# Boardman dam removal



## m delp

HI Dave,

Happy New Year to you!

I ALMOST agree that the fish themselves would pose no harm to the river...some science needs to be brought to bear on the discussion to be definitive. But I wholeheartedly agree that letting salmon and steelhead pass above the Brown Bridge area would bring in way too many anglers and thus the degradation that follows. Walk parts of the Platte and The Betsie after Salmon an/or Steelhead season and see what pressure can do...it's quite disheartening. 


yrs,

Mike


----------



## shotgunner

"Your concern about passing salmon is duly noted. Luckily, we have the harvest weir in downtown TC. We already harvest all but a very few of the salmon that run the Boardman. I expect that operation would continue. Steelhead on the other hand, might require more discussion. " M Tonello, 11/12.


i don't understand why everyone seems to think these two species go hand and hand, especialy when we have the means to control their travel. there is a huge differance in the two along with the people pursueing them.

i would agree that brown bridge would be a good location to stop upstream travel, leaving the water above as a santuary for the residents only.

as to the amt of litter mentioned earlier, i don't see how an accurrate comparison can be made to one of the largest, most popular, PUBLIC areas in the state. SG


----------



## MSUICEMAN

pat, thanks for looking into that, I thuoght probably it was just a rumor, but then again stranger things have happened. Looks like one of my fishing spots is safe for a while.... wheew....

steve


----------



## m delp

Shotgunner,

I'm of the opinion that the salmon and steelhead should go no further up the river than they do now. There is some fine river between Cass Road and Brown Bridge that would get overrun if salmon and steellhead were allowed upstream. The Boardman, like many other Michigan rivers, is under seige by all kinds of economic interests and pressures, not to mention a growing population. I hope we can preserve as much of it as possible.


yrs,

Mike


----------



## Pinefarm

My .02, anytime you can remove a dam, do it! Colder water, more natural reproduction so we don't need as many planted fish and all the money that goes to planting. etc, etc. Win-win for everyone. Except those who think they own the river, I guess. While MDNR fisheries is at it, they should get rid of the dams on the White River in White Cloud and Hesperia. Those dams on the White make what would be a great river in to a so-so river. And then rip out all the dams on the upper Muskegon too!


----------



## Pinefarm

BTW, I give MDNR a lot of grief on some deer hunting issues, but I have nothing but the fullest confidence and admiration for both Mark T. and Tom R. from MDNR fisheries. If they say the dam should stay or go and explain why, that's good enough for me.


----------



## m delp

Hi Bob,

If you're not a fan of any kind of dam you ought to read THE MONKEY WRENCH GANG, by Edward Abbey, if you haven't already. It's a great story and gave rise to the EARTH FIRST! movement....fun reading.


yrs,

Mike


----------



## Whit1

I would also trust the input of Mark and Tom of the DNR. They know their stuff. Unfortunately politics gets in the way of sound practice.

As for the removal of dams, opening up the upland stream areas to salmon and steelhead, I am very much against it. It is not a "win-win" situation by any means. The increased fishing traffic causes great harm to the streams, ie. soil erosion due to trampled banks, trash, long streams of fishing line, both on the banks and in the water. All one has to do is look at the salmon/steelhead areas of any popular river and you'll see the same thing.

Keep the dams in and hold the migratory fish where they can no go.


----------



## Pinefarm

Maybe put in an electric barrier to stop them. Anything to get rid of river warming, sand collecting dams. They're rivers afterall, not lakes. But I think MDNR wants more natural reproduction because so much money goes to annual restocking that shouldn't cost us anything with natural reproduction. Isn't the money that goes to fish stocking one of MDNR's biggest expenses that stops it from doing other things like more CO's and deer checks?


----------



## ZobZob

A couple of things I see happening with allowing migratory fish in areas where they previously have not been:
-Increased competition for food between the species.
-Increased mortality since the fishing pressure has increased in the area (incidental catches of resident fish).

I love fighting salmon/steelies myself but I agree with DryFly there is quite a different crowd that come out for those species than the fishermen/woman that I encounter while trout fishing. I would hate to see new areas exposed to the trash that I see in the spring and the fall.

Zob


----------



## shotgunner

"salmon and steelhead" is this one word or two? common misconception that you cannot have one without the other.

i guess i did not realise that there are the amounts of public ground available on the boardman that tippy damn & other large popular places offer. (hence the trash)

there are small streams that have a MINOR run of anadromous fish that do not attract the crowds or create the litter problems. cut that down to a minute amt of steelhead and it would decrease accordingly. also being a predominate spring spawning fish they would not interfere with the fall spawning brook & brown trout. as for the food competition i would hazard a guess that the residents would actualy benefit from an increase in protein (loose spawn). when was the last time you lifted a enemic, underfed looking resident from the pere marquette?

m delp, i would certainly agree that there is some fine water between cass & brown bridge rds. i always thought some of the best. this brings me to another point that has not been covered yet. most people with concerns here have a personal angle on this issue. from a frontage property owner to trout fishermen who are now having trouble sleeping with the thoughts of slobs overrunning some of their favorite revered water. this is easily understandable. i'll be upfront now & state that i do not fish the boardman for residents, the manistee being much closer and icluding a lifelong familiarity. on the other hand i do not enjoy the hour plus drive it takes me to make a cast over a run that might hold a lake run bow. even with that i would not campaighn to let fish throughout the entire system which would put them minutes from my doorstep. they could be easily halted with a lowhead dam at some point along the way. if left inplace from an existing it would also function as a silt trap/barrier.

lots of considerations to be studied. new ones will surface the closer this gets actualy going somewhere. i'll be waiting, watching, to see what surprises crop up. SG


----------



## Whit1

> _Originally posted by shotgunner _
> *". i always thought some of the best. this brings me to another point that has not been covered yet. most people with concerns here have a personal angle on this issue. from a frontage property owner to trout fishermen who are now having trouble sleeping with the thoughts of slobs overrunning some of their favorite revered water. this is easily understandable. *


SG,
I assume that your very active and accurate crystal ball allows you to discern where members of this site fish. Or, are your powers of decipher more universal than that, encompasing all walks of fisherfolk? Sorry for the sarcasm, but your assumptions may not be true.

As for this particular fisherman I have fished the Boardman R. once and that was near downtown behind the library for steelheads with two of my sons who lived in TC at the time. I have not wet a line in the upper river even though I also live within easy driving distance. I fish other waters.

The concerns voiced in this thread do not stem from a fear of someone taking over "our river". For the most part, those who posted negatively, me included, have seen what the salmon and steelhead runs have done to some fine rivers and it isn't beneficial to the stream system.

Yes I do understand that salmon or not synonomous with steelhead, but where salmon can swim, so can steelhead.


----------



## m delp

SG,

Thanks for your reply. I admit that I have a selfish interest in this issue because I have frontage on the Boardman. However, I'm also active in groups which seek to keep the Boardman the fine river that it is....which is not easy, of course. It's under attack from many angles and working to guard the river system from further degradation requires vigilance. I'm glad we're having this discussion now, so that different points of view come into the conversation. Soon, I'm sure, we'll be dealing with exactly how to remove the dams in the best interests of the river...afterall, the river has no voice, except via those who seek to preserve and protect what's there. I'm certainly willing to set my personal biases aside if it means a better river.


yrs,

Mike


----------



## Hamilton Reef

The ecologiacal damage of the dams on the state rivers are being well documented.

One example, without the dams on the Muskegon River system alone could produce more salmonid natural reproduction than all the combined hatchery production in the state. The key there is the loss of gradient, natural gravel substrate, and temperature. Walleye natural repoduction, however, may be limited by the destruction of the lower marsh, wetlands, Muskegon Lake shoreline, and the intrusion of exotics. The Muskegon River system has less than 100 sturgeon, which is a tiny fraction of the historict numbers. The Muskegon River sturgeon population may be headed for extintion with some drastic decisions to be made in the next two years (more on that continuing story later).


----------



## Pinefarm

HR, here's some more interesting info...
http://www.mich.com/~anglers/call/call07.htm

Muskegon Salmon And Dams

Politicians have rejected a proposal to reduce reliance on fish hatcheries by increasing natural reproduction of salmon and trout. The Dept. of Natural Resources initiative, "Investing in Michigan's Fishery," calls for removal of dams. It points out that removal of only Croton and Hardy dams on the Muskegon River "would result in production of enough natural Chinook salmon to support most of Lake Michigan's Chinook salmon fishery." 
DNR hatchery boss Kelley Smith estimates it costs around $300,000 to raise those Chinook. 
As an added bonus, wild--non-hatchery--salmon have been found to be less vulnerable to diseases. 
While the proposal does not call for removal of Croton and Hardy, it asks the legislature for $11 million to remove Otsego, Plainwell and Trowbridge dams on the Kalamazoo River. Costs are so high, Smith points out, due to polluted sediments entrapped by the dams. 
Rep. Bill Bobier and Gov. Engler's staff reportedly waylaid dam removal funding. 
In the long term, Smith says, habitat improvement, such as dam removal, is a better fisheries investment than hatcheries, which cost fishermen $6.7 million a year to operate. Natural recruitment will never fully replace hatcheries, he adds. But it can sharply reduce reliance on hatchery fish and improve overall water quality and recreation, he explains. 
Smith has advocated a watershed restoration program on the Platte River, as one of the solutions to the costly ($2 million) lawsuit over the controversial Platte River hatchery. 
"There are over 2,400 dams in Michigan and they negatively impact fish populations and water quality values of nearly every watershed in the state," according to the proposal. "As a consequence of dams, many inland lakes and streams and the Great Lakes have impaired fisheries that require fish stocking or other forms of management to maintain attractive recreational fisheries." 

It cites dams for: 
Disruption of natural river flows. 
Blocking up and down stream movement of fish. 
Killing fish in turbines. 
Increasing water temperatures. 
Reducing dissolved oxygen. 
Accumulating contaminants.


----------



## shotgunner

"Yes I do understand that salmon or not synonomous with steelhead, but where salmon can swim, so can steelhead." whit 1, 01/02

"I would also trust the input of Mark and Tom of the DNR. They know their stuff" whit 1, 

hello whit 1. no need to apologise for the sarcasm. i agree to my statement being somewhat outspoken, although i believe it has merrit. also, i did include the disclaimer "most people". 
you seem reluctant to embrace the idea that it would be possible to allow steelhead to ascend without the salmon following as a "rider" in the arrangment. with the weir inplace on the mouth of the river this could easily be done, as stated in the second post of this thread by m tonello.

m delp, i would not classify your interest as "selfish" at all. something that directly affects a person makes it alot easier to understand their position. empassioned and protective, certainly. i would expect nothing else.

.my only pet peve here is that some are trying to paint the picture that possible inclusion of ANY anadromous species would be 100% detrimental. 

i only ask that an open minded attitude be maintained. thanks to all concerned, SG


----------



## toto

As for dam removal, anywhere, wouldn't it make more sense to remove the dams in question in an orderly, hopefully organized fashion be smarter than just letting them collapse? For example, if in fact the Cass Rd. dam is leaking, wouldn't it stand to reason that at some point it will just crack and crumble completely. It would seem to me that that is a recipe for disater. Didn't they remove some dams out west without any problems?

As for the Platte River lawsuit thing, I think you need to look at that whole debate a little closer. I will use some of Platte Lake Improvements Associations words to try to help clear up some misconceptions.

1) According to Dr. Spencer (then head of P.L.I.A.) the Platte River dumps 2400 pounds of phosphorous (P) into Platte Lake every day. Of this 2400 pounds, the Platte River Fish Hatchery was responsible for 412 pounds each and every day. Now I ask you, and remember I ain't the brightest bulb in the box, but if you subtract 412 from 2400 you still have 1988 pounds of (P) to account for?!?

2) PLIA hired a consulting firm to determine how much the DNR was responsible for, in terms of (P), and how much property owners were responsible for from lawn fertilizers, septic systems and the like. Well it was pretty amazing, every number that could be attributed to the DNR was in fact right on the money. However, this consulting firm found that every lawn fertilized, every septic system that was effected was responsible for 50 pounds, but according to PLIA THOSE numbers were in error. Well I ask you, how could the consulting firm be so correct when it was against the DNR, but so erroneaus when it dealt with the property owners.

3) Did you realize that this whole matter only arose when DNR, and what would now be known as the DEQ wanted to test the septic systems on Platte Lake? Believe it or not, that is when this all began, and the property owners pretty much knew what would happen next.

So, in a nutshell, and I realize I got off the subject a little bit, you have to know the whole story, to know the whole story. Whatever.

I say if these dams are, getting back on subject, are in possible disrepair, and somewhat suspect, they should be removed before they collapse, and therefore the river as a fishery collapses.


----------



## Whit1

Concerning Toto's comments about the phosphorus load in Platte Lake he is quite correct about about the huge impact well tended lawns have on the data. The fertilizing of lawns and the burning of tree debris near the water dump unusable phosphorus into the water. Plants can only use so much of this nutrient. The rest settles into the bottom sediments where it continues to add to a lake's nutirent levels.

By the way Bill, would ya please warn George and I when you're gonna pay us a surprise visit in the middle of a float trip down one of our fine NW Michigan Rivers? I would expect to see you in a boat or wading, not hiking along the riverbank spying on us innocent fisherfolk.........LOL!


----------



## Hamilton Reef

I should carify if I could that in a perfect world the dams should be removed to repair the damage to the free flowing ecology and fragmentation of fish and wildlife habitats need for thier survival. In today's world we've introduced exoctics and expensive misguided land-use lifestyles. Any discussion of dams, their impacts, or removals must be case by case to reflect the reality of what we are faced with. My gut feeling sides with restoring natural river systems when ever possible, and not with the developments (commercial or private) located on the backwaters.


----------



## thousandcasts

My only experience with witnessing a dam removal was not a positive one. If anyone is familiar with the "Draw down" of the Pucker St. Dam on the Dowagiac, a few years ago, you can see first hand how a productive river system can be destroyed by careless and knee jerk removals of impoundments. Anyone who knows me, knows that I'm a big supporter of the DNR fisheries division, but after seeing what they (well, one office, in particular) did to the Dowagiac, I just can't help but shake my head whenever the subject of dam removal or draw downs comes up. I'm not sure who exactly designs plans or comes up with strategies for these removals, but I'd rest alot easier knowing that Tonello or Rozich were seriously involved in it. There is a ton of precautions that need to be taken and I'd hate to see any other river get ruined like the Dow did.

OK, on to the other subject. I'm a diehard salmon and steelhead fisherman, I fish for BIG fish and honestly, I view stream trout the same way that I view suckers in the spring: A nice change of pace when the big fish aren't biting, but otherwise annoying. To me, when I hit the river and have to sort through dozens of stream trout before my bag can get to a steelhead, I'm irritated. With that said, however, I truly understand the reverence toward stream trout and the waters that go along with them since I basically have that same reverence for my beloved steelhead. If the upper Boardman is as pristine as you guys say it is (No steelhead = Steve hasn't fished it...I'll have to take your word for it!) then it would be a shame to see it ruined by the slobs who typically throw a negative light on salmon and steelhead fishermen. I see a lot of rivers pre and post "salmon crowds"...not pretty and it makes me sick everytime. It just wouldn't make any sense to take an otherwise tranquil setting and open it up for that kind of abuse. So, in my opinion, allowing those anadromous species into the upper regions of the Boardman would not be good thing if you look at it strictly from a protecting the watershed standpoint. Electric barriers are not a fool proof thing, however, to preventing the upstream migration of steelhead and stubborn salmon in particular. I've sat in front of the electric barrier on the Ocqueoc and watched salmon after salmon stubbornly and successfully traverse it...even when it was in operation. If the weir remains, that may be the only answer, but you'll still get a migration before and after it's in place and if the dam is removed, those fish (and most likely the fishermen) will end up in the upper sections.


----------



## shotgunner

"I view stream trout the same way that I view suckers in the spring:" orig posted by thousandcasts, 1/04

tcasts, i'm sorry you do not enjoy our quality resident fishery. i can tell you that there are some that would test your heavier tackle, let alone a 4wt with 5X i have a great reverance for them and am first and foremost a "trout fisherman".

