LETTER FROM DAVE KEPLER
Dear Lake Community Members:
Working with property owners; our communities; and our counties, state and federal officials and agencies, we will bring back the lakes. That is and has been the mission of Four Lakes Task Force (FLTF) since the May 19, 2020, breach of the Boyce-owned Edenville Dam and failure of the Sanford Dam, and the federally mandated lowering of Secord and Smallwood lakes.
It has been one year since the rain and flooding that could change our region permanently. By June of 2020, FLTF had submitted a short-term plan and by September, had a more detailed, longer-term recovery plan in place. At the one-year anniversary since the dams breached, we are publishing the Four Lakes Restoration Plan – a comprehensive technical report describing our path forward to bring back the dams and recover the surrounding ecosystem that was damaged by the flooding.
FLTF assembled a world-class team of experts to develop this plan. Our conclusion, with agreement by those experts, is that restoring the lakes is feasible and necessary. A brief summary of the key points of the plan is included with this letter.
After years of suffering under the poor stewardship of our lakes, the worst-case scenario happened, leaving the counties, lake communities and property owners to deal with the disaster. The federal regulatory system was not designed to deal with an owner like Boyce Hydro. The state regulatory system had the issue dumped into its lap with limited information to understand Edenville Dam’s challenges. The creditors and Boyce were more focused on their interests in bankruptcy than on dealing with the situation on the ground.
There would have been no path to having future lakes if the counties had not stepped forward to acquire the properties and stabilize the situation on the ground, with support from the state and federal governments.
Lake restoration comes at a cost; by our estimates approximately $250 million. It will require special assessments of property owners, loans from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and additional significant grants from the federal and state governments. And a lot of teamwork from everyone.
Yet we are fully confident implementing this plan will restore the life we knew before the May 2020 disaster and make it even better. If we all work together, we will have more robust dams, safer communities and a more sustainable future for our economy and our environment – for everyone and for all lakes.
On behalf of the Four Lake Task Force and the Lake Associations, I ask you to join us in this effort as we move to the next phase to restore our lakes and heal our communities.
Working with property owners; our communities; and our counties, state and federal officials and agencies, we will bring back the lakes. That is and has been the mission of Four Lakes Task Force (FLTF) since the May 19, 2020, breach of the Boyce-owned Edenville Dam and failure of the Sanford Dam, and the federally mandated lowering of Secord and Smallwood lakes.
It has been one year since the rain and flooding that could change our region permanently. By June of 2020, FLTF had submitted a short-term plan and by September, had a more detailed, longer-term recovery plan in place. At the one-year anniversary since the dams breached, we are publishing the Four Lakes Restoration Plan – a comprehensive technical report describing our path forward to bring back the dams and recover the surrounding ecosystem that was damaged by the flooding.
FLTF assembled a world-class team of experts to develop this plan. Our conclusion, with agreement by those experts, is that restoring the lakes is feasible and necessary. A brief summary of the key points of the plan is included with this letter.
After years of suffering under the poor stewardship of our lakes, the worst-case scenario happened, leaving the counties, lake communities and property owners to deal with the disaster. The federal regulatory system was not designed to deal with an owner like Boyce Hydro. The state regulatory system had the issue dumped into its lap with limited information to understand Edenville Dam’s challenges. The creditors and Boyce were more focused on their interests in bankruptcy than on dealing with the situation on the ground.
There would have been no path to having future lakes if the counties had not stepped forward to acquire the properties and stabilize the situation on the ground, with support from the state and federal governments.
Lake restoration comes at a cost; by our estimates approximately $250 million. It will require special assessments of property owners, loans from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and additional significant grants from the federal and state governments. And a lot of teamwork from everyone.
Yet we are fully confident implementing this plan will restore the life we knew before the May 2020 disaster and make it even better. If we all work together, we will have more robust dams, safer communities and a more sustainable future for our economy and our environment – for everyone and for all lakes.
