# Brown Bridge Dam failure



## Boardman Brookies

Something bad happened there today. Not sure of all the details. My buddy lives right on the river, heading over there right now. Will update later.


----------



## Bucket-Back

National Weather Service issued a Flash Flood Warning for the Boardman river until 5:45 PM Saturday
At 11:35 EDT TC Light & Power said the temp dam at Brown Bridge was in danger of failing


----------



## Boardman Brookies

Im down here right now, looking good.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Boardman Brookies

Here are some pics I took. My buddy lives right at Brown Bridge and it looks like his house will be flooded. River Rd is closed, best not to even venture down there. I wad just at Shumskys and it had finally reached there. I literally sick to my stomach right now. Horrible disaster.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## JimP

Not familiar with that region, best wishes for those residents to be safe and rescue what they can before/if it goes.

Is there going to be a release of silt and mud from behind it like on the Betsie many years ago...is it an area where miles of habitat is in danger during this spawning run and for years to come?


----------



## -Axiom-

jimp said:


> Not familiar with that region, best wishes for those residents to be safe and rescue what they can before/if it goes.
> 
> Is there going to be a release of silt and mud from behind it like on the Betsie many years ago...is it an area where miles of habitat is in danger during this spawning run and for years to come?



This section is above Sabin & Keystone dam so there are no salmon or steelhead here.
There is a lot of rocks and gravel that will probably be adversely affected.
From the pics it looks to be quite high.


----------



## m delp

I have a place just above Shumsky Road. I just returned from watching the river rise at least 3 feet while I was there. (about an hour) When I left, the river was still rising, and may well go five feet over its normal level for this time of year. I will attend the 5:30 press conference at the Boardman River Nature Center. While I am about as far away from an engineer as you can get, I'd say this was an engineering failure somewhere. The property loss seems to be relatively low, yet there has been some serious flooding in at least a couple of houses. Now, I am worried about fish mortality, and the long-term effects of large amounts of silt in the river. A C.O. at Shumsky told me there are fisheries biologists on scene at the dam or what now passes as a dam and I would suspect they would be moving up and down River Road to assess the damage. This can not be good.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

Fish mortality indeed. I was talking with an engineer and approx. 12-20 feet of water was released in just four hours. This was supposed to take 20 days to drawn down. I suspect the middle river will be void of fish for a long time. This is when browns and brookies spawn, not this year.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## kzoofisher

The DNR had a press release today about a new dam removal program which I pasted in the fly fishing forum. There are lots of places where this disaster could be repeated. Best wishes to folks in the area and the wildlife, too.


----------



## Linda G.

I understand that they have now allowed those evacuated to return to their homes, but I would still be pretty leery of all that water. We've had a lot of rain, and the worst of the runoff won't hit the river till tomorrow. 

Something about a hole in a temporary dam...it's never good when they play with dams.


----------



## TVCJohn

I tried to get to Kingsley taking Arbutus Rd. When I went they had the Garfield bridge closed. I had to back peddle to Kingsley via the Ranch Rudolph area via Knight Rd. 

When I was rerouting along the Brown Bridge Quiet Area, there were quite a few cars parked at the overlooks along the quiet area. Not sure if affected property owners or just local gawkers.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

No everyone up there fine. It was people looking at the remnants of Brown Bridge Pond. It basically all gone.


----------



## m delp

I spent the afternoon between Garfield and Beitner, checking bridges and stopped at my place a couple of times. This was surely a deadly blow to the middle river,and who knows how many fish will die and how this will influence future generations of fish. Of course, local politicos have assured us that all is safe, but I will be amazed if someone steps up and claims responsibility for such a poorly managed project. My take on the so-called "news conference"....people who should have known better didn't and we"ll see if they take the heat, or deflect it.


----------



## Flyfisher

Are you guys that are implying fish will die basing this on a heavy sediment load clogging their gills? Otherwise, the pictures don't look much worse than a spring flood. Obviously, this will adversely affect spawning browns in the middle section of the river. Thankfully this wasn't during the summer, where warmer temps would have clearly wiped out a lot of fish.


----------



## m delp

I've seen my share of spring floods, and this was not anywhere near a spring flood. This draw-down was supposed to be accomplished over a period of many days, carefully monitored, and judiciously recorded....but this happened in a matter of hours. It's a mess which could have been avoided.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

My pics are from my iphone and are not the best but the second is looking north on Garfield Rd. The river is normally about 2-3 feet deep here. About an hour after I took that I was told the river was almost to the top of the road deck. That is almost ten foot above the normal river flow. I have seen this river blown out but this was some freak event. 12-20 feet of 80 year old sediment filled pond water escaped in just four hours. I doubt anything will survive that.