FYI, the weir on the mouth of the boardman is not an electric barrier but a full blown manual steel grate system in place at a harvest station. similar to the one on the little M, if you have ever been there. any salmon goes through that will be "salmon patty" material. there is also a fish ladder/passage above the weir that could be shut and stop any upstream traffic.

i'm not talking about dumping big numbers of hatchery smolts in for a fast high volume return. what few strays come now could build a wild population over the course of some years.

who's to say what the regulations would be? nothing saying it would have to be an extended season area. this could aleviate the incidental catch concerns as mentioned by zobzob in a previous post. there are other rivers like this now. 

steelhead are trout. they have been in place in the great lakes for almost as long, or longer than the brown trout depending on which lake and tributary.

just food for thought. i would only want what is best for the boardman system.

whit 1, please accept my apology for comming across as a hard nose earlier. inconsiderate and not my intent. thanks, SG


----------



## m delp

Sg,

It's odd how I sometimes forget that steelhead are, indeed, trout but I never think of them in the same context. I'm not overly interested in catching steelhead or salmon, but used to chase them a good deal. I don't like the crowds, nor the mind-sets in some of my fellow anglers, but then again, they probably wouldn't like mine either. Tom McGuane once said that one of the primary requirements for steelhead fishing was a room temperature IQ...I know mine dropped well below 100 when I was an ardent steelhead fisherman and it hasn't recovered. 

I've seen one good dam removal, that being the old power dam site upstream from Grayling. Despite cries from landowners along the banks of the impoundment that it would cause serious long-term damage, it hasn't. It takes good planning, a sometimes absent quality when it comes to rivers and their protection.

yrs,

Mike


----------



## thousandcasts

> FYI, the weir on the mouth of the boardman is not an electric barrier but a full blown manual steel grate system in place at a harvest station. similar to the one on the little M, if you have ever been there.


 

Since this quote is an obvious insult to my intelligence and it's apparent SG that you harbor some sort of negative attitude toward me since we seem to have had a difference of opinion (over one issue) over on the other website, perhaps I should remind you that the issue of an electric barrier and it's feasibility was brought up earlier in this thread. Of course, I know what kind of freakin' weir is already there...




> With that said, however, I truly understand the reverence toward stream trout and the waters that go along with them since I basically have that same reverence for my beloved steelhead. If the upper Boardman is as pristine as you guys say it is (No steelhead = Steve hasn't fished it...I'll have to take your word for it!) then it would be a shame to see it ruined by the slobs who typically throw a negative light on salmon and steelhead fishermen.


That's the rest of my paragraph that you didn't quote. While I may not "enjoy" our quality stream fishery for reasons I already stated, I don't want to see these quality waters ruined either. Whether I partake or not, is neither here nor there...my commitment to preserving quality fisheries remains. This is not coming from a property owner or someone who wants to protect "my water", this is from a sportsman who would hate to see a tranquil, clean waterway ruined. Don't automatically assume that because I am strictly a salmon and steelhead angler that I don't take a vested interest in other fisheries, especially when it pertains to a watershed itself. If it's walleye or Red Horse Sucker, if they swim in the same water as "my" species, then I want to know what's going on since it will no doubt end up affecting "my" sport as well. I may not have fished the upper Boardman, but I've seen enough of it to know that a horde of salmon slobs could really fudge things up there. No matter how you regulate it, slobs will be slobs. My simple and narrow minded viewpoint is that anytime you add salmon or steelhead to the mix, you add a negative element by default. Granted, that's mostly with salmon, but even by restricting it to a particular species (steelhead) and seasons, I think the upper boardman would lose a lot of it's luster if its banks start looking like the banks of the Little M on April 2nd. Sure, that comparison is a bit dramatic, but the potential exist if anadromous species are introduced. Is it worth the sacrifice if that negative element comes to fruition? Either way, I have nothing at stake in this, so tear it up if the kings are let loose up there...it'd just be a shame to see a blue ribbon trout stream end up like Bear Creek (Big M trib) in October.

BTW, A brown in the 18 to 20" range or a resident rainbow of the same size? I get a thrill out of those fish and they're a nice bonus when steelheading (I don't target them specifically)...it's the one size fits all, one season life span hatchery fish that get under my skin...which is why I asked if the Boardman fish were wild or hatchery earlier in this thread. I think wild fisheries need to be protected in some way, no matter what the game species is...

Since I don't want this excellent thread to turn into a disagreement strictly between you and I, please feel free to PM me if this needs to continue on...[


----------



## DANN09

Yes Gentlemen the rest that discusion belongs in Pm's. I won't close it because some of it is good information. But please keep to the topic of the thread.


----------



## shotgunner

tcasts, the referance to the little man was not meant to be an insult. how would i know where you spend your time any more than you would of me? most of your past posts i recall spoke of the st. joe, the grand, the muskeegon, or big manistee.

your comparison of "stream trout to suckers" was simply more than i could swallow as a trout fisherman, and i would be lying if i did not admit to finding that insulting, even though i knew that was not your intent.

you mention a "negative attitude" over some issue on the other site. far from the truth. i can only recall one thread where some words were exchanged, but no animosity. as a rule i think that our thoughts generaly follow the same guide lines.

an 18"-20" resident falls into the "very nice fish" catagory and provides plenty of thrill for me, especialy on tackle more appropriate. there are some (no, not lots) pigs that are better measured in pounds than inches.

i think any who have put in a post on this thread have the welfare of the boardman in mind. there are endless scenarios from one end of the spectrum to the other at this point. i only thought to bring a couple to light. i am not taking nor promoting any stance or plan at this point. only discussing. 

i will p.m. you this eve and we can clear up any loose ends not covered. SG


----------



## Whit1

Shotgunner,
You need to clean out your pm box, both the inbox and sent items.


----------



## Koho

First of all, great thread. 

This is an interesting development that needs more time to pan out. Mark and Tom from the DNR will not due harm to the rivers of Northern Michigan. They both fish them as well as manage them.

The DNR recently did a 6 year study on the affects of anadromous fish in our streams and the affects on resident stream trout populations. The study was performed by Andy Nuhfer on Hunt Creek. We need to look at the findings of Andy and go from there. Andy's study did show an effect on resident stream populations. I have not read it, but I'm trying to get a copy. 

FYI
Earlier it was mentioned about the introduction of sea lamphery into the boardman. Fish ladders have shown to stop the migration of these nasty creatures, they cannot jump. A metal lip is placed on the lower ladder and they are stopped. 

Sportsmen/women need to follow this and be well informed of these dicisions being made with our natural resources.


----------



## Whit1

> _Originally posted by Koho _
> *The DNR recently did a 6 year study on the affects of anadromous fish in our streams and the affects on resident stream trout populations. The study was performed by Andy Nuhfer on Hunt Creek. We need to look at the findings of Andy and go from there. Andy's study did show an effect on resident stream populations. I have not read it, but I'm trying to get a copy. *


Pat,
When you find that study get it to me. This is something that I've been looking for.


----------



## Koho

Whit,

I'll let you know when I see the study. It should be soon. 

Pat


----------



## flat-top

koho, the lampery dont jump but attach themself to fish that travel up the fish ladder


----------



## Whit1

Flat-Top,
Koho is very aware of lamprey and their habits. He's very involved in fish biology. In all of my years of fishing streams I've never seen an adult lamprey attached to a fish while it moves upstream.


----------



## thousandcasts

Actually, Adult lampreys attached to spawning fish are a pretty common occurance in some tributaries. I've rarely, if ever, seen adult lampreys on steelhead, but have seen quite a few on migrating and spawning salmon. A recent up close look was over labor day weekend (2003) in the Big Manistee. Phlyphisher and I were casting to a pod of salmon in the Suicide Bend area and I hooked a fish. I knew right away the fish was foul hooked so I went to break it off. The fish went free, but as I was reeling up my line I felt resistance and as I pulled my fly out of the water it was imbedded in the back of a large lamprey. I hadn't hooked the fish actually, but rather the lamprey that was attached to the fish! In several different rivers (larger rivers, that is), I've seen leaping fish that had lampreys sawing in to them. Granted, I've seen a lot of salmon in the fall with lampreys attached, but it's impossible to verify whether the lamprey attached itself in the river or out in the lake. A lot of those lamprey could just be "passengers" that were looking for a meal out on the big lake and hitched a ride on a fish that was getting ready to head up river. 

What's alarming to me, is that I'm starting to see more fish in the rivers that have lamprey scars and/or round open wounds than I ever have. I used to fish the Ocqueoc and Thunder Bay rivers quite a bit and northern lake Huron is or was a "hot bed" for lamprey activity and scarred up fish were pretty common. Not so much on the West Coast, but it just seems that there are more and more wounded fish each year. Again, I don't know if it's from lampreys in the river or lampreys brought up from the lake via migrating fish. The lampreys I'm seeing are definitly the large, lake dwelling parasites and not the Chesnut Lampreys that are more prevalent in native areas like the upper Big M. I don't know if a lamprey is smart enough to attach itself just so it can get a free ride to its spawning grounds, but I suppose it's not out of the realm of possibility either. It'd probably warrant some discussion at some point. I guess one area of concern would be what happens when the salmon finally dies. The hitch hiking lamprey releases itself and if that salmon is way up river, do you have a potential problem with lamprey control if other "free ride" lampreys are present?

This is probably a topic for another thread, so I apologize if I went off topic on this one 

BTW, Shotgunner, I'll send you a PM in a little while, but If I over reacted to your post and your intent was not meant to be an insult at me, then I apologize for my rather terse response.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

thousandcasts, Yes this should be on another thread.

However, remember how we had so much evidence of lamprey production in the St Mary's River that was putting out thousands of lamprey per year? And, those lamprey were decimating northern Lake Huron as well as upper Lake Michgian. Well, years of surveys mapped the larval habitat constricted to a few major hotspots and newer technology and special funding finally allowed treatment of the St. Mary's River. That should help greatly.

But, there was still increasing lamprey and wounding in northern Lake Michigan. Well, the Manistique River dam had some cracks and for however long the adults were getting through to the huge watershed above the dam. That river system was treaated this year. Now we'll see if that helps over the next couple years. 

Manistique River treated for sea lampreys
http://www.miningjournal.net/archive/2003news/08-august/08-28_5.html


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Meanwhile, I saw DNR Tom Rozich today and talked with him a while. He is excited. The potential of the Boardman River to be a premier fishing river is great. Still, it will take a few years to work these projects out.


----------



## toto

I haven't talked to Ton in awhile, is he geeked about anadromous fish up the boardman, or is he excited because it will make trout fishing in general better?

In reading all these posts, I found it interesting that we argue about steelhead or salmon getting up the Boardman, and what it will or won't do. I agree that the river won't be the same with these fish in there, I have seen the Platte become a shadow of itself over the years. If you fish for small trout above the Platte River hatchery, you'll find decent brown fishing, and a few small brookies in spots. Below the weir however, the trout fishing isn't all that great. Yes there are fish there but in numbers that don't seem to be anywhere near the numbers from years ago, but over the last few years, I have noticed an increase in trout activity below the hatchery.I have fished the upper Boardman quite a few times, and I would have to equate the Boardman and Platte to be pretty similar. The point here is this, I think that in the short run you may have some dropoff in populations of stream trout, but in the long haul, you'll see the river be just about the same as it is today. The only draw back as some have said, is the litter, and general mayhem that salmon, and steelhead people seem to make. If only that could be stopped............


----------



## Whit1

> _Originally posted by toto _
> * The only draw back as some have said, is the litter, and general mayhem that salmon, and steelhead people seem to make. If only that could be stopped............ *


Bill,
It's good to "see" you.

I think....sometimes a dangerous undertaking....that we'll see diminishing in trout numbers, although I only have my own observations, and that being in smaller streams. What I've witnessed is the salmon, spawning at a time similar to the resident browns and brookies, and being larger and more aggressive, chase the smaller resident trout off the prime spawning beds. I can't say this will happen on a larger stream, but I fear it could.

The litter and, just as important, the erosion of streambanks due to heavy foot traffic, are two blemishes that too many people bring with them when they congregate in numbers.

Keep an eye on Crystal young man. When it gets frozen over and the wind kicks up, bringing with it snow and especially if the temps drop below zero.....Toto and Whit fishing temps......give me a call. I dream to learn burbot fishing at the feet of the Burbot Master!!.........LOL!


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Tom Rozich told us yesterday that the Boardman River has the potential to rival the Little Manistee for steelhead fishing and tourism.


----------



## DryFly

Tom is right!

Good God can you imagine what this would mean?

If you can't, take a trip to the Little M wier opening week of Steelhead season....

Look out Travers City!!


----------



## M. Tonello

Here are some comments from Traverse City MDNR Fish Biologist Todd Kalish. Todd is relatively to MDNR, as he began with us last March. He has been reading this discussion with interest.

The discussion and topics that are being generated at this site regarding dam removal are very insightful and helpful. It is very important to discuss potential post dam cold-water fisheries management early in the process so that everyone has a chance to fully explore all of the potential management possibilities and there effects. 

However, we are concerned that some may be losing sight of the ultimate goal and rationale for exploring the removal of 4 dams on the Boardman River. Fisheries Division would like Grand Traverse County and Traverse City to consider removing these dams because of the negative effects they have on cold water fisheries habitat and populations and the financial burden these dams place on Grand Traverse County and Traverse City. The degrading effects of dams on cold water habitat and species is well documented, and was specifically addressed on the Boardman River in 1998 and 1999 (Lessard, J. L. and D. B. Hayes. 2003. Effects of elevated water temperature on fish and macroinvertebrate communities below small dams. Regulated Rivers. In press.). 

Most of the dams on the mainstem of the Boardman River are a major financial liability, one is leaking, and most are very old (Brown Bridge is over 100 years old) and the reality is that they will have to be removed at some point in the future due to structural deficiencies, pond filling, financial reasons, etc. In addition, removal of these dams will defragment the fisheries stocks in the mainstem, reestablish transport of nutrients, woody debris, and invertebrates downstream, reconnect the mainstem with its original floodplain, reduce competition and predation of salmonids by coolwater species such as northern pike, reestablish the natural thermal regime of the mainstem, and decrease habitat degradation and pond filling by restoring natural flow dynamics. 

If the dams are removed, we will thoroughly analyze all management options and integrate public opinion into our decision. However, regardless of what potential management practices are implemented, cold-water fisheries habitat and populations will benefit from dam removal. If these dams are removed, Fisheries Division will continue to operate the Boardman weir and stop the majority of the salmon run. If steelhead are passed, the Boardman River could potentially sustain a healthy, diverse salmonid population including steelhead and resident brown, brook, and rainbow trout similar to the Pere Marquette, Little Manistee, and Platte Rivers. If steelhead are not passed, the resident trout populations will benefit due to the above mentioned effects of dam removal. 

Our main focus, at this point, is to disseminate the ecological and financial benefits of removing these dams. If Grand Traverse County, Traverse City, and the public decide they want to pursue dam removal, we will seriously address the steelhead issue at that time. Fisheries Division is concerned that some people on this site may not embrace dam removal because they are concerned about potential post-removal management. However, Fisheries Division needs all the support we can get during this process, and we remind everyone that removing these dams would likely be the most significant ecologically beneficial thing to happen on the Boardman River since its inception into the Natural Rivers program, irregardless of what potential post-dam management strategies are implemented. In addition, removing these dams will exonerate the County, City, and potentially the citizens of Grand Traverse County of millions of dollars in future expenditures, for example: a new spillway at Brown Bridge will cost over 2 million dollars, FERC relicensing at Brown Bridge (due in 2014) will likely cost around 1 million dollars, permanent leakage repair and potential spillway construction at Boardman dam will likely cost over 2 million dollars, and this is in addition to the fact that Traverse City Light and Power Board is 4.7 million dollars in the red due to operation, maintenance, and equipment costs at Sabin and Boardman dams. 

Thank all of you for your insightful comments and suggestions regarding potential post-dam management. 

Todd Kalish
MDNR Fisheries Biologist
Traverse City


I wholeheartedly agree with Todd's comments. Here are a couple of my own:
-Some folks are using the words "salmon and steelhead" like they are the same thing. They are not. We can choose to pass one and not the other if we like.
-We have the ability to control the crowds through fishing regulations. If we designate a stream stretch as Type 1, that means it is closed from Sept. 30 - Last Sat. in April. No crowds, no litter.
-I will strongly disagree with whomever said that the Platte River below the hatchery is not good for brown trout. That statement is completely wrong. In fact, it is one the best resident brown trout streams in NW MI. Trust me, the electroshocker doesn't lie. It also supports lots of wild steelhead and coho parr.

