June 19, 2006
Volume 7 Issue 25

UPPCO/WPS recently announced in a press release that they were withdrawing plans to place public docks at newly consolidated campgrounds at Bond Falls Flowage because of agency concerns.

The Upper Peninsula Public Access Coalition (UPPAC) shares these concerns and sent a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on May 13, 2006, citing several reasons for objecting to these new docks on the project land shoreline.

First, UPPCO/WPS proposed to FERC the elimination of the dispersed camping sites at Bond and consolidation into two grouped camping areas on the east and west shorelines. UPPCO/WPS listed “environmental” reasons for the consolidation with no mention of their planned sale of the non-project lands to Naterra Land.

Second, it was not until after UPPCO/WPS obtained FERC approval for consolidation of the dispersed campgrounds that they unveiled their plans to sell the non-project lands to Naterra (and to convey easements on the project lands for hundreds of private trails, piers and docks to new lot owners on the non-project lands sold to Naterra).

UPPAC has been and remains adamantly opposed to the placement of private docks on the project shoreline that according to UPPCO/WPS’ license is to be managed for public use. UPPAC also believes that because of fluctuating water levels at Bond Flowage, and for many other reasons, docks are not appropriate for this lake.

At UPPCO/WPSí public “informational meeting” in Trout Creek on 5/2, UPPCO/WPS first revealed plans to eliminate dispersed campsites and place 15-18 public docks at the two new consolidated campground areas. UPPCO/WPS had not included these public docks (nor the private ones) in their proposal to FERC and we believe UPPCO/WPS was merely attempting to establish precedent by placing these docks on the project lands without FERC approval, paving the way for hundreds of private ones.

You can view our entire letter to FERC at our website www.uppac.com.

Al Warren
Ewen MI

March 20, 2006
Volume 7 Issue 12

To The Editor:

This letter is in response to a letter which appeared in the March 1, 2006, edition of the Ontonagon Herald from Nancy Warren concerning the development at Bond Falls.

Mrs. Warren’s letter presents a very one-sided view of the proposed development. She would like to present the view that Interior Township and Haight Township have been bullied into submission by UPPCO and Naterra Land developers and that these townships have been easily persuaded by them. Her statements such as the Interior Township EDC “blindly adopting the demands of a large land developer” are offensive and untrue.

The Interior Township Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, Economic Development Committee and the Township Board have been on board with this project for several months. We have had many meetings with Naterra Land to discuss issues we felt were relevant and important. The Planning Commission has put countless hours into researching and understanding this development. We have asked the questions concerning road maintenance, snow removal, ambulance service and fire protection and at this point are satisfied with the solutions presented.

Mrs. Warren makes no mention in her letter that Naterra Land has been developing environmentally sensitive areas for over 25 years. Many of us feel we are fortunate to have Naterra Land involved in the project and feel UPPCO made a good decision in choosing Naterra Land.

Mrs. Warren skims over the fact that this is a private land sale—neither WPS (Wisconsin Public Service) or UPPCO are selling public lands. It is true that a buffer zone around the lake is public land (known as FERC land ) and this land cannot and is not being sold.

Mrs. Warren makes no mention in her letter that the current day use area remains unchanged, that the public boat landings will be upgraded, and that areas are set aside for new campsites. Public access trails and parking areas have been discussed to allow public access to the FERC lands.

Mrs. Warren speaks of the proposed development still being in “the conceptual stages”—this is true, they are—and because of the environmentally sensitive area involved, these plans are not being rushed through so Mrs. Warren can see them. WPS, UPPCO, and Naterra Land are all working with the Michigan DNR, the Forest Service and other agencies to develop a sound plan for development prior to presenting their proposals to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) which controls the public buffer zone around the lake.

It seems Mrs. Warren contradicts herself by stating “development must be done responsibly” and “it is imperative we know the impact of this development” but yet demands to ìsee this proposed developmentî without allowing UPPCO or Naterra Land the time they need to put these plans together responsibly.

Mrs. Warren also asks “how will local residents benefit?” We in Interior Township have looked at all aspects of this question and believe there are strong benefits for our local residents including: increased tax base which is sorely needed locally; job creation prior to, throughout, and after the development; a strong boost to local area businesses; and anticipated economic growth stemming from the development. All of these are very important to our local area and local residents. We are also concerned with the environmental issues that come about with a project of this size and are willing to allow the necessary time for a sound plan to be presented by UPPCO and Naterra Land.

