0% 98.9 14.6% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 9.0 1.3% 0.0 0.0%Agriculture, Woodlands or Unplanned 638.0 21.8% 87.0 8.8% 0.0 0.0% 1.6 2.6% 77.0 32.1% 198.1 29.3% 239.6 35.4% 19.7 2.9% 15.0 2.2% 0.0 0.0%

TOTALS 2,923.9 100.0% 990.7 100.0% 386.9 100.0% 59.9 100.0% 239.7 100.0% 676.7 100.0% 330.8 48.9% 34.3 5.1% 179.3 26.5% 25.6 3.8%Source: ECWRPC 6/2009, Shawano Co. 2030 Comp. Plans

2020 Sewer Service Area Total

V. of Cecil SSA

T. Washington Shawano Lk. S.D. SSA

Year 2020 SSA Vacant Acres by Proposed Land Use Type

SSA SSA SSATotal C. of Shawano V. of Bonduel

TABLE B-1: EXISTING YEAR 2020 SSA ACREAGE CHARACTERISTICS (BASED ON 2009 LAND USE)

V. of Bonduel

SSA SSA SSA

Total C. of Shawano V. of Cecil

SSA

T. Washington

Shawano Lk. S.D. SSA

T. Wescott


T. WescottShawano Lk. S.D. SSA

T. Richmond T. Belle Plaine T. Waukechon

Richmond S.D. SSA BPW Utility Dist. SSA BPW Utility Dist. SSA

T. Richmond T. Belle Plaine T. Waukechon Richmond S.D. SSA BPW Utility Dist. SSA BPW Utility Dist. SSA

T. Hartland

(V. of Bonduel)

T. Hartland V. of Bonduel XXVII

Difference Difference '05-'30

MCD 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 '05-'30 w/10% increase

C. Shawano 8,515 8,704 8,874 9,019 9,153 9,223 708 779

V. Bonduel 1,460 1,506 1,550 1,590 1,629 1,657 197 217

V. Cecil 525 561 597 632 668 700 175 193

T. Hartland 885 911 936 958 980 994 109 120

T. Washington 1,999 2,101 2,201 2,298 2,394 2,476 477 525

T. Wescott 3,815 3,951 4,081 4,203 4,321 4,411 596 656

T. Richmond 1,872 1,958 2,041 2,121 2,201 2,266 394 433

T. Belle Plaine 1,931 1,969 2,004 2,032 2,058 2,069 138 152

T. Waukechon 1,015 1,059 1,101 1,142 1,182 1,215 200 220

Totals 22,017 22,720 23,385 23,995 24,586 25,011 2,994 3,293

Source: U.S. Census:, 2000; ECWRPC, 1997 & 2004.


SSA Population

MCD 2005 2010** 2015 2020 2025 2030 '05-'30 w/10% increase (incl. additional 10% of '05-'30 increase)

C. Shawano 8,515 8,704 8,874 9,019 9,153 9,223 708 779 9,294

V. Bonduel 1,460 1,506 1,550 1,590 1,629 1,657 197 217 1,677

V. Cecil 525 561 597 632 668 700 175 193 718

T. Hartland 885 911 936 958 980 994 109 120 1,005

Shawano Lake S.D. 4,951 5,149 5,355 5,516 5,681 5,851 900 990 5,941

BPW Utility District 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 3

Richmond S.D. 603 633 658 684 712 733 130 143 746

Totals 16,942 17,467 17,973 18,402 18,826 19,161 2,219 2,441 19,383

*Sanitary District Projections based on same 'rate' of growth experienced for each MCD as a whole. **Projections are based on 2009 connections Source: U.S. Census:, 2000; ECWRPC, 1997 & 2005.

Table B-2 : SHAWANO LAKE AREA, PROJECTED POPULATION , 2005 -2030

ECWRPC Projections

ECWRPC Projections*

Table B-3: SHAWANO LAKE AREA SSA, PROJECTED SEWERED POPULATION , 2005 -2030

XXVIII



ission Shaw

ano Lake 2030 SSA Plan

March 8, 2011

Difference Difference '05-'30Persons Persons Persons Persons Persons Persons '05-'30 w/10% increase

MCD No. HH per HH No. HH per HH No. HH per HH No. HH per HH No. HH per HH No. HH per HH

C. Shawano 3,550 2.26 3,666 2.32 3,771 2.21 3,909 2.20 3,922 2.20 3,956 2.19 406 446.6 3996.6

V. Bonduel 602 2.41 628 2.38 653 2.35 692 2.34 695 2.32 710 2.32 108 118.8 720.8

V. Cecil 226 2.33 243 2.31 260 2.30 292 2.29 292 2.28 307 2.28 81 89 314.8

T. Hartland 302 2.93 318 2.87 334 2.80 356 2.75 362 2.71 373 2.67 71 78 380.1

T. Washington 850 2.35 913 2.30 976 2.26 1,079 2.22 1,094 2.19 1,146 2.16 296 325 1175.4

T. Wescott 1,664 2.29 1,757 2.25 1,848 2.21 1,984 2.18 2,009 2.15 2,073 2.13 409 449 2113.9

T. Richmond 733 2.55 782 2.50 830 2.46 908 2.42 919 2.39 957 2.37 223 246 979

T. Belle Plaine 768 2.39 801 2.34 834 2.29 872 2.24 887 2.21 905 2.17 137 151 919

T. Waukechon 371 2.74 392 2.70 413 2.67 447 2.64 450 2.63 465 2.61 94 104 475

Totals / Average 9,066 2.47 9,499 2.44 9,917 2.39 10,539 2.37 10,632 2.34 10,891 2.32 1,825 2,008 11,074

Source: U.S. Census:, 2000; ECWRPC, 1997 & 2004.