This has been an interesting discussion, but lets not get distracted from the fact that we are discussing dam removal for all the reasons that Todd outlined. To oppose dam removal because you are afraid that salmon and steelhead might get into your water or because more people might decide to fish your water isn't going to fly. We are considering dam removal largely for financial reasons. These are obsolete dams that are going to become hugely expensive in the near future if we don't remove them. Luckily, by removing them, we can also hugely benefit the Boardman River biologically.

Again, good discussion, and we'll see where it goes!


----------



## Whit1

As Quoted from Mark T's Post:
"If these dams are removed, Fisheries Division will continue to operate the Boardman weir and stop the majority of the salmon run. If steelhead are passed, the Boardman River could potentially sustain a healthy, diverse salmonid population including steelhead and resident brown, brook, and rainbow trout similar to the Pere Marquette, Little Manistee, and Platte Rivers. If steelhead are not passed, the resident trout populations will benefit due to the above mentioned effects of dam removal."

Mark,
Thanks for the excellent post giving insight into the diverse reasons the dam removal project on the Boardman R. needs to move forward.

As you can see my, and others, main concern is the upstream movement of salmon into the upper Boardman. Yes, there is some trepidation involving steelheads, but that aspect doesn't raise a red flag that the movement of chinooks and coho salmon into those waters does.

I do understand, and agree with, the reasons why the dams must be removed and with the propensity of costs going up the way the do, the sooner the better. My only concern involves the unfettered movement of salmon upstream into waters where they have been heretofore absent. Yes, the steelhead migration does cause some worry, but nothing like the effect of salmon migration into those waters.

Okay, ya got my approval! Ya can start takin 'dem damn dams down...........LOL!

Thanks again Mark for your always excellent input.


----------



## m delp

Hi Mark and Todd,

I enjoyed reading your posts...insightful as well as possibly indicative of the direction this is heading. That the Boardman River will benefit greatly from dam removal will not be the center of contention. Crowds and behavior will be, and you have attempted to address that concern by citing regulatory action. However, we well know that you can certainly regulate numbrs, but you can't regulate behavior very effectively. It doesn't take large numbers of fishermen to quicky degrade a hot spot or a bank. I worry that an important decison such as this will revolve more around making money rather than protecting a river system.


As an aside:

The Boardman, like many rivers is under seige..development, bridges, dams... use and abuse by a growing population. On any given weekend in the summer months on the Boardman there are hundreds of inner tubers floating the river. Seems to me that regulating tube traffic might not be a bad idea either, but we barely have enough law enforcement to do an adequate job now.


yrs,

Mike


----------



## phlyphisher

Okay, here's an honest question for the "trout guys:" where is the scientific evidence that salmon and/or steelhead harm native trout populations?

I don't mean to sound confrontational, but I've heard this said over the years, yet I've never been able to get my hands on a sound scientific reference that agrees with that statement. It seems like an it-was-better-in-the-old-days kind of argument. If such thing does exist, I'd be very interested in reading it.

I know that we dedicated fishermen tend to get caught up in our emotions at times, but science has to win over emotion so that the fishery can benefit overall. 

Emotions about fisheries often run quite high, but, in the end, sound management is the answer. And we're very lucky to have guys like Mark and Tom and Todd on board looking out for the good of the fishery.


----------



## Koho

It is wonderful to have biologist like you guys that will take the time to explain the why to the public. We need more people that are willing to make statements and stand by the decisions. Thanks to Mark and Todd for all the work they do. These guys are working to make our fishing better, no matter what. Keep up the good work.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Mark and Todd are totally correct and we are fortunate they have the opportunity to use the Boardman River dam projects as excellent models for the other watersheds in the state. Remember, the same ecological, fragmentation, economic, and social, etc., benefits of dam removal are applicable to all the other watersheds in the state.

If the sportfishers really want to make the longest term impact on their fishing opportunities, they should, if possible, take a day out of their fishing once in a while to attend their watershed organization meetings, TU projects, Resource Conservation & Development District projects, and local Conservation Districts to volunteer your talents. You (sportfishers) need to understand Best Management Practices (BMP) as they apply to your local zoning and watersheds as a whole. Everything I just mentioned will allow you to be well informed, experienced, and the best speakers at the public hearings when they come up in the future to discuss the Boardman River dams and other dams around the state.

This plea for more informed sportfisher evolvement is difficult to get across. The developers and land-rights extremist are always well connected most often 'not' to the benefit of the watershed or your fishery. This is true with the Boardman River as well as all other watersheds. The younger fishers on this site need to understand that what you do in the near future will reflect if you have a good fishery or any public access in the future. The broader watershed BMP topic can digress from this specific Boardman River thread, but it is important to the Boardman River. We can move to another thread for the BMPs discussions.

Meanwhile, give Mark, Todd, and Tom all the support you can. They are the best friends the Boardman River has right now. Their leadership and your support will provide the teamwork needed for a great Boardman River watershed future.


----------



## gunrod

I want to thank you Mark for taking time from your busy schedule to post. Pass along my gratitude to Todd and let him know we'd be happy to have him register to make more informative posts when his time allows him the opportunity.


----------



## m delp

As a dedicated flyfisherman who sometimes tends to get caught up in his emotions, I would hate to always come down on the side of science without emotions. A trout stream is not just about the fish in the water.....it's a long, winding complex system involving, at times, large, sometimes foolish predators who spend a good deal of time thrashing around on the banks and dropping alll kinds of litter. I don't know if there is any science to support my fears, but I hope so. Incidentally, I've gotten highly emotional on the Platte, watching large pods of fish scatter ahead of the bow of a 12' aluminum boat plowing upstream, the motor blasting, and the four fat guys in the seats drooling after their prey. The scientist in me, the one who did faily well in high school physics, marveled at the boat's ability to overcome so much surface tension, while the irrational, emotional river neanderthal in me was ready to drop some trees and thwart their forward momentum.


yrs,

Mike


----------



## Spoon3234

> The Boardman, like many rivers is under seige..development, bridges, dams... use and abuse by a growing population.


How could someone concerned about the degredation of the river oppose the removal of dams that warm the river and build up sediment? The removal of the dams would IMPROVE stream habitat!

Further I will input that the Platte's brown trout population is outstanding in both size and quantity of fish. I do not believe that the spring spawning steelhead would affect fall-spawning brown trout in the Boardman.

My second home is very close to the Boardman and I would love to see the river restored to natural, unimpeded flow.


----------



## m delp

Spoon,


I'm completely in agreement with you about removing the dams on the river ( I think all of my previous posts reflect that notion)....it's the aftermath that I'm concerned about.


yrs,

Mike


----------



## Spoon3234

I just reread your posts and apologize for the misunderstanding. I'm glad that we're on the same page about the dam removal.


----------



## shotgunner

"In reading all these posts, I found it interesting that we argue about steelhead or salmon getting up the Boardman, and what it will or won't do. I agree that the river won't be the same with these fish in there" orig posted by toto, 01/11

well, the thread is making leaps and bounds now!

if these dams are removed the river will never be the same anyway. for better or worse, anadromous or not.

i'm guessing that there are already some options being looked at/studied right now. hopefully they will eventualy be presented to the public for a first hand look & opinion.

does anyone have temperatures recorded and averaged for late spring and summer months? speaking of below brown bridge dam to keystone.

thanks, SG


----------



## M. Tonello

Phlyphisher,
Yes, I hear the "it was better in the old days" argument more times than I can shake a stick at. Once in a while it might be true, but most of the time, it's just a matter of perception. As much as I hear that argument, nobody should be catching anything nowadays! It's also very hard to prove, as you often don't have data from "the old days" to work with. Let's face it, our fisheries in MI have changed drastically in the last 50 years. And even before that! 

As far as salmon and steelhead competing with resident trout, it all depends. Salmon- there's been plenty of research that has proven that chinooks DO NOT compete or interfere with brown trout. On the contrary, they improve growth rates as the browns chow on eggs and fry. Steelhead on the other hand, can compete with resident trout for food and space. As you know, they live in the stream for at least a year after hatching, so there is more opportunity for competition. It depends on the stream though. In some streams (Little M, Pine, PM, etc.), we seem to have plenty of resources to support resident browns, rainbows, and even brookies in some places. 

Shotgunner,
Yes we do have some temp data for the Boardman. Above Brown Bridge, it rarely gets above 65 degrees. Below the dam however, it routinely gets into the mid 70's. Once it flows down to the Keystone Rapids, it has cooled off again to some extent (I've caught brookies in Keystone Rapids). The thing that excites me about the proposed removals is what the river will look like between Beitner Road and South Airport Road. It will be fast, cold, and perfect for trout. And the water between Brown Bridge and Keystone will also be much better. Basically, the Boardman will be a good trout stream from top to bottom.

Hope that helps.


----------



## DryFly

Thanks guys for the info. It is much appreciated.

I totally agree that dam removal is best for the trout population and over all river. 

There is a mess that will happen if the Salmon are allowed to migrate up the river for spawning. This mess will be caused mainly by the crowds that will chase them.

Mark, you stated that this migration of Salmon can be controlled at the wier.

The wier on the Little Manistee is in place in the fall to collect eggs and harveast Salmon. Unfortunately due to the time table involved with not being able to remove the boards, to flush the sand, until after the Lampry have attempted their spawning migration, the diversion gates can not be put in place any sooner than the current program. This delay allows many Salmon to get past the wier early. Years ago it was rare to see Kings in the upper stretches of the river in early July. Now it is not uncommon to witness greater numbers in June. Because of this, I expect the numbers will gradually increase as this "summer run" of salmon has been created.

Will the same happen at the wier on the Boardman or will it be able to stop all Kings from getting up the river.

Better yet is it possible to design a wier that can stop "SLOB FISHERMEN" from getting up the river? 

Boy wouldn't this be great! You could collect them, their trash, heavy snagging line and lures right at the wier and haul them off in the big crates. 
You could even save money by not needing ice to cool them down as they already STINK!   


Good fishin'
Dave


----------



## phlyphisher

Thanks Mark for clearing that up. It's pretty much what I had assumed.

Dave, few enough people actually target the early fish that I really doubt that it makes a difference in the "slob" pressure. As you know, the run size swings greatly by the year, and fishing for them is pretty much a variable experience. I don't see the great negative impact from their small presence being a problem. Besides, those browns that a lot of the people target have to fatten up somehow -- salmon eggs are a great food source.

I see more garbage in the water and on the banks on the LM in the spring than I do in the late summer. The opening day crowd is about as trashy as it gets on the LM, not only in-stream, but near stream. Some of the out-of-the-way campsites that I've come across are abhorrent, to say the least.

Too bad that slob weir isn't a reality...


----------



## m delp

Hi Mark,


I never gave much thought to the idea that fish eggs would provde a good food base for browns....an interesting facet of this discussion. After reading all these posts I still come down on the side of not allowing steelhead upstream of Cass Road...the pressure on the system including bank degradation and sheer numbers still seems to be more critical to me than the advantage of having them in the fishery. I will admit, the notion of improving the Beitner to South Airport section is tantalizing. (Would it be possible to stop the fish at Beitner?) I truly appreciate your expertise and welcome any further insights you have.

ps....if you're ever up my way, I'd love to have a coffee together...


yrs,

Mike


----------



## stelmon

Since moving up here for college, I have grown to love the Boardman River. I fish on average 2-3 times a week and during salmon season I fished it almost everyday. Sept 1 I fished it when there were only a few fish in the river. There was one if any pigs down there throwing line all over. When the salmon came in thick, forgetaboutit. Fishing in peace was over with til the weir opened up again. Then I fished in peace again but had to move below Union Street dam where there was still a good number of kings. I fished in peace again for another week or so and never had any company.

Last Friday I made my way down to the river again where I fished salmon most of the time. There was still line and crap all over the place from salmon season. That is OVER 3-4 months ago that that crap was laid. My whole point with this is during pre and post spawn, very people fish them and there is very little, if any, crap around. Steelheading, so far, has been very nice and there is little litter around because the people arent there.

I love to salmon and steelhead fish but I would like to see the salmon and steel stay where there at. We have hundreds of miles of stream for salmon and steelhead. If someone wants to fish them, they can fish them in town along with everyone else with there brothers and sister. I, for the first time today, ran into someone while steelhead fishing. There is no garbage lying around and it looks as if several people have been fishing there.

I do have a couple of questions:
Would it be possible to fix Union street dam and knock all the other dams down for the trout. Would it be possible and cheaper? Since steelhead do mess up trout spawning, could the fish ladder be closed at certain times of the year so the majority wont make it up? How do salmon make it back down the dam? Do they use the ladder? 

Someone mention something about having closing the river during the trout season. Is the upper boardman River open right now? If the stream were closed, would that close the 1000 yards that is fishable now? I dont know but wouldnt that make the COs job harder trying to catch the illegal fisherman fishing the stream when its closed in a even bigger radius then it is now?

Personally, I would like to see the dam stay and keep the steelhead where they are now. I have been fishing the PM for about 4 years now and there is always crap around. When I scouted the upper boardman in the fall, it was a beautiful river and I didnt see any erosion or litter. I think steelhead and salmon would just bring that. 

I have been reading this since the beginning but havent really posted an opinion because I was watching what others have to say. Now I am writing an essay and I think it will be on this project. 

BTW, has there been any updates since the last post?

Thanks guys


----------



## SALMONATOR

I think you're right Dan. I've been watching this thread as well, and wanted desperately to respond long ago, but held back. I fish all summer long not far from the boardman on the upper Mannistee, and a bit further away on the AuSable. I think it would be an absolute Kick in the a$$ to be able to fish for salmon and steelhead on the upper streatches of that river in the Kalkaska area 20 minutes from Grandpa's place. I also find some of the arguements that it would effect the trout fishing a bit far fetched.

Baby kings leave the spring after the spawn and I can't see where thay would have any effect on food competition other than providing more food for trout. Spawning kings may take over some gravell for a bit, but their run is short, and between eggs and carcasses I'd bet the browns and brookies would get fatter vs. leaner in the long run.

Steelhead will stay a bit longer, but again, the smolts are as much a food source as they are competition. Plus the added egg-fest for the trout in the spring. On top of that, you'd introduce ALOT more water to the resident trout fishery by removing the dams. 

If you were to compare the possibilities to a river without dams, the PM is the first to come to my mind, and we all know the trout fishery is not lacking on that stream. As well, the Boardman is one of the colder flowing streams in the LP (even colder than the upper Mann' relative to the same area) and may well be a prime candidate for a natural-reproduction river where salmon and steelhead are concerned. We don't have too many of those.

The one issue I find no arguement for (and belive me, I've racked my brain), however, Is the streamside conditions of the upper river. Once Jethro, Bubba and Forrest catch wind of a salmon run in the upper streatch, It'll never be the same little quiet stream we all appreciate it to be again. Beer cans, tangles of momofiliment and bait containers will litter the green banks in no time. Doesn't it suck that that's the reason for keeping an already good fishery from becoming one of the best in the state? It's not the fish, it's the people. That's the real shame.

Al


----------



## Linda G.

in the Upper Boardman is for the brook trout...how many brookies do you see in the PM? Sure, it's still a good river for browns, with all that stocking going on over the past 100 years, it should be. But it's rare to hear about the PM as a quality brook trout fishery.

Spawning steelies and salmon kick up silt and sand that is very detrimental to species like brook trout. I don't think the issue is so much about food competition as it would be about the overall degradation of water quality. 

Dan, for the the majority of your questions, get hold of Mark Tonello at Cadillac DNR-he can answer those.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Linda is correct. Any fishery mgt will have some tradeoffs. The PM does have some brook trout streams, but all the good steams I grew up with (feeder tributaries) are now blocked off as private property or clubs.


----------



## d2upnorth

We are lucky to have guys like Mark and Todd working fisheries management. We can also create some luck by helping with the people management issues. Stream Watch seems to be doing a fairly good job....it could be expanded and improved. 
I don't think we'd get away with installing a "slob weir", but....I think that having a forum like this for Mark and Todd to help educate us lay people is greatly needed.
d2


----------



## DryFly

The River watch or Care program is great and it helps with eliminating the snagging, keeping foul hooked fish and general mess problems off the river. 

We keep hearing about how concerned everyone is about this problem. 


