Loading...
Newt Marine - Barge Fleeting NEWT MARINE 5 JONES STREET DUBUQUE, IOWA 52001 (319) 557-1855 Q 0'-< ';";,. c~: \..' ...' r ,. -;~ ~; C) o ):>::::;: 0- CD a o o () -l -0 ~ :0 :\1 () [ll . -;:::; "'-- m o N r:-? (:) r....:> October 10, 2000 City Hall 50 West 13th Street Dubuque, IA 52001 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: RE: Barge fleeting on City Island It has been brought to our attention that the City Council is being approached to approve barge fleeting on City Island. On July 29, 1983, Dubuque Barge and Fleeting Service, Inc. d/b/a Newt Marine Service requested that the Dubuque City Council Dock Committee grant permission to do fleeting on City Island. This proposal was denied by the city. Attached is a copy of the letter from the Dubuque County Conservation Society and a copy of the summary from a study done by the Dubuque Board of Dock Commissioners stating their objections to our request for fleeting (see attachments). Among the objections: * Environmental issues * Entrance into the city from the Wisconsin Bridge * Disfavor with location to Dog Track Facility * Location to water-orientated recreation * Political disfavor with location to commercial recreation-zoned property I feel that the city made the best decision for the community, especially now with the city emphasis on the Riverfront Beautification. As a riverfront business, Newt Marine, along with its sister company, Dubuque River Terminals, Inc. has worked with the city to enhance the view from the Julien Dubuque Bridge. Why now would the city consider moving fleeting from one visually unacceptable site to a even more obtrusive location? Artco and Newt Marine currently share fleeting on Island #228, known as Catfish Fleet, approximately 5 miles south of the city" In this fleeting area there are 186 barge spaces, which are evenly divided between both companies. This division of fleeting space places both companies on the same competitive basis. Dove Harbor, which is located between the Julien Dubuque Bridge and the Wisconsin Bridge, handles the majority of the commercial barge traffic in the city of Dubuque. In this harbor Artco can fleet roughly 10-12 barges. Newt can fleet 9. Dove Harbor, when used efficiently, allows us the advantage of having barges readily available for the docks, and in turn, a place for finished barges to be held until several barges can be moved to catfish fleet at one time. This makes our trips to Catfish fleet fewer, more efficient and less costly. Should the city approve Artco's request for fleeting off City Island, Newt Marine Service should be entitled to 50% of the fleeting area. Ifnot, we are placed at a significant disadvantage. Newt Marine would be working with the 30% higher cost that Artco refers to in their Barge Fleeting Proposal statement presented to the City Council on February 7,2000 (see attachment) . We strongly urge the council to consider these facts and base their decision on what will best serve the community and the long term goals of the Riverfront Beautification Project. Sincerely, ~ G~~vn Newt Marine Service cc: Michael C. Van Milligen Terrance M. Duggan John H. Markham Roy Buol Joseph T. Robbins Patricia Cline Daniel Nicholson Ann Michalski Tom Harkin Charles Grassely . . / / RESIDENT RANOL IRA Yl WElGE L Sf VICE PRESIDENT MARY MILLER nd VICE PRESIDENT BOB CAHILL rd VICE PRESIDENT CHUCK MILLS th VICE PRESIDENT STEVE'NANNENGA ECRETARY JIM EGAN REASURER JIM MURPHY AST PRESIDENTS DAVID LEIFKER JACK MILLER HAROLD HEDRICK JAMES WALTON ROBERT L CAHILL LEO McLAUGHLIN GARY RAMBOUSEK AL HANSON WALLY SUHR BOB ZEHENTNER )ECEASED PAST RESIDENTS ROSS HARRIS GEORGE SCHUMACHER HORACE POOLE JUDGE JOHN CHALMER! PAUL NAUMAN GUS MEYER JAMES MEYER ED GILGANN ~uhuque Count!J ConJervation $ociel!J "Orpai.d iu 19)3 Few "-ioo of Soil, Woodo, W..n and Wildlilc" P. O. Box 645 DUBUQUE, IOWA 52001 February 22, 1983 U.S. Department of the Interior Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service 122 West 2nd Street Winona, MN 85987 Dear Director: This letter is in reference to a Barge Fleeting Special Use Permit No. 146 issued to Newt Marine Service of Dubuque, Iowa. Our interest in this matter concerns the 1984 renewal application for the two Barge Fleeting sites located on islands at Mile 579 and 581.5 in re upper Mississippi River. It is our understanding that this