Request for Comments on Proposed Boat Ramp near Mouth of the Kalamazoo River

City Council Agenda Item Report FROM:

Ryan Cummins, City Manager

MEETING DATE:

February 19, 2025

SUBJECT:

Request for Comments on Proposed Boat Ramp near Mouth of the Kalamazoo River

DESCRIPTION: The Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance (Coastal Alliance) has submitted the attached letter requesting that the City provide comments via resolution and/or letter to the Army Corps of Engineers related to an application by North Shores of Saugatuck LLC, for a permit to install a boat ramp in the Kalamazoo River. Further details of the proposed project, Coastal Alliance concerns, and prior Council resolution related to a marina basin are attached. Saugatuck Township advised they will not be submitting comments as they view this as an improvement of an existing piece of infrastructure that is for private use and the Township defers to EGLE for decisions on launch permits. The Michigan Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy is considering the request and conducted a public hearing last summer. The video of the hearing can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4X8U6lA_TM Staff is seeking Council direction on whether you desire to make formal comments on the application for permits. BUDGET ACTION: None at this time. LEGAL REVIEW: Legal will be at your meeting for any questions. SAMPLE MOTION: Workshop item at this time.

SAUGATUCK DUNES COASTAL ALLIANCE PO 1013, Saugatuck, MI 49453 February 5, 2025 Mayor Holly Anderson Mayor Pro-Temp Lauren Stanton Manager Ryan Cummins City of Saugatuck 102 Butler St. PO Box 86 Saugatuck, MI 49453 (269) 857-2603 Dear Holly, Lauren, and Ryan, On December 3, 2024, the US Army Corps of Engineers requested comment from the Coastal Alliance in their Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act Review of a proposed boat ramp at the mouth of the Kalamazoo River; attached you will find the Coastal Alliance comments. The substance of our argument to deny the boat ramp is public safety. We believe it does not matter “how” boats and other watercraft enter the river; what matters is “where” the watercraft enters and “how many” boats there are. Whether a high-intensity boat basin or a boat ramp, the Kalamazoo River Mouth should not be considered a safe location for either of these uses. For this reason, we believe the Boat Ramp should be denied. The City previously and unanimously approved two resolutions (attached) opposing the proposed marina at the Kalamazoo River Mouth; one was sent to USACE, and the other to EGLE. We believe the boat traffic associated with the proposed boat ramp will almost certainly exceed that of the proposed marina (see calculations on page 5 of the attached document). We are asking the City, therefore, to take one of two possible courses of action: 1. Prepare and pass a resolution similar to the one unanimously approved on 10/24/22; or, 2. Submit the same resolution to the Army Corps accompanied by a letter expressing concerns with public safety threatened by allowing too many boats to enter the river at the proposed location of the boat ramp. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Please let us know what questions you may have; and if it would be helpful, we are available to assist in drafting the resolution or letter.

Bobbie Gaunt Chair, Board of Directors Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance

David Swan President, Board of Directors and Co-Founder Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance

File No. LRE-2010-00304-52-N24, comments from the Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance January 25, 2025 Kerrie E. Kuhne Chief, Western Section Regulatory Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District 477 Michigan Avenue, Room 603 Detroit, MI 48226-2550 Dear Ms. Kuhne, Please accept the following comments and supporting evidence from the Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance in your Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act review of NorthShore of Saugatuck’s application for permits to construct a high-intensity boat ramp, which you requested on December 3, 2024.

In terms of adverse impacts, NorthShore’s proposed boat ramp is nearly identical to its proposed marina, which was denied by USACE and the Michigan Department of Environmental and Great Lakes (EGLE) in February 2024. The adverse impacts are not created by how the boats enter the river (marina or ramp). The adverse impacts result from where and how many boats enter the channel. The boat traffic associated with the proposed boat ramp will almost certainly exceed that of the proposed marina (see calculations on page 5 of this document). Allowing significant boat traffic to enter the water at the River Mouth is not consistent with current and past uses and will create significant adverse impacts on ecological, historic, and cultural values as well as the Public Interest.

Executive Summary The Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance, a group of local residents, tribal nations, businesses, and environmental, historic, and civic organizations committed to protecting and preserving the Saugatuck Dunes and Kalamazoo River Mouth, vigorously opposes NorthShore of Saugatuck’s proposal to construct an intensive-use boat ramp at the Kalamazoo River Mouth. We strongly urge USACE to deny the permit because: • The USACE review does not consider two surrounding sites identified as historically significant by Michigan State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). • The Permit Area is too small. The proposed boat ramp would not be proposed ‘but for’ the entire NorthShore development, which is not part of the permit area. Piecemealing their applications obfuscates the cumulative impacts of their proposed development. • The proposed project is not consistent with past and current uses of the River Mouth area, including the Potawatomi lifeways and cultural and spiritual beliefs and practices associated with use of the River Mouth.

File No. LRE-2010-00304-52-N24, comments from the Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance • • • • •

Use of the proposed boat ramp is completely unlike that of Broward Marine, which operated for just 27 years and whose use was restricted to the launch of boats that Broward produced, which averaged three boats per year. Federal, state, and local regulators and lawmakers have enacted explicit conditions, criteria, policies and regulations that prohibit the proposed boat ramp. Again, it doesn’t matter how the boats enter the river. It matters where and how many. The cumulative impact of the proposed project will change the established character of the Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) of the Potawatomi and other Historic Districts. There are prudent and feasible alternatives that are more consistent with how local residents, business owners, tourists, and tribal nations use the Kalamazoo River Mouth. The proposed project violates the Public Trust and Public Interest.

Given these factors and evidence outlined below, USACE has no choice but to deny NorthShore of Saugatuck’s permit application.