Does anyone know why, with all of this concern, wery little people volunteer to help out with the program?

Unfortunately not everyone can attend each day on the river, but one or two times per concerned sportsperson would really make a better difference. You can even fish while participating.

Just wondering...

Is there any interest in having a "MICHIGAN-SPORTSMAN.COM 
day or two on the river along with the DNR program?

The DRN issues hats and orange vests for recognition, but what if we all wore their vests and our Michigan Sportsman hats?

If there is interest, I can arrange for this with the DNR and possibly get some news paper coverage. 

I can see the headlines now "MICHIGAN-SPORTSMAN.COM members step up to the line to take a stand on keeping fishing legal and a clean friendly family experience!"

I have taken pleasure in doing it in the past. We are not only pointing out snaggers but I spend a lot of time giving advise to beginner fisher people. Helping kids un tangle their lines, setting an example by picking up trash, and the times I'm not fishing, when I walk along the path above the people fishing, I point out where the pods of fish are that they can not see. 

This would give a recognition to the DNR program and to our web site. Plus an opportunity to meet and have conversation with our fellow web site members. 

Good fishin'
DAVE


----------



## Hamilton Reef

The case studies around the nation has showed the removal of the dams did not decrease property values. This is good news for the property owners.


----------



## DryFly

I would like to see the dams removed.

I'm not familiar with the back water area of the dams on the Boardman. 

I was assuming that the dam created a very large backwater pond where someone purchased (lake) front property and assumed this is what they were buying. Then the dam is gone and there is now a small river a long ways from their home. 

My comments were based on this assumption. Now if there is a river running in front of their home rather than a pond it should be no difference in the living experience or property value. 

Possibly the backwaters are not that big...


----------



## Rat Fink

Dave, I agree with you about listening to both sides but there are a few major points that I need to express. The property owners knowingly bought land on a small backwaters above a dam. Dams are not permanent structures. They should have thought it through a little better before their purchase. If you can find me an example of a PERMANENT dam structure that is as old as the river it is on itself then I will gladly give you all of my life savings. Why should the taxpayers have to subsidize their MISTAKE? If we leave Boardman Dam in place that is exactly what would be occurring. Us subsidizing them at a very HIGH cost. Is it worth saving a silted in very poor fishery at such a high cost? Yes the lots in Keystone sub do have Riparian rights. But the Public owns the rest of the riparian rights. Seems to me that we are equal players in that matter. The private properties sit in the middle of a Large chunk of public lands that have been put in place to protect the river from development along it's banks and to provide public recreation. The private properties are a very small fragment of that land area and are pretty much surrounded by public land so access is not to be compared to a takings issue. I am under the impression that even when the dams are removed the lots will still retain their riparian rights along the natural river and not lose any access. This is definately not a black and white issue but I certainly hope that some people would think more about the health of the ecosystem than how nice their backyard looks.


----------



## Shotgun

Yup to Rat Fink. But the Keystone Dam is gone since 1961, or so. Just for the record.


----------



## Rat Fink

Shotgun, Your right. Sorry I mistyped. The old Keystone Dam washed out back in 61 ( obviously a non permanent structure and I wonder how the adjacent landowners felt when that happened?). The dam I was speaking of is Boardman Dam which creates Keystone pond. Too many Damn dams to keep em all straight. :lol:


----------



## skidway

My family has owned property on the Boardman since before any of the dams that exist now were in place. So it's gone from river to pond and possibly back to river in the length of time that we have lived there; and nobody in the family has cared. Access by the few that wanted to fish or shoot ducks and geese has always been available to those who asked. Hopefully that won't have to change but the behavior by those who think that my land is public will determine that. I personally think the dam removal is a good idea but you have to realize that it's being done not to promote a "blue ribbon fishery". It already is that if you know where to go and after 50 years I do. Allowing salmon and steelhead up there isn't going to help it become a better fishery. 
No, the dam removal is to remove major liabilty from the city of Traverse City and others with vested interest. That is what it's all about.
You have to also consider what the ramifications of the release of polluted silt will be; and there is no way around letting SOME of that go downstream. Silt is a real fish killer. Another consideration is the change in elevation may make the river TOO FAST to fish. The dams keep that in check now. In 61 when the Keystone blew out it allowed the river to return to its natural flow rate above Boardman pond. Some stretches move along so fast that it's difficult to wade let alone fish it until the water level drops in the summer. That area is surrounded by private property and so not accessible without a boat or a real long walk up or downstream. The people up there already have their fill of people in the kayaks, canoes and tubes to be receptive to allowing the PUBLIC access to enjoy their riparian rights. Sort of like having people throw a party on the sidewalk in front of your house whenever the sun shines.You wouldn't like it at your house but some seem to think it's OK everywhere else.


----------



## Rat Fink

Skidway, You are exactly right about why the dams are going to be pulled. Fiscal responsibility has become too much of a burden for the powers in charge of them and they need to dump them. NO ONE thinks that your land is public. The river however is a navigable river with public access. Therefore the river is open for public use. By allowing steelhead and salmon to enter more of the river would supplement an already decent fishery and create a phenomenol fishery. I think that we could potentially have a steelhead fishery that rivals the PM, Little Manistee or the Betsie ( back in the day). I do feel there should be a limit on the upstream migration of salmon but definately not steelhead. Steelhead would provide a fantastic year round fishery. Yes there would be some silt that escaped but with current hi tech construction practices it would be kept to a bare minumum. Plus with a faster flow the river would clean itself more efficiently and quicker so that will negate many silting issues. I grew up a very short bike ride from the river and I have never experienced difficulty wading during normal water conditions. It is DEFINATELY not to fast for the novice wader except for the Beitner rapids area. You can't expect that the whole river will be wadeable can you? The gradient will not change except for areas that are being restored which will hopefully create some whitewater rapids areas which will in turn oxygenate and cool the water as well as provide more recreational opporutunities. As far as the party on my sidewalk analogy that is true to some extent but where most of that occurs is on public lands. Much of the land from Beitner Road to Logans Landing is now held in public hands. The acquisition of these lands was done for a reason, too allow public use. I just want to re-emphasize that this is not about trying to take away rights of landowners. The City, and other governmental agencies dont need or want to operate the dams anymore and this is a great opporutunity to get them removed saving a lot of wasted money in the future. Now is the time for sportsmen to embrace these efforts and enjoy the great side effects of having a healthier, cleaner, cooler river which will provide a much better fishery and overall healthier ecosystem.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, 17 June 2005
CONTACT:
Todd Kalish 231-922-5280, ext. 6870
Mary Dettloff 517-335-3014

Sediment Samples to be Collected in Boardman Ponds Beginning June 20

Michigan Department of Natural Resources fisheries managers today announced that sediments samples will be taken from three Boardman River ponds to provide information that will help direct future studies about the fate of the Union Street, Sabin, Boardman and Brown Bridge dams. This is a cooperative effort involving the DNR, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Great Lakes Environmental Center.

Collection of the sediments samples will be done aboard The Mudpuppy, a research vessel operated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Samples are scheduled to be taken from the Boardman Pond on June 20, Sabin on June 21 and Brown Bridge on June 22 between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. each day, subject to weather conditions. The research vessel will access Sabin Pond by crane since no boat launch facility exists at that site.

On May 31, a settlement agreement was finalized among the DNR, DEQ, city of Traverse City, Grand Traverse County, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan Hydro Relicensing Coalition, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Traverse City Light and Power. The agreement will establish a team consisting of a variety of groups, organizations and individuals to develop recommendations concerning the fate of the Boardman River dams since Traverse City Light and Power will no longer use the dams to generate hydroelectric power since the operations are not economically viable.

"Over the next several months, an immense amount of data about the dams, impoundments and the river will be compiled, including data generated from past studies, such as the 2002 analysis of sediments in Boardman Lake," said Todd Kalish, DNR biologist.

Kalish said the samples will be analyzed to determine grain size of sediments and the presence of any pollutants. The results will help direct a future engineering/feasibility study.

The DNR is committed to the conservation, protection, management, use and enjoyment of the state's natural resources for current and future generations.

###


----------



## UBDSLO1

Any new updates as of late??? I can't wait till the dams are out, and the steel are in! :yes:


----------



## Hamilton Reef

ALERT!
Fate of dams is topic of meeting

Public input invited today 
By VANESSA McCRAY
Record-Eagle staff writer

TRAVERSE CITY - Residents who want a say in the possible removal of the Boardman River dams should speak up now, said members of an advisory group that will study the contentious question.
A meeting today at 6 p.m. at the Hagerty Center of the Boardman River Dams Settlement Agreement Implementation Team will be one such chance for public input. 
"We just want everybody that really wants to participate," said Todd Kalish of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
The team - made up of representatives from eight agencies - will advise the city and county dam owners as they decide the fate of the dams. Traverse City Light & Power is surrendering its federal license to generate power at the dams, making unknown the future of the Sabin, Boardman and Brown Bridge dams.
As owners, the city and county are responsible for dam maintenance once the dams are decommissioned. A number of governmental units signed a settlement agreement to expedite the delicensing of the dams and to form the advisory group.
The group wants to complete a $500,000 engineering study to assess the impact of removing the dams, but so far no funding is secured.
The team, meanwhile, will form several committees to consider a multitude of issues involved in the possible removal. Becky Cooper of the Great Lakes Water Studies Institute said residents are welcome to join those committees, which will focus on scientific, technical and funding issues. The project, she said, "is the largest potential dam removal... in the state."
Chester Gill lives on one of the ponds that could be in jeopardy if the dams are removed, an option he adamantly opposes. He plans to attend tonight's meeting.
"It wouldn't hurt...," he said. "I like to be in on the meetings and see what is transpiring."


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Group draws up timeline for dams 
Public input, studies sought

http://www.record-eagle.com/2005/jul/26dams.htm
By VANESSA McCRAY Record-Eagle staff writer

TRAVERSE CITY - Officials hope to decide whether to pull out dams on the Boardman River by September 2007.
The two years leading up to that choice will be filled with public input and major studies, said officials who will advise the city and Grand Traverse County dam owners on their decision.
Monday, that discussion started with the first meeting of the Boardman River Dams Settlement Agreement Implementation Team.
Representatives from eight agencies who make up the advisory group laid out a timeline for the decision. Significant dates include:
- August: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is to have reviewed the preliminary restoration plan, a broad study of environmental impact.
- January 2007: Complete a feasibility study that includes a recommendation regarding the dams' future.
- June 2007: Finalize plans and engineering drawings for the recommended action.
- September 2007: The city and county decide to keep or remove the dams.
The dams' fate has been uncertain since Traverse City Light & Power decided to stop power generation at three dams. Once the equipment is decommissioned, dam maintenance is the responsibility of the city and county.
Todd Kalish of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources was chosen to chair the advisory group, which will shepherd the decision process. He said the group will consider all its options.
"This is a dam removal study, but it is also a dam retention study," he said.
Public participation in the advisory group will help shape the focus, Kalish said.
Those interested in joining a committee of the advisory group should contact Becky Cooper at (231) 995-1793 or Mark Breederland at (231) 922-4628.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Tour tries to envision Boardman without dams 
Advisory group will help determine fate

http://www.record-eagle.com/2005/aug/08dams.htm

TRAVERSE CITY - The Boardman River, seen from an observation deck perched above, courses over the Keystone Rapids.
Here, on a wood-chip trail that follows the river bed, a tour group pauses and considers what Todd Kalish says:
"If I wouldn't have told you there was an impoundment here, you probably wouldn't have known. It (the river) has really reverted back to its natural state," said the fisheries biologist with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
It's a scorching hot August afternoon. Kalish and a smattering of other water management professionals are leading a tour along the river. Kalish chairs an advisory group that will help the city and county dam owners decide whether to remove four Boardman River dams.
He stops at the rubble and remains of the Keystone Dam, built in 1908. It was swept out by a heavy spring rain in 1961. This is how the river corridor could appear elsewhere if other dams are removed, the guides note.
The tour group includes the board of trustees of the Great Lakes Fishery Trust, which gives grants for projects that benefit Great Lakes fisheries. Kalish said the group studying the possible removal of the dams has not applied for funds from the trust, but it could consider it.
A study to determine if the dams should be removed is expected to cost $500,000. 
The first stop on the tour is the Boardman Dam and pond. It's "sort of the problem child" of all the dams, Kalish said.
Built in the 1890s, the dam sprung several boils or leaks that require repair. The cost is an estimated $500,000. The expense is one reason why Traverse City Light & Power decided it can't afford to generate power at it and two other Boardman River dams. Union Street Dam, the fourth dam, is not used for power generation but will be included in the study.
The pond at Boardman Dam is home to many of the property owners who would be impacted by removal of the dams. The tour group walks across Cass Road to view the 103-acre pond. Kalish said the river's natural flow is to the west. The private property owners live on the east side. Re-routing the river's course is one of the options the study will consider. 
Some of the property owners expressed concerns about the possible disappearance of the pond at various meetings. Kalish said every perspective will be debated as the fate of the dams is decided.
"It becomes political," said Jim Ekdahl of the DNR. "There's always a fan base for that particular impoundment."


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Future playground or future hellhole? 

http://www.record-eagle.com/2005/sep/05dams.htm

BY JOHN FLESHER Associated Press Writer

TRAVERSE CITY - Taking a break from their kayaking trip, teenage pals Dusty Otto and Graham Yost look gleeful at the prospect of longer excursions on the Boardman River if three aging dams are removed.
"That'd be great," Otto says, eyeing a stretch of gurgling water knifing past a sandy bluff. "There's some good places to kayak around here, but this is my favorite ... especially the rapids."
But farther downstream, where the narrow rapids give way to a sprawling 103-acre pond, Chester Gill desperately wants the Sabin, Boardman and Brown Bridge dams kept intact. Removing them, he fears, would convert the waterway surrounding his property on three sides into a weed-choked mudflat as the river resumes its natural course.
"We have a beautiful place here, and they're going to turn it into nothing but a swamp," says Gill, a 78-year-old retired Dearborn firefighter who spent seven years building his waterfront house in Grand Traverse County's Garfield Township.
Recreation enthusiasts and shoreline homeowners are among interest groups watching keenly as officials ponder whether to raze the dams, the youngest of which - Brown Bridge - was built 84 years ago.
"This is the most comprehensive dam removal project in Michigan history," says Todd Kalish, a fisheries biologist with the state Department of Natural Resources. "You're talking about opening up an entire river system, reconnecting 160 miles of river with Lake Michigan."
The dams have become a financial drain and are blamed for numerous environmental problems, including fish habitat degradation on the Boardman, rated among Michigan's top 10 trout streams.
Traverse City Light and Power, a municipal utility, wants to decommission its small hydroelectric turbines on the three dams after losing money on them for years. That would force the county, which owns Sabin and Boardman, and Traverse City, owner of Brown Bridge, to foot the bill for millions in repairs and improvements.
The local governments agreed this summer to join state and federal agencies, an American Indian tribe, recreation groups and interested citizens in a two-year study of the dams' future. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers submitted a plan in August with several alternatives, including leaving the dams as they are and dismantling them.
The plan also targets for possible removal the Union Street Dam in downtown Traverse City, 1.5 miles upstream from the river mouth. But it would stay in place with a rebuilt fish ladder under the alternative favored by the DNR, which would take out the Sabin, Boardman and Brown Bridge dams. Estimated cost: $5 million.
The project would dovetail with a nationwide trend. American Rivers, an environmental advocacy group in Washington, D.C., says 185 dams have been removed since 1999 and 56 others are scheduled to come down this year, including the Dimondale Dam on the Grand River and Rice Creek Dam on a Kalamazoo River tributary.
Thirty-five dams have been partially or completely dismantled in Michigan, including 16 within the past decade, says Sharon Hanshue of the DNR's fisheries division.
"Dam removal is the best way to restore the natural function of a river," says Serena McClain, conservation associate with American Rivers. "It restores depleted fisheries, especially migratory fish populations. It restores the natural nutrient balance, the natural movement of sediment. In some situations it can aid in flood management."
And it saves money, supporters say. Many of the thousands of dams around the nation are getting old and springing leaks. Some need costly upgrades to meet government safety standards.
Federal regulators say Brown Bridge Dam needs a rebuilt spillway, costing up to $2 million. Plugging a leak in the Boardman may cost $800,000. The to-do list will grow, says Dennis Aloia, Grand Traverse County administrator.
While neutral for now on whether to keep the dams intact, city and county officials don't relish assuming financial responsibility for them.
"It's bad enough when you take over a 100-year-old building, but a 100-year-old dam is even worse," Aloia says.
The three Boardman River dams with turbines account for just 3.4 percent of the electricity generated by Traverse Light and Power, spokesman Jim Cooper says. Brown Bridge turns a slight profit; the others lose money.
Kalish, the DNR fisheries biologist who chairs an interagency committee advising the local governments, says the DNR favors removing the Sabin, Boardman and Brown Bridge dams because they damage the fishery.
The Boardman River, which forms in Kalkaska County and winds westward before emptying into Lake Michigan's Grand Traverse Bay, draws anglers in pursuit of brook, brown and rainbow trout. A 36-mile stretch qualifies for the DNR's blue-ribbon trout stream label.
But over the final 20 miles, the dams fragment and degrade fish habitat in numerous ways, including riverbank erosion and sediment buildup, Kalish says. They encourage inbreeding that harms the gene pool. They cause water temperatures to rise, which can kill coldwater species such as brown and brook trout.
"It's a beautiful river," says Dave Leonard, who runs a local angling school. But sediment buildup has ruined one of his choice fishing spots upstream from Brown Bridge Dam. "It's a couple of feet deep at best now ... slow, warm. It's really not the fishable water it used to be. Removing these impoundments could only help the resource."
The Michigan Council of Trout Unlimited is awaiting the study results before taking a position, executive director Rich Bowman says.
"We're always looking for strategies to restore and improve rivers and from a commonsense standpoint, the removal of these dams would seem to do that," Bowman says. "But we need research to confirm that."
Kalish says he's sympathetic with residents of a subdivision near Boardman Dam where 27 homes line the pond that would dry up as the river takes shape. A possibility for reducing their loss would be redirecting the river to run nearer their homes, he says.
That's a poor substitute, says Gill, one of the homeowners. Besides, it probably wouldn't work because the natural river channel is three times deeper than the bottomlands that would be drained.
"They're going to spend $500,000 studying the situation," Gill says. "Why can't they just use that money to repair the dams and leave it the way it is?"
It may be impossible to please everyone, Kalish says. But he's hoping that involving the public in the two-year study will help people understand whatever decisions are made.
During a tour of the dam sites, he veers down a woodsy path and points out a crumbling slab of concrete partly obscured by grass and moss - the remains of another dam that collapsed in 1967.
This entire area was under water back then, a 60-acre artificial impoundment. Nature has reclaimed the lush valley. The river, restored to its natural boundaries, plunges over and around boulders and fallen tree trunks. Poplars, aspens, ferns and grasses cover the landscape.
It's a hint of what could happen elsewhere if the entire Boardman ran freely once more.
"There was a time when dams served a good purpose," Kalish says. "But that day is pretty much over and done with."