Persons Persons Persons Persons Persons Persons'05-'30 w/10% increase

MCD No. HH per HH No. HH per HH No. HH per HH No. HH per HH No. HH per HH No. HH per HH No. HH No. HH

C. Shawano 3,550 2.26 3,666 2.32 3,771 2.21 3,909 2.20 3,922 2.20 3,956 2.19 406 447 3,997

V. Bonduel 602 2.41 628 2.38 653 2.35 692 2.34 695 2.32 710 2.32 108 119 721

V. Cecil 226 2.33 243 2.31 260 2.30 292 2.29 292 2.28 307 2.28 81 89 315

T. Hartland 302 2.93 318 2.87 334 2.80 356 2.75 362 2.71 373 2.67 71 78 380.1

Shawano Lake S.D. 2,134 2.32 2,258 2.28 2,401 2.23 2,507 2.20 2,618 2.17 2,734 2.14 600 660 2,794

BPW Utility District 1 2.60 1 2.50 1 2.50 1 2.40 1 2.40 1 2.40 0 0 1

Richmond S.D. 241 2.50 253 2.50 267 2.46 283 2.42 298 2.39 309 2.37 68 75 316

Totals / Average 7,056 2.48 7,367 2.45 7,687 2.41 8,040 2.37 8,189 2.35 8,390 2.34 1,334 1,468 8,523

*Sanitary District Projections are based on the same 'rate' of growth experienced for each MCD as a whole based on 2009 connections

2025

Table B-4: ESTIMATED SHAWANO LAKE SSA AREA HOUSEHOLDS, 2005-2030

20302005 2010 2015 2020 SSA Households (incl. additional 10% of

'05-'30 increase)

Table B-5: PROJECTED SEWERED HOUSEHOLDS, 2005-2030

2005 2010** 2015 2020 2025 2030

SSA Households (incl. additional 10% of

'05-'30 increase)

ECWRPC Projections*

XXIX

Municipality Housing units: 1; detached units in

structure

Housing units: 1; attached units in

structureMobil Home

Housing units: 2 units in structure

Housing units: 3 or 4 units in

structure

Housing units: 5 to 9 units in

structure

Housing units: 10 to 19 units in structure

Housing units: 20 or more

Boat, RV, Van, etc.

Housing units: Total

Occupied housing units: Total

Percent Occupied in

2000

C. Shawano 2,350 64 61 390 143 340 131 126 0 3,605 3,450 95.70%

V. Bonduel 399 10 0 68 16 85 5 14 0 597 580 97.15%

V. Cecil 213 6 0 14 7 11 0 0 0 251 72 28.69%

T. Hartland 260 5 12 8 3 0 0 0 0 288 284 98.61%

T. Washington 782 11 361 14 11 2 0 26 8 1,215 801 65.93%

T. Wescott 1,911 22 318 17 14 12 15 0 6 2,315 1,555 67.17%

T. Richmond 627 7 58 9 7 7 2 0 0 717 666 92.89%

T. Belle Plaine 858 4 96 6 4 0 0 0 0 968 742 76.65%

T. Waukechon 356 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 364 339 93.13%

TOTALS 7,756 129 914 526 205 457 153 166 14 10,320 8,489 79.5%

Municipality

Total % of Total Total % of Total Total % of Total

C. Shawano 2,475 68.7% 390 10.8% 740 20.5%

V. Bonduel 409 68.5% 68 11.4% 120 20.1%

V. Cecil 219 87.3% 14 5.6% 18 7.2%

T. Hartland 277 96.2% 8 2.8% 3 1.0%

T. Washington 1,154 95.0% 14 1.2% 39 3.2%

T. Wescott 2,251 97.2% 17 0.7% 41 1.8%

T. Richmond 692 96.5% 9 1.3% 16 2.2%

T. Belle Plaine 958 99.0% 6 0.6% 4 0.4%

T. Waukechon 364 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

TOTALS 8,799 85.3% 526 5.1% 981 9.5%


TABLE B-7: SHAWANO LAKE SSA COMMUNITIES - LAND USE DENSITY*

Municipality SF Units du/acre

Duplex Units du/acre

MF Units du/acre

C. Shawano 4.0 8.0 16

V. Bonduel 2.5 5.0 10

V. Cecil 2.5 5.0 10

T. Hartland 2.5 5.0 10

Shawano Lake S.D. 2.5 5.0 10

BPW Utility District 2.5 5.0 10

Richmond S.D. 2.5 5.0 10Shawano Lake SSA

Average 2.7 5.4 10.9

Source: Shawano Co. Comp. Plan*Ageed sewered land density standards

TABLE B-6: Shawano Lake SSA COMMUNITIES - UNITS IN STRUCTURE, 2000

Waupaca Area - Residential Splits

Single Family Duplex Multi-Family

Source: U.S. Census:, 2000

XXX



ission Shaw


March 8, 2011

Table B-8: SHAWANO LAKE SSA - RESIDENTIAL ACREAGE PROJECTION METHODOLOGY (YEAR 2030)

2,441 2005-2030 population increase with 10% increase1,468 2005-2030 household increase with 10% increase

FORMULA 1) Total Households (Dwelling Units) Needed x Percentage Split of Unit Type (based on 2000 Census Units splits) = Projected Units by Type

1,468 x 85.3% = 1,252 Single Family Units1,468 x 5.1% = 75 Duplex Units1,468 x 9.5% = 139 Multi-Family Units

2) Projected Units by Type Development Densities = SSA Acreage Needs for Residential Uses

1,252 Single Family Units / 2.7 units/acre = 464

75 Duplex Units / 5.4 units/acre = 14

139 Multi-Family Units / 10.9 units/acre = 13

490

3) Application of 15% Infrastructure Factor = Gross Acreage Needs for Residential Uses

464 Acres Single Family Units X 1.15 = 53414 Acres Duplex Units X 1.15 = 1613 Acres Multi-Family Units X 1.15 = 15

565 TOTAL ACRES

4) Application of 20% Market Factor = Adjusted Gross Acreage Needs for Residential Uses534 Acres Single Family Units X 1.2 = 640

