Letter to Council Questioning Dam Restoration Timeline
I attended the February 10th Borough Council meeting, at which the dam rebuilding timeline was presented to those in attendance. While there were many questions on why it is projected to take eighteen months for the construction, I never felt that any of the borough officials or engineers had truly addressed what residents wanted answered. Although the engineers from Dewberry and Alaimo described the dam engineering and construction process as best they could in laymans terms, their responses, as well as those from the borough officials, seemed to miss addressing the essence of what was being asked. Perhaps this is why that same theme of questioning was repeated over and over by many residents throughout the meeting, even to the exclusion of any question being asked about the 12 month permit application timeline. I walked away feeling somewhat empty.
Not satiated with the information received from the borough, I embarked to find the answers myself. And it is that information that I have gathered which I wish to share with you. As you are aware, the first step in the process is the pre-application phase, in which the hydraulic and hydrologic (“H&H”) study is performed. As our engineers are on target to complete this for submittal to NJDEP’s Dam Safety Section for approval by May 1st of this year, I’ll use this as my starting point. The first place I looked was in the report prepared by the Interagency Waterway Infrastructure Improvement Task Force. I assume that you are familiar with this report. It can be found posted at www.state.nj.us/dep/damsafety/task_force_find.pdf. In this report, “Finding 2" is “The Permitting and Regulatory Process,” which had evidently been prepared just for the purpose of providing general information on the permitting process for dam construction specifically for our flood event. According to this report, once NJDEP receives the H&H study, their technical review is expected to take from 3-4 months. By that accord, we could expect that review to be approved (assuming that no further revisions are necessary) somewhere between August 1st and September 1st. Borough Council has estimated July 2005, a deviation which is certainly in the same ballpark.
However, it is at this point where the information I have gathered differs drastically from what Borough Council has presented and I need to share this with you. The task force report continues its discussion of the permitting process, “Upon approval of the H&H analysis, the applicant’s engineer should proceed with final design of the dam, along with preparation of construction plans and specifications. This will generally take the design engineer 3-6 months to complete. Upon completion, the application can be submitted to the NJDEP for review.” As you are aware, Council’s timeline calls for a 12 month final design process, targeting completion and submittal to NJDEP by July 2006. This is a significant difference in timeframes, even considering that the Borough has two dams to completely rebuild and one to repair.
I later noticed that “Finding 2" was prepared by the “FEMA Environmental Officer,” not NJDEP. We certainly would want to have first hand information on this, so I phoned NJDEP to ask about this - to see if their Dam Safety Section was in agreement with FEMA’s time projections for permitting. The person I spoke with was Dewey Lima. Mr. Lima told me that 3-6 months was certainly “ballpark,” if not even a little generous. He said that it depends on how badly the applicant wants it in. Some applicants get their permit application submitted within a week or two of their H&H study approval although up to three months is common. Mr. Lima told me that in some rare instances, some engineers even get their permit application submitted at the SAME TIME as the H&H study - although it many times requires some revisions, based on DEP review of the H&H and is not a recommended approach. With this in mind, the 12 month timeline for preparation and submittal of the final design and application for even three dams, as our engineers are offering, appears most unreasonable.
Mr. Lima stressed that the timeframe for rebuilding is really dependent upon how much the dam owner pushes (for the engineer to turn around documents quickly), and the quality of the engineering firm. He said, in many cases, permit issuance may take as long as 2-4 years when DEP gets into a “back and forth” for revision requests from inexperienced or low quality dam design engineers. As for long time periods to permit and build dams, Mr. Lima indicated that in his experience it is very often due to intentional drag on the part of the applicant (because of wanting to delay or spread out cost outlays) or going through iterations of revision cycles with low quality engineers.
The permitting is an area where we can do better than what is being proposed, much better, and I have a simple solution to offer. NJDEP Dam Safety Section maintains a database on all dam construction projects which they regulate within the state. Among the information contained in this database are the dates of all key milestones in the permitting and construction process, e.g., submittal dates for H&H, approval for H&H, submittal dates of permit application, approval dates of permits, and the dates of construction starts and completions. Now how useful could this be? A simple analysis of such a report can determine which dam permits were filed and approved in the shortest period of times, and by contacting the dam owner to find out which engineering firm was used, we would know which firms are on the “A” list for doing these projects quickly and correctly. (Short timeframe between H&H approval and permit application approval means less time lost to revision iterations.) Similarly, this simple database report can serve as a screening tool for engineering firms. If Alaimo has done several, including ones in Smithville and Pemberton, lets look up the statistics for the permitting process for those dams. If Dewberry has done 100, and Peter Black has personally done 10, let’s look at the statistics for those dams. However, in contrasting the information that I have obtained on this, and the 12 month time estimate which they have offered to the Borough, it appears that we can do better. This may sound harsh, but it certainly isn’t unfair. Minimally, this is a discussion which needs to take place with our engineers.
