|
October
21, 2005 Mr. Greg
McKay U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Operations
Division, Regulatory Branch ATTN:
CELRL-OP-FS 600 Dr.
Martin Luther King Place, Rm. 752 Louisville,
KY 40202
Subject:
Public Notice No. 199200465 (Jefferson Co.), River Park Place
Dear Mr.
McKay: As a
member of The Louisville Harbor Association and longtime recreational boater,
this comment is meant to express my concerns about the redevelopment of The
Louisville Municipal Harbor as part of the proposed Riverpark Place
residential/commercial development. Although I share the opinion of many that
development of the immediate area may be unwise due to public interest,
environmental, historic, archaeological. and flood mitigation issues, I have no
specific objections to the residential component. I do however strongly oppose this very poorly executed and
historically insensitive harbor design.
Although
the Louisville Waterfront Development Corporation (WDC) is the applicant of
record, Icon Properties LLC . a Louisville firm, has a formal agreement with WDC
and Louisville Metro to develop this site. In this agreement, Icon is
contractually obligated to produce detailed plans, actively pursue regulatory
permitting, protect and preserve historic sites, l and otherwise execute this
project. The term "developer(s)" as used in this comment, refers
variously to all parties to that agreement. This
design is blatantly impractical to any Ohio River boater with local
knowledge of the area. The Harbor has been given little serious engineering
scrutiny and the project “plans” show a total disregard of area hydraulics,
navigation, marine safety, accepted practices, and the legacy of 70 years of
successful harbor operations at that location. As far
as execution and submission of the design itself, I was very surprised that the
application and public notice did not include overall dimensional plans for the
marina perimeter, detailed dredge depth cross-sections. dock layout and
dimensions, indicated flood level elevations and probabilities, fairway
dimensions, construction runoff and containment plans, evidence of current
environmental testing and water quality certifications, historic review, etc. The
primary consideration driving this harbor design seems to be the expediency and
economy of excavating the maximum available fill material for site preparation
of the adjoining upland residential development and the building of as many
deeded slips as possible in this very hostile and vulnerable area. One wonders
if any research or engineering other than an artists rendering and calculation
of potential profits from the sale of deeded slips was used to develop this
particular design. It should be noted that the stated volumes of the currently
proposed upfill is triple the original 1995 request. A sketchy 10-year-old
“master plan”, much of which is now obsolete due subsequent developments and
continuous design changes over the years, is simply insufficient criteria for
justifying a project of this magnitude. I offer
the following potentially fatal flaws in the current proposal to illustrate my
opinion that this design is unacceptable: #1 -
Removal of The Harbor Island: Historic
photos and maps clearly show that Towhead Island is unstable. In 1936, living
memory afforded the original harbor designers knowledge of its origins as Tiger
and Willow Bar and the likelihood that it will continue to shift and reshape. It
has already retreated downstream at least 75 yards since the harbor was built.
In the meantime, the man made Harbor Island has stabilized The Towhead Channel
to a 6-16 ft navigable depth down its entire 3000 ft length and faithfully
protected the inner harbor. Its removal will likely cause drastic changes,
including the accelerated erosion of Towhead and the eventual exposure of the
entire harbor to the main river. Another
byproduct of the status quo is the Harbor Island greatly reduces the river's
flow and velocity in the Towhead channel and even more so in the inner harbor.
This offers the following added benefits:
It
allows safe, controlled entry and exit of vessels from the harbor during minor
flooding but is especially important on those occasions when the river reaches
16+ ft on the upper gauge and begins to top the Harbor Island and point at
Beargrass Creek. Without the buffering effect the Harbor Island affords,
controlled emergency evacuation at the onset of a an imminent flooding event
will be extremely dangerous if not impossible.
Large
floating debris is a constant threat to moored riverine recreational vessels.
Fortunately the above-mentioned slowing of the current tends to keep the larger
debris out in the main river; well away from the moored vessels in the inner
harbor. Removal of the Harbor Island will unnecessarily expose the docks and
moored vessels to this grave danger, especially in the long term as Towhead
continues to erode. This
structure also acts as a secondary safeguard between the recreational moorings
and very heavy commercial traffic that share the area adjacent to Towhead
Island. Retrieval of loose vessels in the inner harbor is relatively simple.