16 Acres Duplex Units X 1.2 = 1915 Acres Multi-Family Units X 1.2 = 18

678 TOTAL ACRES


Total Shawano Lake SSA Vacant Acres Needed

XXXI



ission Shaw


March 8, 2011


Table B-9: SHAWANO LAKE SSA - COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL ACREAGE PROJECTIONS (YEAR 2030)

EXISTING SSA (2005)

C. Shawano 393 Acres of existing commercial/industrial (C/I) development

8,515 2005 Population estimate0.05 2005 C/I Per Capita

V. Bonduel96 Acres of existing commercial/industrial (C/I) development


V. Cecil19 Acres of existing commercial/industrial (C/I) development

525 2005 Population estimate0.04 2005 C/I Per Capita

Shawno Lake S.D., Richmond S.D., BPW U.D. 113 Acres of existing commercial/industrial (C/I) development


2030 - PROJECTED SSA (2030 projected minus 2005 existing)

C. Shawano 9,223 2030 Population projection

708 Population Increase (2030-2005)0.05 2005 C/I Per Capita33 Projected Need* (2005 C/I Per Capita * Pop. Increase)

V. Bonduel1,657 2030 Population projection

197 Population Increase (2030-2005)0.07 2005 C/I Per Capita13 Projected Need* (2005 C/I Per Capita * Pop. Increase)

V. Cecil700 2030 Population projection175 Population Increase (2030-2005)

0.04 2005 C/I Per Capita6 Projected Need* (2005 C/I Per Capita * Pop. Increase)

Shawno Lake S.D., Richmond S.D., BPW U.D. 6,587 2030 Population projection1,030 Population Increase (2030-2005)0.02 2005 C/I Per Capita21 Projected Need* (2005 C/I Per Capita * Pop. Increase)

ESTIMATED ACREAGE NEEDS

Shawano Lake 2030 SSA C/I Projection

73 C/I Acres Needed

Application of 15% Infrastructure Factor = Gross Acreage Needs for C/I Uses

73 * 1.15 = 83.8

Application of 20% Market Factor = Adjusted Gross Acreage Needs for C/I Uses

Note: This figure to be used as84 * 1.2 = 101 a guide for 2030 SSA allocations

Note: C/I acreage amounts were calculated within the current SSA boundary line

* C/I Projection Formula: Projected C/I Need = (2005 C/I Per Capita)(Population Increase)


XXXII

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % 2050 SSA Planning Area (acres) 35,746.1 4,304.9 1,317.3 1,039.9 6,364.0 13,010.2 4,235.1 1,893.6 1,795.0 1,786.2

Square Miles 55.9 6.7 2.1 1.6 9.9 20.3 6.6 3.0 2.8 2.8 10,375.0 100.0% 3,681.5 100.0% 991.7 100.0% 711.9 100.0% 867.2 100.0% 2,145.7 100.0% 1010.4 100.0% 225.3 100.0% 688 100.0% 53.4 100.0%

Single Family & Duplex Residential (including mobile homes) 2,116.9 20.4% 711.1 19.3% 168.9 17.0% 105.6 14.8% 318.4 36.7% 582.1 27.1% 170.9 16.9% 19.7 8.7% 29.0 4.2% 11.3 21.1%Multi-Family Residential 114.8 1.1% 94.7 2.6% 6.2 0.6% 6.3 0.9% 0.6 0.1% 5.5 0.3% 1.5 0.1% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%Commercial 309.2 3.0% 167.7 4.6% 41.9 4.2% 19.1 2.7% 5.2 0.6% 44.6 2.1% 15.0 1.5% 15.3 6.8% 0.5 0.1% 0.0 0.0%Industrial 322.8 3.1% 225.4 6.1% 54.4 5.5% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 20.7 1.0% 20.0 2.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 2.2 4.1%Public/Institutional (includes park & recreation) 869.3 8.4% 427.1 11.6% 74.3 7.5% 183.9 25.8% 4.4 0.5% 120.5 5.6% 34.7 3.4% 10.9 4.8% 13.5 2.0% 0.0 0.0%Utilit ies 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%Transportation/Roads/Railroads 1,602.5 15.4% 640.8 17.4% 151.6 15.3% 74.9 10.5% 142.8 16.5% 263.6 12.3% 94.1 9.3% 74.9 33.3% 155.2 22.6% 4.7 8.8%Existing/Planned Stormwater Detention Ponds 9.1 0.1% 8.0 0.2% 0.0 0.0% 0.3 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.7 0.3% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%Vacant, Undevelopable (75' wetland buffer) 100.0 1.0% 35.2 1.0% 4.1 0.4% 2.3 0.3% 8.8 1.0% 22.4 1.0% 19.0 1.9% 1.6 0.7% 6.7 1.0% 0.0 0.0%Vacant, Developable (includes woodlands, agric. or undeveloped uses) 3,921.5 37.8% 1,021.4 27.7% 465.7 47.0% 293.7 41.2% 339.3 39.1% 812.5 37.9% 429.2 42.5% 90.7 40.3% 435.1 63.2% 33.9 63.6%ESA - Stream Buffer 70.4 0.7% 12.0 0.3% 13.5 1.4% 12.8 1.8% 7.4 0.9% 10.6 0.5% 11.6 1.1% 0.0 0.0% 2.5 0.4% 0.0 0.0%ESA - Wetland 432.1 4.2% 200.8 5.5% 8.2 0.8% 8.9 1.2% 37.2 4.3% 104.4 4.9% 32.4 3.2% 1.2 0.5% 39.0 5.7% 0.0 0.0%Open Water 506.6 4.9% 137.4 3.7% 2.8 0.3% 4.2 0.6% 3.2 0.4% 158.9 7.4% 182.1 18.0% 10.2 4.5% 6.5 0.9% 1.3 2.5%