Mrs. Warren has attended our public meetings concerning this development and has presented a very negative attitude at these meetings. When she speaks of Interior Township “blindly adopting the demands of a large land developer,” it is my opinion her negative attitude toward this development does not allow Mrs. Warren to consider the entire picture.

Finally, to our local residents—be assured your township officials are considering all aspects of this issue. We are not blindly giving in to land developers or anyone else. We would be lax in our duties if we were not looking at all aspects of the project with open minds. Do not be persuaded by the outside interest groups who have presented no benefit to our local area and who do not provide adequate reasoning to be against this development except to be against something.

Don McLaughlin, Chairman
Interior Township Economic Development Committee

February 27, 2006
Volume 7 Issue 9

February 22, 2006

There is another petition being circulated throughout Ontonagon County. It states the “undersigned support the proposed development project by Naterra Land on non-project lands surrounding Bond Falls Flowage in the Townships of Interior and Haight.” I have repeatedly asked to see this proposed development. The response has been the same—“they are still in the conceptual stage.” These conceptual plans by Naterra include 300-400 houses with exclusive use of project lands including private lighted docks, private walkways and electric boat hoists. Visualize a private dock every 150 ft. (with some up to 10 slips) surrounding the Bond Flowage. That is what UPPCO/WPS, Naterra and some in local government hope to accomplish.

This petition further states “the social and economic impact upon these traditionally distressed communities will have positive benefits to all institutions...” While some local businesses may benefit, there have been no studies done locally that show the impact or cost of services to our community. Will Naterra or county residents be responsible for road maintenance and snow removal? What will be the costs for ambulance, fire and police protection? These and 40 other questions submitted to UPPCO have not been answered as promised at their meeting 2/2/06. Specifically, how will local residents benefit?

Interior Township Planning Commission will meet 7 p.m., 3/2/06, Interior Township Hall to discuss the rezoning of these non-project lands from 40 acre to 1.03 acre (150 ft. wide) parcels and zoning that could allow private docks on lands set aside for public use.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has the final authority to allow or deny docks but FERC considers the input from local entities.

Insist that your local leaders lead. The mission of the Interior Township EDC “moving forward” does not mean blindly adopting the demands of a land developer whose ultimate goal is to make money and move on. Urge your elected officials to implement a shoreline management development plan. It is their obligation to present to the public the proposed development project by Naterra before rezoning takes place. Say no to private docks.

Development must be done responsibly. It is imperative that we know the impact this development will have on our natural resources and our use of Bond Flowage before the bulldozers arrive and destroy the lake we now enjoy. For more information and to sign our on-line petition requesting a new and comprehensive environmental impact study visit us at www.uppac.com.

Nancy Warren
Ewen, MI 49925

January 30, 2006
Volume 7 Issue 5

January 20, 2006
To the Editor

Here in Wisconsin, we are watching with great interest, and dismay, about what will happen to the land around the flowages on the beautiful rivers you have in the Upper Peninsula. We are aware of the proposal by Upper Peninsula Power Co. to sell off lands around those flowages for recreational lakeshore lots.

There is a disturbing deja vu in this project for those of us in Wisconsin who care about rivers. A few years ago, my organization, the River Alliance of Wisconsin, unsuccessfully challenged UPPCo’s parent company’s proposal to sell 10,000 acres of hydro dam “project lands” around the Peshtigo River. We asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to not allow Wisconsin Public Service Corp. (WPS) to sell their lands because we felt it was their obligation as a federal licensee to manage those project lands for wilderness and recreation.

We did not prevail. FERC allowed WPS to remove those 10,000 acres out their project boundaries. The good news in this story is that most of that land will be preserved because Wisconsin taxpayers bought it for forest and parkland. WPS was still able to sell 400 acres for lakeshore lot development. There is a “scenic easement” of 200 feet that protects the shorelines plus some other restrictions that will ease the impact of development on the river. It’s too early to tell what impact that development will have, as the lots have just been sold and houses going up.

There are several big differences between the Peshtigo experience and the proposal in the Upper Peninsula, all of which bode ill for the resources there. It doesn’t look like you have the benefit of a state buyout to protect your flowages as we did. The scale of the development is far grander and more intensive than anything we’ve seen around flowages in our state. And in the case of the Peshtigo, WPS did not turn the land transactions over to a developer the way it is in the Upper Peninsula.

