Just made it through the GEI Manchester Michigan Ford Dam study and there appears to be a number of significant omissions. Even though it does appear the structure analysis is through suggesting the state of the dam is acceptable (C+ for graphics).
Here is a review, you can get a copy from the community offices.
The removal proposal focuses on one private individual getting 100 percent benefit out of removal and Manchester gets little in return.
Manchester failed to perform suggested maintenance outlines in 2019 compounding the issues due to prior failure to maintain the facility.
There were several additional engineering assessments suggested; Structural analysis of the M-52 overpass substructure and superstructure systems, concrete wall adjacent to the Village offices (and Village Office structural evaluation buried in the report but omitted from review), Geotechnical investigations, Hydrologic and Hydraulic (H&H) Modeling of River Raisin and impoundment within
the project study area, including dam breach inundation mapping, Sediment quantification and classification through sediment testing and sampling, River reference reach investigations to inform river restoration design.
GEI projected $750K a year for the next 50 years even though twice that would resolve the 100 some years of mismanagement.
GEI ball parked removal at $5 to $7 million flat cost which seems short. After removal of the dam unknown variables not identified including the missing projections created by GFI come into play and recover could go even higher.
Not sure way the $1,000,000 structural modifications to bridge and village offices only applies if there is contaminated sediment. The report identified there issues as structural in the body of the review one wouldn’t have guessed to be dependent on the condition of the sediment.
If history repeats itself again (and there is no evidence why not) this project will likely run into overruns that will not be covered by funds available at any time. Maybe the state will anti up another million dollars to cover ongoing costs but I’m guessing not.
If this is just a cheapest out decision then removal should be complete and no enhancements included like fish ladders (but that’s another story).
See what negligence costs, too bad someone didn’t have the foresight to return the dam to productivity 15 years ago or earlier…
What's next? 