The Area of Potential Effect (APE) should be expanded to include all Historic Properties that would be potentially impacted by the proposed boat ramp. 800.1(a): “The goal of consultation is to identify historic properties potentially affected by the undertaking, assess its effects and seek ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse effects on historic properties.”

In addition to the three adjacent properties that USACE has identified for the permit area, there are two additional surrounding properties – a cultural landscape based upon the theme of Art and a cultural landscape based upon the theme of Landscape by Design (Conservation) that have been identified in earlier Section 106 reviews associated with the NorthShore marina development. The Michigan State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) have both contacted USACE to underscore the significance of these two historic sites: •

“The SHPO had made a determination that the Ox-Bow School of Art appears to meet the criteria for eligibility for listing in the NHRP [National Register of Historic Places] prior to the review of these documents, however the boundaries for an overall district have not been conclusively determined.” August 26, 2020, letter from SHPO to USACE

“We are aware that by letter of August 26, 2020, the Michigan SHPO has also disagreed with the USACE’s determinations of eligibility for the referenced cultural landscapes. To resolve this disagreement, and in accordance with 36 CFR §800.4(c)(2), the agency official shall now obtain a determination of eligibility from the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places pursuant to 36 CFR part 63. We also advise the USACE to conduct supplemental efforts to identify historic properties within an appropriately defined APE, including consideration of properties located outside the Corps’ permit area which may not have been previously determined to be eligible for inclusion on the National Register.” September 20, 2020, letter from ACHP to USACE to request a determination of eligibility for a cultural landscape designation from the Keeper of National Register of Historic Places. 2

File No. LRE-2010-00304-52-N24, comments from the Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance

To our knowledge, USACE has failed to pursue identifying the two additional historic properties that both SHPO and ACHP have recognized: • “Page 4 of the ACHP’s 9/10/20 letter recommended that the Corps undertake seven actions, including seeking DOEs [Determination of Effect] from the Keeper for both the Ox-Box [sic]/Saugatuck Dunes HD [Historic District] and the Mouth of the Kalamazoo TCP/TCL. As the Corps’ 9/18/20 letter to the Keeper seeks a DOE for the Mouth of the Kalamazoo River TCP only, this DOE is limited to that request.” Footnote 1 of the Determination of Eligibility from the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places

The proposed project is not consistent with current and past uses of the Kalamazoo River Mouth area. 800.3(b) “…the agency official may use information for other reviews under Federal, State, or tribal law to meet the requirements of section 106.” 800.3(f)1 “The agency official shall invite any local governments or applicants that are entitled to be consulting parties under 800.2(c).”

The introduction of a high-intensity boat ramp is inconsistent with current and past uses of the Kalamazoo River Mouth area. For nearly 140 years, the Kalamazoo River Mouth has been identified as an area of great ecological, historic, artistic and cultural significance: • • • •

Potawatomi cultural and spiritual beliefs and practices associated with use of the River Mouth Inspiration for artists affiliated with the Ox-Bow School of Art over the past 100+ years Low-impact recreational use by local residents and tourists, including hiking, fishing, boating, birding, etc. Habitat for lake sturgeon and endangered mussels (purple wartyback). From the 2019 Lower Kalamazoo River Greenway Plan: “Some of the highest quality habitat and rarest species can be found within a couple mile stretch of the mouth of the Kalamazoo River. There are several parks and preserves, including Saugatuck State Park, Tallmadge Woods, Patricia Birkholz Natural Area, and Saugatuck Harbor Natural Area, where visitors can experience these areas. Protecting and preserving these areas around Saugatuck should be one of the highest conservation priorities along the greenway.”

These values have inspired the local communities and the State of Michigan to invest more than $20 million to secure and protect parks and natural areas at the River Mouth – protections that drive the area’s robust and sustainable tourism economy.

File No. LRE-2010-00304-52-N24, comments from the Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance

The Kalamazoo River Mouth is -- and has always been -- historically and culturally significant to the Potawatomi In 2020, the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places determined that the River Mouth meets the criteria of a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) of the Potawatomi. In the Keeper’s November 5, 2020, Determination of Eligibility Notification it was noted: “What the MBPI THPO referred to in her 11/29/19 letter as “the distinct historical and contemporary cultural significance of the mouth of the river” is manifest in the Tribe’s ethnogenesis, language, rituals, handicrafts, foodways, traditions, social structure, governance, place names, and ongoing cultural identity.” As noted in National Register Bulletin 38, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties (rev. 1998), a TCP “. . . can be defined generally as one that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in that community’s history, and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community” (p. 1). USACE itself documented the “past and present cultural use of the Kalamazoo River” in its November 15, 2022, Memorandum for Record (MFR). We urge you to re-read the MFR, especially the Conclusion, which states in part: “The introduction of a 50-slip marina in the vicinity of the river mouth would introduce additional boats and docking structures into an area that has remained primarily natural and where no marinas currently exist.” “Due to the extent of past and present cultural use of the Kalamazoo River itself, views of the area from the river are particularly important, and the visual effects of the undertaking on the character of the river mouth for viewers in the river weigh heavily in our review of the undertaking’s effect on the TCP.” “In summary, the undertaking would cause an adverse effect on the Kalamazoo River Mouth TCP due to its direct physical effects on the landscape; visual and auditory characteristics of the river mouth (i.e., the place where river, lake, and forest meet); the feeling and character of the river mouth area; Potawatomi cultural and spiritual beliefs and practices associated with use of the river mouth; and potential impacts on lake sturgeon, water quality, and the ecological characteristics of the area.”

