UPPAC Interactive

[Nancyuppac]

Below is information released by UPPCO, as in the past, it is misleading and does not fool the informed.

For Release: 08/21/2006

Facts and Fiction About the Lands Being Sold by UPPCO

HOUGHTON MI - There are a number of stories circulating about the proposed development at Bond Reservoir and on other lands Upper Peninsula Power Company (UPPCO) is selling around its hydro projects. Most of the stories concern the possible effects of development on the scenic, recreational, and other environmental qualities of the area. UPPCO has compiled this list to set the record straight.

FICTION: There will be 400 lighted docks around Bond Reservoir. FACT: In a June 2006 press release, Naterra Land publicly summarized a preliminary plan calling for only 35 individual piers and up to 40 multiple-slip piers strategically located around the flowage. Naterra said it chose multiple-slip piers as a way to further minimize any environmental or aesthetic impacts.

FICTION: The public won’t be able to fish around any private docks that might be part of the development at Bond and other UPPCO reservoirs.

FACT: The shoreline will continue to be UPPCO’s property and will remain open for public use as before. As on any lake in Michigan, the public can continue to fish from the shore near the piers or from a boat on the reservoir near the piers. If the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approves a Shoreline Management Plan that includes docks, current property owners on Bond Reservoir may also build private docks.

FICTION: Public access for people who don’t own property around the reservoirs will be diminished as part of the development. FACT: Public access at Bond Falls and other reservoirs will continue. UPPCO is reorganizing its Bond Falls campground and the number of campsites may actually increase. UPPCO tried to increase public access to the reservoir by requesting that public docks be included in the new Bond Falls campground, but state and federal agencies, reacting to Upper Peninsula Public Access Coalition’s (UPPAC’s) letter to FERC, indicated concern over the concept, so it was put on hold and will be readdressed as part of the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) development process. Naterra’s conceptual development plan provides for additional public access points around the reservoir, and UPPCO will also propose additional public recreational amenities in its SMP. If approved, those plans will enhance the public’s recreational opportunities.

FICTION: Hundreds of houses and cabins will be crowded around Bond Reservoir and spoil the view.

FACT: Most homesites will be barely noticeable from the water. Naterra has said that the majority of the homesites will be situated anywhere from 500 to 2,000 feet back from the ordinary high water mark, with 89 percent of them back more than 300 feet.

Naterra’s conceptual plan, which may need to be modified based upon the eventual requirements of the Shoreland Management Plan, calls for up to 424 homesites on the 1,700-plus acres surrounding the Bond Falls flowage. Current ordinances require a minimum parcel of 1.03 acres; Naterra’s plans will more than double that with homesites averaging 2.14 acres. When additional green spaces planned for the development are included, the density of home sites decreases to 3.96 per acre. For the most part, the distances for construction from the shoreline greatly exceed state and local regulations.

FICTION: Homeowners will cut down trees to open up their view of the water.

FACT: Wide corridors will not be allowed for viewing Bond Reservoir.

On the non-project land, Naterra will place restrictive covenants on each home site. These covenants will include provisions such as limiting the removal of trees to what’s necessary for constructing a home, garage and driveway; increasing the setbacks and minimum lot size requirements; and mandating the use of low-voltage down lighting.

On the project land, UPPCO is not considering proposing the cutting of vegetation for views at Bond Falls. The cutting of vegetation for views is being considered at other UPPCO reservoirs, but only the limited removal of low-lying brush, hazard trees, and the trimming of tree limbs will be considered under very strict guidelines.

FICTION: The development will bring in nonnative species, pesticides, fertilizers, rain runoff, and large areas of blacktop or concrete.

FACT: Protective covenants will address these environmental issues by including provisions prohibiting the planting of nonnative species; requiring the use of weed-free seed mixes; minimizing impervious surfaces; mandating the use of rain gardens to reduce runoff; and prohibiting the use of fertilizers containing phosphorus. The reservoirs will also be protected from runoff concerns by the distance these types of activities occur from the shoreline. These types of impacts will be considered as part of the Shoreline Management Plan development process.

FICTION: The county and townships will actually spend more money than new taxes will bring in because of the additional services they’ll have to provide.

FACT: Studies by the USDA and the University of Wisconsin found that recreational developments such as that proposed by Naterra at Bond Reservoir consume far less in services than those of traditional suburban developments. The people who would buy there are more likely to be older and without school-age children or would be summer and weekend recreational types who don't put a lot of pressure on services. However, any families with children who do move into the development would mean more revenue to the local schools due to the per-pupil state reimbursement.