Which engineering firms have submitted final design plans within a week or two of H&H approval and has had their permits obtained within three months? The information is there for the asking (so I’m taking). Mr. Lima asked for a simple letter addressed to him to request that information from their database. I will share this information with Council in hopes that you take a critical look of which firm you will be entrusting for the timely restoration of our lake community.
The back half of the timeline to examine is the actual dam construction, which is the basis of my original hunt for information. Mr. Lima indicated that the timeline for dam construction depends on number of factors, including hazard classification, but that 3-4 months to build is typical if there are no extraordinary issues, and that sometimes it may take 6-8 months, for example, if there is a lot of "downtime" between phases of a project. He did caution, however, that each dam has its own unique aspects, so it not always equal to compare dam construction of one to another. The estimate of our engineers is 18 months for the construction of two complete dams and the repair of another. Again, this seems to be beyond what is reasonable, especially considering the economies of scale by doing three in phases. For example, six months per dam for three dams is eighteen months, but for that calculation, after each six month period, there would be a completed dam. If three are done at once, it shouldn’t be an average of six months for each. In that case it would be better to do them sequentially. Also, it is quite possible that the dam construction could be completed closer to the 3-4 month timeframe (per dam). And, of course, Quogue dam is a repair, not a complete replacement, so it shouldn’t take nearly as long.
Now, of course, this information is all theoretical on the timelines. As a real life “case study” to serve as a reference point, Council has posted a news article onto the borough flood recovery website “blog” regarding the reconstruction of the Seneca Lake dam in Sparta, NJ. The news article speaks to the current rebuilding of a failed dam from a storm which occurred in August 2000. Anticipating its completion in 2005 and doing the math gives us an approximately 5-year dam reconstruction point of reference - certainly in the ballpark of what Borough is looking at for Medford Lakes. That is a real life example, as difficult a pill it is for many of us to swallow.
However some further exploration reveals that the news isn’t really so bad after all. Seneca Lake failed during the “Sparta Storm” which occurred in Sussex County, NJ in August 2000. Similar to “our” flood event in Burlington County last July, it was part of federal disaster declaration, and there were multiple dam failures associated with that event. In addition to the Seneca Lake dam, were three others - the Edison Pond dam in Sparta, the Tomahawk Lake dam in Byram, and the Furnace Pond dam in Stanhope. Those are the four dams which were completely destroyed during the Sparta Storm. One of these, the Furnace Pond dam was never rebuilt, with NJDEP issuing a permit for its decommission. As for the other two - it’s really pretty encouraging information. For the Edison Pond dam, NJDEP issued a permit to rebuild in November 2003, construction commenced in June 2004 and was completed in September 2004. I don’t know why it took so long for that permit to be issued, but I’ve already addressed how to navigate around that potential problem. Three months for construction, once started, is quite good.
However, if the construction timeline for the Edison Pond dam is somewhat encouraging, the story of Tomahawk Lake is even better - and this story has pictures! Simply point your browser to www.tomahawklake.com and you can see not only what Tomahawk Lake looks like now, but how it has looked for nearly four of the four and a half years that have elapsed since August 2000. After being completely destroyed during the Sparta Storm, it was permitted and completely rebuilt in time for the 2001 summer season.
Let’s get to why and how. In my multiple conversations with Mr. Lima, one thing that he has stressed is that the timeline is very dependent upon how much the applicant wants to rebuild (quickly). In fairness, Tomahawk Lake got some sort of special permission from NJDEP to rebuild to the specification of their old (destroyed) dam, rather than being required to meet the new standards - for right now - with the understanding that would eventually need to comply with the new standards. They got this “break” because they are commercial waterpark which employs several dozen people - and their owner was very motivated to get back up and running. Obviously Medford Lakes doesn’t fit that description. However, Mr. Lima said he's seen dams take from one year to 10 years to complete and most of the time it depends on how motivated the dam owner is. (Apparently, some owners drag their feet when it comes time to pay for the construction.) Simply stated, owner motivation apparently has an impact on how quickly a dam can get rebuilt.