The proposed boat ramp is inconsistent with the historic use of the River Mouth as a respite for artists “in rural isolation.” The Ox-Bow School of Art established and has sustained a vibrant arts culture in the Saugatuck area since 1908. According to the Ox-Bow website, the 110-acre natural area was founded to “serve as a respite for artists from the industrializing havoc of Chicago.” Founders Frederick Fursman and Walter Marshall Clute, artists from The School of the Art Institute of Chicago, selected the site for “the natural beauty of the area, as well as its rural isolation.”

File No. LRE-2010-00304-52-N24, comments from the Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance A high-intensity boat ramp will diminish the integrity of how the surrounding landscape has been used for more than 100 years. The proposed project will diminish the established setting, feeling, and association of the river mouth, the dunes, and wetlands.

Use of the proposed boat ramp is completely unlike that of Broward Marine, which operated at the same location for a very different purpose. USACE’s assumption in its December 3, 2024, letter to consulting parties that the primary use of the area is as a marina is false. In 1977, the late Frank Denison, owner of Broward Marine, was issued a Special Land Use Variance from Saugatuck Township on April 27, 1977, to construct a boat ramp at the site of the proposed boat ramp. Broward Marine operated for just 27 years (1977-2004) and its use was limited to the launch of boats produced by the manufacturer, which averaged three boats per year. The conditions of the Broward Marine variance (attached) confined activity to a 850’ X 850’ space and limited the use to [emphasis added]: “the purpose of building watercraft and maintaining and servicing such watercraft that you build, subject to the following conditions: … 5. The subject property may not be used for any commercial or industrial use other than for maintenance and service work upon boats built at that facility. 6. The existing green belt must be maintained and improved so as to blend the commercial buildings with the natural environment so as to make said buildings inconspicuous as reasonably possible to persons on the river and to your neighbors located to the east. Your failure to comply with the foregoing conditions will entitle the Township of Saugatuck to withdraw the variance; you must understand that your proposed use is contrary to the existing zoning ordinance and your proposed use is allowed under and by virtue of the above variance subject to the six (6) specified conditions.” In contrast, the developer has already built 65 boat storage facilities on its property, has plans to construct 96 more homes, and is approved for 17 additional lots. Conservative estimates put the number of boats using the boat ramp could easily reach or exceed 100, double the 50 that would have been docked at the developer’s proposed marina, which both USACE and EGLE denied. This is a significant change in current and past uses of the Kalamazoo River Mouth area.

File No. LRE-2010-00304-52-N24, comments from the Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance

Again, the adverse impacts on the ecological, historic, and cultural values of the River Mouth don’t result from how the boats enter the river, but where and how many boats enter.

Federal, state, and local regulators and lawmakers have enacted explicit policies and regulations that prohibit the proposed boat ramp. •

EGLE denied the developer’s application to build a marina at the same location. The boat traffic associated with the proposed high-volume boat ramp has potential to far exceed that of the proposed boat basin marina (see calculation on p. 5). EGLE cited ‘significant adverse impacts’ in denying the permit on February 9, 2024 [emphasis added]: “The proposed project will have significant adverse effects on the natural resources associated with the Kalamazoo River, the uses of the Kalamazoo River, and the public trust. “The proposed marina will likely have significant effects on the public and tribal uses of the river, and thus infringe on the public trust rights to navigate and fish. Other uses of the water, including recreation, fish and wildlife, and aesthetics, will also be affected. “EGLE finds the proposed project would adversely impact the natural resources of the Kalamazoo River and the public’s right to navigate and fish.”

In 2017, the Saugatuck Township Planning Commission placed restrictions on NorthShore of Saugatuck’s use of the River Mouth including a condition that explicitly prohibited boat launch facilities and in and out boat service. Minutes from the April 26, 2027, minutes state [emphasis added]: “Prietz read the list of conditions suggested by the township attorney and added at this meeting: 1. The applicant shall obtain all required state and federal permits and approvals to construct the boat basin and marina, including, without limitation, any that are needed from the United States Corps of Engineers (USACE), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). 2. There shall be no fuel sales, no pump-out services or facilities, no boat storage facilities, no boat launch facilities and no in and out boat service provided at the marina.”

The 2005 and the 2016 Tri-Community Master Plans address concerns about boat traffic on the Kalamazoo River being at capacity [emphasis added]: “Carrying capacity refers to the physical capacity and intrinsic suitability of water to absorb and support various types of use. Such an analysis is typically performed by an inventory of existing surface water use during weekdays and peak weekends. Data is then examined to match the size of the waterbody and its capacity to assimilate various mixes of use. Such an analysis would probably reveal there is not much excess capacity for new boat slips in Kalamazoo Lake and River.” 6

File No. LRE-2010-00304-52-N24, comments from the Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance

“In seeking to balance economic development with environmental protection, the concept of carrying capacity should be a major consideration. If the carrying capacity of land or water is exceeded, then activities cannot be undertaken without unacceptable impacts on users, the environment, or both. Impacts can include increased trip times, decreased safety, pollution, loss of open space, and many other considerations. The key is prevention of overuse by limiting intensity of use on adjoining lands and regulating surface water use.” •

The Saugatuck Township Planning Commission in 2009 revised its Water Access Code of Ordinances with provisions to limit boat access at the River Mouth. “ARTICLE XII. - WATER ACCESS AND DOCK DENSITY REGULATIONS Sec. 40-906. - Intent and purpose. (a) The township, after extensive deliberations and discussions, has concluded that the use of water resources situated within the township must be considered within the framework of the township's longterm costs and benefits. Further, the township has concluded that it is desirable to retain and maintain the physical, cultural and aesthetic characteristics of its Inland Waterways and its portion of Lake Michigan. (b) Pursuant to its deliberations and discussions, the township has concluded that a lack of regulation regarding the density of Docks on and general access to Inland Waterways and Lake Michigan within or adjacent to the township has resulted in a Nuisance condition and an impairment of irreplaceable natural resources of the township. Further, the lack of regulation is resulting in the destruction of property values and constitutes a threat to the public health, safety and welfare of all persons utilizing these Inland Waterways and Lake Michigan and occupying adjacent properties within the township. Consequently, the township desires to adopt reasonable regulations regarding Dock density and general water access to protect the public health, safety and welfare, as well as the irreplaceable natural resources of the township. (c) The township has further concluded that regulation of water access and Dock density will help reduce conflicts which occur between residential single-Family use of the waterfront and shared waterfront use.”