On behalf of the Four Lake Task Force and the Lake Associations, I ask you to join us in this effort as we move to the next phase to restore our lakes and heal our communities.
|
|
Dave Kepler
President and Lake Property Owner Four Lakes Task Force |
Outline & Appendix
Acronyms
|
ALICE: Asset Limited, Income Constrained and Employed
Ayres: Ayres Associates BMP: best management practice Boyce: Boyce Hydro Power EAP: emergency action plan EGLE: Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy ER: environmental report EWP: Emergency Watershed Protection (program) FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency FERC: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FIRM: flood insurance rate map FIS: flood insurance study FLTF: Four Lakes Task Force FPA: Federal Power Act GEI: GEI Consultants of Michigan GLFC: Great Lakes Fish Commission IDF: inflow design flood LiDAR: Light Detection and Ranging LOMC: letter of map change MDHHS: Michigan Department of Health and Human Services MDNR: Michigan Department of Natural Resources MDSP: Model Dam Safety Program MNFI: Michigan Natural Features Inventory NFIP: National Flood Insurance Program |
NRCS: Natural Resources Conservation Services
NREPA: Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act O&M: operations and maintenance OHWM: ordinary high-water mark OPCC: opinion of probable construction costs Part 307: State of Michigan inland lakes of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act 451 of 1994 PER: preliminary engineering report PMF: probable maximum flood PMP: probable maximum precipitation PSC: Public Sector Consultants QBS: qualifications-based selection RCAP: Rural Communities Assistance Program RD: rural development SAD: Four Lakes Special Assessment District SCADA: Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition SESC: soil erosion and sedimentation control SEV: state equalized value SFHA: special flood hazard area SGI: Spicer Group, Inc. T&E: threatened and endangered (species) USACE: United States Army Corps of Engineers USBR: United States Bureau of Reclamation USDA: United States Department of Agriculture |
Appendix
Figures
FIGURE 1: Dam Restoration Costs . 8
FIGURE 2: Funds Needed to Achieve Lower Assessment . 11
FIGURE 3: Years of Ownership . 22
FIGURE 4: Importance of Lakes 23
FIGURE 5: Confidence in Recovery 23
FIGURE 6: Selling Property . 24
FIGURE 7: Rebuilding the Dams . 24
FIGURE 8: Need for Special Assessment . 25
FIGURE 9: Paying for the Dams 26
FIGURE 10: Willingness to Pay . 27
FIGURE 11: Property Values Compared to the Assessment Amount . 27
FIGURE 12: Four Lakes Watershed 29
FIGURE 13: Map of FLTF Dams and Lakes 32
FIGURE 14: Summary of Existing and Required Spillway Discharge Capacity 34
FIGURE 15: Summary of Inflow Design Flood (1/2 PMF + Design Storm) 35
FIGURE 16: Aerial View of Secord Dam Spillway and Non-Operational Powerhouse 37
FIGURE 17: Inspection Photographs of Secord Dam . 38
FIGURE 18: Cross-Section View of Proposed Secord Dam Crest Gate Spillway . 38
FIGURE 19: Plan View of Proposed Secord Dam Auxiliary Spillway 39
FIGURE 20: Cross-Section View of Secord Dam Embankment Repairs 40
FIGURE 21: Secord Summary of Opinion of Probable Construction Costs Based on the 30 Percent Design 41
FIGURE 22: Inspection Photographs of Smallwood Dam Spillway and Powerhouse 42