Conservative estimates show that development at Bond Falls, when fully realized and with rezoning requested by Naterra, would provide Interior Township with more than $1.7 million in new revenue and Haight Township with about $800,000. Just as important, this new revenue would be shared with local schools as well as the county for the services it provides, which currently include police and fire protection, roads, and social programs for senior citizens. If Interior Township does not rezone, the new revenue could drop to less than $40,000.

Naterra will build all roads within the development to Ontonagon County Road Commission specifications. In addition to providing access to property owners, these roads will provide public access to project lands. All water and septic systems in the developed area will comply with MDEQ rules for on-site water supply and sewage disposal. Other utility services will be provided and maintained by the utility companies that own them.

FICTION: Development will adversely affect old-growth forest at Bond Reservoir.

FACT: The forest surrounding Bond Reservoir is not old-growth forest, although the license requires that the 200-foot buffer around the reservoir be managed for old-growth forest. The State of Michigan’s fact sheet on old-growth forest recognizes that impacts such as limited paths or other recreational opportunities are not necessarily excluded from the definition. Any paths proposed would be limited and carefully planned to avoid sensitive areas.

FICTION: New homes will cause property values and taxes to go up so high local residents can’t afford to live there.

FACT: Current homeowners’ taxes will not be affected by the development. The state of Michigan caps property tax increases at 3% per year on properties that weren’t improved or repaired the previous year. Otherwise taxes stay the same until the property is sold. Also, the additional tax base could lead to an overall drop in the mil rate so that while property values rise, actual taxes may not. In addition, Michigan law allows for a special taxing district that could be created to differentiate between property owners near the flowages and those some distance away. Interior Township has indicated it would like to establish such a taxing district. Lakeshore residential values will not influence the rest of the township’s assessments.

FICTION: UPPCO and Naterra Land are not Michigan companies.

FACT: UPPCO has always been a Michigan company; Naterra has had offices in Michigan for more than 10 years.

Upper Peninsula Power Company and its predecessors have been located in Michigan since 1884 when Peninsula Electric Light and Power was formed in the Keweenaw Peninsula. UPPCO itself was incorporated in Michigan in 1947. UPPCO’s employees and management live and work in Michigan and take great pride in actively supporting their communities.

Naterra has been doing business in the Upper Peninsula for more than 10 years and recently opened its newest office in Marquette. Naterra is committed to making a positive impact in the community and played a major role in saving the U.P. 200 Sled Dog Championships and supporting the Superior Bike Fest.

FICTION: UPPCO received the land around its hydros free with the provision that it provide public access for recreation.

FACT: UPPCO or its predecessor companies purchased the land and some existing hydro facilities at market prices and have paid full taxes on them for the entire time they have owned them.

At the time the land was purchased, the company acquired more than was absolutely necessary for the safe and efficient operation of its hydros. That which FERC deems unnecessary for hydro production is outside the FERC license and is referred to as non-project land. This is the land that is being sold. The lands that UPPCO’s FERC license require to be managed for the safe and effective operation of the hydroelectric facilities are referred to as project lands. FERC requires project lands to be open to the public for recreational purposes. The public-access requirement has never been applied to the non-project lands.

[Nancyuppac]

According to UPPCO, Naterra’s preliminary plans, outlined in June, “only” called for 35 individual piers and up to 40 multiple slip piers around Bond Flowage. However, they failed to state the 40 multiple slip piers will accommodate up to 10 boat slips each. Do the math. “Only” thirty-five individual private piers plus 40 private piers will accommodate 435 boats at Bond. It is not coincidence that Naterra is planning for 424 homesites. It certainly appears, Naterra, with UPPCO’s endorsement, is planning for one boat slip for each homesite on the project lands regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. That equates to a marina!

Those who purchase the non-project lands (lots) are not purchasing lakefront property; they should not have the exclusive right to private docks.

Furthermore, private lighted docks are not consistent with the license agreement signed by FERC because docks are not “consistent with the purposes of protecting and enhancing the scenic, recreational and other environmental values of the project.”

[Nancyuppac]

These posts were moved from Unanswered Questions to this New Category.