Given the “Whatever!” attitude of FERC these days about rewriting hydro licenses for the benefit of the utilities, your best recourse may be to convince local governments that approving housing development of this scale may give them more “tax base” but will be costly to service and damaging to the resources that people come to the U.P. to enjoy. You might also appeal to the image-conscious WPS itself: How much public relations damage is it willing to incur to boost its bottom line from a one-time land sale?

Denny Caneff
Executive Director
River Alliance of Wisconsin
306 E. Wilson St.
Madison, WI  53703
608-257-2424 ext. 115

January 23, 2006
Volume 7 Issue 4

I submit this letter at Mr. Guschl’s request.
Thank you,
Joe Hovel for Dick Guschl

Dear Editor,

I have followed with keen interest the proposed developments surrounding the WPS Corp. UPPCo. Flowages in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. I find it interesting that the winter holiday time was chosen to convey this property to a developer. It appears far from the eyes of the public had it not been exposed by a reporter or citizens in northern Wis. with the determination to discover facts.

It appears that WPS Corp. is in a management meltdown! Citizens and agencies are calling for an amended license, for a new EIS or for compromise on the development size and density. These things are not the answer. What is needed is new management for WPS à UPPCo. A management that is responsible to the contracts with the FERC, to the environment and to the public.

This shallow scheme should be immediately rejected—by the FERC, by the Public Service Commission and by the shareholders, who should consider more responsible investments.

It seems the current attitude at WPS leaves them ripe for a takeover. Refusing to fully honor a recent FERC license, risking a long-term environmental disaster to the old growth shorelands at Bond for a narrow short-term gain exposes the management as ineffective, arrogant and unfit to run a publicly traded company.

Sincerely,
Dick Guschl
Conover,WI
(715)-479-7396

An Open Letter to Mr. Roger Trudeau, UPPCO/WPS

On January 5, 2006, I spoke with you about several concerns I had regarding the sale of non-project lands surrounding the six flowages located in the Upper Peninsula. I was particularly interested in Lake Victoria and Bond Falls.

I wrote a summary of our conversation and forwarded my notes to you for review before distributing the information. I asked you to make any corrections and “fill in the blanks” for information you said you could not recall during our conversation. You did not make any corrections.

When I requested an updated map of the planned development around Bond and Victoria, you responded that UPPCO does not provide those maps to the general public. You even questioned how I received the one I have in my possession.

I asked why ALL local townships had not been involved with the planning (such as Rockland and Stannard Townships). You stated that UPPCO does not tell townships ahead of time that there are plans to develop.

Referring to the press release issued by UPPCO, I requested copies of all records of meetings, conversations involving USFS, Michigan DNR and other organizations who you said were not interested in purchasing the lands surrounding Bond, Prickett and Victoria. I explained I was most interested in this information so I could follow up with the agencies involved. The best you could offer was vague and incomplete information. For example, you stated you called back “some conservation group” then never heard from them and “there was a group in Duluth, but can’t recall the name.” You talked with “someone” from Keweenaw Indian Bay Community but then never heard back.

Following our conversation, I did some of my own investigation and found that the USFS was interested in 800 acres of land at Bond to insure access for an existing snowmobile trail, but UPPCO was only interested in a land trade that was not in the public’s best interest. Other agencies did express interest in some of these lands.

You refused to disclose the final selling price for the lands already sold and the asking price for the land yet to be sold. I believe the public has the right to know. I later learned through county documents that the sale price is contained in a sealed affidavit at the courthouse. This leads me to wonder if UPPCO made a backroom deal with Naterra Land Developers. Will profits be divided once the lots are sold to individuals?

Each of your recent press releases and the press conference last week would lead one to believe that UPPCO is committed to being a good steward of the land and will keep the public informed; it is obvious theses are just words. There was never any mention of your plans to sell any of these lands during the initial studies and subsequent issuance of the 2003 license to operate the hydroelectric dams for profit. Since UPPCO now wants to change the terms of the agreement, we are urging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to require a new environmental impact study, public hearing and public comment period before any approval of non-project use of project lands.

Nancy and Al Warren
Ewen

January 16, 2006
Volume 7 Issue 3

What's The Fuss?