----------



## TVCJohn

m delp said:


> I've seen my share of spring floods, and this was not anywhere near a spring flood. This draw-down was supposed to be accomplished over a period of many days, carefully monitored, and judiciously recorded....but this happened in a matter of hours. It's a mess which could have been avoided.


 
In your opinion, how could it have been avoided?

When I was stationed in Oregon, it was normal to get alot of rain and/or spring melt off. It was also normal for the creeks, streams and rivers to get blown out....mud, trees, debris, etc. The fish would always be there afterwards. They seem to be pretty tough creatures.


----------



## m delp

TVCJohn said:


> In your opinion, how could it have been avoided?
> 
> When I was stationed in Oregon, it was normal to get alot of rain and/or spring melt off. It was also normal for the creeks, streams and rivers to get blown out....mud, trees, debris, etc. The fish would always be there afterwards. They seem to be pretty tough creatures.


This is not a normal blow-out. This wasn't a rain incident...How could it have been avoided?.....apparently the engineers who brained-dogged this project missed something. We'll see. Just wondering if you actually went to the river today? It was beyond anything I've seen in many, many years on the Boardman.


----------



## m delp

Boardman Brookies said:


> My pics are from my iphone and are not the best but the second is looking north on Garfield Rd. The river is normally about 2-3 feet deep here. About an hour after I took that I was told the river was almost to the top of the road deck. That is almost ten foot above the normal river flow. I have seen this river blown out but this was some freak event. 12-20 feet of 80 year old sediment filled pond water escaped in just four hours. I doubt anything will survive that.


I was a total mess. A goat rope, to say the least. I know good people who worked on this project and I feel terrible for them and also for the river.


----------



## TVCJohn

m delp said:


> This is not a normal blow-out. This wasn't a rain incident...How could it have been avoided?.....apparently the engineers who brained-dogged this project missed something. We'll see. Just wondering if you actually went to the river today? It was beyond anything I've seen in many, many years on the Boardman.


I'm not a dam removal guy. I too would be curious as to what happened. I'd speculate the engineers took into account the various worse case scenerios that could take place with what they knew. Maybe something unseen let loose?? I guess we'll find out soon enough 

When I tried to get to Kingsley via Garfield and Brown Bridge Rd, the police were redirecting traffic and you couldn't get near the bridge. I didn't bother to take a look anywhere else as I was heading for Wexford county to do a hunt.

When I say (and seen) blow outs, the rivers will crest over and any low spots get covered. I've seen it coming over roads, bridges...just about anything in the waters way. Seen a few mudslides too. The fish still make it thru. Now for the Boardman....I agree we'll need to see how it plays out for the fish....but from my past experience, I think they will do ok. Unless of course someone decides to do something drastic in the other direction and reduces the water level/flow.


----------



## m delp

TVCJohn said:


> I'm not a dam removal guy. I too would be curious as to what happened. I'd speculate the engineers took into account the various worse case scenerios that could take place with what they knew. Maybe something unseen let loose?? I guess we'll find out soon enough
> 
> When I tried to get to Kingsley via Garfield and Brown Bridge Rd, the police were redirecting traffic and you couldn't get near the bridge. I didn't bother to take a look anywhere else as I was heading for Wexford county to do a hunt.
> 
> When I say (and seen) blow outs, the rivers will crest over and any low spots get covered. I've seen it coming over roads, bridges...just about anything in the waters way. Seen a few mudslides too. The fish still make it thru. Now for the Boardman....I agree we'll need to see how it plays out for the fish....but from my past experience, I think they will do ok.



I hope you're right. I know some great river/water people who are working on this project, so I feel terrible for them. I talked my way through a roadblock to get to my place, so wandered around on River Road for an hour or two.


----------



## Linda G.

A hole in their temporary dam, the news said. 

Heartbreaking. If I were a property owner in that area, I'd be livid. I was not in favor of taking the dams down, anyway, especially when they still don't have a plan for stopping invasive species. 

It will be many years, if ever, before that area recovers. The Cedar River up here is still recovering from what happened there in the 60's...and the pond area will be even longer returning to something visually appealing.


----------



## TVCJohn

Today's newspaper article quoted a DEQ person as saying the dam demolition contracter is on the hook for the damages. There were some pretty good aerial shots. I hope the roads/bridges open up soon and folks can get back to normal.


----------



## limpinglogan

> Today's newspaper article quoted a DEQ person as saying the dam demolition contracter is on the hook for the damages. There were some pretty good aerial shots. I hope the roads/bridges open up soon and folks can get back to normal.



I hate to be that guy right now.