----------



## DryFly

Amen.

I'm sure God is smiling as he reads this message that talks about restoring what he created.


----------



## Lucky Dog

Interesting, I grew up just a couple of miles from Brown Bridge dam. I have a lot of early memories of fishing and hunting on the pond, I'd hate to see it go for that reason. But on the other hand, I think it would be the best thing for the whole Bordman Valley to put it back to the way it was. My one concern would be for the salmon that would then migrate as far as they want. Would that have ant effect on the native trout?


----------



## Whit1

Lucky Dog said:


> My one concern would be for the salmon that would then migrate as far as they want. Would that have ant effect on the native trout?


 
There is some research showing that it would and other data that says any impact would be positive. The point is probably mute as, at present, the MDNR has NO plans to allow salmon to swim any further upstream than they can now.


----------



## Lucky Dog

Whit1 said:


> There is some research showing that it would and other data that says any impact would be positive. The point is probably mute as, at present, the MDNR has NO plans to allow salmon to swim any further upstream than they can now.


When I jumped in on this thread I got in on the last page. Not noticing that I was on page 11, wow. I went back and started reading the first few pages, there is a lot of good discussion going here and I hope it continues. 

When I was a kid, every summer I would do a float from the Forks to the mouth of the river, I hope I can come back some day and do that same float, without the lakes and portages.


----------



## stelmon

I was down at union street dam eating lunch the other day and I noticed a piece of board blocking the fish ladder. Is that there to block the fish ladder or are they trying to create more of a pool for the fish to rest in. I just noticed it there but I know it wasn't there at the beg. of summer. I also didn't see it there in the previous years while the salmon were running. Dustin, do you know anything about this?? I haven't heard anything about them trying to stop the migration of salmon that get above the wier before it's put in.


----------



## Rat Fink

Dan, Sorry I havent seen a board there before and have never heard of them trying to stop the early salmon. I would call Todd and ask him about it. If it is supposed to be there I am sure he could explain why and if it isnt it will bring it to his attention. How did you do the other night? I will be at the meeting next tuesday, are you going?


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Old dams near Traverse City face razing - 09/09/05 
Governments, groups consider environmental and economic factors in weighing fate of 3 levees.

"This is the most comprehensive dam removal project in Michigan history," says Todd Kalish, a fisheries biologist with the state Department of Natural Resources. "You're talking about opening up an entire river system, reconnecting 160 miles of river with Lake Michigan."

http://www.detnews.com/2005/metro/0509/09/B06-308249.htm


----------



## stelmon

Yea, I need to talk to Todd sometime this week. Hopefully I wil remember. I sorta fel out of whats going on with the dams but as long as the fishies are not biting i'll be there, jk. I don't have anything planned right now so I don't see why I couldn't make it.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Property at issue in Boardman dam decision

http://www.record-eagle.com/2005/sep/21dams.htm

TRAVERSE CITY - Discussion about the fate of the Boardman River dams continues, with questions raised concerning riverfront property ownership.

Two people spoke at a city commission public hearing Monday, weighing in on a plan from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The plan "gives enough justification" to continue to study the removal of the Boardman River dams, said city manager Richard Lewis.

The Corps plan states that restoring the river and removing the dams requires public ownership along the river of "a strip of land five miles long and 100 feet wide," or 60 acres. The land would be used for work during dam removal.

Lewis said the property would be purchased by the city, county or another third-party. He said the 60 acre requirement is a "best-guess estimate."

The city and county dam owners must sign a "letter of intent" that shows concurrence with the preliminary plan before they can chase funds for a larger, $500,000 feasibility study.

One more hearing on the draft plan is scheduled before the Grand Traverse County Board of Commissioners at 12:30 p.m. Sept. 28 at the Governmental Center.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Subcommittees will weigh in on Boardman River dams

http://www.record-eagle.com/2005/sep/22dams.htm

TRAVERSE CITY - A group studying the possible removal of the Boardman River dams is recruiting residents to join one of four subcommittees.

The Boardman River Dams Committee is advising the city and Grand Traverse County as they weigh the future of four dams. The committee has formed four sub-groups to address public participation, feasibility studies, property owner interests and funding options.

Those subcommittees meet from 6-8 p.m. Oct. 4 at the Hagerty Center on the Great Lakes Campus. Residents who want to join may call (231) 995-1787.


----------



## skidway

Now the property grab begins as they "buy" the riverfront property needed to remove the dams; effectively making it public property. Mine's not for sale and neither is my neighbors.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Dam group wants a facilitator
It is seeking grants to fund the position

http://www.record-eagle.com/2005/oct/27damjob.htm

By VANESSA McCRAY Record-Eagle staff writer

TRAVERSE CITY - A group advising on the possible removal of the Boardman River dams is seeking grants to hire a "project facilitator."
The Boardman River Dams Implementation Team is made up of representatives from the city, Grand Traverse County and other agencies. The team's task is to advise the city and county dam owners, who will decide the final fate of the four dams.
The team wants to hire an agency or individual to coordinate public participation, schedule meetings, manage work plans and write grants. The position would be about a two-year commitment and pay between $50,000 to $65,000 a year.
The team applied for grants to fund the position and expects to learn within weeks if it will receive funding, said Tim Ervin of the Great Lakes Water Studies Institute at Northwestern Michigan College. The institute and Michigan Sea Grant currently conduct many of the services the new person or agency would provide.
But a full-time employee dedicated to the Boardman Dams project is needed, Ervin said.
"It is a huge amount of work, and it is a huge project," he said. "As I understand it, this may be the largest project of its kind ever considered in the country."
Tom Barker, a property owner along the Boardman River, said he understands the need for the position. The job, he said, is "administrative" and not decision-making.
Ervin said the group received about two dozen applicants from individuals and organizations. The team will not narrow the field or begin interviews until funding is secured, he said. 
Other details remain to be worked out including if the candidates will be interviewed in public and what agency the new hire will work under, although it's likely the institute could serve that role.


----------



## stelmon

Any up dates on the dams???


----------



## Hamilton Reef

The updates on the 'dam removal' programs come painfully slow as each step studies, hearings, engineering, and all the unexpected details come over several month period. The real process takes years even without the court challenges. The concept and visualizations in our minds of great future fishing and natural reproduction only takes one night of dreams. Too bad we can't get the two timelines to merge sooner. :banghead3


----------



## Hamilton Reef

There are other side issues on the Boardman River, lake, weirs, stream habitat, bike trails, that could be discussed, but we need to keep this thread just on the dam removals. Addressing all the other issues will hopefully enhance the final dam removals and watershed as a whole.

City studying cleanup options that could cost millions
No liability has been admitted 
http://www.record-eagle.com/2005/nov/28bootla.htm


----------



## stelmon

Found this informative article this past week. Very interesting! I don't think it's been posted yet.

http://www.ci.traverse-city.mi.us/BoardmanPRP.htm


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Moving right along with more good news.

Dams group secures funds
It will receive nearly double of study's cost

http://www.record-eagle.com/2005/dec/21dams.htm

By BRIAN McGILLIVARY Record-Eagle staff writer

TRAVERSE CITY - An advisory group putting together a feasibility study on removing Boardman River dams has secured almost twice what the study is expected to cost.
The two major funders are a private foundation and the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians.
The tribe obtained a $250,000 federal grant it dedicated to the dam project, Grand Traverse County administrator Dennis Aloia said.
And an advisory group known as the Boardman River Dams Implementation Team "has good reason to believe" they'll soon receive a grant of almost $500,000 from a private foundation, Aloia told the county board. The name of the foundation has not been released.
Local governments own the Boardman River dams and are exploring the possibility of removing Sabin, Brown Bridge, Boardman and Union Street dams.
A feasibility study's cost is projected at $500,000. The state's estimate to remove all four dams is $8.8 million, of which $3 million must be raised from state, local and private sources.
The county board on Tuesday voted to provide $50,000 in start-up funding for the process. 
The advisory group wants the county, Traverse City and Traverse City Board of Light and Power to each contribute $50,000.
Because the city's fiscal year doesn't start until July, the county offered to put up half the city's contribution until then.
"I didn't ask them for anything; they offered to advance us $25,000, and I'm taking them up on it," city manager Richard Lewis said. "It will help us manage our budget."
Approximately $25,000 of the local funds will be used for a "state of the art Web site," monthly newsletters, a guest speaker series and other public information costs.
"This is a huge project, and I've never been involved in a process where the property owners and community were so deeply involved," Aloia said, "The process is going really well and it's moving right along."


----------



## johnboy

The issues surrounding dam removals have been played out enough times over the years to give the experts a good idea of what works and what doesn't. It could be a world class kayak run with movable stones, a naturalized rapids to provide passage of both cold and cool water species from the bay, or a self sustaining brookie and brown fishery.
The hard part is going to be deciding on what to make it. 
[/color] 
Some of the projects listed at the site below are great examples of what can be done.

http://www.americanrivers.org/site/PageServer?pagename=AMR_content_2a40

One that's not listed there yet is the Grayling Dam on the AuSable. It was removed Feb. 2005. The short term goal was to improve fish passage by eliminating the old 5' high weir and creating a manmade rapids. The longer term goal is to slowly remove the new control wier at the head of the rapids to eliminate Mill Pond. Mill Pond is about 80 acres in area and only 12" deep. In the summer it heats up the stream for several miles. The first 3" drop should already have occured this winter. If all goes well, the remaining 12" of weir should come out 3" per year, allowing the pond bottom to revegitate.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Deadline nears for dam comments

http://www.record-eagle.com/2005/dec/28dam.htm

TRAVERSE CITY - The public's last chance nears for comment on what is included in a proposed study of the fate of the Boardman River dams.
The study will consider options ranging from creating waterfalls to finding an organization to keep the dams generating electric power.
The Boardman River Dams Committee is requesting comments and recommendations by Jan. 9 on its draft request for qualifications from firms interested in conducting the study. The request for qualifications outlines 88 different items the committee wants studied regarding the economic, engineering, environmental and societal impacts of removing the Boardman, Union Street, Brown Bridge and Sabin dams.
The committee will select a contractor for the study in May. The study will be completed in late 2007 with a decision on the dams' fate scheduled for February 2008.
Copies of the draft are available at the Governmental Center at 400 Boardman Ave. or on-line at www.grandtraverse.org. Comments should be sent to Boardman River Dams Committee, ATTN. RFQ Comments, 1701 East Front St., Traverse City, MI 49686 or by e-mail to [email protected].


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Todd Kalish gave a good presentation Sat, 1/7, at the Ludington Fishery Workshop. Thanks.

City will pay up to $50,000 for study
The county also chips in; TCL&P asked to as well

http://www.record-eagle.com/2006/jan/09dams.htm

January 9, 2006 VANESSA McCRAY Record-Eagle staff writer

TRAVERSE CITY - The city will pay up to $50,000 for studies on the possible removal of the Boardman River dams.
The city commission approved the payment to the Great Lakes Water Studies Institute at Northwestern Michigan College. The institute will use the funds as a local match for grants it is pursuing for a study that will examine the environmental, engineering, social and economic impact of dam removal.
Grand Traverse County also committed $50,000. The institute requested an equal amount from Traverse City Light & Power. 
The institute's Tim Ervin said the study is estimated to cost about $750,000. That's up from earlier projections of $500,000. Ervin attributed the increase to the study's larger focus. He said it will be key to look at "societal impacts" as well as environmental and engineering aspects most frequently examined in dam removal studies.
Local governments' contributions will help pay for "social aspects" of the study, such as the impact on property values and recreation, said Todd Kalish of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
"(It's) unlike any study for a dam that has ever been done before," Ervin said.
It will take about a year and a half to finish the study, to be completed by November 2007. An advisory group working on dams issues wants to send out this month a request for qualifications from firms interested in conducting the study.
Half of the city's $50,000 payment will come from its general fund, with the remainder drawn from the public improvements fund. Commissioner Scott Hardy cast the lone vote against the expenditure.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Dam study gets grant from trust

http://www.record-eagle.com/2006/jan/11dam.htm

By PATRICK SULLIVAN Record-Eagle staff writer January 11, 2006

TRAVERSE CITY - A group that wants an exhaustive study of four Boardman River dams is one step closer to getting it off the ground.
The Great Lakes Fishery Trust pledged a $476,000 grant to fund a study to determine the future of the dams, Todd Kalish, a Department of Natural Resources fisheries biologist, said Tuesday.
Kalish said he hopes a contractor will be in place to conduct the study by May and that it will be complete in early 2008.
The study will look at four dams - Sabin, Brown Bridge, Boardman and Union Street dams.
Some officials called for the removal of Sabin, Brown Bridge and Boardman dams, but residents who live on a pond created by one of the dams opposed the plan.
Kalish said a lot of the study will look at how dam removal would effect those residents, but he said it also would review how removal or retention of the dams would effect the area's environment and economy.
Kalish said the group that formed to look at the future of the Boardman River was able to win a grant from the Great Lakes Fishery Trust because the process they develop could be used by other communities when they need to decide the fate of crumbling, outdated dams.
The project has netted nearly three quarters of a million dollars in grant money. Last month, the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians announced they had won a $250,000 federal grant that they dedicated to the dam project.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

There were a couple of points that caught my attention at our Ludington Fishery Workshop

Cost 3-5X as much to repair old dams than to take them out.