renewal application may not be reissued by your department. The Dubuque County Conservation Society is a 50 year old conservation organization with a long successful history of active participation in the conservation movement in the Tri-State Area. The Society is presently invovled in the recreational planning process for Chaplin Schmidt Island wath the Dubuque Dock Board. This i'sland has been the loca tion fbl- the Society I s Ri vervi ew Conservation Park (35 acres) and now that the new Highway 151 bridge is open, serves as a very beautiful gateway to our city as one approa~hes from the Wisconsin side of the river. The shoreline below the new bridge (on the island) presently under lease to Beecher Quarries has been regarded as a possible Barge Fleeting site. This area probably will not be considered for development as it could be: needed if Fish and Wildlife chose not to renew Newt Marine's Fleeting application. The Dubuque County Conservation Society, by unanimous vote of its Board of Directors, wishes that Fish and Wildlife would extend Newt Marine Service's application at present capacities to continue fleeting on the islands at Mile 579 and 581.5. Newt Marine has a good record of avoiding environmental damage at the present sites and certainly the wildlife and habitual has acclimated to this use during the past twenty years of fleeting. 'RESIDENT RANOL (RAY) WEIGEL It VICE PRESIDENT MARY MILLER end VICE PRESIDENT BOB CAHIl.L >rd VICE PRESIDENT CHUCK MI LLS >th VICE PRESIDENT STEVE NANNENGA -.ECRETARY JIM EGAN -REASURER JIM MURPHY AST PRESIDENTS DAVID LEIFKER JACK MILLER HAROLD HEDRICK JAMES WALTON ROBERT L. CAHILL LEO McLAUGHLIN GARV RAMBOUSEK AL HANSON WALL V SUHR BOB ZEHENTNER ECEASED PAST RESIDENTS ROSS HARRIS GEORGE SCHUMACHER HORACE POO LE JUDGE JOHN CHALMER! PAUL NAUMAN GUS MEVER JAMES MEYER ED GILGANN ,~:-. .:/)ubuque CountIl ConJermtion SocietIl ''OrpaUed ill 19)) Few t'roc<<tioD of Soil. WDOdo, W_ ..... Wildlif." P. O. Box 645 DUBUQUE, IOWA 52001 u.s. Department of the Interior Page Two February 21, 1983 The Conservation Society further feels that the Chaplin Schmidt Island area is a very poor alternate site as it would be, 1) very noticeable from the new bridge, 2) force the recreational boater to compete with the commercial interests for the same water surface, and 3) cause unnecessary exposure to the commercial interests by high wind and current with the danger of runaway barges doing damage to the railroad bridge and shoreline commercial structures. ,1 am sure you will find our request most unusual as the Barge Fleeters and Conservation interests have traditionally been at odds with regard to river use. We also agree that the request is unusual but necessary. Much time has been spent discussing the issue with the Dock Board and Newt Marine and we feel that the best interests of the community, the future of the river, and Newt Marine could be served by extension of the permit. Our society would be most pleased to discuss our request with Fish and Wildlife at your convenience. A prompt reply would be appreciated. Sincerely, Q~~~."~,, RaYWeigel~~Siden~~ " Memorandum DATE: September 7, 1984 TO: All Barge Fleeting Committee Members FROM: Chris Buckleitner RE: Committee members' input on potential fleeting sites; and M~etinq date for September 19, 1984, 1:30 p.m. E.C.I.A. Conference Room. Please find a~tached all input received from committee mem- bers as of 9:00 a.m. Friday, September 7. If more is re- ceived it will be forwarded to the chairman of the committee before the September 19 meeting. NOTE: Attached is an agel1da. '::-01 the fleeting cOllulIiu:ee meeting on the 19th. .. I".~ . : t ".I , , :..j,' </.-1./-< {. /L U Board 0/ .supervijorj DUBUQUE COUNTY COURTHOUSE DUBUQUE. IOWA 52001 13191 583-3511 Augus t 28, 1984 Barge Fleeting Committee, ECIA Suite 330 Nesler Centre P.O. Box 1140 Dubuque, Iowa 52001 Dear Committee: This is how we rate these sLLes: LONG TERM 1. Catfish Creek South could be developed. Mile 577 to 578 right bank - 30 capacity. 2. Lower East side Chaplain Schmitt Island - 70 capa~ity 3. Mile 574.5 to 575 left bank - 60 capacity. 4. Mile 572 to 572.5 right bank - 40 capacity. 5. Mile 570 to 570.5 right bank - 50 capacity. 6. Upper Lake Peosta Channel - 200 capacity. 7. Lower L<1ke l'eostLl Channel - ]2 capacity. 