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
-~ ----- --~..~--- - .