The City of Saugatuck, which owns a nature preserve across from the proposed marina and boat ramp, unanimously passed a resolution in October 2022 detailing concerns with NorthShore of Saugatuck’s use of the River Mouth. The Resolution (attached), which was submitted to USACE and EGLE lists the adverse effects on navigation, fishing, recreation, fish and wildlife that will result from excessive additional boat traffic at the Kalamazoo River Mouth [emphasis added]: Following are representative excerpts: “The City finds that the proposed marina will have an adverse effect on the public trust, and may impact related riparian rights. “The City finds that by damaging the historical, ecological, and cultural values of the area which attract tourism and recreation to the Tri-Communities, the proposed marina will negatively impact the use of waters for recreation, aesthetics and the local tourism industry. The proposed marina may further impact fish and wildlife. “The City finds that the proposed marina basin is not consistent with the public uses in and around the area.” 7

File No. LRE-2010-00304-52-N24, comments from the Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance

The cumulative impacts of the proposed project are significant. Section 800.5(a)1: “Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be further removed in distance, or be cumulative.”

The sections above detail how regulatory agencies since 1977 have limited excessive boat traffic at the Kalamazoo River Mouth to protect ecological, historic, artistic and cultural values. The proposed NorthShore marina project has changed considerably since 2017 when it was initially discussed with USACE and EGLE. While the agencies were aware of plans for the 50-slip marina and denied that permit, the USACE may not be aware are that: • NorthShore has built over 65 boat storage units, each capable of housing several large boats on the eastern end of their development that could potentially have use of the boat ramp. • NorthShore stated in their June 14, 2019, response letter to Army Corps they plan to construct 96 more houses if denied the marina permit.

As noted on page 5, the number of boats using the proposed boat ramp could easily reach 100 or more, double the number of docks at the proposed marina that USACE and EGLE denied. • How will NorthShore schedule the use of the boat ramp given that number of boats? • How will they coordinate the return of that many boats? 8

File No. LRE-2010-00304-52-N24, comments from the Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance • •

What will happen during a sudden storm if many boats need to quickly use the boat ramp? How will that many boats waiting for the boat ramp impact other boaters navigating to the docks further upriver via the channel?

There remain many unanswered questions about the scope, impacts, and purpose of the proposed projects – the boat ramp, the boat storage, the number of houses, the number of boats that will be granted access to the marina area. During EGLE’s public hearing for the boat ramp, NorthShore refused to say how many boats would have access to the ramp and whether they would limit use in any way. While it is impossible to precisely measure each of the adverse impacts, we do know that the previously identified impacts, in aggregate, will have a profound negative impact on the River Mouth – to its ecological, historic, and cultural values … to cultural lifeways and tribal rights … to navigational safety … to the arts community … to the Public Interest and Public Trust.

There are Prudent and Feasible Alternatives to the Boat Ramp NorthShore has several options to avoid the negative impacts of its proposed boat ramp: • The developer owns approximately 1,100 feet of frontage on the Kalamazoo River where homeowners have a legal right to docks. o Given lot width requirements, the developer could build up to nearly 9 (8.96 lots) lots along the river where the boat launch and marina are proposed. o According to the Saugatuck Township Code of Ordinances, 125-foot lots are permitted 1 dock with 2 slips. This would allow for a total of 18 boats. • Additionally, there are existing boat ramps and marinas available for use further upriver.

Additional Key Considerations and Facts •

The City of Saugatuck, which owns a nature preserve immediately across from the proposed boat ramp, was not noticed. As noted above, the City detailed its concerns about the proposed marina in a letter to EGLE dated August 14, 2023 and a letter to USACE dated October 24, 2022. [800.3(f)1 “The agency official shall invite any local governments or applicants that are entitled to be consulting parties under 800.2(c).”] To our knowledge, USACE has not yet requested comments on the Public Interest Factors Review, as well as the Environmental Review. We request a Public Hearing so that interested stakeholders may submit evidence and provide comment on those reviews.

Conclusion It doesn’t matter how the boats enter the river. It matters where and how many. The adverse impacts to the historic and cultural uses of the River Mouth that would result from the proposed boat ramp are potentially more significant to those of the applicant’s proposed marina, which USACE denied in February 2024. Until the applicant addresses the scope and impacts of, and alternatives to, the boat ramp, we urge USACE to deny the permit.

File No. LRE-2010-00304-52-N24, comments from the Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance The Coastal Alliance appreciates USACE’s consideration of the evidence we have submitted. We are happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for your service. Sincerely,

Bobbie Gaunt Chair, Board of Directors Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance

David Swan President, Board of Directors and Co-Founder Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance

Attachments • Application Denial Letter_EGLE_020924 • Built by Broward Marine in Saugatuck • City of Saugatuck Resolution No. 221024-A • City of Saugatuck Resolution No. 230814-A • Tri-Community Master Plan 2016 • Kalamazoo River Mouth TCP DOE_110520 • Letter ACHP to USACE_091020 • Lower Kalamazoo River Greenway Plan_2019 • Location and Construction of proposed boat ramp • Map – Potential users of the proposed boat ramp • MBPI comments_112919 • McClurken affidavit and exhibits_2018 • MFR TCP_effect determination_111522 • Mouth of the Kalamazoo River TCP_Ethnographic Report • NWP-36_Boat Ramps regulations • Saugatuck Historic Walking Guide • Section 106_regulations • USACE letter to consulting parties_120324 • SHPO letter to USACE_082620 • Variance Broward Marine_042777 • Saugatuck Township Code of Ordinances • Saugatuck Township Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2017_Permit Conditions • NorthShore June 14, 2019, response to USACE pg. 64 for comment regarding 96 additional houses • YouTube video of EGLE’s August 13, 2024, public hearing on the proposed boat ramp (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4X8U6lA_TM)