----------



## Fishndude

I would hate to be his insurance company. :yikes:


----------



## riverman

http://record-eagle.com/local/x1618663541/Boardman-flood-Heartbreak-relief-questions


----------



## m delp

riverman said:


> http://record-eagle.com/local/x1618663541/Boardman-flood-Heartbreak-relief-questions


The river is a mess, and far exceeds what some people have said is akin to a high water rain event. I lost an 80 foot willow in front of my place....now down and across the river on both sides. The river rose even higher last night, so there is debris everywhere......if you live upstream, your dock and perhaps parts of your house and anything out in the yard near the river are now in the river and headed for Traverse City. Yesterday's "news conferences" were pathetic displays of what happens when local officials think of themselves as politicians. Many questions need to be asked until they are answered. This can not go down like the septage plant went down....dodging and hedging. If you are a local or state official or a private citizen involved in the implementation involved in this engineering debacle you need to step up and take the heat.


----------



## Flyfisher

I clearly underestimated the scope of this when I replied yesterday. The early reports were a 2 foot rise in the water level, which certainly wouldn't be catastrophic. Obviously, it was much worse than that.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

I just was down at Brown Bridge, horrible site, dirty water, sand everywhere, trees down and dead fish in the woods. Very, very depressing.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## toto

The company doing this should be made to use one of those sandsuckers and get all the sand out of the gravel areas, and once thats done, they should pay for a re-stocking program. Those sandsuckers work well, but they are expensive, but so what?


----------



## riverbob

Sorry for the river,the people,n the fish. Gee i wonder what will happen when they start playing with the dams on the grand river.(the longest river in the state)


----------



## Wall I Chasr

It seems that a lot of dam projects fail. Kearsley in Flint & the one in Beaverton come to mind. Makes the job so much easier when you drain them completely ?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Boardman Brookies

Wall I Chasr said:


> It seems that a lot of dam projects fail. Kearsley in Flint & the one in Beaverton come to mind. Makes the job so much easier when you drain them completely ?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Brown Bridge pond was drawn down with the current dam as much as it could possibly be. The dam did not fail, it was dewatering structure that was constructed to further drawn down the pond where the problem occured. Either way it is one big cluster F. 


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## brookie1

We sure can trash our own environment.


----------



## fishinDon

This is the worst part (from the article), fish went from blown out sucking decades of silt to flopping on gravel bars in just a few hours...



> "'Six hours'
> 
> Sometime after 4 p.m., residents like Ed and Mary Flees took their first deep breath in hours as the river began to recede.
> 
> It's wasn't long before their relief again turned to concern. The Boardman's flow suddenly turned to a trickle. Gravel and silt bars sprung from the riverbed, and fish  trout, bass, pike  flopped and gasped on the emergent land.
> 
> "There's a big gravel area right in the middle of river that never existed," Mary Flees said at about 5:45. "There's fish dying. Huge fish. There's lots of fish now. They're out of the water."
> 
> Later, the Flees' hiked to the scene and gaped at what used to be Brown Bridge Pond but suddenly had been reduced to debris and muck bottom.
> 
> "Six hours, boom, it's over with," Mary Flees said.


----------



## sbooy42

What a sad mess... All I keep hearing from people who live along there is how big of a mess it is and how sad it is to see all the dead fish


----------



## riverman

I think it is safe to say a lot of those dead fish were from the pond. With that said, just think about the bass and pike that did survive and what that means to the trout.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

riverman said:


> I think it is safe to say a lot of those dead fish were from the pond. With that said, just think about the bass and pike that did survive and what that means to the trout.


I doubt anything survived that. I witnessed fish dead 50 yards up into the woods. I found chubs, pike, rock bass, small mouth, perch, brookies and browns, some of the browns were very impressive. (25 inch fish) Total waste.


----------



## wartfroggy

riverman said:


> I think it is safe to say a lot of those dead fish were from the pond. With that said, just think about the bass and pike that did survive and what that means to the trout.


 I don't think that a few pike or bass being washed down into trout water means diddly compared to that whole system getting flushed in 4 hrs.


----------



## Tron322

riverbob said:


> Sorry for the river,the people,n the fish. Gee i wonder what will happen when they start playing with the dams on the grand river.(the longest river in the state)


that is too bad, fishing is always tough for me in the middle so i fish the upper sections by kalcutta!!, lots of fish there will start migrating down as soon as a channel is cut thru the old pond behind the dam, I think the fishing will rebound quick, just need some more rains and hope the a lot of the silt settles in the flood plain.

As for the Grand I think the carp, cats, and suckers will do fine, a lot of fish in the tribs too.

I also think that the grand has fairly large floods and situations every 5 to 10 years, the one I can think of is the ice jam a few years back, the fish will be fine, property owners will not.