UPPCO claims most of the 424 houses planned for Bond Flowage "will be barely noticeable". They must be blind or think we are. The easements UPPCO hopes to convey to Naterra for the new lot owners include the right to build trails no less than 4 feet in width (no maximum width given) and they can clear brush and shrubbery of less than 2 inches in diameter (measured at the height of 5 feet from the ground). Calling it "brush and shrubbery" sounds so much better than cutting small trees in an area that is supposed to be managed for old-growth. And, they want the right to remove dead or diseased trees. This amounts to cutting paths/trails through the project lands which are supposed to be managed for the public.

Apparently UPPCO would like you to believe that a trail from a lot, with a house, to the water, through the project lands will not be a viewing corridor, just because they say so.

Perhaps, UPPCO needs to read their license.

[Nancyuppac]

This post was moved from Unanswered Questions to this site

According to the license agreement, the project lands surrounding Bond Flowage are supposed to be managed for old growth. Like it or not, UPPCO agreed to that designation. Can UPPCO please explain how the cutting of dead trees and live brush, shrubbery, small trees and the installation of docks, trails and the trenching for power to the lighted docks for over 400 houses, PROMOTES old growth?

[Nancyuppac]

This post was moved from Unanswered Questions

Lets see, by UPPCO's own admission, 424 houses will surround Bond Flowage, speaking conservatively, we will "only" place 2 people in each house (for the sake of argument, no one will have children or grandchildren). So, that equals 848 people. We will place 1 dog in only a third of the houses, that equals 141 dogs. And, we will assume anyone who has a cat, keeps it indoors. And then, UPPCO claims, the public access WILL NOT be dimished? What about public enjoyment?

Then, depending upon who they talk to, UPPCO claims these will be high scale residential homes (remember the increase tax base?) & there will be children that will help boost the enrollment in the Ewen-Trout Creek School. But, when we ask who will pay to provide the services a development of this magnitude will demand/require, UPPCO changes their tune and says these will be vacation or recreational homes. Maybe so, but they will still require services. Also, according to the survey conducted in Interior Township BEFORE any of these plans were known, the residents of Interior Township stated they would like to see more low cost and senior citizen housing. Least desired? More cottages and vacation homes!

UPPCO, Naterra and the Townships can and DO talk from both sides of their mouth. Lets sort the real facts from fiction.

[Nancyuppac]

Moved from Unanswered Questions

Now UPPCO lists as FICTION that the public won't be allowed to fish around the private docks. They don't tell you where that idea came from.
It was in their Draft "Nonexclusive License Agreement" dated "this__ day of December 2005, granted by UPPER PENINSULA POWER COMPANY (Licensor) to NATERRA LAND, INC (Licensee). It read:

"The Licensee shall have the right to require persons fishing from banks of the waterway to do so no closer than 100 feet of Licensee's Pier."

Only after the agencies voiced strong objections and the public began writing to the FERC, UPPCO dropped this from their proposal.
Much fiction is based on fact.
But UPPCO will not tell you that.

[Nancyuppac]

This post was moved from Unanswered Questions

UPPCO dangles figures for increased tax revenue around like it will be all net gain. Every cost of services study I have seen shows the increased cost of services outweigh the gains from residendial zoning in the long run. Other zoning areas (commercial, recreational, agricultural, forest, etc.) must be used to make up the losses for residendial.

UPPCO says this is fiction. The new residents will likely not have young children (or grandchildren) living with them. If only one or two have children in the home, will they demand a public school bus pick them up and run them back and forth to Ewen? I would. Does UPPCO believe part-time residents won't want their roads plowed all winter. I would. Will they want them salted? Bet they will. How about all future road maintenance? Where will be the closest Fire Hall? I'd demand one closer than Trout Creek or Bruce Crossing! Just what fewer services does UPPCO think the new owners won't demand?

Interior Township has the opportunity to require Naterra to first fund an independent cost of service study before agreeing to rezone from 40 acres to 1.03 so UPPCO/Naterra can make millions by forever changing the character of Bond. Township officials voted not to require a study! Why? Where they afraid of the possible results? They won't say. I am not saying the area should not be developed. Only that we should go down this path with our eyes open, not closed like Interior Township officials.

[curious]

I a curious why UPPCO is fighting so hard to hand over to Naterra private uses of the project lands (that they had agreed to manage for the public when they got their license). Why is the price Naterra paid UPPCO for the land being kept secret?
Could it be Narerra will pay UPPCO a sliding price (upwards) depending on what UPPCO can deliver (at the public's expence)?
That'd be my guess.
What do you think?
UPPCO/WPS, will you be honest and tell us?