8. BetloJecn Dove lIarbor and I'eosta Cl1annel - 40 capacity. SHORT TERM We believe that th.: existing sites could be expanded \oJher~ they are. Y t'lI r s t nil y , \. {" I .....;. I. \. Wilfred 13<1111 WILFRED R. BAHI LLOYD C. HAYES DONNA L SMITH Box 409A, R.R. #2 Dubuque, Iowa 52001 DUBUQUE COUNTY Phone 557-7283 HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT AVe 2.9 7984 August 28, 1984 Barge Fleetin8 Committee, EC1A Suite 330, Nesler Centre P.O. Box 1140 Dubuque, Iowa 52001 Dear Committee: This is how we rate these HiLes: LONG TERM 1. LO\ver east side Chaplain Schmitt Island - 70 capacity 2. Catfish Creek south could be developed. Mile 577 to 578 right bank - 30 capacity. 3. Mile 574.5 to 575 left bank - 60 capacity. 4. Mile 572 to 572.5 right bank - 40 capacity. 5. Mile 570 to 570.5 right bank - 50 capacity. 6. Upper Lake Peosta Channel - 200 capacity. 7. Lower Lake Peosta Channel - 12 capacity. 8. Bet'veen Dove Harbor and Peosta Channel - 40 capacity. SHORT TERM \~c bel ieve t;,at the 0xisting si tes could be expanded "Ihe[e they are. Yours truly, / ,/,',/ / / . --:. //?\) / /1 .' ~ . J /r ( l CI1.1 r ] es L. Bau 1 c, P. E. Dubuque County Engineer I""; THE PILLSBUR Y COMPANY P.O. BOX 330 DUBUQUE, IOWA 52001 TO: Chris Buckleitner, DMATS Staff SfP 5 1984 FROM: Joseph H. Fall RE: Ranking of Fleeting Sites by Pillsbury Company DATE: September 4, 1984 Site 1 - This is by far the most desirable area for barge fleeting. It could be used immediately, has deep water, is out of sight from the bridge coming into town from Wisconsin, has enough capacity to solve our short term needs, is out of the channel, is not owned by other agencies like U. S. Fish and Wild Life. has a minimal deleterious effect on the environment or wildlife. This is the only area that fulfills all of the above stated advantages. The problem is serious enough that only short term considerations should be considered and acted upon. Once a substantial size fleet is in.place in the city of Dubuque, then we can look at long term needs and ~lan for the future. . . All other fleeting areas are either too small, do not have deep water, use Fish & Wild Life prohibited land or are too far away from the major shipping terminals in Dubuque to be considered in any way in solving our short term fleeting needs. . J . I / \t1.i. i-JI. / ( , / . ,0'-] ., h~ ({II JHF/pjw I (' . ,0..".. . "::"""_"1 r'.:=: ~ tjJ 5 '/~84 State of Wisconsin \ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Southern District Headquarters 3911 Fish Hatchery Road Fitchburg, Wisconsin 53711-5397 Carroll D. 8esadny Secretary August 31, 1984 1600 Mr. Thurman Schweitzer DMATS Suite 330, Nestler Center P.O. Box 1140 Dubuque, IA 52004-1140 Dear Mr. Schweitzer: Re: Input on Feasibility of Potential Fleeting Sites I have reviewed the materials you have sent me, dated August 24, 1984. Following are the environmental concerns of each of the potential fleeting sites. Included is the site at River Mile 581.5, left bank. Since my primary concern is with the waters of the State of Wisconsin, those sites immediately impacting Wisconsin waters are dealt with first. River Mile 581.5, Left Bank - Both sides of the southern tip of the island are being considered where a government day mark is located. This site is located completely within Wisconsin waters and is subject to the permitting requirements contained in Chapter NR 327, Wis. Adm. Code. It will be difficult for the Department to grant a barge fleeting permit for this site due to the presence of an important mussel bed containing Lampsilis hig1insi, a Wisconsin and Federal endangered species listed under Sec. NR 27.03(2 (f)1, Wis. Adm. Code. Presence of a barge fleeting site in this area will negatively impact the mussel bed and the endangered species in the following manner. Increased barge traffic to and from the fleeting site as well as within the fleeting site will cause bottom erosion to the area of the mussel bed. Physical damage will. be caused to shells of the mussels and the endangered species. These will be caused by propeller scouring, increased wakes and bed erosion from barge and tow hulls. Damaged live and dead mussels have been observed by scuba divers within the barge channel of the Mississippi River near Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin. This same situation will certainly result if this site at R.M. 581.5 is developed and used for barge