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, DETROIT DISTRICT 477 MICHIGAN AVENUE ROOM 603 DETROIT MI 48226-2550

December 4, 2024 Regulatory Branch File No. LRE-2010-00304-52-N24

Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance PO Box 1013 Saugatuck, Michigan 49453 Dear Mr. Swan: The Detroit District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is reviewing an application by North Shores of Saugatuck, LLC for a Department of the Army (DA) permit to install a boat ramp in the Kalamazoo River offshore Saugatuck Beach Road in Saugatuck Township, Section 4, Township 3N, Range 16W, Allegan County, Michigan (Encl. 1). A copy of the proposed plans is attached (Encl. 4). The proposed project is within the Kalamazoo River Mouth Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) and near an archaeological site. We are writing to seek your input on historic property concerns to assist with our review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106). The applicant proposes to replace an existing gravel launch ramp with a concrete surface ramp along the western wall of an existing boat well. The parcel contains approximately 1,100 feet of water frontage. Our scope of analysis and the permit area for our review of the project under Section 106 is a 255 foot long by 135-foot-wide area (Encl. 3) along the Kalamazoo River and adjacent shoreline, including a 104 foot long by 23-foot-wide area (Encl. 4, p.3) within the river where the proposed concrete boat ramp would be installed and the adjacent upland areas where equipment use and storage would occur. As shown on the attached plans, the work would involve mechanical grading of approximately 96 cubic yards of a 2.28-foot-deep layer of accumulated sand to evenly spread the material and level the slope within a 48 foot long by 23-foot wide (1,104 sq. ft.) area on the riverbed. Gravel stone fill (bedding material) would be placed over a geotextile fabric within a 104 foot long by 23-foot-wide area and pre-cast concrete panels would be placed atop the gravel to form a 104 foot long by 23-foot-wide boat ramp. All proposed work would be performed from dry land with no need for any barge-mounted equipment in the water. Historical imagery dated 1955 and 1976 (Encl. 5) shows the parcel’s natural shoreline prior to construction of the existing seawall. By 1988, the initial construction of inland boat wells and seawall installation had been completed along the entire waterfront parcel (Encl. 8). Offshore work/structures and disturbances along the waterfront previously permitted by the Corps include new seawall installation and excavation of an inland boat slip (1978), dredging to construct a 3-slip inland boat well (1980), new seawall installation with 5,000 cubic yards of backfill shoreward of the

-2seawall to create upland areas (1983 and 1990), dredging and backfill within 30 feet landward of a failed seawall, seawall replacement with areas of toe stone, and discharges to construct the existing crushed-rock surface boat ramp (2011-2017) (Encl. 6-9, 11-12). Some of this work occurred within the permit area when it was developed and used as part of Broward Marine boat building facility. This facility consisted of a large industrial building and boat wells along the riverbank, in the mid-1970s. Related offshore structures shown in aerial photographs dated between 1988 through 2011 included boat lifts, docks, and mooring piles along the seawall; all have been removed. The Broward Marine building was removed by 2010 but the two boat wells remain in place and are currently protected by a steel sheet pile seawall that extends inland along their borders. The project site is directly adjacent to the Corps’ Navigational Structures at the Saugatuck Harbor, which is listed in the NRHP. The permit area is located about 250 feet away from the eastern edge of the seawall that connects to Saugatuck Harbor’s north pier (Encl. 10). We have preliminarily determined that the proposed work would have no adverse effect on the Corps’ Navigational Structure. The permit area is encompassed by archaeological site 20AE619. We believe site 20AE619 is eligible for listing in the NRHP based on intact archaeological deposits located in previously conducted surveys outside the permit area for this project. We understand the boundary of site 20AE619 is unverified by field study. Archaeological surveys have not been conducted within the permit area. The permit area is not expected to contain intact archaeological resources given the extent of previous disturbance, including excavation of a boat well, installation of seawall, and grading and fill associated with installation of the existing gravel boat ramp. The work proposed within the permit area is mostly located waterward of the OHWM elevation of 581.5 feet (IGLD 85) within a previously excavated boat well, and the proposed work does not require any dredging or excavation activities. The boat ramp and bedding materials would be installed on top of riverbed sediments that will be leveled and redistributed to create a smooth surface. The constructed boat ramp would not extend beyond the waterward limits of the surrounding seawall. Overall, the depth of previous ground disturbances that have occurred within the permit area is much greater than the depth of ground disturbance proposed on the riverbed for the installation of the boat ramp. Therefore it is very unlikely that any undiscovered resources shall be discovered during construction of the project. Based on the extent of recent disturbances to the site, it is our preliminary determination that the proposed project would have no adverse effect to site 20AE619. The permit area is within the boundaries of the Kalamazoo River Mouth Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) which is eligible for listing in the NRHP. We expect the proposed work would cause minor, temporary turbidity in the waterway due to leveling of existing sand and construction discharges for the installation of the boat ramp. The

