things Ed was thinking about
Submitted by Susan Miller on Fri, 12/19/2008 - 21:44.
Attached are minutes from an October 2007 meeting of City of Cleveland Planning, Cleveland Cuyahoga County Port Authority, URS and US Army Corps of Engineers. Ed had these issues in mind (among numerous others) when he left us. Let's catch up a bit. Can anoyone give an update as to how these questions have been addressed more than a year later?
Highlights include:
- Four Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) pipes also discharge into the harbor at the east end. Relocation will be necessary to accommodate the construction, NPDES/SPDES permits will need to be revised, and circulation/dispersion issues will need to be assessed in the environmental impact statement.
- Encroachment on the channel will require likely congressional authorization, similar to what is needed for the Alternative Plan 2a. It is possible that the de-authorization may be accomplished by inserting appropriate language into an appropriations bill, as opposed to seeking specific authorization in a WRDA.
- Additional dredging in the eastern approach channel necessitated by relocating port operations there will tax an already overburdened annual dredging budget.
- Vertical dike structures may prove problematic due to the wave and ice lateral forces. USACE will investigate further.
- Due to the implementation schedule of the CDF, the construction of the proposed breakwater extension will likely not occur prior to construction of the CDF. Therefore, the preliminary design efforts will not consider the protection it will afford.
- The DMMP may be able to support the proposed East 55th site, but in its development of alternatives, USACE will design the most cost effective CDF in the site that is environmentally sustainable and engineeringly sound. This base design will serve as the Federal standard for the proposed site. If the local sponsor desires changes to the project features (i.e., vertical structures, geometry changes to enable effective port operations, etc.) and these features increase total project cost, the increased cost will be borne 100% by the local sponsor. Additionally, all lands, easements, rights of way, and relocations will be paid for entirely by the local sponsor. In the case of utility relocations, these costs may be excessive. These costs may be credited against the ocal sponsor's contribution to operations and maintenance costs (10% of the total project cost).
- This site has not been proposed by USACE to the public as a potential CDF site. Public support is unknown and questionable.
- The environmental impact statement will systematically and comprehensively identify, qualify, and quantify all impacts related to the site. All impacts will be mitigated. It is very possible, if not likely, that there are other impacts not yet identified.
- Linda Henrichsen expressed concern about public support for the site. The need for public meetings and information session was established. Linda also expressed concern that Section 4F, Title 49 U.S.C. may have jurisdiction over the land access required for the East 55th Street site. Specifically, acquisition of or modification to the state park land could be governed by this statute, and if it is, the project may require Secretary of Transportation approval. There was some discussion about whether the statue would apply to Option A only, both sites, or none of the sites. Consensus was not reached and more investigation is needed.
Also attached are plans to expand the Cleveland Bulk Terminal into the Whiskey Island Marina. Did Ed have assurance that the port did not have an intention to proceed with this plan? He was carrying that document with him and showing it everywhere he could get eyes on it... I could hear strains of the old tune... "Can I get a witness?"
Do we know yet whether this port relocation and expansion is a good idea? It seems the CCCPA has decided - they plan to vacate and develop much of their current site in the next year or two...
|
Printer-friendly version
PD follow up and docs from Dike 14
Tom Breckenridge posts a story on Dike 14's protest of the port move:
Preservation group hopes to thwart port move
But in yesterday's email I received these documents and updates from Dike 14:
To: Dike 14 Nature Preserve Committee & Friends
From: Barbara A. Martin, Chair, Dike 14 Nature Preserve Committee
Bill Gruber, Vice Chair, Dike 14 Nature Preserve Committee
Date: January 1, 2009
RE: CORRESPONDENCE WITH ARMY CORPS - 2 LETTERS - ATTACHED
Please find attached our recent correspondence with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers about the plans they are developing for a new Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) at E. 55 St. on the Cleveland Lakefront to contain dredgings from the Cleveland Harbor. (ATTACHED: The Committee's letter to the Army Corps dated December 3, 2008, and the Army Corps letter of response dated December 22, 2008.)
Here is a summary of the correspondence:
(1) The Committee does not oppose the construction of a CDF at East 55th St., as long as the CDF is built to complement and allow the continued existence of the park and marina at the East 55th Lakefront State Park.
Response: The Army Corps responded that they are planning to include, as an alternative configuration, a CDF that “does not encroach upon the existing East 55th Street park and marina.” The Corps included a graphic plan of this alternative with their letter.
Note: The Corps' alternative depicts a 157-acre CDF surrounding the east and north sides of the E. 55th Lakefront State Park and Marina, which essentially removes the lakefront from the State Park. The Marina is shown intact but the Park’s fishing piers and public access to the Lake are destroyed. The Corps' letter does not specify the end use of this alternative CDF, nor does it mention the Port Authority’s preferred 200-acre CDF that destroys the entire East 55th Street Lakefront State Park and Marina.
Note: The Army Corps is required by law to include at least one alternative (and maybe more) in its analysis of a new CDF site. Generally, the Army Corps' analysis (aka Dredged Material Management Plan or DMMP) will explain why the primary site and configuration is preferred, and why the alternative(s) is not the preferred location or configuration.
(2) We also asked the Army Corps to evaluate in its Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for the proposed 200-acre CDF at East 55th St. not only the impact of the CDF but also the environmental impact of the Port’s proposed move of its industrial operations and facilities to the 200-acre site.
Response: The Army Corps responded as we anticipated, saying that their EIS will analyze ONLY the environmental impact of the construction of a CDF at East 55th, and NOT the impact of the Port’s industrial operations at a completed CDF landmass at East 55th.
Note: The Army Corps may be restricted by law to this limited analysis. Therefore, it is essential that the ODNR and Ohio EPA require the Port to conduct such an EIS with public hearings on the impact of an industrial port at East 55th before agreeing to any relinquishment of the State Park to the Port. This industrial port EIS should be done NOW, before any taxpayer money is spent on construction of a CDF; and not after the CDF is built and taxpayers have spent millions more dollars for the planning and infrastructure for the Port move.
(3) The Army Corps states that the public hearing on the EIS for the E. 55th St. CDF will be held in the ”spring of 2009.” (Note: This is somewhat later than the February 2009 date previously planned.)
(4) Our letter requests the Army Corps to present specific information when it issues its EIS and conducts its public hearing, including: the cost of the CDF; the amounts to be paid by the Corps and the Port; the additional cost necessary to construct a CDF capable of functioning as an industrial Port facility; the cost of the construction and filling of the CDF at East 55th if it was planned only for park use and not for heavy industry; the timeline for the construction and filling of the CDF at each stage; the extent to which non-federal dredge and non-dredge material will be permitted to be placed in the CDF, and the tipping charges to be applied; and the need for an extension to the outer harbor federal breakwall implicit in the East 55th CDF project - the cost, who will pay, and the timing for such an extension.
Response: The Army Corps did not respond to this request.
The Committee, having met on December 29th, anticipates sending a follow-up letter to the Army Corps to clarify whether there are additional "alternative" plans, and what will be included in the Corps’ analysis and presentation to the public.
Please feel free to write to the Army Corps and/or federal and local public officials about your views concerning this proposed project.
We will keep you informed as we gain greater understanding of the alternative plans and requisite public hearings.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
I will post the attachments to the original entry of this post (see above).