fleeting. Importand wildlife habitat will be negatively impacted if barge fleeting is allowed. This area also sees a substantial amount of sport and commercial fishing. This habitat will also be adversely affected by barge fleeting. .Mr. Thurman Schweitzer - August 31, 1~~4 rd~e L As part of the permitting process, the Department must prepare an environmental assessment pursuant to Sec. 1.11, Wis. Stats., and Sec. NR 150.03(2)(b)11, Wis. Adm. Code. We will require the applicant to submit information for the environmental assessment pursuant to Sec. 23.11(5), Wis. Stats. This information will pertain to environmental consequences and impacts, physical changes both aquatic and terrestrial, information on the affected enironment, alternatives, socio-economic impacts and impacts on threatened or endangered resources. Lower East Side of Chaplin Schmitt Memorial Island - Although the barge fleeting area will be on the Iowa side, the presence and operation of the fleet will have impacts on Wisconsin waters. The primary impact will be caused by increased barge traffic over the same important mussel bed impacted by the site at R.M. 581.5 which contains the endangered species Lampsilis higginsi. More information is needed on this site to determine what the impacts will be on the mussel bed. Site Between Dove Harbor and Peosta Channel - This area between the wing dams on the Iowa side contains a stump field with important fish spawning habitat. Sport and commercial fishing will be negatively impacted by barge fleeting in this area, as will the fishery resources of this entire stretch of river. Upper Lake Peosta Channel - This area is d good commercial and sport fishing area, with good fish spawning habitat. Barge fleeting in this area will negatively impact that habitat, substantially reducing the habitat available and the fishing opportunities within the river system. Lower Lake Peosta Channel - This area does not appear to have as much fisheries or wildlife resources as the above four sites. Environmentally, this will be the least damaging of the sites thus far selected. Mile 577 to 578, Right Bank - This entire area from R.M. 576 through 579 is an important commercial and sport fishing area. Significant spawning habitat exists in the immediate area of the proposed fleet. Barge fleeting in this area will negatively impact the fisheries resources for the entire river system. Mile 574.2 to 575, Left Bank - Important wildlife habitat exists on and around the island proposed as a fleeting site. Fish spawning habitat also exists in the immediate vicinity. Barge fleeting will have negative impacts on both of these habitats. Mile 572 to 572.5, Right Bank - Important wildl ife habitat exists on an around the island proposed for fleeting. Commerical and sport fishing occur near the site. Both wildlife and fish habits may be negatively impacted. Mile 570 to 570.5, Right Bank - This site appears to be near the navigational channel. A mussel bed is located in the immediate vicinity which will certainly be impcted by the fleeting activities. This also appears to be a popular water sport area. All the proposed sites will have some environmental drawbacks, some more than others. Since the river is a system, fleeting activities will affect the whole river. Of all the sites selected thus far, the Lower Peosta Lake Channel seems to be the least environmentally damaging. Although the site on Chaplin Schmitt Memorial Island is not directly over the mussel bed, activities from the fleeting may cause harm. Since the mussel bed is on the Wisconsin side and contains an endangered species, the State of Wisconsin will seek to protect it. The site at R.M. 581.5 is in Wisconsin waters and will be subject to our permitting requirements. I hope this will be sufficient information for your purposes. I will look forward to meeting with you on September 19, 1984. Sincerely, .' " .,;..' "--Ja~es Grafe lman Assistant Environmental Impact Coordinator JG:ps cc: BEAR/3 DQdgeville Area Office I United J~ States Department of the Sip IJ ~PS Interior Sf FISH AND WILDl.IFI. SI.RVln ROCK ISLAND FIElD OFFICE (ES) 1830 Second AI/enue. Second Fluor Rock Island. Illinois 61201 IN R~PLY REFER TO: Com: FTS: 309-793-5800 386-5800 September 5, 1981~ Mr. Chris Buckleitner East Central I~tergovernmental Association P.O. Box 1140 Dubuque, Iowa 52004-1140 