[answer man]

Dear Curious,
I have already asked them that question--twice.
They won't say.
There's your answer.

[selfish]

Uppco stated above it is "fiction" that public use of the project lands will be diminished as part of the (Naterra's) development. I disagree. Perhaps I am being selfish to think that every square inch of the project lands taken up by private trails and private docks diminish my public use of them, but I do. I don't want to fish near someone else's private dock and I don't think I should have to put up with someone else's private (lighted) dock on the project lands that are supposed to be managed for the public.

[Science Based Facts]

To view the entire study (19 pages), go to this website

http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/landcenter/pdffiles/Imp_Surf_Shoreland

UPPCO claims there will be "protective" convenants will address environmental issues, such as rain gardens & prohibiting the use of fertilizers containing phosphorus.

These covenants do not come close to what is needed to protect these fragile resources. Storm water runoff can carry car oil, herbicides, pesticides, food waste, sewage, construction materials, pavement deicing salts, water sofener salt, and other pollutants to the lakes. While one house many not result in a measurable change, the cumulative effects of 424 houses will be enormous.

Page 14 of the study begins "THE AESTHETICS OF A SHORELINE MAY BE AN INTANGIBLE CONCEPT, BUT MANY PEOPLE OFTEN RECOGNIZE WHEN IT HAS BEEN DEGRADED OR LOST. IN A MINNESOTA SURVEY, WATERFRONT PROPERTY OWNERS AND LAKE USERS CITED CABIN AND HOME DEVELOPMENT OVER 85% OF THE TIME AS THE CAUSE WHEN THEY PERCEIVED A DECLINE IN THE SCENIC QUALITY ON THE LAKE THEY USED THE MOST. OTHER ACTIVITIES AT THE TOP LIST THAT RESULTED IN A DECLINE IN SCENIC QUALITY INCLUDED INSTALLATION OF DOCKS AND BOAT LIFTS, AND REMOVAL OF TREES AND SHRUBS IN THE SHORLAND AREA."

[Guest from Wisconsin]

In the post above UPPCO claims "the public can continue to fish from the shore near the piers".

Please note the word "near". Here in Wisconsin where (UPPCO was granted permission for non-project use of project lands) homes have been built and piers put in the water there are UPPCO signs posted that you "CAN NOT" fish from shore within 100 feet of a pier.

[Guest]

Of whats going to happen here, the docks are a done deal, has been in the past, will be in the future. WPS/UPPCO knows the rules and is playing by them. UPPAC likes to intepret the rules for their own self serving cause (mostly anti-access) and claim a mandate based on a bunch of non-resident, self serving enviromentalists. YES, read the license, then look at the recent interpretations, docks are definately part of the equation. Sorry folks, this deal is done!

[aluppac]

Response to guest,
UPPCO/WPS thought this was a "done deal" last Decrmber. FERC, the agencies and the public let them know it wasn't. UPPCO/WPS is sure spending a lot of time and money on this "done deal." Looks to me they don't share your views on this being a "done deal." And neither do we.

[Rusty Crayfish]

DOCKS ON BOND HAVE NOT BEEN APPROVED BY FERC, NOR DO WE BELIEVE THAT THEY WILL BE!

DOCKS DO NOTHING TO "ENHANCE AND PROTECT THE SCENIC, RECREATIONAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES OF THE PROJECT"!

THE PROJECT LANDS ARE TO BE MANAGED "FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC",.......NOT FOR THE BENEFIT OF UPPCO/WPS, NOT FOR THE BENEFIT OF NATERRA, AND NOT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE NEW LOT OWNERS!

THE PROJECT LANDS ARE TO BE MANAGED :

FOR THE PUBLIC! FOR THE PUBLIC! FOR THE PUBLIC!

READ THE LICENSE! READ THE LICENSE! READ THE LICENSE!

YOU CAN KEEP ON DREAMING ABOUT DOCKS ALL YOU WANT TO!

DOCKS ARE NOT A DONE DEAL!

DOCKS SIMPLY WILL NOT BE ALLOWED ON BOND FLOWAGE!

[Guest]

Read the licenses for Petenwell and the lake in Tennesse, its ALL THE SAME! There are many interpretations but in the end DOCKS HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN THE PAST AND DOCKS ARE COMING TO THE UP FLOWAGES. Wait and see!!!