----------



## itchn2fish

Boardman Brookies said:


> Here are the photos that were included in the email:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is great to see large fish like this.


 WOW, that *is* one Chunky Brownie!!!! He must eat brookies like my son eats hot dogs!!!
I have been following this thread since it started, and I am glad to hear an SEE something encouraging. Thanks for keeping us so well-informed, Shane.


----------



## m delp

Thanks, Shane. Encouraging, for sure, but I'd love to know there are more and that they will remain in the river. Don't know if I'll make the meeting, but will let you know.


yrs,

Mike


----------



## swampbuck

The dam failure was a terrible thing, But it looks like it may have turned out far better than it could have. Excellent report!


----------



## Boardman Brookies

I was not able to attend but here is an overview of the meeting last night:

http://www.upnorthlive.com/news/story.aspx?id=823252


----------



## m delp

Hi Shane,



I had no stomach to listen to 90 minutes of this. My daily trips to the river will tell me what I need to know and I will wait for an independent habitat report commissioned by T.U.

yrs,

Mike


----------



## Boardman Brookies

m delp said:


> Hi Shane,
> 
> 
> 
> I had no stomach to listen to 90 minutes of this. My daily trips to the river will tell me what I need to know and I will wait for an independent habitat report commissioned by T.U.
> 
> yrs,
> 
> Mike


Mike, on second thought I am glad I did not attend. I heard the police were called. The people want to to know "what" happened. I think it really doesn't matter at this point. It happened. Move on. We need to now focus on habit and property recovery effort. If you hear anything please let me know. Thanks!


----------



## Boardman Brookies

The dam is all gone.









Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## TVCJohn

Boardman Brookies said:


> Mike, on second thought I am glad I did not attend. I heard the police were called. *The people want to to know "what" happened. I think it really doesn't matter at this point. It happened. Move on.* We need to now focus on habit and property recovery effort. If you hear anything please let me know. Thanks!


Exactly!! Wasting energy complaining about what happened isn't going to turn back the clock or make the needed repairs.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

This was in the paper yesterday:
*Traverse City Record-Eagle*

_November 11, 2012_ 
*Boardman's health, fish populations examined*

_BY GLENN PUIT_ 
*[email protected]* 
 TRAVERSE CITY - The Boardman River dam removal project was always meant to improve the long-term health of the river.
And, if you go see the river now above the old Brown Bridge Dam, she certainly looks strong.
The river flows through her original path now. She rolls and turns over gravel and sand, through S-shaped embankments lined with tree stumps and woody debris, meandering through brown mud plains and a glorious, tree-lined valley. When the vegetation comes back to hood the mud where the Brown Bridge pond used to be, the Boardman River above the dam appears on track to be a place that would make Walt Whitman proud.
But what about the health of the river below the site of the dam? Was the river forever harmed by the remarkable events of Oct. 6, when a breach during the dam's removal sent the 191-acre Brown Bridge pond cascading into the river?
The results of preliminary tests by scientists so far are at least encouraging.
Todd Kalish of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources said early tests on the river a week after the flooding consisted of both water chemistry evaluations and fish surveys. Results for arsenic, ph, dissolved oxygen and temperatures showed all were at acceptable levels or better.
"Based on the water quality samples, it doesn't appear there was any contamination," Kalish said.
However, tests of the river for cloudiness, or "total suspended solids," showed elevated measures.
"It's basically silt, fine material, within the water," Kalish said.
The cloudiness should dissipate with the wrapping up of the project in mid-December, he said. Work on sand collectors and river banks contribute to the cloudiness, and river systems occasionally see elevated levels of cloudiness due to natural events.
"It (cloudiness) can be elevated every year ... when we have a rain event and spring floods, so fish populations and aquatic populations are accustomed to occasional elevations. They can tolerate occasional elevations of total suspended solids," Kalish said.
Fish surveys on the river below the dam are very preliminary. A survey of about 500 feet of the river near Brown Bridge Road yielded 73 fish of 13 different species. They included 11 brown trout and one brook trout that was eight inches long. Warm-water species recovered included an 18-inch largemouth bass, a northern pike, rock bass and yellow perch. Kalish expects the warm water species to migrate into Boardman Pond.
At Beitner Road, scientists found 37 fish including 28 brown trout, three brook trout, a white sucker and five sculpins. One of the brown trout was 20 inches long.
"It's a good sign that there are still cold water trout species present," Kalish said.
Still, it's way too early to diagnose the health of the river below the dam, Kalish said, since more data needs to be collected first.
Meanwhile, the irony of what happened Oct. 6 is not lost on members of the Boardman River Dams Implementation Team. The removal of the Brown Bridge Dam was, in addition to helping the health of the river, aimed at removing a significant threat to public safety. Yet, in removing the dam, officials created the very threat they were intending to avoid.
Resulting flooding to dozens of homes down river created not only a threat to public safety, but also a public relations nightmare. At a public meeting held by the Implementation Team Thursday night, angry residents with flooded homes voiced frustration over an inability to get insurance reimbursements for all the damage.
Frank Dituri heads the implementation team overseeing the removal of the Brown Bridge Dam and two others down river. When he speaks of the project post breach, it's clear he feels awful about what happened. A cause of what prompted the pond to race past a dewatering structure built into an earthen embankment remains under investigation by state officials.
"The issues we had were very terrible," Dituri said. "We need to learn from it."
Dituri remains optimistic, though, that the long-term benefits of removing the dams will one day be evident to most. 
That's a tough sell for a lot of people given the flooding. Outspoken project critic Bruce Carpenter accused the project of "destroying" the river.
"Don't cut down a cattail but they can destroy 13 miles of the river," Carpenter said at the meeting Thursday night.
Mike Walton, co-owner of Molon Excavating -- the construction company working on the dam removal at the time of the breach -- and Sandra Sroonian, a chief engineer supervising the dam removal for a company called AMEC, expressed similar thoughts to Dituri's. They've worked for years on the project and still believe that the removal of the dams will, in the long haul, benefit the river.
"I feel for the downstream residents," said Walton. "It's frustrating and this is not anything anyone wanted."
When the breach occurred, Walton hopped in an excavator and risked his life, spending seven hours frantically dumping concrete and any other materials he could access into the breach to try and slow the flow of water from the pond into the river. He described the breach as a "sand-eating monster."
He expressed appreciation for his competitors, Elmers and Alpers Excavating, who rushed to the scene with materials and manpower. They had no obligation to do it, but without their help, Walton said, the situation would have been even worse.
"We feared losing the whole embankment," Walton said. "It was a scary time. I thank God for provision because we did have everything we needed (to try and stop the flow of the pond) when we needed it."