The energy production from the Boardman River dams could be replaced by one efficient wind generator.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Firm interested in buying dams 
But DNR backs removal; county official skeptical

http://www.record-eagle.com/2006/feb/15dams.htm

By BRIAN McGILLIVARY Record-Eagle staff writer 

TRAVERSE CITY - A Colorado company contacted Traverse City and Grand Traverse County officials about buying and operating three hydroelectric dams on the Boardman River.
Kevin Keizer, project manager for HydroWest Inc., was in Traverse City Tuesday to meet decision-makers and contact affected property owners about maintaining the dams.
The city and county have obtained almost $750,000 in grants and contributed $50,000 each to commission a study to evaluate the feasibility of dam removal.
"It's going to be very expensive, plus they estimate it will cost $7.9 million to remove the dams," Keizer said. "We'll actually purchase the dams and take over all of the headaches the city and county don't want to deal with anymore."
Traverse City Light and Power said it loses money operating the dams and that they require millions of dollars in improvements to meet Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licensing requirements.
"We've gone through all of the reports and understand the FERC requirements and believe we can do it," said Keizer, who added that his company owns five dams. "There is a tremendous amount of knowledge that comes from operating a number of hydroelectric dams and you learn about how to comply with FERC in a more cost-effective manner."
County administrator Dennis Aloia is skeptical and said he told HydroWest to talk to FERC and show how they'll make it work.
"First, make us comfortable that this is viable and then we'll take a look at it," he said.
Todd Kalish of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, which favors dam removal, said the study is needed for the city and county to make an informed decision.
"If they sell the dams, we are delaying a process that I guarantee is going to happen in the future," he said.
The study will include investigating possible buyers and/or operators of the dams, but Roy Davis of HydroWest said he doesn't believe the study will give continued operation fair consideration.
"It's been the agenda to remove the dams from day one," Davis said. "The DNR has been very calculating in the process as to how they do things."
Kalish said it has been clear the study will look at both removal and retention.


----------



## TVCJohn

Wow! I've been reading this thread since I got home from work. Lots of good discussion on both sides. Here's some of my armchair thoughts for discussion.

1. I advocate removing the dams also. I concur with what I read as the main reason....the dams are old and getting in a state of serious disrepair. My concern would be for the safety of all the folks downstream of Brown Bridge if she happened to let go unexpectedly and the domino effect it would have.

2. I would like to see both salmon and steelies be able to pass upstream. I do hear the concerns regarding the extra traffic on the stream. I'm not so sure you'll have the masses enroute as predicted. I think you'll have the locals fishing but as someone said earlier, folks don't like making the drive to other streams....I'd say the recipricole would hold true for the Boardman. After a while the novelty will wear off and out of towners would get tired of the drive. If/when it looks like the dams will be coming down, a suggestion might be to increase the number of fish released in the other streams to help distribute the fishing pressure better. That's only an armchair idea???

3. A small story to share. While stationed in Oregon this past fall, I had the chance to participate in a salmon harvest at the local hatchery on the Coos River. This was a private hatchery run by the local STEP (Salmon and Trout Enhancement Program) organization. The state issues licenses to these folks to raise the fish. Had a blast getting into the tank netting these things. Some of these were approach the 35-45 lb range. It was interesting when you had two in the net. Very strong fish!! We were collecting Kings (chinooks) and Coho (silvers). This particular hatchery could only produce a certain amount of fry. The others had to be destroyed because the states position was they only wanted X number of fish released and they did not want those particular fish to mix in with the wild fish that might be present. Appearently each stream out there has it's own sub-specie of salmon and trout. In Oregon, they are very funny about mixing fish. I think it was due to lawsuits by the environmentalist. The funny thing was the head of the STEP group said these were local brood stocks we were harvesting. 

4. Big problem in Oregon is folks snagging the fish. (This includes flyfishers too!) I could see that as a problem here with the river being as narrow as it is. Some folks can't resist the temptation. They'll make it bad for everyone else. Here's a great Oregon website that you guys can go to if you want to seek different opinions or ideas. http://www.ifish.net/forum/ubbthreads.php 
Salmon season out there is like Nov 15th in Michigan....a state holiday!!!

5. I'm pretty sure the Umpqua River out there close to where I lived supports Kings, Coho, Steelies (sea-run rainbows), Browns, Rainbows, Cutts, Smallies, Largemouth, Sturgeon, Perch (the west coast version). Each fish has it's own areas they hang out. My point is.....in that river and many others like it, different species of fish do co-habitate together. When the salmon die their carcasses rot and return nutrients and microorganism back into the streams. This is what feeds the bugs, that in turn feed the tiny fry. It's the circle of life thing. 

6. Now what I don't know and hopefully someone can educate me on this. In Oregon they have like 4 four different runs in the different rivers for the steelies (spring, summer, winter and fall). Is there anywhere in Michigan where there are two different runs? If not, is that something that could be manipulated to achieve a desired time for them to migrate into the river(s)??? 

7. What will happen to the existing fish in the ponds/lakes if the dams come down, i.e. the pike/perch/bass in Brown Bridge and Boardman?

8. I hate to say this, but I hope the lawsuits don't start to fly. 

9. I used to fish the Boardman alot on the north side of Supply Road. Hope to get back there again soon. Excellent thread so far. It's nice to read all points of view.

John


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Boardman dams offer must get a fair hearing 

http://www.record-eagle.com/2006/mar/01edit.htm

March 1, 2006

State, county and city officials need to take seriously a Colorado company's interest in buying and operating three hydroelectric dams on the Boardman River.
That doesn't mean they have to sell the dams or halt plans to demolish them. But they have a fiduciary duty to weigh the good and bad and make a decision that is in the public interest.
If that analysis shows that the benefits of a sale outweigh the negatives, that should be the course of action. But that will take a great deal of weighing, indeed. And it can't be just about money.
The very first bit of business must be to find out everything there is to know about HydroWest Inc., which already owns five dams. 
The basic question, of course, is whether they have the money, expertise and experience to do what they say they can do. 
Grand Traverse County administrator Dennis Aloia said he also wants Hydro-West to prove to him the company can meet Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licensing requirements. 
Those requirements, as local officials read them, are an impetus for demolition. FERC has said Brown Bridge Dam needs a $2 million spillway and Boardman Dam repairs are estimated at $500,000. All three dams will eventually need hundreds of thousands in repairs.
And what did HydroWest project manager Kevin Keizer mean when he said "... you learn about how to comply with FERC in a more cost-effective manner." 
If that means simply finding ways around FERC regulations and not doing the work, that's a red flag. If HydroWest has legitimate alternatives, they must be given a fair hearing.
Local officials must also be convinced - and be able to convince county residents - that HydroWest is going to be here 10 and 20 years from now and has the know-how and resources to fix problems if things go bad. 
What happens, for instance, if the firm just walks away or dissolves? What happens - and who pays - if there is a catastrophic failure of one of the dams? 
Whatever the bottom line in dollars, however, the intangibles cannot be ignored. 
Fishermen, canoeists and environmentalists would love to see the Boardman restored to its unfettered 1800s condition. 
Yet families that have lived on or near Keystone, Sabin and Brown Bridge ponds for 100 years or more would lose a lifestyle.
The easiest thing, perhaps, would be to simply refuse HydroWest's offer out of hand. 
But that can't happen. Officials have a duty to hear them out and weigh their proposal and do what's best for taxpayers and the river.


----------



## TVCJohn

Well, if the dams stay then maybe fish ladders???? It works out west.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Utility to give up its dams license 

http://www.record-eagle.com/2006/mar/24dams.htm

TRAVERSE CITY  A federal agency approved the city utility's request to give up its license to generate power at three Boardman River dams.

Traverse City Light & Power last year decided to quit hydroelectric power generation on the Brown Bridge, Boardman and Sabin dams. The utility cited high costs to keep the dams up to federal standards.

The decision required approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which recently was granted.

The utility has 30 days to file a plan and schedule for dam decommissioning. During that time, the utility also will take actions to ensure the dams meet state safety requirements.

Light & Power could quit its dam operations this summer if all goes according to plan, said Jim Cooper, marketing manager.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

toto said:


> Remember though they still have the weir in TC, and I would assume it would still exist, and wouldn't it work out the same as the Little Man? Just a thought.


Toto, I would imagine that they would keep the weir in place as well, but fish get by the wier and also it is not closed for the whole year. If fact it is open for the majority of the year.


----------



## fishintheblood

http://www.theboardman.org/

Here is the link


----------



## toto

As you can see, I now live in Florida (at least for now), but I thought there were portions of this river that were under the typical trout regs. But its been a while so I may be wrong. I will say, you are right about the weir not stopping every fish, so there may be something there.


----------



## UBDSLO1

IIRC, above the Union Street dam is closed, and Union Street dam to US 31 bridge is open, extended trout season river.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Dams committee wants public input

http://www.record-eagle.com/local/local_story_044094719.html

02/13/08

TRAVERSE CITY -- The Boardman River Dams Committee is seeking public input on future options for four dams in the Boardman River system.

The committee is asking the public to consider removal, repair, or modification of each dam on the river system. The Union Street, Boardman, Sabin and Brown Bridge dams are under review. 

Direct comments to:
Project Coordinator Jennifer Jay
[email protected]
995-2617
Boardman River Dams Project
Water Studies Institute
1701 E. Front Street
Traverse City, MI 49686

Deadline for comments is Feb. 15. Additional information on the dams project can be found online at www.theboardman.org.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Companies interested in Boardman dams 
Two request permits to generate power

http://www.record-eagle.com/local/local_story_176094157.html

06/24/08 By BRIAN McGILLIVARY [email protected]

TRAVERSE CITY -- Two companies filed preliminary applications to generate hydroelectric power on the Boardman River.

Those applications could force officials from Traverse City and Grand Traverse County to follow suit to preserve control over the dams. 

The county is in the midst of a $1.4 million study to determine whether the structures should be dismantled. But the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission controls the dam-permitting process, and if FERC grants either of the two interested companies a permit, the selected company would be able to control the dam-licensing process for the next three years.

Traverse City and Grand Traverse County own the chain of Boardman River dams, but any objections they may raise have no standing in FERC's permitting process.

"It's a weird, crazy process," said county Administrator Dennis Aloia. "I mean, can you imagine a process where someone is given a permit of any kind and the owner isn't even given notice."

In February, Timothy Swanson of Indiana-based NM Hydroelectric Power LLC applied to FERC for a permit on the county-owned Sabin Dam. Aloia learned of that application last week.

In response, the city and county discussed filing competing permit applications to retain control of the dams. Obtaining the permits would allow the municipalities to decide who, if anyone, should operate the dams if they are kept.

Traverse City Light & Power previously held the FERC license to generate power at city-owned Brown Bridge Dam, as well as county-owned Sabin and Boardman dams. L&P in 2005 decided dam maintenance was too expensive and decommissioned them.

The county then initiated a $1.4 million-dollar study to determine if the dams should be removed. The study's recommendation is due in December.

Aloia said he doesn't believe a permit or license to generate electricity would prevent the county from removing the dams, but he acknowledged it's new territory for the county.

Charles Peterson of Peterson Machinery Sales also applied to FERC for permits for all three dams. Peterson said the county's study hasn't fairly probed the idea of keeping the dams to generate electricity, and he wants to maintain it as an option.

Peterson contends L&P exaggerated dam maintenance costs, and believes all three dams can be operated profitably.

Peterson Machinery purchased the generating equipment at the dams and wants county and city support to restart hydroelectric generation on all three dams. Peterson believes the dams could be generating electricity by next summer.

The county board will make a decision on supporting Peterson or filing its own application when it meets at 7 p.m. Wednesday in the Governmental Center. The issue will be on the city's July 7 agenda.


----------



## shotgunner

> In response, the city and county discussed filing competing permit applications to retain control of the dams. Obtaining the permits would allow the municipalities to decide who, if anyone, should operate the dams if they are kept.


That would be my move.

Interesting watching the developmnets unfold.


----------



## stelmon

Before I moved away from TC two years ago I was part of the dam committee.

Last I heard was once the river goes back to it's natural state, the land would belong to the state and the lake owners would loose that land. People need to realize that dams are not a pernament structure and come to a point when they can't fulfill there purpose and need to be torn down.

The wier would still be used to keep salmon out. The steelhead would be able to travel the whole river. There is possibility the wier would start harvesting steelhead, but I don't want to see that.

I learned all of this while attending the meetings. Ideas may have changed by now. If you want to learn more, I suggest attending the meetings. 

They say the Boardman could rival the Little Man. The only rule I would like to see in affect if all the dams come down is the trout season remains on the portion of the stream it is now. Allow a few early salmon a year to go up like they do now, and all the steelhead to go up. I would hate to see the upper portions look like they do downtown which I am sure they would.


----------



## joefsu

stelmon said:


> I would hate to see the upper portions look like they do downtown which I am sure they would.


What do you mean by this? 

Joe


----------



## stelmon

Allow steelhead fisherman up there chasing them and you will probably get a river full of dirt bank like the lower river. That's why I hope they close the upper portions, plus it will allow the fish to spawn without being molested. The lower river would have pleny of spots to fish.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Boardman dams topic of meetings

http://www.record-eagle.com/local/local_story_267094132.html

09/23/08

TRAVERSE CITY -- Area residents are invited to public meetings to discuss the fate of the Boardman River dams.

The Boardman River Dams Committee spent the past couple years studying whether to repair, retain, modify or remove four dams along the river.

Now the committee wants input on the options before making a final recommendation later this year. Informational meetings will be at 6 p.m. today at the Grand Traverse County Civic Center, 7 p.m. Sept. 30 at the Traverse Area District Library and 7 p.m. Oct. 1 at the Boardman River Nature Center. The committee also seeks public opinion through a survey, available at www.theboardman.org.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Input sought on Boardman dam removal

http://www.record-eagle.com/local/local_story_274094529.html

09/30/08 By SHERI MCWHIRTER [email protected]

TRAVERSE CITY -- Whether or not to remove four dams on the Boardman River is the subject of an extensive public opinion survey in Grand Traverse County.

Two public meetings remain about various options for the dams, including repairs, modifications and complete removal. The dams include: Union Street Dam in Traverse City; Sabin Dam about 3.5 miles upstream; Boardman Dam another mile upstream; and Brown Bridge Dam an additional eight miles upstream.

"If people really want to weigh in, this is the time," said Sandra Sroonian, project coordinator.

Union Street and Brown Bridge dams are owned by Traverse City, while Sabin and Boardman dams belong to Grand Traverse County. Union Street Dam was the only one never used for hydroelectricity and is not being considered for removal.

The Boardman River Dams Committee studied the options during the last two years and wants guidance from the people of the Grand Traverse region before making a recommendation to city and county officials, Sroonian said. 

The public opinion survey deadline is Oct. 10.

"I hope they retain or repair them," said Bruce Carpenter, of Traverse City, who lives alongside Boardman Pond.

Carpenter opposed last year's drawdown of the pond and contends dam removal would further damage the area's wetlands through a reduction in wildlife and changes to the ecosystem. The dams should be returned to use as hydroelectric generators in this age of renewable energy, Carpenter said.

But others want to see the dams removed altogether.

Dozens of surveys from members of the local Trout Unlimited group were returned to chapter president Bill Fernandez, who said the likely consensus is "in favor of dam removal." A free-flowing Boardman River would be a better cold-water fishery and would reduce the buildup of sedimentation, he said.

There will be a one-hour public meeting about the project at 7 p.m. today at the Traverse Area District Library, with another at 7 p.m. Wednesday at the Boardman River Nature Center. The survey can be completed at the meetings or online at www.theboardman.org.

Results of the community survey will be discussed at the BRDC meeting on Oct. 28, Sroonian said.

Call (231) 995-2617 for more information


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Boardman River - Hydroelectric proponents want seats in group

http://www.record-eagle.com/local/local_story_297095805.html

10/23/08 By SHERI McWHIRTER [email protected]

TRAVERSE CITY -- Two local men want to be added to a group studying the Boardman River dams system, and both support restoring the structures' hydroelectric capacity.

"I want to find out why the future of the dams has been changed to the fate of the dams," said Norbert Tutlis, of Traverse City, a member of the local Dams Restoration Coalition, residents who support the dams' return to hydroelectric use.

The Boardman group has studied options for several dams on the river and are considering whether to remove, repair or modify the structures. Concerns about dam safety, hydroelectric viability and river restoration have thus far propelled the debate.

Many property owners on upstream pond areas oppose dam removal, and worry about negative impact on property values and the environment. 