Total SSA Developed Acres 5,344.6 51.5% 2,274.8 61.8% 497.3 50.2% 390.2 54.8% 471.3 54.3% 1,037.1 48.3% 336.1 33.3% 121.5 53.9% 198.3 28.8% 18.1 34.0%Total SSA ESA/Water Acres 1,009.0 9.7% 350.2 9.5% 24.6 2.5% 25.8 3.6% 47.8 5.5% 273.8 12.8% 226.2 22.4% 11.4 5.1% 48.0 7.0% 1.3 2.5%

Acres % Acres % of Acres % of Acres % of Acres % of Acres % of Acres % of Acres % of Acres % of Acres % of SF Residential 1,790.6 45.7% 297.6 29.1% 174.4 37.5% 268.9 91.6% 255.8 75.4% 373.1 45.9% 84.8 10.4% 13.2 1.6% 307.0 37.8% 15.7 1.9%MF Residential 145.8 3.7% 51.2 5.0% 88.3 19.0% 0.2 0.1% 5.9 1.7% 0.2 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%Commercial 453.4 11.6% 181.6 17.8% 109.7 23.6% 21.1 7.2% 0.6 0.2% 10.1 1.2% 0.9 0.1% 35.4 4.4% 93.9 11.6% 0.0 0.0%Industrial 451.5 11.5% 330.9 32.4% 59.8 12.8% 0.4 0.1% 0.0 0.0% 35.8 4.4% 15.2 1.9% 0.0 0.0% 9.4 1.2% 0.0 0.0%Public/Institutional (include parks/churches/utilit ies/roads) 239.4 6.1% 73.3 7.2% 33.5 7.2% 1.4 0.5% 0.0 0.0% 98.9 12.2% 0.0 0.0% 22.4 2.8% 9.8 1.2% 0.0 0.0%Agriculture, Woodlands or Unplanned 840.8 21.4% 86.8 8.5% 0.0 0.0% 1.6 0.5% 77.0 22.7% 294.3 36.2% 328.3 40.4% 19.7 2.4% 15.0 1.9% 18.2 2.2%

TOTALS 3,921.4 100.0% 1,021.4 100.0% 465.7 100.0% 293.7 100.0% 339.3 100.0% 812.5 100.0% 429.2 52.8% 90.7 11.2% 435.1 53.6% 33.9 4.2%Source: ECWRPC 11/2009, Shawano Co. 2030 Comp. Plans

T. Hartland

(V. of Bonduel)

T. Hartland V. of Bonduel

T. Richmond T. Belle Plaine T. Waukechon Richmond S.D. SSA BPW Utility Dist. SSA BPW Utility Dist. SSA

T. Richmond T. Belle Plaine T. Waukechon


T. Wescott


T. WescottShawano Lk. S.D. SSA

V. of Cecil

SSA

T. Washington


C. of Shawano V. of Bonduel

TABLE B-10: EXISTING YEAR 2030 SSA ACREAGE CHARACTERISTICS (BASED ON 2009 LAND USE)

V. of Bonduel

SSA SSA SSA

Total C. of Shawano

2030 Sewer Service Area Total

V. of Cecil SSA

T. Washington Shawano Lk. S.D. SSA

Year 2030 SSA Vacant Acres by Proposed Land Use Type

SSA SSA SSATotal

XXXIII

Added Removed Added Removed Added Removed Added Removed Added Removed Added Removed Added Removed Added Removed Added Removed Added Removed2980.5 968.2 52.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 642.0 226.2 278.2 582.9 604.5 159.1 403.7 0.0 481.1 0.0 518.5 0.0

Square Miles 4.7 0.0 1446.4 10.0 132.9 0.0 92.4 0.0 269.6 0.0 144.6 0.0 157.7 0.0 120.8 0.0 97.1 0.0 408.9 0.0 22.5 10.0

Single Family & Duplex Residential (including mobile homes) 42.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.7 0.0 12.9 0.0 8.6 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.7 0.0 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0Multi-Family Residential 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Commercial 8.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Industrial 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0Public/Institutional (includes park & recreation) 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Utilities 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Transportation/Roads/Railroads 308.8 0.0 101.3 0.0 13.5 0.0 9.5 0.0 30.3 0.0 11.1 0.0 10.1 0.0 28.8 0.0 102.8 0.0 1.6 0.0Existing/Planned Stormwater Detention Ponds 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Vacant, Undevelopable (75' wetland buffer) 13.4 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 1.3 0.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0Vacant, Developable (includes woodlands, agric. or undeveloped uses) 1007.6 10.0 30.8 0.0 78.9 0.0 233.8 0.0 99.6 0.0 135.8 0.0 98.4 0.0 56.4 0.0 255.8 0.0 18.2 10.0ESA - Stream Buffer 12.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0ESA - Wetland 45.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.5 0.0 0.0 0.0Open Water 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0

Total SSA Developed Acres 363.9 10.0 101.3 0.0 13.5 0.0 22.8 0.0 43.2 0.0 19.7 0.0 11.8 0.0 39.4 0.0 108.5 0.0 3.8 10.0Total SSA ESA/Water Acres 61.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.5 0.0 0.6 0.0

Added Removed Added Removed Added Removed Added Removed Added Removed Added Removed Added Removed Added Removed Added Removed Added RemovedSF Residential 576.6 0.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 233.8 0.0 94.3 0.0 4.2 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.5 0.0 204.1 0.0 0.0 0.0MF Residential 56.2 9.9 0.0 0.0 50.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.9Commercial 108.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.5 0.0 49.7 0.0 0.0 0.0Industrial 39.9 0.0 0.9 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0Public/Institutional (include parks/churches/utilit ies/roads) 23.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.4 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0Agriculture or Unplanned 203.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 96.2 0.0 88.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 0.0TOTALS 1007.6 9.9 30.8 0.0 78.9 0.0 233.8 0.0 99.6 0.0 135.8 0.0 98.4 0.0 56.4 0.0 255.8 0.0 18.2 9.9