----------



## TVCJohn

I sense the reporter is sensationalizing with speculative questions just a bit and Mr. Carpenter's claim the project is "destroying the river" makes him look like a chicken little with the sky falling. It doesn't sound like he has every seen a real blownout river. The surveys do sound good and are consistant with what I have seen out west. There are still some fish there and mother nature will work on the rest. If a little restocking is in order, all the better. I'm thinking some of the fish up river will eventually find their way downstream and vice versa as the project wraps up. I was by the Ranch earlier today and at the Garfield bridge. Everything looked good from what I could see. I think the continued rains will smooth things out some. 

Some of the folks at the meeting must have been reading this thread as the property value question came up.


----------



## m delp

It seems fairly clear, no pun, that we won't know about the continued health of the river for some time and may well have to wait until this summer to begin to see what remains of a HEALTHY fish population. My biggest environmental concern right now is large woody debris which has been displaced and in most case will need to be evaluated and rebuilt. I've often wondered why there has not been a large woody debris program on the Boardman. Other concerns: sand, and building sand traps.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

m delp said:


> I've often wondered why there has not been a large woody debris program on the Boardman. Other concerns: sand, and building sand traps.


The woody debris and undercut banks right down from the dam are gone. I have not floated to see the impact futher down stream. Molon Excavating should be held finacially responsible for the costs of putting in dead trees, sand traps, lunker stuctures as well as the cost to stock fish.


----------



## jatc

Boardman Brookies said:


> The woody debris and undercut banks right down from the dam are gone. I have not floated to see the impact futher down stream. Molon Excavating should be held finacially responsible for the costs of putting in dead trees, sand traps, lunker stuctures as well as the cost to stock fish.



Not necessarily. I'm not familiar with EXACTLY what the cause of the failure was, but unless Molon failed to follow the specifications of the contract, I fail to see how they would be liable here. If in fact it was an oversight on the engineering end, then the Civil Engineer would be at fault and HIS insurance will have to pay for the restoration. It would then be one of those deals where Molon will take the blame in the public's eye, but really they didn't do it, the engineer did.

Now, on the other side if Molon DID cut a corner, then YES they will be held liable and full restoration will come out of their insurance.

I don't know the exact details of the contract and what really caused the failure.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

I checked out the old Brown Bridge Dam site the other day. It is all gone, everything. Since the construction has ended the water is begining to clear up however the is still a lot of sediment.


----------



## steelmo2327

the river will come back on its own it should get back to the way it was in no time.About 5 years should get real good in there.


----------



## Hoytman5

Just saw a picture of the 44" Pike that washed up into someones yard near my place. It's too bad that all happened! Makes we wonder how many more fish like this died. The river is finally starting to clear up behind my house but there is still a ton of washed out trees and debris all along the banks.