Tutlis and businessman Charles Peterson both contend the dams study group is stacked with people who favor dam removal. They want to become part of the decision-making process before the group offers a recommendation to city and county leaders in the coming months.

Existing study group members will vote on the requests at their 6 p.m. meeting Oct. 28 at the county's Civic Center, said group chair Todd Kalish, of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

Tultis and Peterson contend the group hasn't adequately discussed whether the dams could effectively generate electricity. 

"We don't believe there's been fair representation or objective analysis of restoration and re-licensing for hydroelectric power at the dams," said Peterson, of Peterson Machinery Sales.

Peterson purchased equipment in Boardman and Sabin dams, the two owned by Grand Traverse County. The others in the study, Union Street and Brown Bridge dams, are owned by Traverse City. Union Street Dam was not used for hydroelectricity and is not being considered for removal.

The group studied options for the dams over the past two years, and about 750 public surveys and results will be presented at next week's meeting.

Kalish said it's not easy to add new members to the study group.

"The Implementation Team was not designed to have representatives from all the user groups. It was designed to have representatives from agencies with multiple jurisdictional authorities," he said.

Members include representatives from: the county, city, Light & Power, DNR, state Department of Environmental Quality, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians and the Michigan Hydro Re-licensing Coalition. 

Grand Traverse County Commissioner Christine Maxbauer believes the hydroelectric option is a valid consideration, even if no proponents sit on the study group.

"I do not believe the deck is stacked," Maxbauer said. "The county board is not going to let any one group push their own agenda. We are going to listen to the public."


----------



## FishFace23

Linda G. said:


> The Jordan has a "state of the art" electrical weir across it at Rogers Bridge to stop sea lamprey migration upstream, but it doesn't stop fish. I am not sure how effective it is on lamprey. Might be interesting to check on it, tho, and see what the USFWS thinks of their latest toy in the lamprey war.


Dont be to sure of that. The PM has an electric barrier and it has impeaded fish migration big time. Hopefully it will be removed around 2010.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Boardman River - Final recommendation on dams due

http://www.record-eagle.com/local/local_story_316093602.html

11/11/08 By SHERI McWHIRTER [email protected]


TRAVERSE CITY -- The public had its say and now a final recommendation is due on what to do with the four dams on the Boardman River.

The Boardman River Dams Committee will meet Wednesday to begin to finalize their recommendation to Traverse City and Grand Traverse County officials on whether to retain, modify or remove Union Street, Sabin, Boardman and Brown Bridge dams. The only structure with a clear consensus among those who participated in a public opinion survey is Union Street Dam, where 72 percent of respondents want it retained.

"I just wish they'd leave them alone," said Shelley Wesley, a kayaker who lives along the river between the Brown Bridge and Boardman dams. "I don't want to see them remove the dams."

She's not alone.

Survey results showed about 57 percent of those who participated want the Brown Bridge Dam retained and repaired, while about 51 percent and 52 percent want the same for the Sabin and Boardman dams, respectively. Additionally, as many as 54 percent believe modification of the three most upstream dams for electric power generation is important, or very important.

About 750 people completed the public opinion survey and 63 percent of those want wildlife habitat preserved and 41 percent want an increase in cold water habitat for fish, said Sandra Sroonian, project coordinator.

"There are many areas that people felt were very important," she said.

Sroonian said there were 278 respondents who said it's important to keep water impoundments for waterfowl, and 117 who said the exact opposite. Another split vote was on the return of the river to a more natural state, with 292 who listed that as important and 205 who disagreed.

Costs of each option also will be a factor in decision-making, Sroonian said.

Financial estimates run the gamut: as little as $1 million to retain and repair all four dams and as much as $30 million to modify Union Street dam and completely remove the other three.

There is still time for the public to weigh in as the final recommendation is determined, said Sroonian and Todd Kalish, committee chairman.

Wednesday's meeting at 6 p.m. at the Grand Traverse County Civic Center will involve discussions about the options among groups of the public, before a final recommendation is determined at the Dec. 16 meeting. Then city and county officials will take up the question of what to do with the dams.

"If anybody out there was waiting for the time to get involved when a decision is going to be recommended, now is the time," Kalish said.

Union Street and Brown Bridge dams are owned by the city, while Sabin and Boardman dams belong to the county. Union Street Dam was the only one never used for hydroelectricity and is not being considered for removal.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Fate of Boardman dams still up in the air
Businessman offers to upgrade 3 to use for power generation

http://www.record-eagle.com/local/local_story_320094121.html

11/15/08 BY SHERI MCWHIRTER [email protected]

TRAVERSE CITY -- The long-running community debate over what to do with the Boardman River dams took a new twist when a businessman made a hefty offer to city and county officials.

Charles Peterson of Peterson Machinery Sales will pay for all needed upgrades to three Boardman River dams if they let him operate the structures for hydroelectric power generation, he said this week. It's become another option for locals to consider as they weigh the future of the dams.

"We've had this plan in mind for some time. We knew finances would make a big difference," Peterson said.

The Boardman River Dams Committee for the last several years worked to determine what should be done with four Boardman dams after Traverse City Light & Power abandoned operations at those that generated power. The committee by year's end will recommend to city and county leaders whether to retain, repair or remove the idle dams.

Union Street and Brown Bridge dams are owned by the city, while the Sabin and Boardman dams belong to Grand Traverse County. Union Street Dam was the only one not used for hydroelectricity and is not being considered for removal because it serves as a barrier for invasive sea lampreys.

Some want the dams removed to create a more natural river for better recreational opportunities, and an improved cold-water fishery. Others want the dams preserved with the impoundments they create to serve as waterfowl habitat and residential waterfronts. Additionally, more than half the respondents in a recent public opinion survey suggested hydroelectric power generation should be explored if feasible.

Now it's a matter of compromise, Peterson said.

"We realize you can't please all the people all the time," he said.

Peterson runs a machinery restoration company based in Arizona that has a local office in Northport. He sent letters of intent to local officials with his offer, including possible revenue sharing with local governments of up to 35 percent of the revenues generated by the structures.

"We believe our proposal is so good financially to them," Peterson said.

Peterson believes he can restore the dams for hydroelectric use and complete the re-licensing process with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for about $2.5 million. Previous estimates put the cost somewhere between $9.7 and $17.2 million, said project consultant Don Tilton of Environmental Consulting and Technology, Inc.

Peterson said much of the re-licensing work was already done by the BRDC, money can be saved in spillway construction with local contractors and expensive fish passages won't be required. All of that would save millions, he said.

As demand for renewable energy grows through new state mandates for energy providers, it's a profitable proposition, Peterson said.

Dennis Aloia, county administrator, said he's interested in the concept but it will take more than a simple offer. County officials will decide what to do with Sabin and Boardman dams after the BRDC makes a recommendation next month. Parties that want a return to hydroelectric generation will have to submit a proposal for the work.

But an offer to pay the entire tab is enticing, he said.

"That's always been our goal. If the county is involved with hydroelectric power generation, it has to be the best cost alternative for taxpayers," Aloia said.

Traverse City Mayor Michael Estes is more skeptical.

Light & Power bailed out of the dams because they weren't profitable enough due to old equipment and slow water flow. Plus, recreational opportunities created by the dams' removal could prove valuable to the region, he said.

"At this point, I'm not personally interested and I hope the city and county commissions will both move to remove as many dams as possible because I think the recreational opportunities far outweigh anything we could do with hydroelectric power generation," Estes said.

He's not alone in his opinion.

"Dams cause problems to the resource and the environment. They fragment the river and create water quality problems," said Jim Schramm, a BRDC member. "When feasible, it's always best to remove the dams. The Boardman River has tremendous possibilities as a cold water fishery."

A potential compromise could include removal of Brown Bridge Dam and the return of hydroelectric generation at Sabin and Boardman dams, Schramm said.

Meanwhile, the committee will issue a draft statement by the end of next week with a tentative recommendation for public comments. A final recommendation will be issued Dec. 16, said chairman Todd Kalish.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Two Boardman dams could get the ax
Sabin, Brown Bridge facilities should be removed, according to committee

http://www.record-eagle.com/local/local_story_348093621.html

12/13/08 By SHERI MCWHIRTER [email protected]

TRAVERSE CITY -- Two of four dams on the Boardman River in Grand Traverse County could be removed, if area officials follow a recommendation from those who studied the structures the last several years.

The Boardman River Dams Committee looked at various options for the Union Street, Sabin, Boardman and Brown Bridge dams and next week will finalize a recommendation to Traverse City and Grand Traverse County officials, the ultimate decision-makers. 

The draft recommendation is to remove Sabin and Brown Bridge dams and modify Union Street and Boardman dams.

The final suggestion won't be met with universal approval, officials said.

"Not everyone will be happy with the recommendation. That's not a reality," said Sandra Sroonian, project coordinator.

Union Street and Brown Bridge dams are owned by the city, while Sabin and Boardman belong to Grand Traverse County. Union Street Dam was the only one never used to generate hydroelectricity and is not being considered for removal because it serves as a barrier for invasive sea lampreys.

The committee reviewed options to repair, modify or remove the dams and considered impacts to wildlife habitat, cold-water fish, water impoundments, property owner rights, recreational opportunities and costs to taxpayers, among other issues.

Also, an extensive public opinion survey was completed by about 750 area residents.

Current suggestions call for Union Street Dam to receive a rock ramp passageway to allow kayakers and Great Lakes fish to pass through, with the exception of salmon. Also, Boardman Dam could be modified to allow steelhead to pass and to preserve power generation capacity.

Sabin and Brown Bridge dams should be breached at the earthen embankments and the impoundments replaced by the river, according to the draft recommendation.

A final decision will come when the committee meets at 6 p.m. Tuesday at the Civic Center in Traverse City. But the current recommendation could be changed, based on comment at the meeting, said Todd Kalish, committee chairman.

"But we don't want to extend this process any longer than it's already gone," Kalish said.

The draft recommendation was posted more than a week ago on the committee's Web site and public comments poured in, Sroonian said.

Many want to save Brown Bridge Dam and others say that if only one of the former hydroelectric dams will be retained, they may as well take them all out, she said.

Bruce Carpenter, of Traverse City, lives alongside Boardman Pond and has been a vocal participant in the study, as well as an advocate for the return of hydroelectricity at the dams. He hopes city and county officials make up their own minds and deviate from the recommendation as it stands, he said.

"I haven't talked to one person who lives along the river who doesn't want to see the three dams restored and generating hydroelectricity," Carpenter said.

A joint public meeting between city and county officials may be scheduled in January to collectively review the committee's recommendation on the dams.

Then it's time to look at costs, said both Traverse City Mayor Michael Estes and Dennis Aloia, the county's administrator. 

The current recommendation comes with a total estimated cost of between $5 and $8 million, so grant funding is essential to minimize the burden on taxpayers, the men agreed.

"Hopefully, after the information is presented, we can reach a consensus opinion between the city and county. I do see it now approaching a decision," Estes said.


----------



## the rapids

http://www.record-eagle.com/local/local_story_352095208.html

No consensus on Boardman River dams
Committee fails to agree on recommendation
*By SHERI McWHIRTER
*[email protected]


TRAVERSE CITY -- It's all or nothing for the Boardman River dams.
The Boardman River Dams Committee failed to reach a consensus Tuesday at a sometimes contentious final meeting in a more than two-year-long process. They were charged with making a recommendation to Traverse City and Grand Traverse County officials about what to do with Union Street, Boardman, Sabin and Brown Bridge dams, but they didn't.
And because they didn't, the decision fell to the much smaller BRDC Implementation Team.
The final recommendation to city and county leaders is to either save all four dams or remove all but Union Street Dam.
Committee member Beverly Cuthbert, of East Bay Township, said the multi-year process was ineffective.
"This committee has not worked. The process has not worked and those of us who have been here from the beginning predicted this," she said.
Many came into the committee with their own agendas and there never will be consensus about the dams, Cuthbert said.
Union Street and Brown Bridge dams are owned by the city, while Sabin and Boardman belong to Grand Traverse County. Union Street Dam was the only one never used to generate hydroelectricity and was not considered for removal because it serves as a barrier for invasive sea lampreys.
The BRDC for the last several years worked to determine what should be done with four Boardman River dams after Traverse City Light & Power abandoned operations at those that generated power. The committee reviewed options to repair, modify or remove the dams and considered impacts to wildlife habitat, cold-water fish, water impoundments, property owner rights, recreational opportunities and costs to taxpayers, among other issues.
Some thought the study was a farce from the beginning and stormed out of the Tuesday meeting early on, convinced that the continued use of the hydroelectric dams was never in the committee's purview.
"Without question there was an agenda up front. This was rigged from the very beginning," said Dave Hoyt, of Traverse City, who lives along the river and wants the dams to again generate electricity.
Charles Peterson, who proposes to fund repairs needed to bring Boardman, Sabin and Brown Bridge dams back into hydroelectric use, said the failed process was a violation of the public trust.
"Consensus is the foundation of this process and since we have allowed that to be bypassed, we have neglected our responsibility," he said.
The polarized views range from those who want the dams removed to create a more natural river for better recreational opportunities and an improved cold-water fishery, to those who want the dams preserved with the impoundments they create to serve as waterfowl habitat and residential waterfronts. Additionally, more than half the respondents in a public opinion survey suggested hydroelectric power generation should be explored if feasible.
A joint public meeting between city and county officials is tentatively scheduled for Jan. 26 to collectively review the implementation team's two recommended options for the dams.


----------



## FishFace23

phlyphisher said:


> Okay, here's an honest question for the "trout guys:" where is the scientific evidence that salmon and/or steelhead harm native trout populations?
> 
> I don't mean to sound confrontational, but I've heard this said over the years, yet I've never been able to get my hands on a sound scientific reference that agrees with that statement. It seems like an it-was-better-in-the-old-days kind of argument. If such thing does exist, I'd be very interested in reading it.
> 
> I know that we dedicated fishermen tend to get caught up in our emotions at times, but science has to win over emotion so that the fishery can benefit overall.
> 
> Emotions about fisheries often run quite high, but, in the end, sound management is the answer. And we're very lucky to have guys like Mark and Tom and Todd on board looking out for the good of the fishery.


Good question....I was thinking that myself, any thoughts?


----------



## Hamilton Reef

TCRE letter-to-editor 12/28/08

The ugly and the beautiful

Since I live in Antrim County, I have no standing in the Boardman River controversy.

I simply urge everybody on either side to do the following in the late spring:

Drive to Antrim County and visit the site of Stove Dam and Pond. Note how ugly it is more than 40 years after the dam collapsed.

Then drive to Kalkaska County and visit Rugg Pond. Note the incredible difference in beauty and usefulness when conservation money is available.

Elden J. Johnson, East Jordan


----------



## Chinookhead

FishFace23 said:


> Good question....I was thinking that myself, any thoughts?


Just think about this. Most places where trout are actually native they exist in stream with either trout or salmon in them....streams from California to Alaska and it's the same story in Europe. The trout eat the salmon eggs and eat the flesh of their carcasses. The issue is what impact the anglers fishing them would have on the river and the others invasive species that could make it upriver, which would have to be regulated by means of possible season closures and weirs to stop lampreys etc. If this river was actually open then this would make the native fishes have a chance....maybe even spawning sturgeons etc.


----------



## TC-fisherman

DNR has an ongoing study about steelheads effect on brook trout. I've seen results referenced elsewhere.... and the introduction of steelhead reduced brook trout numbers. They impact browns but i don't think it was as bad as brooks. I think there are some other older studies that showed no harm to browns however.


----------



## Whit1

TC-fisherman said:


> DNR has an ongoing study about steelheads effect on brook trout. I've seen results referenced elsewhere.... and the introduction of steelhead reduced brook trout numbers. They impact browns but i don't think it was as bad as brooks. I think there are some other older studies that showed no harm to browns however.


 
When the removal of the dams on the Boardman was first proposed I did some research and wrote an article which was published in Woods n' Waters News. Below are the parts of the article relevant to steelheads affecting brown trout. It must be kept in mind that the studies were done in smaller creeks rather than rivers.

*From the Article:*

What about steelhead? Do they impact the resident brown and brook trout? A study conducted by fisheries biologists on Hunt and Gilchrist Creeks, seem to indicate the possibility that steelhead will have a negative impact on resident trout. The study&#8217;s objectives are, "To determine if the introduction of steelhead into a stream where they presently do not exist will affect the abundance, survival, growth, or disease status of the resident trout species."