Source: ECWRPC 1/2009, Shawano Co. 2030 Comp. Plans Source: ECWRPC, Shawano Co. 2030 Comp. Plans

Vacant Acres by Proposed Land Use Type

SSA SSA SSAV. of Cecil

C. of Shawano SSA

C. of Shawano SSA

SSAV. of Bonduel V. of Cecil

TABLE B-11: Summary of SSA Acreage Modifications (Table 1 minus Table 2)

T. Washington T. Richmond SSA SSATotal


T. Washington

2030 Sewer Service Area Total (EX.)

2050 SSA Planning Area (acres)

Total V. of Bonduel Shawano Lk. S.D. SSA

T. Wescott Shawano Lk. S.D. SSA

T. Wescot Shawano Lk. S.D. SSA

T. Belle Plaine

Richmond S.D. SSA BPW Utility Dist. SSA


T. Richmond T. Belle Plaine T. Waukechon BPW Utility Dist. SSA

T. Hartland (V. of Bonduel)

T. Hartland (V. of Bonduel)

T. Waukechon

XXXIV


MonthAverage

Monthly Flow (mgd)

Average Mo. (C)BOD


Average Monthly (C)BOD Loading (lbs/day)

Average Monthly (C)BOD (mg/l)

Average Monthly TSS

(mg/l)

JAN 2.068 160 2,764 5 4 96.88%FEB 2.009 161 2,705 5 4 96.89%MAR 2.208 158 2,908 5 5 96.84%APR 2.748 136 3,123 5 5 96.32%MAY 2.456 157 3,220 5 3 96.82%JUN 2.281 159 3,032 6 4 96.23%JUL 2.213 168 3,097 7 4 95.83%AUG 1.879 186 2,918 5 2 97.31%SEP 1.748 188 2,740 5 3 97.34%OCT 1.698 190 2,685 6 4 96.84%NOV 1.722 190 2,725 7 5 96.32%DEC 1.784 187 2,779 7 6 96.26%

Total 24.81 2,040 34,696 68.00 49.00 11.60Average 2.07 170 2,891 5.67 4.08 96.66%Source: Wolf Treatment Plan, 2009

3.71 303.339 273,984 303,586 27

55.7% of design flow.

Capacity Used (% of Design Flow) 55.7%Capacity Remaining (% of Design Flow) 44.3%

BOD Capacity Used (% of Design BOD) 72.6%27.4%

Total Plant Capacity (Max Mo. Desin) 3,710,000 gallons per dayTotal Monthly Flows (12 mo. avg.) = 2,067,833 gallons per dayTotal Remaining Capacity = 1,642,167 gallons per day

1,684,000 gal/day = 20,527 more population equivalent (at 80 gpcpd)8,553 more SF dwelling units (at a 2008 pph of 2.4)3,421 more acres of SF residential development (at 2.5 units per acre gross density)

Source: Wolf Treatment Plant CMAR, 2008 and ECWRPC, 2009

TABLE B-12 : WOLF TREATMENT PLANT 2008 PERFORMANCE/CAPACITY ANALYSIS

INFLUENT EFFLUENT

BOD Removal Efficiency

BOD Permit Limit (mg/l) =90% of Permit Limit =

TSS Permit Limit (mg/l) =90% of Permit Limit=

BOD Capacity Remaining (% of Design BOD)

Note: Average of Monthly Avg. Flow is

Max Month Design Flow (mgd) =90% of Design =

Design (C)BOD (lb/day) =90% of Design =

XXXV


MonthAverage

Monthly Flow (mgd)

Average Mo. (C)BOD


Average Monthly (C)BOD Loading (lbs/day)

Average Monthly (C)BOD (mg/l)

Average Monthly TSS

(mg/l)

JAN 2.119 149 2,627 6 5 95.97%FEB 2.085 156 2,718 6 6 96.15%MAR 2.298 150 2,877 6 7 96.00%APR 2.309 154 2,967 6 7 96.10%MAY 2.087 175 3,039 5 5 97.14%JUN 1.938 184 2,971 5 4 97.28%JUL 1.917 186 2,976 6 4 96.77%AUG 1.874 189 2,951 7 3 96.30%SEP 1.826 186 2,839 5 3 97.31%OCT 1.998 165 2,754 5 3 96.97%NOV 1.916 169 2,708 6 4 96.45%DEC 1.945 173 2,811 5 4 97.11%

Total 24.31 2,036 34,238 68 55Average 2.03 170 2,853 5.67 4.58 96.63%

3.71 303.339 273,984 303,586 27

54.6% of design flow.

Capacity Used (% of Design Flow) 54.6%Capacity Remaining (% of Design Flow) 45.4%

BOD Capacity Used (% of Design BOD) 71.6%28.4%

Total Plant Capacity (Max Mo. Desin) 3,710,000 gallons per dayTotal Monthly Flows (12 mo. avg.) = 2,026,000 gallons per dayTotal Remaining Capacity = 1,684,000 gallons per day

1,684,000 gal/day = 21,050 more population equivalent (at 80 gpcpd)8,771 more SF dwelling units (at a 2008 pph of 2.4)3,508 more acres of SF residential development (at 2.5 units per acre gross density)

Source: Wolf Treatment Plant CMAR, 2007 and ECWRPC, 2009

BOD Capacity Remaining (% of Design BOD)