Removal of the Harbor Island will allow these vessels an unrestricted path down
the Towhead channel into the commercial lanes and also seriously complicate the
safe retrieval of theses vessels, especially during high water when this
situation typically occurs. The
structure also absolutely prohibits any disabled or otherwise free- drifting
commercial vessels from entering the inner harbor with catastrophic results. The
1995 Plan did not call for its removal, and without extensive study of the
consequences, it should not be allowed now. #2 -
The 300 ft Floating Dock at the Upper Harbor Entrance: The
construction of a 300 ft long floating dock at the upper harbor entrance is
absurd. The inclusion of this structure directly in the middle of the
busiest commercial fleeting areas in the lower McAlpine Pool is further evidence
of the thoughtlessness of the overall plan. It
will close the natural entrance to the Towhead Channel and upper harbor. The
proposed 295 ft "opening" is actually a large bar at the head of
Towhead Island and is too shallow for safe navigation by the 30-60 ft vessels
that typically use the area This
proposed dock also straddles the discharge eddy that exists at the mouth of
Beargrass Creek and in normal times will be the victim of a massive buildup of
debris and silt. During any significant flood, this structure will literally be
floating out in the middle the river. Considering the flow and velocity such an
event produces and the likelihood of impact by large debris, its long-term
survivability is doubtful The
previously stated debris accumulations will restrict the flow through the
channel and probably result in severe silting down its entire length. Given the
huge area that will now require routine maintenance dredging, the eventual loss
of the entire inside passage from Beargrass Creek to The Big Four Bridge is a
distinct possibility #3 -
Silt Management:
In
the off-season from November through May, the river regularly overruns the point
at Beargrass Creek and flows unimpeded through the entire area. Not only does
this deposit 3-6 ft of dense silt in the harbor basin itself, the entire
shoreline approximately 80 ft inland is also covered with dense silt. The annual
clearing of the Harbor and surrounding shore is incredibly laborious and
involves the use of earth moving equipment, fire hoses, clamshell dredging and
wheel washing by large commercial vessels, and dredging by small drag dredges.
In bad years, this activity is continuous. Given
that the design calls for more than doubling the size of the harbor and the
likelihood the altered Towhead channel will now require equal attention, the
mandatory dredging requirements will likely triple. Unfortunately, the very long
crosscurrent dock configuration, upriver facing slips, restricted fairways, and
huge area of the proposed design will prevent the effective use of traditional
dredging techniques. The alternative methods: pipeline,
hydraulic, and/or hopper dredging, will be necessary. These methods are
very expensive and burdensome. Besides the fact that this proposal lacks a
dredging and disposal plan to support the proposal, conventional wisdom suggests
that without a much more conservative design that encourages routine
dredging, harbor operations will likely collapse under the weight of the
expense. #4 -
The Boat Ramp on Beargrass Creek Beargrass
Creek is not deep or wide enough for a boat ramp and the long-term effect of any
structure in that waterway has not been established. Once again engineering
study is needed
#5 - Navigation and Safety: The
extremely long cross current inner fairways will make travel between the
entrance channel and the shore side slips difficult if not impossible in the
often strong prevailing wind and current. "No Wake" operation will be
perilous and frequent collisions with downstream structures and moored vessels
is inevitable. These
same characteristics will also make it impossible give way and loiter for
traffic to pass at the fairway exits. Vessels will have no choice other
than to pull out in front of others in the hopes of avoiding collision through
maneuver. The alternative is a loss of headway, loss of control, and collision
with downstream objects or structures. There
is also the evacuation problem. Coupled with proposed removal of The Harbor
Island, this arrangement ensures that vessels will be trapped in the harbor and
unable to execute controlled emergency evacuation at the onset of a an imminent
flooding event. #6
– Congestion: Besides
the very heavy commercial traffic in the immediate area, recreational use of
Towhead Channel is also substantial. With its previously mentioned deficiencies
and the proposal to enlarge mooring capacity from the current 125 to #7 -
Debris Management No
one builds slips facing upriver without the benefit of high ground at the
upstream approaches. The presence of a protected wetland between the harbor
and Beargrass Creek negates this possibility. Without a design that
encourages the year round, free flow of medium to small floating debris through
the area and absolutely excludes large debris from the inner harbor, massive
amounts of debris will inevitably be trapped in the upriver facing slips and
other proposed structures. Clearing these slips and the removal of the material
form the harbor against the current will be impossible. At full flood with the
additional weight of moored vessels, these structures and the vessels they are
supposed to protect will be in grave danger #8 -
Absence of Specific Expertise:
Because
of the previously noted realities, the presence of specific expertise to execute
a sustainable harbor design must be questioned. Although the developers have
shown great skill in the execution of extensive shore based residential,
commercial, and civic projects, they have never designed, built, managed,
or maintained a large pleasure boat harbor anywhere, much less on a turbid river
like The Ohio. Although one of their consulting firms has had excellent
results with various waterfront projects, most have been in tidal waters, not a
turbid river, and involved mostly shore components, not marine infrastructure. Detailed
engineering study and design are a matter of course for a project of this type
and simply have not been included. I would suggest that in their absence, this
project must not be permitted #9 -
Operational Weaknesses:
The
assumption that there is demand for 300+ new slips in the immediate area is also
questionable. Two large nearby marinas were practically empty this year and
consequently unable to generate the income necessary for basic maintenance.