FIGURE 23: Cross-Section View of Smallwood Dam Crest Gate Spillway . 43
FIGURE 24: Plan View of Smallwood Dam Auxiliary Spillway 44
FIGURE 25: Cross-Section View of Smallwood Dam Embankment Repairs 45
FIGURE 26: Smallwood Summary of Opinion of Probable Construction Costs Based on the 30 Percent Design 46
FIGURE 27: Aerial View of Edenville Dam Failure . 47
FIGURE 28: Cross-Section View of Edenville Dam Three-Bay Crest Gate Spillway . 49
FIGURE 29: Elevation View of Proposed Tobacco Spillway Three-Bay Crest Gates 49
FIGURE 30: Plan View of Edenville Dam Auxiliary Spillway Left of Tittabawassee Spillway 50
FIGURE 31: Cross-Section View of Tittabawassee Auxiliary Spillway 50
FIGURE 32: Cross-Section View Edenville Dam Left Embankment Reconstruction 51
FIGURE 33: Edenville Summary of Opinion of Probable Construction Costs Based on the 30 Percent Design 52
FIGURE 34: Aerial View of Sanford Dam Failure . 53
FIGURE 35: Plan View of Proposed Sanford Repairs . 54
FIGURE 36: Plan View of Sanford Dam Primary Spillway Upgrades 55
FIGURE 37: Cross-Section View of Sanford Dam Crest Gates . 55
FIGURE 38: Plan View of Sanford Dam Auxiliary Spillway 56
FIGURE 39: Cross-Section View of Sanford Dam Auxiliary Spillway 56
FIGURE 40: Cross-Section View Sanford Dam Right Embankment Reconstruction 57
FIGURE 41: Sanford Summary of Opinion of Probable Construction Costs Based on the 30 Percent Design . 58
FIGURE 42: Summary of Probable Costs for Each Dam Site . 58
FIGURE 43: Donald Drive Site on Sanford Lake — Before vs. After Stabilization Project 62
FIGURE 44: Pre- and Post-Disaster Wetland and Surface Water Analysis Results for Wixom and Sanford Lakes . 64
FIGURE 45: Planning Level Assessments Without State or Federal Funding . 83
FIGURE 46: Lot Map . 84
FIGURE 47: Sample Lake Map . 84
FIGURE 48: Funds Needed to Achieve Lower Assessment . 86
FIGURE 49: Secord Front Lot Homestead and Non-Homestead Parcels 87
FIGURE 50: Secord Backlot Homestead and Non-Homestead Parcels . 87
FIGURE 51: Smallwood Lake Front Lot Homestead and Non-Homestead Parcels . 88
FIGURE 52: Smallwood Lake Backlot Homestead and Non-Homestead Parcels 88
FIGURE 53: Wixom Front Lot Homestead and Non-Homestead Parcels . 89
FIGURE 54: Wixom Backlot Homestead and Non-Homestead Parcels . 89
FIGURE 55: Sanford Lake Homestead and Non-Homestead Parcels 90
FIGURE 56: Sanford Backlot Homestead and Non-Homestead Parcels 90
FIGURE 57: Gladwin and Midland Counties’ Employment Information 91
FIGURE 58: County Housing Characteristics 92
FIGURE 59: Gladwin and Midland County Residents’ Income Ranges 92
FIGURE 60: Township Employment Information . 93
FIGURE 61: Housing Characteristics 94
FIGURE 62: Income Ranges for Townships Within the SAD . 95
FIGURE 63: Critical Factors by Lake . 97
FIGURE 64: Risk Analysis . 98
FIGURE 2: Funds Needed to Achieve Lower Assessment . 11
FIGURE 3: Years of Ownership . 22
FIGURE 4: Importance of Lakes 23
FIGURE 5: Confidence in Recovery 23
FIGURE 6: Selling Property . 24
FIGURE 7: Rebuilding the Dams . 24
FIGURE 8: Need for Special Assessment . 25
FIGURE 9: Paying for the Dams 26
FIGURE 10: Willingness to Pay . 27
FIGURE 11: Property Values Compared to the Assessment Amount . 27
FIGURE 12: Four Lakes Watershed 29
FIGURE 13: Map of FLTF Dams and Lakes 32
FIGURE 14: Summary of Existing and Required Spillway Discharge Capacity 34