Note: Average of Monthly Avg. Flow is

Max Month Design Flow (mgd) =90% of Design =

Design (C)BOD (lb/day) =90% of Design =

BOD Permit Limit (mg/l) =90% of Permit Limit =

TSS Permit Limit (mg/l) =90% of Permit Limit=

TABLE B-13: WOLF TREATMENT PLANT 2007 PERFORMANCE/CAPACITY ANALYSIS

INFLUENT EFFLUENT

BOD Removal Efficiency

XXXVI

Census Census Census Census ECWRPC ECWRPC ECWRPC ECWRPC ECWRPC ECWRPC DOA DOAJurisdiction 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2003 2004

C. Shawano 6,488 7,013 7,598 8,298 8,515 8,704 8,874 9,019 9,153 9,223 8,334 8,425C. Marion (pt.) 0 0 0 1 12 18 24 30 36 42 11 11V. Aniwa 233 273 249 272 271 270 269 266 263 258 272 269V. Birnamwood (pt.) 632 688 687 785 805 824 841 857 871 879 801 796V. Bonduel 995 1,160 1,210 1,416 1,460 1,506 1,550 1,590 1,629 1,657 1,434 1,442V. Bowler 272 339 279 343 347 354 359 363 367 368 342 344V. Cecil 369 445 373 466 525 561 597 632 668 700 496 515V. Eland 229 230 247 251 246 243 240 235 230 223 247 245V. Gresham 448 534 515 575 604 623 640 656 671 682 590 597V. Mattoon 377 382 431 466 465 469 472 473 474 471 463 461V. Pulaski (pt.) 0 0 0 45 122 167 213 261 310 359 76 113V. Tigerton 742 865 815 764 740 712 680 644 605 560 743 741V. Wittenberg 895 997 1,145 1,177 1,178 1,185 1,189 1,189 1,186 1,174 1,172 1,169T. Almon 505 632 557 591 597 596 593 588 582 571 595 593T. Angelica 1,433 1,522 1,417 1,635 1,763 1,842 1,919 1,992 2,065 2,124 1,692 1,737T. Aniwa 598 612 601 586 614 621 625 628 629 626 601 609T. Bartelme 399 583 618 700 796 853 909 965 1,022 1,073 755 780T. Belle Plaine 1,636 1,626 1,792 1,867 1,931 1,969 2,004 2,032 2,058 2,069 1,898 1,911T. Birnamwood 484 570 632 711 758 792 825 857 888 914 745 747T. Fairbanks 631 608 600 687 715 736 757 775 793 805 693 706T. Germania 389 392 410 339 351 344 336 326 315 301 346 350T. Grant 912 976 946 974 993 998 1,000 998 994 983 980 986T. Green Valley 984 1,054 984 1,024 1,038 1,039 1,037 1,031 1,023 1,007 1,028 1,031T. Hartland 820 872 764 825 885 911 936 958 980 994 859 874T. Herman 759 834 739 741 766 768 767 763 758 746 757 761T. Hutchins 409 467 523 539 564 578 591 603 614 620 551 558T. Lessor 911 955 892 1,112 1,244 1,330 1,418 1,504 1,591 1,669 1,193 1,219T. Maple Grove 1,258 1,271 1,159 1,045 1,033 1,005 972 934 893 843 1,036 1,032T. Morris 411 447 453 485 502 512 521 529 536 539 500 497T. Navarino 440 456 439 422 416 406 394 380 365 347 414 415T. Pella 734 788 885 877 915 931 946 957 967 970 897 906T. Red Springs 474 524 614 981 1,046 1,134 1,222 1,311 1,400 1,482 1,003 1,023T. Richmond 1,397 1,543 1,587 1,719 1,872 1,958 2,041 2,121 2,201 2,266 1,789 1,844T. Seneca 532 525 538 567 589 601 611 620 628 632 577 583T. Washington 974 1,374 1,620 1,903 1,999 2,101 2,201 2,298 2,394 2,476 1,942 1,967T. Waukechon 906 874 876 928 1,015 1,059 1,101 1,142 1,182 1,215 982 1,000T. Wescott 2,251 2,668 3,085 3,653 3,815 3,951 4,081 4,203 4,321 4,411 3,727 3,765T. Wittenberg 723 829 877 894 933 959 983 1,004 1,025 1,038 913 922Shawano County 32,650 35,928 37,157 40,664 42,442 43,631 44,738 45,733 46,687 47,320 41,454 41,944

Source: U.S. Census: 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000; ECWRPC. 10/18/04

Table B-14: Shawano County Population Estimates by MCD, 1970 to 2030

XXXVII



ission Shaw


March 8, 2011

Persons Persons Persons Persons Persons Persons PersonsMinor Civil Division No. HH per HH No. HH per HH No. HH per HH No. HH per HH No. HH per HH No. HH per HH No. HH per HH