Dear Mr. Buckleitner: The following is my evaluation of each of the eight proposed barge fleeting sites for Pool 12. I have listed the facturs about each site that influence my acceptance or rejection of the site. These comments apply in both the lont, and short ten7J unless specifically noted otherwise. In addition, for the Committees information, I have completed a pairwise comparison matrix considering the environmental factors of each site. This was done for two scenarios, (1) considering only environmental factors, sport and con~ercial fishing and water based recreation and ignoring site ownership; and (2) where FWS Refuge lands were present, the site was always the least preferred alternative. It should be noted that this was done without the input of other environmental agencies and the figures ~ould change. It was done for the Committee to see how the mechanics of pairwise comparisons work. As can be seen, the comparison not only ranks the sites from the environmental point of vi~w, but also enables the evaluator to see the relationship between alternatives or "how much" one site is ranked better than the others. I believe, if all interest groups (not individuals) were to use this methodology, and assuming equality between evaluation criteria, a logical, fair and statistically valid ranking would be obtained that is fully defensible. Site I - Lower East Side of Chaplain Schmitt Island Advantages - no fish or wildlife concerns. Disadvantages - aesthetic impact to land based recreation on Schmitt Island. Site II - Area Between Dove Harbor and Peosta Channel Advantages - no wildlife concerns Disadvantages - area is a stump field providing fish habitat for spawning, escaping predators and other life requirements. It is a sport and commercial fishing area. Dredging would be required necessitating a disposal site. This agency would require replacement habitat or enhancement of existing habitat elsewhere as mitigation. Fleeting activities could interfere with 2 recreational access to lower Peosta Channel and would be visible from Schmitt Island (aesthetic impact). Site III - Mile 574.5 to 575.0, left bank Advantages - None Disadvantages - Island owned by U.S. Fish and iVildlife Service and fleeting cannot be considered until 1986. Long term use cannot be predicted at this time. Site is close to important fish and wildlife habitat and fish spawning may take place in the structures (revetment) along the shoreline. Impact to heron rookery, river otter, white bass and sauger would need to be carefully considered. Fleeting activities could interfere with recreational access to the side channel. Site IV - Upper Lake Peosta Channel Advantages - none Disadvantages - The channel is spawning habitat for fish and is utilized by commercial fishermen. The shallow water zone and adjacent island habitat is important for wildlife. Fleeting activities \1ill cause turbulence and disturb and redistribute sediments which could affect fish spawning. Fleeting activities could also interfere ~ith access and use of the side channel. Fleeting would impose a visual impact from Schmitt Island. Site V - Lower Lake Peosta Channel Advantages - no fisheries or wildlife concerns. Disadvantages - Fleeting activities would illlerfere with recreation access and use of the lower side channel. Site VI - Mile 577.0 to 578.0, right bank Advantages - None Disadvantages - Important fish and wildlife habitat. Paddlefish spawning area, commercial fishing area, river otter sighted in area, popular watersport area. Fleeting would result in a negative aesthetic impact from Julien Dubuque Overlook and could interfere with access to Catfish Creek. Dredging is required necessitating disposal site~ and mitigation. Site VII - Mile 572.0 to 572.5, right bank Advantages - None Disadvantages - Important fish and wildlife habitat. Wildlife Service and cannot be considered until 1986. be predicted at this time. Heavy sportfishing use at some commercial fishing. Owned by Fish and Long term use cannot lower end of site and 3 Site VIII - Mile 570.0 to 570.5, right bank Advantages - no wildlife concerns. Disadvantages - Mussel beds located at site, no mitigation of impacts possible. Popular watersports area. Two additional sites were suggested. The first is at the tip of the island at River Mile 581.5, left bank. Advantages - none Disadvantages - area is