-3proposed project would have minimal impacts to lake sturgeon, and would not impact wild rice, birch, white pine, black ash or cattails. The project is consistent with the current use of the river in general, and consistent with past and current use of the permit area. Noise and visual characteristics of the area after construction would be similar to current conditions. If a permit is issued, it could include special conditions prohibiting inwater work between March 15-June 30 and September 1-December 15 as recommended by the MDNR Fisheries Division to minimize potential impacts during lake sturgeon spawning and migration periods. Special conditions could also include the use of a turbidity barrier around the work area during construction and requiring the applicant to immediately stop work and notify the Corps upon discovery of a potential resource eligible for listing in the NRHP. Based on our review, we preliminarily determined that the project, with the aforementioned special conditions, would have no adverse effect on the Kalamazoo River Mouth TCP. If you have comments on the proposed project, we request your response within 30 days from the date of this letter. In the absence of a response, we will assume that you do not have concerns about the proposed work. If you need additional time, or have questions on this matter, please contact Kristi DeFoe at the above address, by E-Mail at Kristi.M.DeFoe@usace.army.mil, or by telephone at (313) 226-7718. In all communications, please refer to File Number LRE-2010-00304-52-N24. Sincerely,

Kerrie E. Kuhne Chief, Western Section Regulatory Branch Enclosures

Enclosure 1

Project Area

LAKE MICHIGAN

(VUL&DQDGD(VUL+(5(*DUPLQ,1&5(0(17386*60(7,1$6$(3$86'$ (VUL+(5(L3&&RS\ULJKWŒ1DWLRQDO*HRJUDSKLF6RFLHW\LFXEHG

Saugatuck SAUGATUCKquad. BEACH ROAD

0.13

0.25 mi

Map Center: 86.207447°W 42.669739°N

0.5

Map Created by: PM NAME Date: 8/21/2024 Coordinate System: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere

Enclosure 2

Allegan County Parcel Map

5 th A v e 13

Singapore

Rd

Av

ach

5t

Be

Project Area (existing boat well)

ga

ck

135th Ave

Sa u tu

t 35

ve

th

Av

Parcel Line

66 th S t 66t h S t

S a ug a

6 6th S t

66t h St tuc

kB

e a c h Rd

6 6t

River

Kalam

8/14/2024, 2:24:44 PM Sublots Allegan County Units

azoo Rive r

Ka lam az oo Riv er

ug

ou

tR

1:4,514 d

0 0

0.04 0.05

0.08 0.1

0.16 mi 0.2 km

Esri Community Maps Contributors, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/ NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS, Maxar

Allegan County GIS Maxar | Generated from field geolocation, digitizing of Remonumentation surveys and best guesses.

March 2021

Legend

Enclosure 3

Measure

Write a description for

Unauthorized concrete boat ramp has been removed

135' Permit Area

255'

300 ft

Enclosure 4 (1 of 6) SAU G DUN ATUCK ES W AY

PROJECT LOCATION

CH

KB

TUC

GA SAU

RD

135TH AVE.

ST

MICHIGAN

CLEARBROOK

DR

BLUE STAR

HWY.

LAKE

DUGOUT RD

GA SAU

HO LL AN

RD

66TH ST

R IVE OR ZO MA

MICH IG

KB CH

RD

LA KA

AN

SCALE: NOT TO SCALE

TU C

BCH

66TH ST

66TH S

K TUC

DR

GA

RIVE RSID E

SA U

CEMETERY RD

WISCONSIN

LAKE HURON

LAKE MICHIGAN

MICHIGAN

ILLINOIS

LAKE ERIE INDIANA

OHIO LOCATION MAP

518 BROAD STREET, SUITE 200 ST. JOSEPH, MI 49085 P: 269.932.4502 edgewaterresources.com

APPLICANT: NORTHSHORE OF SAUGATUCK WATERWAY: KALAMAZOO RIVER CITY: SAUGATUCK TOWNSHIP COUNTY: ALLEGAN 02/27/2024 (REVISED 4/15/24) DATE: IGLD85 DATUM: SHEET: 1 OF

6 EXISTING CONDITIONS

(2 of 6)

ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER: NORTH SHORES OF SAUGATUCK LLC 148 S RIVER AVE STE 100 HOLLAND, MI 49423

APPLICANT: NORTHSHORE OF SAUGATUCK WATERWAY: KALAMAZOO RIVER CITY: SAUGATUCK TOWNSHIP COUNTY: ALLEGAN 02/27/2024 (REVISED 4/15/24) DATE: IGLD85 DATUM: SHEET: 2 OF

NOTES: 1. TOPOGRAPHIC AND BATHYMETRIC SURVEY PERFORMED BY EDGEWATER RESOURCES ON 01/11/2023 2. VERTICAL DATUM IS IGLD'85 3. HORIZONTAL DATUM IS MICHIGAN STATE PLANE, SOUTH ZONE, NAD83,INTERNATIONAL FOOT. 4. AVERAGE WATER LEVEL ON DAY OF SURVEY = 578' IGLD'85 5. PROPERTY LINES ARE APPROXIMATE. NO BOUNDARY SURVEY WAS PERFORMED BY EDGEWATER RESOURCES. 6. USACE OHWM = 581.5 (IGLD'85), EGLE OHWM = 580.5' (IGLD'85) 7. FEMA 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN: 583.0' (NAVD88) - 0.45 = 582.55' (IGLD'85) 8. LWD = 577.5' (IGLD'85)

ROAD RIGHTOF-WAY

TH

VE

FEMA 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN 582.55' (BLUE LINE)

89'

94'

STEEL SHEET PILE WALL 56

150'

112' 81'

213'

25'

337' KALAMAZOO RIVER

ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER DENISON GERTRUDE WINSLOW TRUST RYDER DAVID R TRUSTEE MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP PO BOX 1088 SAUGATUCK, MI 49453

518 BROAD STREET, SUITE 200 ST. JOSEPH, MI 49085 P: 269.932.4502 edgewaterresources.com

NORTH

SCALE: 1" = 150'

REVETMENT STONE

75'

5' 40

APPROX. PROP LINE

STEEL SHEET PILE WALL

USACE OHWM 581.5' (RED LINE)

CONC. SIDE WALK

HA

T 35

AV

APPROX. PROP LINE

V HA

10.