C. Shawano 3,432 2.27 3,550 2.26 3,666 2.23 3,771 2.21 3,909 2.20 3,922 2.20 3,956 2.19C. Marion (pt) 1 1.00 12 0.98 19 0.96 25 0.94 39 0.93 39 0.92 46 0.91V. Aniwa 114 2.39 114 2.37 116 2.33 117 2.30 116 2.27 117 2.25 116 2.23V. Birnamwood (pt.) 306 2.47 317 2.45 331 2.40 345 2.35 363 2.31 369 2.28 377 2.25V. Bonduel 581 2.42 602 2.41 628 2.38 653 2.35 692 2.34 695 2.32 710 2.32V. Bowler 126 2.62 128 2.61 132 2.57 136 2.54 140 2.52 141 2.51 142 2.50V. Cecil 199 2.34 226 2.33 243 2.31 260 2.30 292 2.29 292 2.28 307 2.28V. Eland 93 2.70 92 2.68 92 2.64 92 2.60 90 2.56 91 2.54 88 2.51V. Gresham 233 2.47 246 2.46 255 2.45 263 2.44 276 2.43 275 2.44 279 2.44V. Mattoon 177 2.63 178 2.62 181 2.59 184 2.57 186 2.55 186 2.55 185 2.55V. Pulaski (pt) 15 3.00 41 2.99 57 2.93 74 2.88 109 2.85 110 2.81 129 2.79V. Tigerton 349 2.19 341 2.17 337 2.12 330 2.06 300 2.02 307 1.97 290 1.93V. Wittenberg 436 2.37 439 2.36 447 2.33 452 2.31 453 2.30 454 2.29 450 2.29T. Almon 224 2.64 228 2.62 232 2.56 237 2.51 236 2.46 240 2.42 239 2.38T. Angelica 585 2.79 636 2.77 678 2.72 721 2.66 788 2.62 800 2.58 833 2.55T. Aniwa 202 2.90 213 2.88 221 2.80 229 2.73 236 2.67 241 2.62 244 2.57T. Bartelme 253 2.74 290 2.72 317 2.67 345 2.61 394 2.57 400 2.53 425 2.50T. Belle Plaine 738 2.41 768 2.39 801 2.34 834 2.29 872 2.24 887 2.21 905 2.17T. Birnamwood 259 2.75 278 2.73 296 2.67 315 2.62 345 2.57 350 2.53 365 2.50T. Fairbanks 235 2.92 245 2.91 254 2.90 262 2.89 274 2.89 274 2.90 277 2.91T. Germania 134 2.53 140 2.50 144 2.39 147 2.28 144 2.19 151 2.09 151 2.00T. Grant 340 2.86 349 2.85 356 2.80 362 2.76 364 2.73 367 2.71 365 2.69T. Green Valley 380 2.69 389 2.67 399 2.61 407 2.55 410 2.50 417 2.45 418 2.41T. Hartland 280 2.95 302 2.93 318 2.87 334 2.80 356 2.75 362 2.71 373 2.67T. Herman 269 2.75 280 2.73 288 2.66 296 2.59 299 2.53 305 2.48 307 2.43T. Hutchins 195 2.76 206 2.74 216 2.67 227 2.61 240 2.56 244 2.51 251 2.47T. Lessor 378 2.94 426 2.92 465 2.86 507 2.80 578 2.75 587 2.71 624 2.68T. Maple Grove 360 2.90 359 2.88 362 2.78 363 2.68 344 2.59 356 2.51 348 2.42T. Morris 181 2.68 188 2.67 194 2.64 199 2.62 205 2.61 205 2.61 206 2.61T. Navarino 177 2.38 177 2.35 180 2.25 183 2.16 177 2.07 185 1.98 183 1.89T. Pella 348 2.52 366 2.50 384 2.42 402 2.35 422 2.29 432 2.24 443 2.19T. Red Springs 324 2.94 347 2.93 379 2.91 412 2.88 474 2.87 476 2.86 505 2.85T. Richmond 668 2.57 733 2.55 782 2.50 830 2.46 908 2.42 919 2.39 957 2.37T. Seneca 204 2.78 213 2.77 219 2.74 225 2.72 232 2.70 233 2.70 235 2.69T. Washington 803 2.37 850 2.35 913 2.30 976 2.26 1,079 2.22 1,094 2.19 1,146 2.16T. Waukechon 337 2.75 371 2.74 392 2.70 413 2.67 447 2.64 450 2.63 465 2.61T. Wescott 1,581 2.31 1,664 2.29 1,757 2.25 1,848 2.21 1,984 2.18 2,009 2.15 2,073 2.13T. Wittenberg 298 2.72 313 2.70 328 2.65 343 2.60 363 2.56 368 2.52 377 2.49Shawano County 15,815 2.51 16,615 2.50 17,378 2.46 18,113 2.42 19,135 2.34 19,352 2.36 19,790 2.34

Table B-15: Estimated Households by MCD, Shawano County, 2000 to 2030

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

XXXVIII



ission Shaw


March 8, 2011

XXXIX

Appendix C – Environmental Assessment of 2030 SSA Allocations

XL


XLI


Environmental Assessment of 2030 SSA Allocations The Shawano Lake 2030 SSA acreage allocations can be divided into two areas. Area 1 is located adjacent to the City of Shawano and Area 2 are allocation areas located adjacent to the Villages of Bonduel and Cecil.

Shawano Lake 2030 SSA Allocation Area: 1

Location

SSA allocations for Area 1 fall within areas adjacent to the City of Shawano in the Towns of Richmond, Belle Plaine, Wescott, Waukechon, and Washington.

General Physical Features

This area falls within the western limits of the Northern Lake Michigan Coastal and Northeast Sands ecological landscapes1. This portion of the Northern Lake Michigan Coastal landforms is made up of a lacustrine plain and ground moraines. Soils are very diverse; in some areas, lacustrine sands are found overlying clays or bedrock with only a few feet of the surface. Within this allocation area, soils are composed of moderately well drained, rocky sandy loams, interspersed with lacustrine sands, clays, peat and muck. The Northeast Sands areas were formed by glacial outwash plains that have steep outcropping Precambrian bedrock knolls of basalt, rhyolite, or granite. Sandy ground moraines and end moraines are also interspersed in the landscape.

Current Development

The majority of SSA allocations (vacant/developable areas) in this area are currently being utilized for agricultural purposes. Some existing commercial development is located along the major highway corridors. Existing and future land use acreage totals for each community can be found in Appendix B.

Planed or Proposed

Development

The majority of vacant developable lands within this area are slated for residential uses. Commercial and industrial uses will be primarily located south of CTH B, south of the City of Shawano.

1 WDNR Ecological Landscapes of Wisconsin - http://dnr.wi.gov/landscapes/

XLII


Limiting Environmental Conditions*

Small portions of the vacant/developable areas have step slopes (greater than 12%) or groundwater within two feet from the surface. Development of these areas may require alternative construction methods to protect the area’s surface and ground water quality and quantity.