With the uncertain economy and rising mooring, maintenance, and fuel costs, many
boat owners are abandoning the activity altogether. These factors further
suggest this marina design will not generate the income necessary for sustained
operations. The
announced intention by the developers to implement a “dockominium”
arrangement also suggests interest in year round marina operations. Without
extremely robust and costly construction of extraordinary protections against
the river, any vessel moored in the harbor during the off-season will be at
significant risk. It should be noted that features meant to impede the
destructive forces of the river and safeguard vessels in the worst case are
prominently absent. The
developer has also vastly overestimated the number of owners willing to risk
their vessels to this very poor design. The normal arrangement of a
“dockominium association” will be difficult to manage as this design
guarantees extremely high owner vessel insurance and facility maintenance costs.
In the wake of a major flood, the owner assessments will no doubt force many to
cut their losses and leave #10
– The Public Interest The
current harbor is the only publicly administered harbor in the area and the only
affordable option for the average person to enjoy cruising and houseboating.
Despite the laborious nature of river life on traditional fixed docks, up until
the latest highly politicized development plan forced many to make other plans
or abandon boating altogether, there was a waiting list. These were not the
wealthy owners the current developer believe will appear in unrealistic numbers,
these relative few are already accommodated
in other private marinas with room to spare. The total privatization of this
harbor without any consideration of the traditional boaters that make up the
core of the river culture is simply wrong, especially since this is public land
to begin with. #11
- Historic Considerations:
The
Louisville Municipal Harbor (WPA District 6 project #110 circa 1936) is believed
to be the oldest continuously operated inland recreational harbor on the Ohio
River and among the oldest in the country. It is a touchstone to the Ohio River
boating community whose inspired original design has survived 9 of the top 15
flood events on record with little modification. Previous Section 106 reviews
found the harbor historically significant. Since much new documentary material of
its origins and history has recently come to light, I believe further review is
required. A historical narrative can be seen at www.louisvilleboatharbor.com I
would urge The District Engineer to initiate a new Section 106 Federal Review
through The Kentucky Heritage Council as demolition and excavation of this
unique public resource is one of the first stages of this project.
The
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s rules on Section 106 state that
organizations and individuals that have a demonstrated interest in a project may
participate as a Consulting Party because of their concern with the project’s
impact on historic properties. As a member of The Louisville Harbor
Association the group most affected by this project, I am very concerned with
its continued viability as a historical, recreational, and cultural asset to the
community. I request Consulting Party status in any Section 106 process for the
Riverpark Place project. No
one disputes that the current harbor is primitive and in need of renovation and
modernization, but its original design features are absolutely brilliant and
must be retained to assure its continued viability. These include the
additional buttress of the protective Harbor Island, the downriver orientation
of the fairway, the slanted docks that aid in the natural flow of debris without
significant retention, fixed pilings at the slip entrances that aid in
controlled entry and exit in all conditions, and the conservative size and
layout that facilitates economic maintenance dredging. The fact that the harbor
has existed for 70 years at that location with a minimal maintenance budget
speaks volumes for the wisdom of its original design. In that regard, the
proposed design is infinitely inferior to the primitive one that now exists and
should not be permitted Please
feel free to contact me if you have any questions or require any further
information. Thank you for your consideration is this matter. |
|