Since the Village declined to answer my letter of Dec. 2nd I asked the Olmsted Society to speak up on this matter. (See below.) As a General Member of FLOS I asked to address the annual meeting so that I could explain why I believe the Olmsted Society should strenuously object to the Dam Removal project going forward BEFORE the complete plan is finished, vetted and approved, but it seems that was not possible. No one from FLOS has spoken up concerning the Hofmann Dam Removal project proceeding BEFORE the stipulations of the Memorandum of Agreement signed by Connie Guardi on behalf of FLOS being fulfilled and no one from FLOS has stepped up to demand that the Corps, the IDNR and the Village honor the terms all the signatories stipulated to. In fact, some of the members of FLOS voted as Trustees to grant the easement for the removal of the Fairbank Dam even though the Army Corps is not in compliance with the terms of the MOA. That document, signed in 2003, clearly states that “it shall be null and void if its terms are not carried out within one year” and further states “The Corps shall not commence demolition, construction, planting, excavation or repair... before obtaining comments and approval from the IHPA and the concurring parties on plans and specifications at the 75% and 100% design stage.”
The Corps and/or IDNR have yet to produce such a plan, and when they do it must be resubmitted to all the signatories for comments and approval before any demolition can take place. But this is not what is happening.
We all know that Riverside, as a registered Historical Landscape District, may not be treated as just some place to experiment and change things. Riverside’s boundaries extend to the south bank of the Des Plaines river and so the dams and bridges are integral features of the District , and therefore any work of this magnitude requires a valid MOA. I call upon the FLOS Board to honor its Mission Statement, which reads:
“The Frederick Law Olmsted Society is dedicated to sustaining Olmsted's vision for Riverside for generations to come. Its members are guided by his concern for humanity, nature, sense of community and the innovative and thoughtful essence of his work. The Olmsted Society invites residents and visitors to join us in learning, protecting the environment, and preserving our cultural and physical heritage.”
Frederick Law Olmsted had a specific interest in the mill-dam. He addressed its function and design in his Preliminary Report Upon the Proposed Suburban Village at Riverside, Near Chicago, 1868 by stating:
“It will probably be best to increase the height of the mill-dam so as to enlarge the area of the public water suitable for boating and skating, and so as to completely cover some low, flat ground now exposed in low stages of the river. At the same time, a larger outlet should be provided to prevent floods above the dam from injuring the shore. A public drive and walk should be carried near the edge of the bank in such a way as to avoid destroying the more valuable trees growing upon it, and there should be pretty boat-landings, terraces, balconies overhanging the water, and pavilions at points desirable for observing regattas, mainly of rustic character, and to be half overgrown with vines.” (p. 28.)
One can be in favor of the dam removal or against it - everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion. But everyone is not entitled to their own set of facts, and the facts are that if the Corps and IDNR want to proceed they must produce a 100% complete plan and submit it to the IHPA, The Riverside Preservation and Historical Commissions, FLOS and the Lyons Historical Society for comment and possible approval, BEFORE they start digging. I believe the Village must insist that all the questions I and others have raised be answered to an acceptable degree of certainty so that the ramifications of this project may be fully understood and the Village is fully protected.
FLOS should take a stand that, unless and until these plans and supporting documentation are produced, vetted, and approved this project must not proceed, and the Village should be fully and contractually indemnified for any negative effects this project causes if it does happen, all the way from 31st Street on the north to to the Ogden Bridge on the south.
Let me draw the scenario that has occurred here. This project was originally developed elsewhere. Over the years meetings were held to gather input, but no record of any changes made as a result of those meetings can be found. Then the MOA was developed between the IHPA and the Army Corps in 2002 which contains the stipulations I recited above. In 2006 a plan that was labeled “Final and Approved” was circulated. It said that Hofmann would be done in Year One, and Fairbank (and Armitage) in Year Two. Then nothing happened until 2010.
Suddenly, there seemed to be some money available and the IDNR came to the Village in a big hurry and said we need you to grant the easement for Fairbank so we can go ahead and contract this. It was a “Use it or Lose It” proposal, and our Village Board went ahead and granted it without ever seeing any finished plan for the entire project. The Village posted the notice for comments even though the IDNR stated the dam was in Lyons, not Riverside. As soon as the Board granted the easement the Corps and IDNR awarded the contract, even before the period for comments was closed. The Village is not included in that contract as a signatory. And so we are in the situation where demolition work may now proceed before we know what the entire scope of the plan will be. The work will be done by a contractor selected by others who themselves have by their own admission never removed a dam in Illinois.
The IDNR has no expertise or experience in this area - they have not removed a dam, and they have no outcome studies to offer. Worse, if we have negative results up river or down river of where they will work we have no recourse, except through the courts. We need to have a way to see exactly what they propose to do and how they will go about doing it, check it out to see if it is accurate, and then if it is approved, we need to be 100% sure they will be contractually obligated to correct anything that causes harm to the Riverside Historic District. That is only prudent.
There have been dams on this river for 183 years. The dam was here when Olmsted made his plan and you can see it drawn in on that plan. No one has the right to claim some kind of jurisdiction to remove it. It is my view that either FLOS stands up for insisting that this be done in the proper sequence or it loses its credibility. It is not good enough to start demolition when questions are answered by “wait and see.” answers. We must not these agencies experiment in Riverside.
The money for the Fairbank and Armitage dam removals, which is but a small part of the much larger project, has been allocated, and it does not need to be used immediately. We should insist on seeing the total plan in completed form before any digging and destruction starts.
Hofmann will be a massive project for Riverside. Many thousands of truckloads of materials including 3000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment will need to be moved and transported in and out of Riverside. IF this program is vetted and approved, we should insist that the work be done from the South Bank. or not at all. To grant a three year easement to bring this construction chaos to Fairbank Road is totally unnecessary. We just need to be firm. I hope FLOS will stand up to protect Riverside.
I won't hold my breath.
Posted Saturday Jan 15, 2011 16:17
#