[guest]

I have briefly read the licenses and I cannot find where there say "THE PROJECT LANDS ARE TO BE MANAGED "'FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC'". Could you point me to that section, please? Thanks. One more question if I may. Aren't UPPCO, Naterra and future lot owners members of the public?

[answer to guest]

BOND VICTORIA Licence P-1864 See page 29 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT
Setions4(e) and 10(a)(1) of the FPA, respectively, require the Commission to give equal consideration to the power development purposes and to the purposes of energy conservation, the protection, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife , the protection of recreation opportunities, and the preservation of other aspects of environmental quality. Any license issued shall be such as in the Commission's judgment will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways for all beneficial public uses.
Note: no where does it say that some members of the public are "more equal than others." (to borrow an idea from George Orwell)

[Duckie Duddles]

YOU ARE DELIBERATELY TRYING TO MISLEAD THE PUBLIC AGAIN!

I DOUBT THAT YOU WOULD EVEN KNOW TO QUOTE THIS ITEM IF YOU HAD NOT SEEN IT IN THE PREVIOUS POST FROM "60 MergusMergansersonBond" from Saturday!

Please do tell us how PRIVATE DOCKS, FOR THE EXPRESS AND EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE "NEW LOT OWNERS", (on a shoreline that was promised to be managed FOR THE PUBLIC), is consistent with the FERC License requirements of "enhancing and protecting the scenic, recreational, and environmental values of the project". ???

Then, do tell us how PRIVATE DOCKS FOR THE EXPRESS AND EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE "NEW LOT OWNERS", (on a shoreline that was promised to be managed FOR THE PUBLIC), will contribute to the protection of, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife." ???

Finally, tell us how PRIVATE DOCKS, FOR THE EXPRESS AND EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE "NEW LOT OWNERS", (on a shoreline that was promised to be managed FOR THE PUBLIC), will protect PUBLIC "recreational opportunites, and preserve other aspects of environmental quality". ???

You need to study the definition of "PUBLIC" in your dictionary!
Since I don't believe you have one, Webster's definition is as follows:

public:

adjective
1. Pertaining to people as a whole; relating to a nation or community.
2. Belonging to people at large; common.
3. Open to the knowledge of all; generally known.

noun
1. The people; mankind.
2. A group of people; audience.

adverb: publicly
noun: publicness

*************************************************************

THE PRIVATE DOCKS WILL NOT BE FOR "THE PUBLIC"!
THE PRIVATE DOCKS WILL NOT BE FOR "THE PEOPLE AS A WHOLE"!
THE PRIVATE DOCKS WILL NOT BE FOR "THE LOCAL COMMUNITY"!
THE PRIVATE DOCKS WILL NOT BE FOR "COMMON USE"!
THE PRIVATE DOCKS WILL NOT BE FOR "THE PEOPLE AT LARGE"!

*************************************************************

THE PRIVATE DOCKS WILL BE FOR THE EXPRESS AND EXCLUSIVE PRIVATE USE OF THE "NEW LOT OWNERS" AND WILL NOT BE FOR THE USE OF THE PUBLIC!

*************************************************************

THIS IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE FERC LICENSE REQUIREMENTS

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[guest from Interior]

"Aren't UPPCO, Naterra and future lot owners members of the public?"

Future lot owners, yes, as well as individual employees of these two companies. UPPCO and Naterra are not "members of the public" they are corporations whose only reason for existing is to make money. Period. UPPCO does not sell us power because they are "nice" people nor does Naterra sell land so every American can have a home. Their ONLY purpose is to generate money. Now, they will turn our way of life into a commodity and we will be priced out of the market. If you think the labor market is bad here wait until you try to live in Marquette or Wausau on minimum wage because there will soon be no place for the people we refer to as the "locals." Check out Lando--where are the "locals?" Locals cease to exist and there are only the monied landowners who show up from time to time and the struggling businesses.

[member of the public]

The new Naterra land owners should not be "more equql than others"
They should have the same rights the rest of us have. No less and no more.
No Private docks for them in the Project lands! That is the issue here. Should some be given special rights to private uses in the Project lands the rest of the public will not? WPS, Naterra and Guest say yes, I say NO!

[member of the public]

The new Naterra land owners should not be "more equal than others"
They should have the same rights the rest of us have. No less and no more.
No Private docks for them in the Project lands! That is the issue here. Should some be given special rights to private uses in the Project lands the rest of the public will not? WPS, Naterra and Guest say yes, I say NO!