By now, you heard that UPPCO/WPS has plans to sell 7,300 acres of land surrounding six flowages in the Upper Peninsula, including Lake Victoria, Bond Falls and Prickett. In some cases, sales to Naterra Land Company have already taken place. So, what’s the fuss?

In 2001, while their license was up for renewal, UPPCO indicated to both the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the public that they did not propose significant development near the reservoirs. Following an extensive period of public comment, a new 40-year license was granted to UPPCO to continue operations of the hydroelectric dams for their profit.

The terms of this licensing agreement established a buffer zone (called project lands) extending from a few feet to 1,000 feet surrounding the lakes. This land is owned by UPPCO but its use is regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). These regulations include public use and protection of natural resources and wildlife habitant in exchange for allowing UPPCO to use public waterways. The public was to have the right to fish, hunt, watch wildlife and hike on this UPPCO land.

UPPCO is selling the land outside the buffer zone (non-project lands) and has issued a draft document for the land developer (Naterra) giving new property owners certain rights, not afforded the public, to exclusive uses within the project lands. Sure, UPPCO has the right to sell the private property, outside the project lands. But they cannot convey to the new owners exclusive rights to build private paths to the lake, place lighted docks with up to 10 slips, store their boats and docks, cut dead trees and establish viewing corridors within project lands without approval from FERC.

I would like someone from UPPCO to define “significant” development and how hundreds of homes surrounding the lakes will not affect wildlife habitant. We can’t lose sight of the fact that UPPCO made an agreement and now, only two years later, are changing the terms. Even worse, these transactions were done behind closed doors and UPPCO hoped we would not notice. Township officials were not informed until UPPCO made the deal with the land developer.

We must demand FERC uphold the terms of the agreement signed by UPPCO in 2003. Otherwise, coming soon to a pristine lake near you, a subdivision—complete with private lighted docks, yard lights, manicured lawns, barking dogs and “no trespassing signs.” Which would you rather have: land where we all can hunt, fish, hike, ski, observe wildlife and managed for public use or a subdivision with 1-3-acre lots where the new homeowner can have you arrested for trespassing on his private dock on project lands.

I know when I go for a drive, I don’t go to look for pretty houses. They can be found in any suburb. Development should be in appropriate places; perhaps it’s time for a new definition of progress. Write to FERC hotline@ferc.gov or Magalie Roman Salas, FERC, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC. 20426; refer to Project 1864. You should also contact Congressman Bart Stupak at tombaldini@chartermi.net and Rich Brown at richbrown@house.mi.gov and Senator Stabenow at senator@stabenow.senate.gov to demand a public hearing and public comment period.

If you don’t voice your opinion now, the developer will reap his profits and be gone. That is what they have been counting on all along. If you would like to help or want more information, call Nancy or Al Warren 988-2892.

December 19, 2005
Volume 6 Issue 51

Get Over It

After spending 22 years as a military person and retiring from that profession, I have come to realize that I could have been a better American. Two weeks ago, my mother started looking for a pair of boots. That was not difficult; what was hard was finding a pair of boots “Made in the USA.” We are still looking. Searching high and low for this one item, we found that almost all the boots we saw were made in China. That is really nice for the Chinese. They are getting paid, even if it is only a little money, while people here are out of jobs. Now I saw boots ranging from $19 to over $200 due to the name. The thing is, they were all made in China.

What we must do is say “No, I’m not paying for that.” Then manufacturers would have to close down their shops there and start making items here.

This is not only boots, but almost all gaming systems, pots, pans, and everyday household items are made there as well, not to mention tennis shoes. Now I have no problem with a few items being manufactured in other countries, but this has become ludicrous. I would rather buy an item made here to keep American workers in jobs than to pay an exorbitant amount of money so that manufacturers can get rich.

Christmas is coming. My gifts to everyone will have “Made in the USA” on them. I usually give money to Toys for Tots, but this year I will give a game “Made in the USA.” I am standing up for our rights to work and keep Americans in jobs. I am not here to help out another country and neither should you be. We need to take care of our own at home first. To those who do not like “In God We Trust” on our money, don’t use it. To those of you (the smallest minority) who have issues with the “Pledge of Allegiance” and a “moment of silence” in schools, I have this to say to you: Build a bridge and get over it.

Janet Gillingham
Algonac, MI