----------



## Tron322

Hoytman5 said:


> Just saw a picture of the 44" Pike that washed up into someones yard near my place. It's too bad that all happened! Makes we wonder how many more fish like this died. The river is finally starting to clear up behind my house but there is still a ton of washed out trees and debris all along the banks.


hopefully a lot more, I don't like Master angler size northerns in my trout streams.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

Hoytman, where is your place? The river does look much better is some spots but others just as bad. PM me if you like.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Benzie Rover

Tron322 said:


> hopefully a lot more, I don't like Master angler size northerns in my trout streams.


While I always hate to loose a prize native, you're certainly right that there are few things worse for a recovering trout population than big ole esox, although some of those 5-6lb brown bridge bucketmouths could also make a big impact. But it sounds like the vast majority of the fish kill were pond fish, so actually, that may help some. And I'll add that the Boardman was recovering before the blow out in my mind since it had been so negatively impacted by thermal issues in the section below brown bridge in the past. 

But all in all, we really need some habitat restoration projects in that stretch ASAP. Sand dredging does not really work well in the long run from what I have seen on several sites on the Big South Branch of the PM. And it costs a ton. We could get a lot more bang for the buck with large woody debris work, lunker structures and flow modification from wood and boulder placement to promote scour zones and substrate variability.


----------



## HeatherHettinger

Hi BenzieRover!

Very good points~ and that stuff is in the works now that the project is post dam removal. The sand removal downstream of the former dam site is going to be pretty much limited to removing sediment from the October 6th incident, and sediment management upstream will continue while the channel re-shaping and finish work continues into the spring. Some seeding and re-vegetating in stable areas has already occurred, and more will resume come spring. The Conservation District has been hugely instrumental is obtaining and staging material for instream large woody debris work- some wood has already been used initially to help stabilize certain areas, and once all of the channel shaping is complete it will also be used to create and improved habitat. Its most definitely going to be a long term process as the river continues to cut and find itself, but it is definitely on the radar. I belive that the Implementation Team has tentively planned on dedicating time and money for habitat work from 2013 to 2018-and of course local agencies will continue that component into the future as well.


----------



## TC-fisherman

enjoy the fishing on the middle stretch while you can. I'm no biologist but i'm guessing that you can kiss off good spawning in the main stream for a very long time. Existing trout may have survived but this years and next years class.....  Each year trout numbers are going to get worse. 

There's just so much sand it's crazy.

At first when the dam breached I wasn't too concerned. Now I think its a disaster.


----------



## m delp

I share your concerns. Tough wading in areas which once had gravel bottom. I haven not seen the river bottom clearly since last September.


----------



## Benzie Rover

Heather - Very timely information. Thank you for continuing the updates from the management perspective. They are greatly appreciated. It will be very interesting comparing your first pass #s (wed results) with the preliminary baseline inventory they did in that stretch back about 5-6 years ago.

Question though: Does the DNR or tribe or TU plan to do a follow-up later this summer/early fall to look for 2013 YOY brown trout? If not then hopefully one of the groups will consider it as the data seems very important to making timely decisions for the future of this river. If we just wait, then we have lost a critical look into YOY #s in 2013. 

As many have pointed out, the future reproductive potential is what most folks are concerned about given the super high sand bedload working down the system now. While the current population might be OK, I know the baseline studies already indicated that natural repro has always been less than desired on the entire river below Brown Bridge. If YOY numbers are lower than desired it would seem very logical that TEMPORARY harvest reductions be put in place to allow the population to recover. 

Thank you, and the other groups, again for all your time and efforts on this project.


----------



## HeatherHettinger

Great question Matt- We are planning on doing as much sampling on the Boardman as we can this summer. Based on the way we (Fisheries Division) are funded we are required to plan our lake and stream survey schedule out two years in advance, making it tricky to fit in surveys for unforeseen issues. Now that being said, after this week's survey the next time we get into the Boardman to survey a few more locations will most likely be in the later summer and early fall, so we should have an opportunity to pick up some of those YOY fish. 

It will be pretty interesting comparing what we find this year with what the population estimate came up with during that 2005 survey that you mentioned. I think it will be pretty interesting to see how this one compares to the abundance survey that we did last October as well- 
I will keep you guys posted once I get all of the results worked up


----------



## midwestfisherman

Yoy??


----------



## redneckman

Young of year 

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Benzie Rover

Right on Heather. Again, thank you for the updates. Greatly appreciated.