With this in mind, let’s turn our attention back to the Seneca Lake dam in Sparta. Following the Sparta Storm, there was legislation initiated for loans for dam repairs, just as there is today following our storm. In the course of developing the ensuing legislation, the NJ Senate and Budget and Appropriations Committee conducted a public hearing on November 3, 2000 to listen to testimony for the bill which would provide funding to NJDEP for dam, lake, and stream projects, including loan programs. One of the persons to testify was Ronald Pietranowicz, the Treasurer of the Seneca Lake Club. His testimony: “Like Lake Winona, we had a D-structure that was set up by the Arthur Crane Company back in 1950 that called for a $15-a-year maintenance fee. Subsequently, it's like pulling teeth to get some money out of some of these people. I've been threatened physically, legally, and verbally by some of the property owners that do not wish to become a part of the lake association, even though some of them even live on the lake. So we got a big problem -- is that we have no lake. We have a busted dam and about a $200,000, $300,000, $400,000 bill to pay, and I have to convince the community of about 150 property owners to pay for this. And it's going to be a tough nut to crack.”
So I would offer that the case study of Tomahawk Lake and Seneca Lake provide a good contrast on both ends of the owner motivation spectrum. The owner of Tomahawk Lake was highly motivated, while the homeowners’ association of Seneca had issues to work out. While Medford Lakes is not in the same situation as Tomahawk Lake, neither is it in the same situation as Seneca Lake. We all in Medford Lakes want our lakes back quickly!
Looking closer to home, as a member of YMCA Camp Ockanikon, I receive their newsletters and other mailings and information regarding the camp. In the Spring 2005 edition of the “Smoke Signal,” their seasonal newsletter, Fred Wasaik, the CEO of the camp, states that it is his hope that Lake Stockwell would be able to be rebuilt by this summer, although cautioning that there is still much uncertainty. Again, this timeline (if even only a mere “hope” or desire on his part) is very different then what we’re looking at in Medford Lakes. Nobody here has any hope of seeing a lake in 2005 - in fact, such a suggestion could be categorized as “laughable” - and apparently it’s looking relatively bleak up through 2008. That’s a big difference, and also needed to be explored.
Once again, I phoned Mr. Lima in the Dam Safety Section and I learned that the YMCA Camp actually had been planning to replace Lake Stockwell, and in fact had their H&H approved in November of 2003, before the flood. After the flood, NJDEP required some additional revision to their H&H which they have not yet submitted. So similar to us, the Camp is still in the pre-application phase, but a little ahead of us. Still, is approval of a permit by NJDEP and construction of Lake Stockwell’s new significant hazard dam in time to fill the lake by sometime this summer within the realm of possibility? This was the question I posed to Mr. Lima. He replied that Camp Ockanikon was sent a letter in December 2004 regarding their H&H, in which NJDEP requested their revision by April 15, 2005. Mr. Lima continued in answering my question, that under a “best case scenario” where the camp submits their revised H&H by that date and turn around their permit application quickly - requiring no revision arising from the Dam Safety Section technical review, it is possible for them to have their permit by June (of this year), and it isn’t unreasonable if they are able to go to construction right away - to rebuild Lake Stockwell’s “significant hazard” dam - that it is, indeed “possible” that Lake Stockwell could be back up toward the end of this summer. He concluded that this would be “difficult, but doable.”
In moving the calendar forward and extrapolating here, if the Lake Stockwell dam is “difficult, but doable” to be restored by the end of summer 2005, it must be “very possible,” if not “probable” (my words) that it is back in time for the 2006 summer season. If that were the case, by the time our engineers finally submit the application for Medford Lakes, Camp kids will have been boating and swimming in Lake Stockwell for at least two months prior to that milestone. Keep in mind that the YMCA Camp is not that far in front of us. The “best case scenario” timeline is based upon their submittal of the H&H revisions by April 15th, while the Medford Lakes target is only a couple of weeks later, by the first of May. Certainly, with this information, you must find the timeline which our engineers are proposing to be totally unacceptable.