shallow and would require dredging, disposal sites and mitigation. Our Resources IDven~ory identifies the area as being important for wildlife. The mussel bed located in@ediately downstream could be affected by sediments resuspended by tow boat activities. Secondly, sites above Lock and Dam 11 were suggested. T- believe that it is impractical to consider any site in Pool 11 as fleeting for terminals in Pool 12 because of the inefficiency of passing through the lock. Since the scope of our study was limited to the DuLuque area and no terminals currently exist above the dam, I feel it is inappropriate for us to consider any upstream sites at this time. Expanding the study above the dam will significantly complica~e the issue. ~crr Sinq@rely, ~ . "'- "/ - , ' 1/1 /- i '. . I U4-..."......~ If / / "'-i.:- \' (.c." Gerald Bade ! Fish & Vildlife Biologist Enclosure ~ ~ DUBUQUE HARBOR SERVICE 608-725-2311. P.O. Box 585. Cassville, Wisconsin 53806 September 6, 1984 DMATS Barge Fleeting Committe c/o Mr. Chris Buckleitner, ECIA Dubuque Harbor Service presently has a maximum fleet capacity of 83 barges. In Hay of 1984, as many as 80 barges were in these fleets on a given day, allowing no room for operating. The ideal condition would be two barge spaces available for each barge fleeted, providing a space for each barge, and a space to move it. IJii:h the shortage of potential fleeting sites available, Dubuque Harbor Service could reasonably operate with an increase of forty additional spaces. Remarks by Dubuque Harbor Service' on each potential fleeting site are based on DHS needs for additional spaces, site locations, ability to work tows, etc. I Lower East Side of Chaplain Schmitt Memorial Island This site is located at mile 581 RB with an estimated capacity of 70 barges. It has adequate water depth, and is located above the RR bridge eliminating bridge delays. It is located on the main channel allowing access to work line haul tows. For fleeting purposes this site would be an excellent location, and far superior to any other sites considered. II Area A between Dove Harbor and Peosta Channel This site is located at mile 580.5 with an estimated capacity of forty barges. It has all of the location advantages of Site I. The main disadvantage, which renders this area unusable as is, is the low water depth and stump fields. Dredging operation would be required before use, with costs expected to be much greater than affordable for a barge fleeter. CASSVILLE RIVER TERMINAL CLINTON HARBOR SERVICE DUBUQUE HARBOR SERVICE DIVISIONS OF WISCONSIN BARGE LINE. INC. DMATS Barge Fleeting Committee III Mile 574.5 to 575 LB This site has an estimated capacity of 60 barge spaces. The advantages of adequate water depth, access to the channel, and large capacity are outweighed by the distance of approximately six miles from Dubuque Harbor. In add- ition to time consumed moving barges that distance, a fleet so remote would be impossible to monitor frequently, and have a higher risk of undetected breakaways. Future needs, as volurnns increase farther south such as E. D. Sand and Gravel, would make this site feasable for long term needs. These comments also apply to sites located at miles 572 RB and 570 RB. IV Upper Lake Peosta Channel This site has an estimated capacity of 200 barges if' fully utilized. It has adequate water depth and the dis- tance from Dove Harbor would be less than three miles. A serious disadvantage of this site is lack of access by line haul tows. Many line boats require unfacing from their tows during rearranging of barges, and would have no place to tie off. This would require many barges to continue to drop at Mines of Spain, over three miles south of Dubuque Harbor. V Lower Lake Peosta Channel This site has an estimated capacity of 12 barges. It has the same disadvantage as Upper Peosta Channel with less barge capacity. Distance from Dove Harbor is less than one mile. This site would provide some relief to the space problem, but would still require additional area to fully solve the problem. VI Mile 577 to 578 RB This site has an estimated capacity of 30 barges. The portion of this site below Catfish Creek is very shallow, and silt from Catfish would continue to fill in requiring constant dredging to be usable. The portion of this site above Catfish is divided by an existing dock, and has no way to place deadmen