FIGURE 15: Summary of Inflow Design Flood (1/2 PMF + Design Storm) 35
FIGURE 16: Aerial View of Secord Dam Spillway and Non-Operational Powerhouse 37
FIGURE 17: Inspection Photographs of Secord Dam . 38
FIGURE 18: Cross-Section View of Proposed Secord Dam Crest Gate Spillway . 38
FIGURE 19: Plan View of Proposed Secord Dam Auxiliary Spillway 39
FIGURE 20: Cross-Section View of Secord Dam Embankment Repairs 40
FIGURE 21: Secord Summary of Opinion of Probable Construction Costs Based on the 30 Percent Design 41
FIGURE 22: Inspection Photographs of Smallwood Dam Spillway and Powerhouse 42
FIGURE 23: Cross-Section View of Smallwood Dam Crest Gate Spillway . 43
FIGURE 24: Plan View of Smallwood Dam Auxiliary Spillway 44
FIGURE 25: Cross-Section View of Smallwood Dam Embankment Repairs 45
FIGURE 26: Smallwood Summary of Opinion of Probable Construction Costs Based on the 30 Percent Design 46
FIGURE 27: Aerial View of Edenville Dam Failure . 47
FIGURE 28: Cross-Section View of Edenville Dam Three-Bay Crest Gate Spillway . 49
FIGURE 29: Elevation View of Proposed Tobacco Spillway Three-Bay Crest Gates 49
FIGURE 30: Plan View of Edenville Dam Auxiliary Spillway Left of Tittabawassee Spillway 50
FIGURE 31: Cross-Section View of Tittabawassee Auxiliary Spillway 50
FIGURE 32: Cross-Section View Edenville Dam Left Embankment Reconstruction 51
FIGURE 33: Edenville Summary of Opinion of Probable Construction Costs Based on the 30 Percent Design 52
FIGURE 34: Aerial View of Sanford Dam Failure . 53
FIGURE 35: Plan View of Proposed Sanford Repairs . 54
FIGURE 36: Plan View of Sanford Dam Primary Spillway Upgrades 55
FIGURE 37: Cross-Section View of Sanford Dam Crest Gates . 55
FIGURE 38: Plan View of Sanford Dam Auxiliary Spillway 56
FIGURE 39: Cross-Section View of Sanford Dam Auxiliary Spillway 56
FIGURE 40: Cross-Section View Sanford Dam Right Embankment Reconstruction 57
FIGURE 41: Sanford Summary of Opinion of Probable Construction Costs Based on the 30 Percent Design . 58
FIGURE 42: Summary of Probable Costs for Each Dam Site . 58
FIGURE 43: Donald Drive Site on Sanford Lake — Before vs. After Stabilization Project 62
FIGURE 44: Pre- and Post-Disaster Wetland and Surface Water Analysis Results for Wixom and Sanford Lakes . 64
FIGURE 45: Planning Level Assessments Without State or Federal Funding . 83
FIGURE 46: Lot Map . 84
FIGURE 47: Sample Lake Map . 84
FIGURE 48: Funds Needed to Achieve Lower Assessment . 86
FIGURE 49: Secord Front Lot Homestead and Non-Homestead Parcels 87
FIGURE 50: Secord Backlot Homestead and Non-Homestead Parcels . 87
FIGURE 51: Smallwood Lake Front Lot Homestead and Non-Homestead Parcels . 88
FIGURE 52: Smallwood Lake Backlot Homestead and Non-Homestead Parcels 88
FIGURE 53: Wixom Front Lot Homestead and Non-Homestead Parcels . 89
FIGURE 54: Wixom Backlot Homestead and Non-Homestead Parcels . 89
FIGURE 55: Sanford Lake Homestead and Non-Homestead Parcels 90
FIGURE 56: Sanford Backlot Homestead and Non-Homestead Parcels 90
FIGURE 57: Gladwin and Midland Counties’ Employment Information 91
FIGURE 58: County Housing Characteristics 92
FIGURE 59: Gladwin and Midland County Residents’ Income Ranges 92
FIGURE 60: Township Employment Information . 93
FIGURE 61: Housing Characteristics 94
FIGURE 62: Income Ranges for Townships Within the SAD . 95
FIGURE 63: Critical Factors by Lake . 97
FIGURE 64: Risk Analysis . 98
