things Ed was thinking about

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...