5T

LWD = 577.5' (IGLD'85) FEMA 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN: 583.0' (NAVD88) - 0.45 = 582.55' (IGLD'85) OWNER TO CONDUCT ANNUAL INSPECTION OF POTENTIAL LOCALIZED EROSION AND SETTLEMENT. WHEN APPLICABLE, OWNER TO IMPLEMENT SUFFICIENT CORRECTIVE MEASURERS PER CODE

ALL SESC MEASURES & CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TO COMPLY WITH THE APPLICABLE SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL (SESC) RULES AND REGULATIONS (SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL - 1994 PA 451, PART 91, AS AMENDED, MCL 324.9101 ET SEQ.)

FEMA 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN 582.55' (BLUE LINE) USACE OHWM 581.5' (RED LINE)

58 2 580 578 576 574

APPROX. PROP LINE 56

1 PG. 4

NORTH

75'

150'

1 PG. 3

(3 of 6)

APPLICANT: NORTHSHORE OF SAUGATUCK WATERWAY: KALAMAZOO RIVER CITY: SAUGATUCK TOWNSHIP COUNTY: ALLEGAN 02/27/2024 (REVISED 4/15/24) DATE: IGLD85 DATUM: SHEET: 3 OF

7. 8. 9.

PROPOSED CONDITIONS

NOTES: NOTES: 1.1. TOPOGRAPHIC AND BATHYMETRIC SURVEY PERFORMED BY XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX RESOURCES ON 01/11/2023 2. EDGEWATER XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 2.3. VERTICAL DATUM IS IGLD'85 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 3. HORIZONTAL DATUM IS MICHIGAN STATE PLANE, SOUTH ZONE, NAD83,INTERNATIONAL FOOT. 4. AVERAGE WATER LEVEL ON DAY OF SURVEY = 578' IGLD'85 5. PROPERTY LINES ARE APPROXIMATE. NO BOUNDARY SURVEY WAS PERFORMED BY EDGEWATER RESOURCES. 6. USACE OHWM = 581.5 (IGLD'85), EGLE OHWM = 580.5' (IGLD'85)

ENLARGEMENT BELOW

SCALE: 1" = 150'

APPROX. PROP LINE

FEMA 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN 582.55' (BLUE LINE) PROPOSED CONC. BOAT RAMP

PROPOSED BOAT RAMP SCALE: 1"= 30'

30'

60'

NORTH

SCALE: 1" = 30'

58 2

USACE OHWM 581.5' (RED LINE) EXISTING SHEET PILE WALL

PROPOSED EARTHWORK AREA UNDERNEITH (1104 SF)

PROPOSED TURBIDITY CURTAIN (92 LF) (TEMPORARY FOR CONSTRUCTION)

1 PG. 6

23'

EXISTING SHEET PILE WALL

518 BROAD STREET, SUITE 200 ST. JOSEPH, MI 49085 P: 269.932.4502 edgewaterresources.com

104'

EDGE OF ROAD

EXISTING SURFACE

580'

SAND

570'

MEASURED WATER LEVEL (01/11/2023) 579'

ASPHALT ROAD SAND

560'

550'

EXISTING RIVER BED

25'

10'

582.55' FEMA 100-YR FLOOD PLAIN ELEVATION 581.5' USACE OHWM 580.5' EGLE OHWM

75'

50'

100'

125'

150'

APPLICANT: NORTHSHORE OF SAUGATUCK WATERWAY: KALAMAZOO RIVER CITY: SAUGATUCK TOWNSHIP COUNTY: ALLEGAN 02/27/2024 (REVISED 4/15/24) DATE: IGLD85 DATUM: SHEET: 4 OF

590'

(4 of 6) PROPOSEDE SECTIONS

ELEVATION

EXISTING SECTION

175'

20'

SCALE: 1" = 20'

ELEVATION

PROPOSED SECTION 104' EXISTING ASPHALT ROAD

590'

15% MAX. G

TURBIDITY CURTAIN (92 LF) (TEMPORARY FOR CONSTRUCTION)

CONC. PROPOSED BOAT RAMP (83 CYD BELOW EGLE OHWM)

582.55' FEMA 100-YR FLOOD PLAIN ELEVATION 581.5' USACE OHWM

REGRADE APPROX. 93 CYD OF SEDIMENT BELOW EGLE OHWM (AREA OF EARTH CHANGE APPROX. 1104 SF)

RADE

580.5' EGLE OHWM

580'

MEASURED WATER LEVEL (01/11/2023) 579'

570'

GRAVEL

560'

550'

25'

0 SCALE: 1" = 20'

10'

20'

50'

QUANTITY OF EXISTING SAND MATERIAL TO BE GRADED IS APPROX. 48' x 23' x 2.28' = 93 (CY)

75'

EXISTING RIVER BED

100'

125'

150'

175'

518 BROAD STREET, SUITE 200 ST. JOSEPH, MI 49085 P: 269.932.4502 edgewaterresources.com

GEOTEXTILE FABRIC

66TH

SAUGAT UCK BC H RD

KALAMAZOO RIVER

AY

SW

DUN E

LAKE MICHIGAN

65 TH

ST

66TH ST

APPLICANT: NORTHSHORE OF SAUGATUCK WATERWAY: KALAMAZOO RIVER CITY: SAUGATUCK TOWNSHIP COUNTY: ALLEGAN 02/27/2024 (REVISED 4/15/24) DATE: IGLD85 DATUM: SHEET: 5 OF

DREDGE SPOILS LOCATION MAP

(5 of 6)

E ID

RS VE

DR

DUGOUT RD

99 518 BROAD STREET, SUITE 200 ST. JOSEPH, MI 49085 P: 269.932.4502 edgewaterresources.com

66TH

RI

SCALE: NOT TO SCALE ST

66TH ST

ATU CK

SAU G

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

135TH AVE.