between the RR tracks and river. An anchor barge just above the Mines of Spain area would relieve some congestion, but would be closer to the main channel navigation than desired, and would not be as safe as a fleet secured to shorewires. DMATS Barge Fleeting Committee VII Mile 581.2 LB (Above new highway bridge) This site would have an estimated capacity of 23 barges, utilizing an anchor barge. For location, .see "X" on attached map. The adj acent shoreline area would not accomodate dead men, making an anchor barge mandatory. Shallow water caused by a sand point extending south of the upstream island would require the fleet to locate and estimated 200' above the new bridge. This would be an undesirable area to. work tows, and be adversely subjected to high water currents. Possible obstruction to navi- gation may also be present. VIII Little Maquoketa Site This area, proposed for future fleeting and harbor activity, would be located north of Lock and Dam 11. This seperation requires fleeting ror this area to be considered totally seperate from the Dubuque Harbor. Ba~ge shifts through the lock would cause totally un- reasonable delays and expense. Total fleeting for the Dubuque Harbor area now consists of the following: Owner US Fish & Wildlife Svc State of Iowa Private Lease City of Dubuque Capacity 93 48 23 21 185 Percent of Total 50.27% 25.95% 12.43/0 11. 35% 100.00% I summary, the short term needs of Dubuque Harbor Service include additonal capacity of at least 40 barge spaces. This site should be located along the main channel, allowing access to tie.off line haul tows. Presently, most tow work must be performed at Mines of Spain fleet, over three miles south of Dubuque. Potential fleeting sites below Mile 575 are totally unfeasable for use to solve the short term needs, due to both distance from Dubuque, and US Fish & Wildlife policy not to consider any new fleeting site applications until after 1986. Sincerely, f2tJ)/[}~b~ Robert D. Hudson BARGE FLEETrnG STUDY PROS AND CONS FOR FLEETrnG SITES r) SITE # I Lo.ver East Side Chaplain Schmitt Island . A. Advantages: 1) Location/Distance to Elevators 2) Adequate Water Depth 3) Barge Capacity 4) Located Above RR Bridge Eliminating Potential Bridge Delays B. Disadvantages: 1) Political Disfavor with Location to Commercial Recreation-Zoned Proper~ 2) Political Disfavor with Location to Dog Track Facility 3) Potential Conflict with RiverbJat docking 4) Location to Water-oriented Recreation Facility II Area A Between Dove Harror and Peosta Channel A. Advantages: 1) Location - Distance to Elevators 2) Located Above RR Bridge Eliminating Potential Bridge Delays c~ B. Disadvantages: 1) Water Depth Inadequate - Stump Field 2) Potential High Cost of Dredging to Eliminate Stump Field 3) Heavy Sr;:orts and CaTUTlercial Fishing Area 4) Recognized as Fish Spawning Area III Mile 574.5 to 575 LB A. Advantages: 1) Adequa te Water Depth 2) Location to Sand and Gravel Facility 3) Good Barge Capacity B. Disadvantages: 1) Remote Location to Elevators 2) o..mec1 by U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service an<.l will not tc considered for fleeting until 1986 IV Upper Lake Peosta Channel A. Advantages: 1) Location/Distance to Elevators 2) Located Above RR Bridge Eliminating Potential Bridge Delays 3) Adequate Water Depth 4) Potentially Large Barge Capacity B. Disadvantages: 1) commercial Fishing Area 2) Heavy Recreation Boating/Fishing Area 3) Strong CUrrent 4) Bridge Located Directly BelCM1 5) Location to Highly-used Recreation Park 6) Location to Important Wildlife Habitat 7) Location to Water-oriented Recreation Facility V Lo.ver Lake peosta Channel A. Advantages: 1) Location/Distance to Elevators 2) Located Al:xJve RR Bridge Eliminating Potential Bridge Delays 3) Adequa te Water Depth B. Disadvantages: 1) Location to Crnmercial Recreation Area 2) Relatively Small Barge Capacity 3) Heavy Recreational Boating Area 4) Presen tl y Leased as Terminal VI Mile 577 to 578 RB A. Advantages: 1) Adequa te Barge Capacity B. Disadvantages: 1) Inadequa te Water Depth 2) Mouth of Catfish Creek Discharge and Susceptible to Siltation 3) Relatively Remote Location to Elevators 4) Below RR Bridge/Potential Delays 5) Scenic Over look Directly Above 6) Spawning ,Habitat 7) Carmercial Fishing Area 8) Important Wildlife Habitat VII Mile 572 t::) 572.5 RB A. Advantages: 1) Adequate \'Jater Depth 2) Location to Sand and Gravel Facility 3) Adequate Barge Capacity B. Disadvantages: 1) RerrDte Location to Elevators 2) Owned by u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service and will not be considered for fleeting until 1986 3) Heavy SFQrts Fishing Area VIII Mile 570 to 570.5 RB A. Advantages: 1) Ad~ate Water Depth 2) Adequate Barge Capacity B. Disadvantages: 1) Renate Location fran Elevators 2) Mussel Beds 3) Location to Navigation Channel .