Matt


----------



## Fishslayer5789

I fished the River Rd stretch last week and we hooked a few trout. We didn't even fish a half hour and landed a 7, 9, & 13 inch brown and lost a few more. I don't know how fast they grow, but the smaller two couldn't have been that old.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

I heard some results of the fish shock yesterday. They found both browns and brookies below BB but no where near the numbers of the prior study. I also heard trout were present in the new river channel. There is some good news I guess.


----------



## Benzie Rover

Fishslayer5789 said:


> I fished the River Rd stretch last week and we hooked a few trout. We didn't even fish a half hour and landed a 7, 9, & 13 inch brown and lost a few more. I don't know how fast they grow, but the smaller two couldn't have been that old.


Right on Slayer, nice fish. It's hard to say with stream trout exactly since growth conditions vary widely depending on stream conditions and year to year environmental/weather variability, but based on some old data from my shocking days in grad school, the 7" was likely a larger 1 year old fish, meaning it was from the fall 2011 spawn, emerged in spring 2012 as a YOY and now just turned 1 yo. But it could very well of been a smaller 2yo. The 9" was likely a 2yo, but could be a stunted 3. The 13 is most likely a decent sized 3yo, but you get the picture, hard to say with out some scale rings to analyze and even that is more art than science. 

Bottomline is none of them will tell us anything about the impact of last fall's sediment plume on natural repro since they are all older than current Young of the Year emerging from last fall's spawn, which are around 1-1.5" right now and some will push 3" by fall. They can be really hard to find with those shockers. They dive in the silt quite often as well since they hang in the back eddies and nearshore. That's why I hope someone gets another look yet this fall. Otherwise stuff like winter mortality starts to play a role and we'd have a lot less clarity in knowing how much the actual impact was due to the breach itself vs. normal short term environmental changes and variablity.


----------



## m delp

The continuing issue is sand. It is coming down the river in much larger quantities than I have ever seen, and you can easily see deposits on banks where, before, there was vegetation. If I had dumped this much sand into the river, the DEQ would have been at my door the next day. I understand the property owners who have filed suit for damages, but perhaps there needs to be a larger action aimed at a remedy for the total damage done to the watershed.


----------



## -Axiom-

m delp said:


> The continuing issue is sand. It is coming down the river in much larger quantities than I have ever seen, and you can easily see deposits on banks where, before, there was vegetation. If I had dumped this much sand into the river, the DEQ would have been at my door the next day. I understand the property owners who have filed suit for damages, but perhaps there needs to be a larger action aimed at a remedy for the total damage done to the watershed.


 People need to understand how important those rocks and gravel were to the river.
That whole section used to be all rocks & gravel with very little sand.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

-Axiom- said:


> People need to understand how important those rocks and gravel were to the river.
> That whole section used to be all rocks & gravel with very little sand.


Spot on Axiom. I have fished from S Boardman and Kalaska down to GT Bay, there is not an inch of the river I have not explored and the middle Boardman was by far the best section of the river. Best gravel, best holes and by far the best numbers of big browns. I makes me sick to my stomach to think about it.


----------



## TC-fisherman

m delp said:


> If I had dumped this much sand into the river, the DEQ would have been at my door the next day. I understand the property owners who have filed suit for damages, but perhaps there needs to be a larger action aimed at a remedy for the total damage done to the watershed.


you are 100% right.

The thing that scares me is that this is political mess. You have the DNR, DEQ, Boardman River Implementation team all involved. Then a legal sideshow fight going on with property owners. 

What needs to be done?
1. acknowledgment that yes indeed thing are royally screwed on the boardman (any person tangentially involved knows that).

2. A timeline of when damage assessments will be made and completed.

3. An statement of possible remediation steps, and a timeline of when they will be considered, implemented, or at least a vague idea of some sort of time frame. 


My guess on how this process plays out DNR says well gee yes indeed it was bad. DEQ says well you violated your permit and destroyed a river. The AG gets involved and there is a negotiated settlement. Remediation will be minimal, a $ amount will be charged that will go to dumping hatchery fish in, and the DEQ, DNR, and AG will issue a press release saying how they are protecting our waters.

Perhaps there is substantial ( or even any) progress being made behind closed doors but i doubt it.

Take a look at the studies on Hunt Creek where they dumped a bunch of sand in the river. *25 years* after it happened, even with remediation, spawning hadn't recovered.

Meanwhile..... back on the Boardman we're waiting til sometime later this year for the DNR to go back to the river and tell us how bad it is


----------



## fishinDon

Hi Heather,

To TC's point, I've also seen the Hunt creek study (sand) and it's amazing how long a sand bed load has continued to show a measurable negative impact on natural reproduction.

To that end, do we know how the sand dumped into the Boardman compares to what happened on the Pigeon a few years back? Also, do we know what, if any, natural reproduction is occurring on the Pigeon now?