In turning my attention squarely upon our situation in Medford Lakes now, I must ask myself how can there be such a disparity between what I have learned about dam permitting and construction in the real world throughout the state versus the projection provided by our engineers, but ultimately through Council. This obviously is a question which I cannot answer, and one that I will expect you eventually do answer. I fully acknowledge that I do not expect an immediate answer. Certainly you need sufficient time to digest, verify, and validate this information which I have uncovered prior to your addressing of my concerns. Notwithstanding this, I have come up with two reasons to explain the disparity, which I would also like to hear your opinions on. One is that your projections are actually “worst case scenario” despite the fact that you haven’t presented it as such. The second possibility is that perhaps Council recognizes that even if NJDEP were to issue an approved permit for construction tomorrow, that the Borough wouldn’t be able to raise the funds to start construction until 2007 anyway. To wit, the 2008 completion timeline - with the bulk of costs occurring in 2007 - has been presented as solely, purely and completely a product of the design, permitting, and construction process. If funding the project is an issue, we need to know that information.
Lastly, I’d like to make one other point. During the July 12 flood event, as identified in the Task Force findings, there was a total of 17 dams which were completely destroyed and another 28 which had been damaged in Burlington County alone. In comparison, the Sparta Storm resulted in only four dam failures and the aftermath of Hurricane Floyd in September 1999 resulted in only three failed dams. Thus, this state has never seen the likes of so many dam projects competing for the same technical review man-hours at NJDEP, and looking to engage the same engineering and construction firms - providing a virtual “slug” of projects passing through the system at the same time. Needless to say, any dam owner/applicant which finds itself at the back end of that “slug” will not see action as timely as it likes. Medford Lakes, however, may be in better position to get in front of the “slug”, as the Borough has the capacity to bond to raise the funds necessary. Most of the other failed dams are privately owned and will likely need rely on the potential NJDEP loan program, which still has yet to be enacted into law. We also have the benefit of FEMA reimbursement for probably a good share of at least one of our municipal dams.
Simply stated, it is an overwhelming conclusion of the research and fact-finding which I have conducted and presented in this letter, that the engineering design, permitting, and construction should not take until midway through 2008 to complete, as presented to the borough residents. If the reason for that completion date is because the borough cannot “raise” the money in advance of DEP’s loan program or otherwise to actually pay for the work, then we need to know that, so that we may engage in the correct discussion.
Sincerely,
Carl Pellegrino
242 Chippewa Trail
Not satiated with the information received from the borough, I embarked to find the answers myself. And it is that information that I have gathered which I wish to share with you. As you are aware, the first step in the process is the pre-application phase, in which the hydraulic and hydrologic (“H&H”) study is performed. As our engineers are on target to complete this for submittal to NJDEP’s Dam Safety Section for approval by May 1st of this year, I’ll use this as my starting point. The first place I looked was in the report prepared by the Interagency Waterway Infrastructure Improvement Task Force. I assume that you are familiar with this report. It can be found posted at www.state.nj.us/dep/damsafety/task_force_find.pdf. In this report, “Finding 2" is “The Permitting and Regulatory Process,” which had evidently been prepared just for the purpose of providing general information on the permitting process for dam construction specifically for our flood event. According to this report, once NJDEP receives the H&H study, their technical review is expected to take from 3-4 months. By that accord, we could expect that review to be approved (assuming that no further revisions are necessary) somewhere between August 1st and September 1st. Borough Council has estimated July 2005, a deviation which is certainly in the same ballpark.
However, it is at this point where the information I have gathered differs drastically from what Borough Council has presented and I need to share this with you. The task force report continues its discussion of the permitting process, “Upon approval of the H&H analysis, the applicant’s engineer should proceed with final design of the dam, along with preparation of construction plans and specifications. This will generally take the design engineer 3-6 months to complete. Upon completion, the application can be submitted to the NJDEP for review.” As you are aware, Council’s timeline calls for a 12 month final design process, targeting completion and submittal to NJDEP by July 2006. This is a significant difference in timeframes, even considering that the Borough has two dams to completely rebuild and one to repair.