PROJECT LOCATION

ST

66TH ST

FLOW

5/8" POLYPROPYLENE ROPE*

FLOTATION

DEPTH ACCORDING TO NEED

NYLON REINFORCED VINYL PLAN VIEW

APPLICANT: NORTHSHORE OF SAUGATUCK WATERWAY: KALAMAZOO RIVER CITY: SAUGATUCK TOWNSHIP COUNTY: ALLEGAN 02/27/2024 (REVISED 4/15/24) DATE: IGLD85 DATUM: SHEET: 6 OF

ANCHOR OR STAKES

VARIES

CURTAIN MATERIAL

PROPOSED CONDITIONS

PROFILE

STREAM BANK

WORK AREA

STREAM BANK

12"

VARIES

FLOTATION DEVICE

WATER SURFACE

(6 of 6) NOTES: 1. TYPE OF TURBIDITY CURTAIN TO BE DETERMINED BY A QUALIFIED ENGINEER OR CPESC. 2. *ANCHORS & JOINTS VARY DEPENDING ON TYPE OF WATERBODY AND VELOCITY OF WATERFLOW. 3. PRIOR TO DREDGING A SILTATION (TURBIDITY) BARRIER CURTAIN WILL BE INSTALLED AS SHOWN ON PG. 3 (SUPPORTED BY FLOTATION AND ANCHORING DEVICES) . 4. THE SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL CONFORM TO STATE OF MICHIGAN SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL GUIDEBOOK, LATEST EDITION. 5. TURBIDITY CURTAIN SHALL BE PROVIDED AND INSTALLED PER DETAIL S61 OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL GUIDEBOOK, LATEST EDITION. 6. SESC MEASURES WILL BE CHECKED TO ENSURE THE ARE CORRECTLY INSTALLED OR MAINTAINED, CORRECTIVE ACTION SHALL BE TAKEN TO REPAIR OR FIX INSTALLED SESC MEASURES.

1/4" CHAIN

PROFILE - CURTAIN DETAIL

518 BROAD STREET, SUITE 200 ST. JOSEPH, MI 49085 P: 269.932.4502 edgewaterresources.com

CURTAIN DETAIL 1 TURBIDITY SCALE: NTS

Enclosure 5

Natural Shoreline Unprotected

Natural Shoreline Unprotected

Corps 1983 aerial photo depicting work areas authorized by the Corps for excavated boat wells, new seawall installation, and associated areas of backfill.

new sewall

Enclosure 6 Broward Marine facility

Excavated boatwells & boat lifts

EXISTING

ATTACH

Enclosure 7

TO

EXISTING

THIS 5ECTION

ib

FOLLOW

OF

LAYOUT

FILL5000

CYD. SPOIL

FROM AVAILABLE SOURCES.

PROPOSED

?;-A _5_

BULKHEAD HAS

Corps 1983 permit site plan depicting authorized backfill to create uplands landward of existing and proposed seawall.

AND DOES NOT

RETURN CONNECT

WALL TO RE VET MENT.

EXISTING NORTH THE 5' RETURN WALL IS TO BE PERPENDICULAR TO THE PROPOSED BULKHEAD LINE

/oiz

Corps Aerial 1988

Enclosure 8

Broward Marine facility and associated structures

Excavated boat wells and boat lifts

Existing seawall and mooring piles

EnclosureLegend 9

April 2011 Write a description for

Permit Area

Previous dock and mooring piles

300 ft

Legend Enclosure 10

September 2017 Write a description

Permit Area

Approximate end of USACE seawall structure for the North Pier

250'

Approximate Parcel Line

300 ft

EnclosureLegend 11

Untitled Gravel Ramp

Excavation and backfill areas

Excavation and backfill areas Seawall improvements Seawall replacement w/toe stone

Previous disturbances authorized by the Corps in 2011overlaid on a 2018 aerial photo. Work related to gravel launch ramp, landward excavation and backfill for installation of tie-back walls, tie-rods, and structural walers for seawall replacement/improvements.

400 ft

Enclosure 12

2011 Corps permit site plan depicting authorized gravel launch ramp and disturbances 30 feet landward of the seawall. 108

Applicant's site photos of the permit area dtd. November 2021

Unauthorized concrete boat ramp being removed.

Enclosure 13

Existing gravel ramp to be replaced with proposed concrete boat ramp.

Jamie Wolters From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

Jamie Wolters Monday, February 10, 2025 2:55 PM Jamie Wolters FW: Maple Street Drainage Response from Engineer Maple St. Drainage Study Response 1-28-25.pdf

Hi everyone, Attached is the response from my engineer regarding the proposal for the Maple Street Drainage issue. Please include it in the February 19th workshop packet. If you haven't had a chance yet, here's the link to watch the videos/photos of the Maple/Mason Street drainage issue to get a clearer picture of the velocity and volume of the water eroding the property. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/qzon6mvpb81lr62ajkgv0/ABSHqHeSKcoSBGPSKlQpWc E?rlkey=m5zslq6cgoy6hdoov2q1ujr4n&st=3gs3qln0&dl=0 Also, the offer still stands for the members of the council who have not yet walked the property to do so. Feel free to access it from both sides. Thanks for your time and consideration. I appreciate all the work that has gone into trying to resolve this problem. I'm hoping to be able to finally get some closure on this. See you on the 19th! Thank you, Wendy Colsen