~atJ 4 ?/ ~/ ~O/~ - C9/~/81 ~-"' /;" Dubuque Metropolitan Area Transportation Study Barge Fleeting Summary Report October 15, 1984 / ~ " . Site I - Lower East Side of Chaplain Schmidt Memorial Island. Capacity about 70. ECONOMIC/LEGAL Advantages 1. This is a superio~ site to others considered. It is being dredged for land fill for the dog track and therefore has adequate water dep~h and lowered development costs. 2. It is located ab6ve th~ I.C.G. bridge, eliminating bridge delays and reducing time shuttling between the site and terminals. It i,s located very near the main channel, allowing access to line haul tows that are to be worked on. 3. This area could be used immediately after the sand dredge is removed. 4. Sufficient capacity for Dubuque Harbor short term needs. 5. This area is locally controlled by the City of Dubuque, foregoing most permitting procedures necessary with federal and state controlled areas. Disadvantages 1. Local land use conflict. Problems are associated wth perceived aesthetic detriments to the Schmitt Memorial Island development: a) Visual impact on surrounding areas. b) Possible Conflict with river boat tour docking facilities. c) Possible Conflict with general recreational activity. ENVIRONMENTAL/RECREATIONAL Advantages: 1. There are no fish or wildlife concerns of significance. Disadvantages: 1. The fleeting area would be located just upstream from the Chaplain Schmitt Boat Harbor and this represents a possibility for conflicts between barge fleeting operations and recreational boating. 2. The presence and operation of fleeting will have impacts on Wisconsin waters wth a primary impact caused by traffic over a mussel bed on the Wisconsin side. Wisconsin DNR feels that more information would be needed to determine what the impact would be. Artco Fleeting Services Barge Fleeting Proposal City Council Meeting February 7,2000 Costs Facts & Figures . Other workable fleets are 4 miles downstream from current city-front fleets . Boats travel at approximately 5 mph . It takes several minutes to get up to speed and to slow down . With above 3 factors = I hour extra per switch . Current average switching time one way is 40 minutes not counting delays . 5-year average number of barges handled in the upper harbor = 1000 (Artco only) . Typical season lasts 9 months or 270 days . 1000 barges x 2 switches (l to dock, I from dock) = 2000 switches per year . 2000 switches x 1 hour extra each = 2000 hours (83 24-hour days) per year Adding 83 days to a 270 day season is a workload increase of over 30%. In order to accommodate the extra 30% of work, an extra boat will need to be utilized in the harbor. 30% increase in costs include: (but not limited to) . Cost of a boat is approximately $500,000. . Costs $400,000+ per year to operate (labor, insurance, repair & maintenance, etc). . Fuel bum will increase by making so many additional trips. . Fuel prices continue to rise - currently 25% more than this past summer. Unfortunately an increase in costs to us will most likely create an increase in rates to the local businesses. When businesses have increased transportation costs it can affect: 1. The price Alliant charges for electricity 2. The price Peavey and AGM pay farmers for grain (resulting in farmers taking their grain to other communities thereby the City losing out on taxes and revenues) 3. The cost the City pays for salt for roads 4. The cost farmers pay for fertilizer All these things, but not limited to, may be affected with increased prices and we do not want to have to raise our rates, but may be forced to. By having a large enough fleet in close proximity of the city that we can service Dubuque's businesses efficiently, we are not only preventing additional costs but adding to the economy by paying additional money to the City in the form ofleases. _ _ _~__ _ _ __'- ~~ L. A -~ ----- --~..~--- - .