I later noticed that “Finding 2" was prepared by the “FEMA Environmental Officer,” not NJDEP. We certainly would want to have first hand information on this, so I phoned NJDEP to ask about this - to see if their Dam Safety Section was in agreement with FEMA’s time projections for permitting. The person I spoke with was Dewey Lima. Mr. Lima told me that 3-6 months was certainly “ballpark,” if not even a little generous. He said that it depends on how badly the applicant wants it in. Some applicants get their permit application submitted within a week or two of their H&H study approval although up to three months is common. Mr. Lima told me that in some rare instances, some engineers even get their permit application submitted at the SAME TIME as the H&H study - although it many times requires some revisions, based on DEP review of the H&H and is not a recommended approach. With this in mind, the 12 month timeline for preparation and submittal of the final design and application for even three dams, as our engineers are offering, appears most unreasonable.
Mr. Lima stressed that the timeframe for rebuilding is really dependent upon how much the dam owner pushes (for the engineer to turn around documents quickly), and the quality of the engineering firm. He said, in many cases, permit issuance may take as long as 2-4 years when DEP gets into a “back and forth” for revision requests from inexperienced or low quality dam design engineers. As for long time periods to permit and build dams, Mr. Lima indicated that in his experience it is very often due to intentional drag on the part of the applicant (because of wanting to delay or spread out cost outlays) or going through iterations of revision cycles with low quality engineers.
The permitting is an area where we can do better than what is being proposed, much better, and I have a simple solution to offer. NJDEP Dam Safety Section maintains a database on all dam construction projects which they regulate within the state. Among the information contained in this database are the dates of all key milestones in the permitting and construction process, e.g., submittal dates for H&H, approval for H&H, submittal dates of permit application, approval dates of permits, and the dates of construction starts and completions. Now how useful could this be? A simple analysis of such a report can determine which dam permits were filed and approved in the shortest period of times, and by contacting the dam owner to find out which engineering firm was used, we would know which firms are on the “A” list for doing these projects quickly and correctly. (Short timeframe between H&H approval and permit application approval means less time lost to revision iterations.) Similarly, this simple database report can serve as a screening tool for engineering firms. If Alaimo has done several, including ones in Smithville and Pemberton, lets look up the statistics for the permitting process for those dams. If Dewberry has done 100, and Peter Black has personally done 10, let’s look at the statistics for those dams. However, in contrasting the information that I have obtained on this, and the 12 month time estimate which they have offered to the Borough, it appears that we can do better. This may sound harsh, but it certainly isn’t unfair. Minimally, this is a discussion which needs to take place with our engineers.
Which engineering firms have submitted final design plans within a week or two of H&H approval and has had their permits obtained within three months? The information is there for the asking (so I’m taking). Mr. Lima asked for a simple letter addressed to him to request that information from their database. I will share this information with Council in hopes that you take a critical look of which firm you will be entrusting for the timely restoration of our lake community.
The back half of the timeline to examine is the actual dam construction, which is the basis of my original hunt for information. Mr. Lima indicated that the timeline for dam construction depends on number of factors, including hazard classification, but that 3-4 months to build is typical if there are no extraordinary issues, and that sometimes it may take 6-8 months, for example, if there is a lot of "downtime" between phases of a project. He did caution, however, that each dam has its own unique aspects, so it not always equal to compare dam construction of one to another. The estimate of our engineers is 18 months for the construction of two complete dams and the repair of another. Again, this seems to be beyond what is reasonable, especially considering the economies of scale by doing three in phases. For example, six months per dam for three dams is eighteen months, but for that calculation, after each six month period, there would be a completed dam. If three are done at once, it shouldn’t be an average of six months for each. In that case it would be better to do them sequentially. Also, it is quite possible that the dam construction could be completed closer to the 3-4 month timeframe (per dam). And, of course, Quogue dam is a repair, not a complete replacement, so it shouldn’t take nearly as long.
Now, of course, this information is all theoretical on the timelines. As a real life “case study” to serve as a reference point, Council has posted a news article onto the borough flood recovery website “blog” regarding the reconstruction of the Seneca Lake dam in Sparta, NJ. The news article speaks to the current rebuilding of a failed dam from a storm which occurred in August 2000. Anticipating its completion in 2005 and doing the math gives us an approximately 5-year dam reconstruction point of reference - certainly in the ballpark of what Borough is looking at for Medford Lakes. That is a real life example, as difficult a pill it is for many of us to swallow.