Water Features

This area’s allocations are within close proximity of Shawano Lake and the Wolf River. The majority of the Shawano Lake shoreline is developed, however the lake’s tributaries should be protected from development with the use 75 foot stream buffers which are established in this plan. A number of small wetland areas are scatted throughout this area’s SSA allocations. These wetland areas and the 50 foot buffers are mapped in Exhibit 4.

WDNR Natural Heritage Inventory

The following endangered (END), threatened (THR), or special concern (SC) species may exist within portions of the Area 1 SSA allocations:

Common Name

State Status

Group Name

Lake Sturgeon SC Fish

Elktoe SC Mussel Slippersshell Mussel THR Mussel Deam’s Rockcress SC Plant

A Tiger Beetle SC Beetle Snuffbox END Mussel

Wood Turtle THR Turtle Bald Eagle SC Bird

A Perlodid Stonefly SC Stonefly Indian Cucumber-root SC Plant

River Redhorse THR Fish Northern Dry-mesic Forest NA Community

Pygmy Snaketail THR Dragonfly Round Pigtoe SC Mussel

Buckhorn THR Mussel Henslow’s Sparrow THR Bird

Red-shouldered Hawk THR Bird A Land Snail SC Snail

Appalachain Pillar SC Snail Northern Yellow Lady’s-slipper SC Plant

Showy Lady’s-slipper SC Plant Baldings’s Turtle THR Turtle

Western Sand Dater SC Fish Floodplain Forest NA Community

XLIII


Sculpted Glyph SC Snail Wood Turtle THR Turtle

A Velvet Water Bug SC Bug Dark Rubyspot SC Dragonfly

Northern Mesic Forest NA Community Northern Sedge Meadow NA Community

Northern Wet-mesic Forest NA Community A Small Minnow Mayfly SC Mayfly

Prothonotary Wabler SC Bird Sand Prairie NA Community

Salamander Mussel THR Mussel A Riffle Beetle SC Beetle Canada Warbler SC Bird Slender Bullet SC Dragonfly

Lake—Deep, Soft, Seepage NA Community Yellow Screwstem SC Plant

Squarestem Spikerush END Plant Banded Killfish SC Fish

A Crawling Water Beetle SC Beetle Leonard’s Skipper SC Butterfly

Vasey Rush SC Plant American Shore-grass SC Plant

Osprey THR Bird Pine Barrens NA Community

Source: WDNR Natural Heritage Inventory – Shawano County, 2009

Shawano Lake 2030 SSA Allocation Area: 2

Location

SSA allocations for Area 2 are located in areas surrounding both the Village of Cecil and the Village of Bonduel, within the Towns of Washington and Hartland.

General Physical Features

This area falls within the western limits of the Northern Lake Michigan Coastal ecological landscape2. This portion of the Northern Lake Michigan Coastal landforms is made up of a lacustrine plain and ground moraines. Soils are very diverse; in some areas, lacustrine sands are found overlying clays or bedrock with only a few feet of the surface. Within this allocation area, soils are composed of moderately well drained, rocky sandy loams, interspersed with lacustrine sands, clays, peat and muck.

Current Development

The majority of SSA allocations to this area are currently being utilized for agricultural purposes and single family residential developments that currently utilize private on-site wastewater systems. Existing and future land use acreage totals for each community can be found in Appendix B.

2 WDNR Ecological Landscapes of Wisconsin - http://dnr.wi.gov/landscapes/

XLIV


Planed or Proposed

Development

A mix of residential, commercial, and industrial uses are planned for the vacant/developable lands within this area. Commercial and industrial uses are primarily located within the Village of Bonduel.

Limiting Environmental Conditions*

High groundwater and mapped wetland areas are present in various locations of this area’s SSA allocations. In general these limiting environmental conditions are widespread. Development of these areas may require alternative construction methods to protect the area’s surface and groundwater quality and quantity. Exhibit 4 maps these features and includes the 50 foot wetland buffers.

Water Features

This area’s allocations encompass or are adjacent mapped wetlands. A large wetland complex surrounding Mud Lake is located south of the Village of Cecil. Other small wetland areas are scattered throughout this allocation area and are primarily associated with steam corridors.

WDNR Natural Heritage

The following endangered (END), threatened (THR), or special concern (SC) species may exist within portions of the Area 1 SSA allocations:

Common Name

State Status

Group Name

Lake Sturgeon SC Fish

Elktoe SC Mussel Slippersshell Mussel THR Mussel Deam’s Rockcress SC Plant

A Tiger Beetle SC Beetle Snuffbox END Mussel

Wood Turtle THR Turtle Bald Eagle SC Bird

A Perlodid Stonefly SC Stonefly Indian Cucumber-root SC Plant

River Redhorse THR Fish Northern Dry-mesic Forest NA Community

Lake Chubsucker SC Fish Least Darter SC Fish

American Shore-grass SC Plant Pugnose Shiner THR Fish

Weed Shiner SC Fish Spring Pond NA Community

Emergent Marsh NA Community Longear Sunfish THR Fish

Showy Lady’s-slipper SC Plant Redfin Shiner THR Fish

XLV


Northern Mesic Forest NA Community Lake—Deep, Soft, Seepage NA Community

Yellow Screwstem SC Plant Squarestem Spikerush END Plant

Banded Killfish SC Fish Osprey THR Bird

Source: WDNR Natural Heritage Inventory – Shawano County, 2009

*Natural occurring environmental conditions where development may not be suitable such as: groundwater within

1 foot of the surface, Slopes greater than 12%, and bedrock occurring within 5 feet of the surface.

Sources: ECWRPC, WDNR’s Ecological Landscapes of Wisconsin, Ecosystem Management Planning Hand Book,

WDNR’s 2006 Impaired Waters List (303d list), & WDNR’s Natural Heritage Inventory Working List.

shawano lake 2030 update plandoc - east central …€¦ · shawano lake 2030 sewer service area...

Documents