MY RESIGNATION FROM THE MALVERN WAVE PROJECT

[CAPTAIN ALEVE]

After taking part in the review of the 2010 preliminary design (the 2007 design has been shelved) for a play wave at the Lower Ledge (Tanner Street Bridge vicinity) in August, I resigned from the Ouachita River Park Commission in Malvern.

I joined the Park Commission in 2005 in order to assist the ACC in the development of the Lower Ledge Project. Commission membership entails working on a variety of projects, not just the Lower Ledge, and I enjoyed being a part of the walking trail work, and planning for the pavilion, parking lots, development of the west side of the river, additional trails, and an amphitheater. The Commission offers you the opportunity to work as hard as you want to. Throughout the years, my primary reason for remaining on the Commission was the Lower Ledge Project. The Project is several years older than my involvement with the Commission, but I have been with the project from the beginning, involved in getting the Highway Department to provide the turn-around at the Tanner Street Bridge to improve river access as far back as 2001.

After the ORPC and ACC subcommittees jointly reviewed the preliminary design for the Lower Ledge, the project was guided forward along a path which I chose not to follow. As the project moves ahead, I encourage everyone to get involved and make a contribution, especially if you have fund raising experience and expertise. Future updates will likely be posted by the ACC subcommittee. I will remain involved in other river-play projects that have short-term goals and keep you informed on developments in those.

Captain Aleve

[Jim Krueger]

Mike,

I'm very pleased with the years of work and thought that have gone into the Ouachita White Water Park by so many, and especially yourself! I don't think any part of the project would have turned out quite as nice thus far without your considerations.

Best Regards
Jim Moose

[Chester]

Hey Mike, like Jim, I know you were very involved for years in this (apparently 5 years), and attended many meetings on this project. What's the difference in the 2007 verses the 2010 plan? Something you didn't like about the new path for the plan?

[CAPTAIN ALEVE]

At the time I resigned, the 2010 plans depicted construction that would utilize much of the same methods required by the 2007 plans: concrete grout would lock in the rocks used; ungrouted rock areas would be ringed by grouted rock structures to provide stability; cofferdams would be needed during construction to allow grouting to the bed rock in dry conditions.

Those techniques and assigning the risks of cofferedam failure to the contractor contributed significantly to the bids received in 2007: about $770,000 low bid on the August letting attempt and $505,000 on the October letting attempt which had a reduced scope of work. Those bid prices look even higher when you consider that the rock to be used was to come from the quarry next to the Rockport ledge at no cost to the contractor except for the loading and one mile haul.

The total funds available for the project were about $130,000 when I resigned. The engineers are under contract to provide an estimate for the cost of the 2010 design, so their official estimated cost should be available now or very soon. I did the research for the 2010 design company to determine the cost of in-stream projects the AGFC built recently in different parts of the state without grout or cofferdams. I supplied that info to them; they supplemented that data by obtaining the cost of stone from the Bennett Brothers stone supply in Hot Springs. I got a cost estimate for cofferdam construction from Edie Construction of Malvern. Edie did not bid on the project in 2007 because of the risk of cofferdam failure in the event of a flood during construction. That was one reason the 2007 bids were so high, the contractors had to bid assuming they would be liable for the rebuilding of a partially completed structure that happened to get washed away during a high flow event. With all of that background info, my rough estimate is that the $130,000 available will fall significantly short of the funding needed. The 2010 design may be a good one that will last a long time; it's just that funding it will require additional grants. I haven't heard who specifically will be seeking those grants (the ORPC or the ACC or both). I have no confidence in my own ability to successfully obtain such grants and had hoped the project would progress along a different path. A no cofferdam, no (or minimal) grout technique would have helped hold the costs down.

Malvern intends to flood the quarry as part of their amphitheater design, so the longer this project is delayed, the more likely it is that the two projects will overlap and all the stone will have to be purchased.

Captain Aleve

[Clif]

for the work you have done in this and other important areas, brother Mike.....

THANK YOU

[okieboater]

My contact with the local SWPA management team working toward recreational releases have not been good.

SWPA considers water they manage as theirs alone and could care less about recreational releases. I can understand the need to get the most power generation they can, it is the "attitude" that they have.