However some further exploration reveals that the news isn’t really so bad after all. Seneca Lake failed during the “Sparta Storm” which occurred in Sussex County, NJ in August 2000. Similar to “our” flood event in Burlington County last July, it was part of federal disaster declaration, and there were multiple dam failures associated with that event. In addition to the Seneca Lake dam, were three others - the Edison Pond dam in Sparta, the Tomahawk Lake dam in Byram, and the Furnace Pond dam in Stanhope. Those are the four dams which were completely destroyed during the Sparta Storm. One of these, the Furnace Pond dam was never rebuilt, with NJDEP issuing a permit for its decommission. As for the other two - it’s really pretty encouraging information. For the Edison Pond dam, NJDEP issued a permit to rebuild in November 2003, construction commenced in June 2004 and was completed in September 2004. I don’t know why it took so long for that permit to be issued, but I’ve already addressed how to navigate around that potential problem. Three months for construction, once started, is quite good.
However, if the construction timeline for the Edison Pond dam is somewhat encouraging, the story of Tomahawk Lake is even better - and this story has pictures! Simply point your browser to www.tomahawklake.com and you can see not only what Tomahawk Lake looks like now, but how it has looked for nearly four of the four and a half years that have elapsed since August 2000. After being completely destroyed during the Sparta Storm, it was permitted and completely rebuilt in time for the 2001 summer season.
Let’s get to why and how. In my multiple conversations with Mr. Lima, one thing that he has stressed is that the timeline is very dependent upon how much the applicant wants to rebuild (quickly). In fairness, Tomahawk Lake got some sort of special permission from NJDEP to rebuild to the specification of their old (destroyed) dam, rather than being required to meet the new standards - for right now - with the understanding that would eventually need to comply with the new standards. They got this “break” because they are commercial waterpark which employs several dozen people - and their owner was very motivated to get back up and running. Obviously Medford Lakes doesn’t fit that description. However, Mr. Lima said he's seen dams take from one year to 10 years to complete and most of the time it depends on how motivated the dam owner is. (Apparently, some owners drag their feet when it comes time to pay for the construction.) Simply stated, owner motivation apparently has an impact on how quickly a dam can get rebuilt.
With this in mind, let’s turn our attention back to the Seneca Lake dam in Sparta. Following the Sparta Storm, there was legislation initiated for loans for dam repairs, just as there is today following our storm. In the course of developing the ensuing legislation, the NJ Senate and Budget and Appropriations Committee conducted a public hearing on November 3, 2000 to listen to testimony for the bill which would provide funding to NJDEP for dam, lake, and stream projects, including loan programs. One of the persons to testify was Ronald Pietranowicz, the Treasurer of the Seneca Lake Club. His testimony: “Like Lake Winona, we had a D-structure that was set up by the Arthur Crane Company back in 1950 that called for a $15-a-year maintenance fee. Subsequently, it's like pulling teeth to get some money out of some of these people. I've been threatened physically, legally, and verbally by some of the property owners that do not wish to become a part of the lake association, even though some of them even live on the lake. So we got a big problem -- is that we have no lake. We have a busted dam and about a $200,000, $300,000, $400,000 bill to pay, and I have to convince the community of about 150 property owners to pay for this. And it's going to be a tough nut to crack.”
So I would offer that the case study of Tomahawk Lake and Seneca Lake provide a good contrast on both ends of the owner motivation spectrum. The owner of Tomahawk Lake was highly motivated, while the homeowners’ association of Seneca had issues to work out. While Medford Lakes is not in the same situation as Tomahawk Lake, neither is it in the same situation as Seneca Lake. We all in Medford Lakes want our lakes back quickly!
Looking closer to home, as a member of YMCA Camp Ockanikon, I receive their newsletters and other mailings and information regarding the camp. In the Spring 2005 edition of the “Smoke Signal,” their seasonal newsletter, Fred Wasaik, the CEO of the camp, states that it is his hope that Lake Stockwell would be able to be rebuilt by this summer, although cautioning that there is still much uncertainty. Again, this timeline (if even only a mere “hope” or desire on his part) is very different then what we’re looking at in Medford Lakes. Nobody here has any hope of seeing a lake in 2005 - in fact, such a suggestion could be categorized as “laughable” - and apparently it’s looking relatively bleak up through 2008. That’s a big difference, and also needed to be explored.