Thx,
Don


----------



## the rapids

what you are likely seeing is a sudden impact of sand that would have otherwise traveled downstream over many years, it is well known that dams act as sediment traps and prevent downstream movement of sand/silt.

I think this is a situation where the dam basically prevented downstream movement of sand, and the streambed had more exposed gravel/ rubble as a result. you can see this effect below many dams on northern Michigan streams. it has been well described in any write up on the effects of dams. one negative trade off of a dam is that water coming out of the dam is more erosive because it is not carrying the fine debris. 

to me, the fact that this dam was holding back a ton of sand (mostly as a result of human activities, although some is natural in these dynamic river systems too) was not a good reason to keep the dam in place. thermal pollution, loss of connectivity, etc were far more impactful.

in my opinion, while this may be a sudden impact, it will likely clear out over the next couple of decades. to me this is acceptable, and I hope this does not prevent additional dam removal. we owe it to the watershed and the organisms that call the river home to fully implement the project after negatively and artificially impacting them for nearly a hundred years.


----------



## the rapids

don - 

toward your point and tc-fisherman's point, the sand was already in the river... so was the dam... obviously the brown trout were not spawning in the backwaters of brown bridge dam.

if nothing else, the dam removal reconnected habitat and increased available habitiat, although it came at a cost of impacting habitat that was actually made artificially rockier by the dam.

as I understand it, the former area of brown bridge pond had some of the highest gradients in the river system, therefore it is no surprise that the sand is being carried through that section and deposited into the stretch below where the dam was historically (since it is a lower gradient). however if the gradient of that stretch is adequate and the flows are adequate, that sand will also move through that stretch and ultimately end up in either the backwaters of the remaining ponds or in boardman lake or maybe in GTB.

sand impacting rivers in northern Michigan is always going to be an issue. it is a naturally occurring process which is exacerbated by historic and current land use practices.


----------



## -Axiom-

the rapids said:


> don -
> 
> toward your point and tc-fisherman's point, the sand was already in the river... so was the dam... obviously the brown trout were not spawning in the backwaters of brown bridge dam.
> 
> if nothing else, the dam removal reconnected habitat and increased available habitiat, although it came at a cost of impacting habitat that was actually made artificially rockier by the dam.
> 
> as I understand it, the former area of brown bridge pond had some of the highest gradients in the river system, therefore it is no surprise that the sand is being carried through that section and deposited into the stretch below where the dam was historically (since it is a lower gradient). however if the gradient of that stretch is adequate and the flows are adequate, that sand will also move through that stretch and ultimately end up in either the backwaters of the remaining ponds or in boardman lake or maybe in GTB.
> 
> sand impacting rivers in northern Michigan is always going to be an issue. it is a naturally occurring process which is exacerbated by historic and current land use practices.



This is a build up of 100 yrs worth of sand dumped into the river in a matter of hours.

It's true that sand in trout streams is a problem, it's a problem because it destroys them as trout streams.
Part of removing a dam is dealing the all the sediment so that the sediment doesn't destroy spawning habitat.

I get pissed every time I cross a river rd bridge and see all the sand, EVERYWHERE.
It's depressing to cross the Garfield rd bridge and see that huge pile of sand where before there was none.
Again, it used to be all rocks & gravel.


----------



## jaytothekizzay

The Pigeon is nowhere near as good of a fishery as it was before the first dam failure. Its gotten better, but has a ways to go

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Scout 2

the rapids said:


> don -
> 
> toward your point and tc-fisherman's point, the sand was already in the river... so was the dam... obviously the brown trout were not spawning in the backwaters of brown bridge dam.
> 
> if nothing else, the dam removal reconnected habitat and increased available habitiat, although it came at a cost of impacting habitat that was actually made artificially rockier by the dam.
> 
> as I understand it, the former area of brown bridge pond had some of the highest gradients in the river system, therefore it is no surprise that the sand is being carried through that section and deposited into the stretch below where the dam was historically (since it is a lower gradient). however if the gradient of that stretch is adequate and the flows are adequate, that sand will also move through that stretch and ultimately end up in either the backwaters of the remaining ponds or in boardman lake or maybe in GTB.
> 
> sand impacting rivers in northern Michigan is always going to be an issue. it is a naturally occurring process which is exacerbated by historic and current land use practices.


SO what you are saying is it will be alright no one did anything wrong to screw up this beautiful steam, plus the homes along it. I have never fished it but I travel over it a lot and I can tell you the water use to sparkle and have a shine to it. Now it looks like a dull section of water that has been damaged for who know how long. It is time that someone needs to protect what areas of the river we have left that are producing fish on their own. If it involves leaving a dam in place to do that than so be it. Time that people stop trying to pretend to be mother nature.


----------