Brown trout spawn in the fall, with late October to mid-November being the primary time for redd building and egg laying. Steelheads spawn in the spring with the prime time being between mid-March and late April. Both species use similar spawning areas in a stream.

As the steelhead prepare their redds, they sweep the bottom with their ample tails, washing away the overburden of sand that covers the desired spawning gravel. This sand washes downstream and settles. A problem may arise due to the fact that the brown trout, after hatching during the winter, (dependant upon water temperature) remain within the gravel of the stream bottom. It is only after a few months that the alevins or small, very immature brown trout swim up out of the gravel to begin their life in the flowing waters. Predicted swim up of the brown trout alevins, determined by water temperature, falls within the time period of prime steelhead spawning. If the gravel in which the brown trout alevins live is covered by sand due to the activity of spawning steelhead, the young browns cannot emerge and they die.


*To quote the report:*

"Introductions of steelhead were associated with significantly lower mean annual survival of age-0 brown trout in the TZ (treatment zone), as compared to the Gilchrist Creek RZ (reference zone). Reduced survival of year classes of YOY (year of the year) brown trout that interacted with steelhead has resulted in significantly lower abundance of age-1 through age-3 brown trout in the TZ (with spawning steelhead), as compared to the same year classes in the Gilchrist Creek RZ. All age groups of brook trout in the TZ were less abundant after steelhead introductions than during the pretreatment period, but brook trout abundance also declined in Gilchrist Creek where there were no steelheads. Mean abundance of YOY brown trout in the TZ did not change significantly, relative to Gilchrist Creek RZ, since steelheads were stocked. No significant changes in growth rates of brown trout were detected following steelhead introductions.


The report goes on, "Steelhead spawning activity in Hunt Creek does not appear to harm brown trout. Abundance of YOY brown trout in the fall of the year they hatch is essentially the same as it was before we began stocking adult steelhead. However, they do not survive as well to age 1 (about 7 inches long in the fall). Lower numbers of age 1 brown trout has lead to lower numbers of age 2 and 3 brown trout. The net result after six years has been fewer larger fish."


At this time it cannot be definitively concluded that spawning steelhead would have a negative impact on resident brown trout if they gained access to the upper Boardman River. The same can be said of salmon. It is possible that the problem with brown trout survival in Hunt Creek is due to their high population density in a small creek, about 400 fish per acre. A larger river, such as the Boardman, would offer more habitats for both species of fish. Hunt Creek is also an exceptional body of water for spawning success of steelhead, and other streams, the Boardman included, might not be able to produce as many young steelheads per water acre. If the carrying capacity of the river is not exceeded with the introduction of spawning steelhead said introduction may have no adverse effect on the resident trout.


----------



## the rapids

it is important to keep in mind the benefits of dam removal for other aquatic organisms than just the sport fishes. many of our state's resident mollusk populations have plummeted in nearly every watershed that is impacted by dams (development also, although the issue of development is not the case with most of the boardman). dams are constructed over the high gradient areas of streams where many of the rarer mussels in our state thrive, and the mussels are smothered in the deep water and sediments that accumulate in the backwaters. in addition to that, the prevention of fish passage that often is caused by dams prevents distribution of mussel larvae, which attach to fish in order to disperse up and down the river. fish ladders are not designed for many of our smaller native fish species, which were traditionally a carrier for mollusk larvae. additionally, backwaters of dams often serve as initial points of access for invasive plant species which then end up compromising the plant communities up and down the river.

overall, dams negatively impact the watersheds they are built upon in many ways, and are a large reason why our aquatic natural heritage is becoming endangered.


----------



## TC-fisherman

The official DNR fisheries position is they want steelhead in the entire river. 

It drives me and a lot of other people crazy that the DNR is pushing this. You will never hear a DNR fishery rep. talk about negative impacts of steelhead. The DNR is advocating a position rather than completely informing the public to make an informed choice. 


The whole dam removal thing is pretty much a cluster at this point.


page 4 of this http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/fish_marine_pdf/fishpasscattck.pdf

has some stuff on steelhead introduction effects.


----------



## the rapids

i wonder if there has ever been a study produced about the effects of sturgeon spawning in areas with steelhead spawning. i dont know that it can be studied in our area, because the remaining sturgeon spawning areas get too warm to support natural reproduction of steelhead anyway.

i hope that the dnr's love of steelhead comes second to the reestablishment of sturgeon populations in some of our waters, especially in places like the boardman where a complete removal of all dams would allow for sturgeon to access much more spawning habitats.


----------



## Splitshot

TC-fisherman said:


> The official DNR fisheries position is they want steelhead in the entire river.
> 
> It drives me and a lot of other people crazy that the DNR is pushing this. You will never hear a DNR fishery rep. talk about negative impacts of steelhead. The DNR is advocating a position rather than completely informing the public to make an informed choice.
> 
> 
> The whole dam removal thing is pretty much a cluster at this point.


And how do you know this? and how does what NY does pertain to the Boardman river?


Besides if you know so much, why don't you completely inform us so we can make an informed choice or is it just easier to whine about it?


----------



## TC-fisherman

Anyone who would like to be informed of the DNR's position can go to http://theboardman.org/ in the meeting archives there are minutes of the dnr fishery Q&A back in May 

also page 7 of thishttp://theboardman.org/d/BRDC_recommendation_comments_1_of_2_12_12_08.pdf

they want fish passage at all dams. 

Of course there are lot of people up here who have been paying attention to this for quite some time and the DNR is open about wanting to do it.

If anyone does not wish to be informed they can continue to act like a know it all.


----------



## TC-fisherman

the rapids said:


> i hope that the dnr's love of steelhead comes second to the reestablishment of sturgeon populations in some of our waters, especially in places like the boardman where a complete removal of all dams would allow for sturgeon to access much more spawning habitats.


That would be great but there is one dam in the lower river at union st that is going to stay. There is a ladder but lampreys can't use it. Al of the feasible cost wise passages that would allow sturgeon at this dam would allow lampreys also


----------



## Splitshot

No TC I wasn't trying to be a blowhard. You made the statement that we were not being informed and I asked you to explain that by giving us the information you say the DNR refuses to give us.

Any link to the DNR site can't be the answer because you said they wouldn't tell us. So it is a simple request.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Officials still need more info on dams

TRAVERSE CITY -- Traverse City and Grand Traverse County leaders heard from Boardman River dam consultants and area citizens about whether or not to keep or remove four of the structures, but some say they need additional information.

"We're not going to study this for another five years and another $1 million ... I felt it was incumbent on the consultants and the implementation team to do more than toss this hot potato to the elected officials," said Chris Bzdok, the city's mayor pro tem.

The dams study involved $1 million in public and private grants to fund the project and now city and county leaders must decide what to do.

http://www.record-eagle.com/local/local_story_027094634.html


----------



## Whit1

Hamilton Reef said:


> Officials still need more info on dams
> 
> TRAVERSE CITY -- Traverse City and Grand Traverse County leaders heard from Boardman River dam consultants and area citizens about whether or not to keep or remove four of the structures, but some say they need additional information.
> 
> "We're not going to study this for another five years and another $1 million ... I felt it was incumbent on the consultants and the implementation team to do more than toss this hot potato to the elected officials," said Chris Bzdok, the city's mayor pro tem.
> 
> The dams study involved $1 million in public and private grants to fund the project and now city and county leaders must decide what to do.
> 
> http://www.record-eagle.com/local/local_story_027094634.html


 
This whole issue is turning into another Grand Traverse Area Can't Make a Decision but Let's Toss Some More Money At It" spider's nest. We've lived up here since '72 and have so many issues like this get dragged on and on and on and on. Examples: 
*The highway* bypass around T.C. which has been desperately needed for years.
*The Meijer *store in Acme...........what a mess that has turned into.
*An effort looking in "traffic calming" *(yes, that's what they called it) issue in which round-a-bouts (New England wheels in some parlance) were being considered.

I'm sure the list can go on and on. It seems to be quite typical for the pols and other powers-that-be up there continue to discuss, debate, study, all the time dumping more money into the "study" ad infinetum 

There's an old saying that applies here, "Crap or get off the pot!"


----------



## Boardman Brookies

Whit1 said:


> "Crap or get off the pot!"


Well said Milt. This is dragging on way to long now.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Milt is correct. Some of the wavering comments are now hedging bets for their own financial futures rather than the river. Steve Largent of the Grand Traverse Conservation District stands to benefit financially from future grant programs if it is river restoration or renewable energy. Largent can afford to waver and milk study money until one side comes out on top then play politics that he helped that side which in turn helps his future staff grant funding with the winners. City Commissioner Barbara Budros and County Commissioner Beth Friend both have their future political financing to consider. The deeper pocket money is with the side that wants the dams to remain. The natural Boardman River itself that has suffered the abuse for hundred years is not a 'human entity' with money that can buy influence, thus mother nature usually loses to the man with the money. The health of the Boardman River watershed will come down to whom the money flows not always what is best for the river. Money talks is the American way.


----------



## Benzie Rover

Hamilton Reef said:


> Milt is correct. Some of the wavering comments are now hedging bets for their own financial futures rather than the river. Steve Largent of the Grand Traverse Conservation District stands to benefit financially from future grant programs if it is river restoration or renewable energy. Largent can afford to waver and milk study money until one side comes out on top then play politics that he helped that side which in turn helps his future staff grant funding with the winners. City Commissioner Barbara Budros and County Commissioner Beth Friend both have their future political financing to consider. The deeper pocket money is with the side that wants the dams to remain. The natural Boardman River itself that has suffered the abuse for hundred years is not a 'human entity' with money that can buy influence, thus mother nature usually loses to the man with the money. The health of the Boardman River watershed will come down to whom the money flows not always what is best for the river. Money talks is the American way.


Hamilton, 

I feel strongly that your comments about Steve and his role in this process are gravely misguided, if not completely false. First of all, neither Steve, nor the District 'stand to benfit financially'. Yes, their mission as a Conservation District will be furthered by managing this resource, but by no means should anyone imply that Steve or the Distrcit stand to gain anyting by lengthy negotiations or taking longer to come to a decision. As you state, he will work on restoration or managment grants for either direction, but because this is his and the districts job, not because he is 'hedging his bets' as you seem to bizarely imply here. The river, whether it is impounded or not, is one of the primary natural resources that the district stewards, so it is pretty obvious and should go with out saying that he is going to continue to work on the river whether the dams are there or not. Any negative statement about Steve or his work on this project completely disrepects the INCREDIBLE amount of work he has personally donated to this project outside of his repsonsibilities of running a conservation district in a year where they moved into an entirely new facitility. Please educate yourself to his role and resposibilities at the distrcit as well as in the dam process before you issue any unsavory comments about his performance. As a member of the Scoping team and regulare BRDC attendee, I can tell you first hand, that your statements simply do not reflect the reality of how the process went or were it goes from here. To even suggest that Steve is 'waivering', 'milking' or 'playing politics' clearly shows you have no idea of who Steve is or what he has done for this process. Steve was one of 3 or 4 people that continually kept meetings on track and moving, he organized and led the landowners meetings which were beyond 'confrontational', and he was a critical in helping the public access and communciate with the private conultants. Again, I take offense your comments and will hope that you apologize to him directly. Also, if you are hedging your personal bets on the financial security of the 'pro-dam' postion, you are again, thankfully, definately misguided there as well. And as for your feelings on the commssioners, again sounds as if you only have half the true info there, but I am not here to defend them or their potential interests. 

Knowing you are such a big proponent of infomation sharing on this website on these and other such important issues I STRONGLY encourage you to more adequantly aquaint yourself with the BRDC process and Steve's role in it, past, present and future) before you comment further on it publicly. Additionally, come get directly involved!! Please! 

Fish on,
Matt


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Yes Steve has done great work on the river, however, he and your scoping team still needs to "Crap or get off the pot!" and take the official stand in favor of the natural river without dams. I had a great day with Steve last October at your beautiful new facility and we took a field trip to a couple of the restoration sites. His fishery/stabilization projects were done much the same as the work on our watersheds. The clear water rapids, new exposed gravel, and dramatic vegetation recovery will make a great educational PPoint presentation for the rest of the state. You'll get your grant funding natural river or dams, so you don't have to worry about conservation district jobs. Keep up the good work......on the natural river.


----------



## SE-R

I agree with Benzie. Steve has worked hard and dedicated a great deal of time to these issues and the river. As far as I can tell he has always put the river's interests before his own.


----------



## TC-fisherman

SE-R said:


> I agree with Benzie. Steve has worked hard and dedicated a great deal of time to these issues and the river. As far as I can tell he has always put the river's interests before his own.


Yes. Which is why I found his comment regarding hydro power so unusual. Maybe the RE took the quote out of context or something else. 

If he is speaking as a rep of GTCD how can an organization that is supposed to be a steward of natural resources be advocating keeping dams on a river???????


----------



## Benzie Rover

The reason Steve and the rest of the Scoping team have given so much time and attention to the potential of retaining hydro power is simply a result of the process itself. Whether you approve or disapprove of an all-inclusive planning effort that works on 'consensus' building to make a decision, that was the method chosen 3 years ago. Probably because it feels good at the start and doesn't offend anyone, but obviously there is not a clear solution to a consensus format when you have two starkly divergent sides, and that is what we had. It is very easy to stand to the side, point fingers at the consultants budgets and say 'how many freaking times do you need to analyze X or Y or discuss A or B', we already know that dams are bad for rivers, just tell us how much it will cost to rip them out and there we go'. 

Unfortunately, that was exactly what the pro-dam crowd screamed was the happening and they jumped up and down and demanded that the 'conspiracy' be stopped, that the 'MAN had a PLAN' and it was all decided by 'those in the know' and that someone had to stand up for the people to stop the government from ruining our river for 'a couple trout'. How dare we just listen to the professionals and what do they know anyway, they are all in it together don't you know!! 

So my friend, it is very hard to just 'give me the facts and get moving' when you have a very vocal group that refused to compromise on any issue and insisted they were not being listened to, despite taking over nearly every meeting with personal agendas and that their opinions and facts were being ignored by this 'rigged system'. In other words, if the process had been pushed any quicker, come to a conclusion any sooner or tried to short cut any of the processes that seemed absurdly repetitive, then it would have played right into the hands of those that wanted to derail it from the start. As painful as it may be, you need to let everyone have an opportunity for input and that takes a painful amount of time, and therein money for the contractors. With that said, anyone involved with the project will tell you that there was an enormous amount of personally dedicated time on this project, none more so than Sandra S, who basically took over as the lead facilitator and put in 30+ hours of 100% volunteer time!! But, she was not alone and there were more than a dozen dedicated people that got WAY more done than would of been done if this was solely run by paid consultants. Any criticisms of the process should truly consider those facts before being given because a heck of a lot of people gave a heck of a lot of their own time to this process and no one would of wanted it to end sooner than them. But unfortunately, sometimes difficult jobs on very complex issues take time and you can't just run around 'crapping and hopping off the pot' or you end up with a lil crap here and a lil crap there and soon, well, you get the picture. 

Despite the consensus format chosen for the process, my biggest complaint of the whole process is actually that very few other fisherman showed up in this process, which was pretty sad to see since as a group we have so much to gain, but we blew it and there were very few of us there solely for the fish, but boy we sure know how to complain about decisions not being made our way very quickly huh?? Honestly if you want better fishing in the Boardman, and who doesnt cause it really is WAY below the quality of what is could be for all species, not just trout or steelies, but all species (walleye, smallies, etc), then come to the remaining meetings, call/email the city and county commissioners and put some momentum back behind the fish! 

Matt


----------



## TC-fisherman

Benzie Rover said:


> The reason Steve and the rest of the Scoping team have given so much time and attention to the potential of retaining hydro power is simply a result of the process itself.


What does that have to do with this?


> On the other side, Steve Largent of the Grand Traverse Conservation District, said he personally wants more answers about renewable energy.
> 
> "You have to look at the hydro options more fully," Largent said.


The process is over. The dam committee made recommendations. It out of their hands and in elected officials hands. 

Now after the whole process t it appears Largent is saying wait pay some more attention to keeping the dams and hydro?

If he is saying that as a private person no problem. But if he is saying that as rep of GTCD than that pretty much runs counter to being a good steward of a natural resource. If he's saying that as member of the dam committee it is a little late now.


----------