Once again, I phoned Mr. Lima in the Dam Safety Section and I learned that the YMCA Camp actually had been planning to replace Lake Stockwell, and in fact had their H&H approved in November of 2003, before the flood. After the flood, NJDEP required some additional revision to their H&H which they have not yet submitted. So similar to us, the Camp is still in the pre-application phase, but a little ahead of us. Still, is approval of a permit by NJDEP and construction of Lake Stockwell’s new significant hazard dam in time to fill the lake by sometime this summer within the realm of possibility? This was the question I posed to Mr. Lima. He replied that Camp Ockanikon was sent a letter in December 2004 regarding their H&H, in which NJDEP requested their revision by April 15, 2005. Mr. Lima continued in answering my question, that under a “best case scenario” where the camp submits their revised H&H by that date and turn around their permit application quickly - requiring no revision arising from the Dam Safety Section technical review, it is possible for them to have their permit by June (of this year), and it isn’t unreasonable if they are able to go to construction right away - to rebuild Lake Stockwell’s “significant hazard” dam - that it is, indeed “possible” that Lake Stockwell could be back up toward the end of this summer. He concluded that this would be “difficult, but doable.”
In moving the calendar forward and extrapolating here, if the Lake Stockwell dam is “difficult, but doable” to be restored by the end of summer 2005, it must be “very possible,” if not “probable” (my words) that it is back in time for the 2006 summer season. If that were the case, by the time our engineers finally submit the application for Medford Lakes, Camp kids will have been boating and swimming in Lake Stockwell for at least two months prior to that milestone. Keep in mind that the YMCA Camp is not that far in front of us. The “best case scenario” timeline is based upon their submittal of the H&H revisions by April 15th, while the Medford Lakes target is only a couple of weeks later, by the first of May. Certainly, with this information, you must find the timeline which our engineers are proposing to be totally unacceptable.
In turning my attention squarely upon our situation in Medford Lakes now, I must ask myself how can there be such a disparity between what I have learned about dam permitting and construction in the real world throughout the state versus the projection provided by our engineers, but ultimately through Council. This obviously is a question which I cannot answer, and one that I will expect you eventually do answer. I fully acknowledge that I do not expect an immediate answer. Certainly you need sufficient time to digest, verify, and validate this information which I have uncovered prior to your addressing of my concerns. Notwithstanding this, I have come up with two reasons to explain the disparity, which I would also like to hear your opinions on. One is that your projections are actually “worst case scenario” despite the fact that you haven’t presented it as such. The second possibility is that perhaps Council recognizes that even if NJDEP were to issue an approved permit for construction tomorrow, that the Borough wouldn’t be able to raise the funds to start construction until 2007 anyway. To wit, the 2008 completion timeline - with the bulk of costs occurring in 2007 - has been presented as solely, purely and completely a product of the design, permitting, and construction process. If funding the project is an issue, we need to know that information.
Lastly, I’d like to make one other point. During the July 12 flood event, as identified in the Task Force findings, there was a total of 17 dams which were completely destroyed and another 28 which had been damaged in Burlington County alone. In comparison, the Sparta Storm resulted in only four dam failures and the aftermath of Hurricane Floyd in September 1999 resulted in only three failed dams. Thus, this state has never seen the likes of so many dam projects competing for the same technical review man-hours at NJDEP, and looking to engage the same engineering and construction firms - providing a virtual “slug” of projects passing through the system at the same time. Needless to say, any dam owner/applicant which finds itself at the back end of that “slug” will not see action as timely as it likes. Medford Lakes, however, may be in better position to get in front of the “slug”, as the Borough has the capacity to bond to raise the funds necessary. Most of the other failed dams are privately owned and will likely need rely on the potential NJDEP loan program, which still has yet to be enacted into law. We also have the benefit of FEMA reimbursement for probably a good share of at least one of our municipal dams.
Simply stated, it is an overwhelming conclusion of the research and fact-finding which I have conducted and presented in this letter, that the engineering design, permitting, and construction should not take until midway through 2008 to complete, as presented to the borough residents. If the reason for that completion date is because the borough cannot “raise” the money in advance of DEP’s loan program or otherwise to actually pay for the work, then we need to know that, so that we may engage in the correct discussion.
Sincerely,
Carl Pellegrino
242 Chippewa Trail
posted by Tim Casey at
8:16 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home