# Dowagiac River Dam Removal: Attn. Niles Residents



## Speyday

Allow me to babble a bit as the snow begins to fly:



Here is a succinct summary of the dam situation; as a few members here have received numerous inquiries.

There is a community information meeting on Feb. 19th at the Niles Public Library; for people wishing to learn the benefits of dam removal. The meeting will also de-bunk the 2 most common myths around flood control and fisheries response. A special guest, a subject-matter-expert, is anticipated to join. There will be free donuts. The donuts will have sprinkles.

There is an official Niles " community-as-a-whole " meetting on Feb. 28th in Niles. The companies proposing the sale of the dam and surrounding land will present, followed by the state representative discussing the option of dam removal and its components. 

The most influential attendees at this meeting by far are residents of Niles. Please inform any that they should attend this once-in-their-lifetime discussion. Of tertiary influence, but influence nonetheless, are are visitors to Niles who bring themselves, their money, friends and family paddling, Kayaking, fishing, shopping and eating and fill up their tanks and go home.. 

6 different Advocates of dam removal have been in the field in the last 2 weeks and interviewed landowners, distributed literature to Niles Residents, corroborated with the DNR, environmental consultants, hydro-electric engineers, et al and conducted extensive research to compile a one-stop shop library of information related to this issue. When possible, each topic has an introductory summary, and the scientific data to support it. 


Want to learn?

There are 2 films regarding the benefits of dam removal. You can receive a FREE copy. We especially encourage Niles Residents or those who know them to spend a bit of time learning this crucial information, and to pass it along to others to increase awareness.

The first short-film covers the dam removal issue pertinent to the risk of flood, the ecology of a watershed, and the impact to the community, and yes, the habitat (biomass and fisheries). It presents case studies of 3 towns, and what stakeholders thought before vs. after a dam removal.

You can view and obtain that copy by clicking:

http://www.americanrivers.org/library/videos/restoring-americas-rivers-dvd.html

The second short film discusses 3 other towns, and what the fears and concerns were before and after a dam removal. It can be viewed by clicking: 

http://www.americanrivers.org/library/videos/taking-a-second-look.html


A group I am associated with has created and will be updating a website that addresses the most common concerns for and against dam removal, including a section addressing the 2 most common myths associated with dams. It also contains information on* how to take action; the most important e*lement.
It can be reviewed by clicking:

http://dowagiacriverkeepers.blogspot.com



In conclusion, I'd like to thank all the people who got me aware of this issue, especially Boozer, The Swinging Fly, HullyScott, AK, Bruce, John, Jay, and others I may have forgotten--who have set me straight, made introductions to get like-minds together, and guided a few of us. We have gone public, and are now associated with National Organizations who have dealt with this issue over and over. They have taken a very careful focus now on the fate of the Dowagiac River and have issued a formal letter of suport endorsing the exploration of dam removal. Individually, although I have spent many, many days living , fishing, hunting, and kicking around Michigan per year; I am an Illinois resident and on paper, can only can do so much.

The rest is up to you. What are you willing to do. All details on how you can make an impact are listed for you.

Its snowing heavily, and there is much that needs to be done. I encourage anyone who can invest a bit of time from their lives to walk the walk. Since this is an outdoors site, the one person who can confirm any questions is Jay Wesley in the Plainwell office of the MDNRE

I've been asked not to respond or continue discussions on this forum; but was chosen because I am the guy with the most posts and was fingered to announce this. 

Thanks,

Ken Crowne


----------



## Boozer

Great work Ken, you have done a great job with the blog and bringing about a wealth of information to properly inform everyone...


----------



## Speyday

Brief story/w up-coming events: 

http://www.nilesstar.com/2011/02/08/get-rid-of-the-dam-thing/




.


----------



## Boozer

I think you found a new calling Ken. You have taken over the reins of this and done more than anyone could have ever expected...

Ken Crowne for President!


----------



## Boozer

Who is this Mr. Lyons?

Overall it was a good article, one thing I didn't like is they allowed this individual to make false statements and then never stated that Trout Unlimited and the Michigan DNR have released statements proving this "enthusiast" wrong.

Not to mention, he is worried about the Trout populations and removal would actually help the resident Trout populations.


----------



## jward

He is a Outdoor writer. He does a weekly coulum for the Dowagiac Daily News. He has generaly been an ok guy to deal with whenever I have bumped into him. Last i knew he was quite active with the dowagiac conservation club. I'm not sure why he figures a dam removal would be so bad.

jward


----------



## Boozer

jward said:


> He is a Outdoor writer. He does a weekly coulum for the Dowagiac Daily News. He has generaly been an ok guy to deal with whenever I have bumped into him. Last i knew he was quite active with the dowagiac conservation club. I'm not sure why he figures a dam removal would be so bad.
> 
> jward


For being an outdoor writer, he sure is mis-informed...


----------



## Speyday

Update:

Another article appearing today on the matter; FYI

http://www.nilesstar.com/2011/02/08/katie-rohman-upcoming-public-meetings-affect-niles-residents/


----------



## TrekJeff

Boozer said:


> For being an outdoor writer, he sure is mis-informed...


 
Maybe driven by external infuluences...pretty sad if that's the case.

I havn't read through the entire write up regarding the MS member posts, so this may have already ben covered. But since the implimentation of "flood control" across the US, the number of flodds have actually increased in finacial cost....go figure.


----------



## Speyday

One of the 3 most common myths about dams is that dams are used for flood-control. 

(The other myths are that trout populations are dessimated by migrating salmonids. The final myth is that all sediment is bad, and should be elminated at any cost.)

To your point, TrekJeff, you are right on in your observation of funds failing against nature:

Of today's dams in the United States, the vast majority are not 
used for flood-control puroposes (source, Army Corps of Engineers)

Dams eliminate the natural function of something called a 'flood plain,' and put the river in an always semi-flooded state. The Pucker street dam raises water levels approximately 5 ft if the dam is in a traditionally operated mode, like what is being proposed if brought back on-line.

When actual rain and runoff do occur, water easily and quickly cam move laterally, (like sideways--into peoples homes or route 51) rather than downstream and across a flood-plain.

Photos and film of dowagiac flooding of property and homes, including the YouTube movie of the near breach on Sept. 08 are available on the site.



.


----------



## Speyday

Another Update:


In a recent article, we heard a contention by the Niles Mayor to try and resurrect the dam because of the 'green power' mandate issued in sb213 by former gov. Granholm in 2008. The Mayor asserts this law must be complied with.

_Citing that article here:_
http://www.nilesstar.com/2011/02/08/get-rid-of-the-dam-thing/ 

(please note: The Mayor does not vote on this issue). 

We have completed research; and gotten 2 separate on-record clarifications of this contention. 
The first is from the legislative affairs/compliance division office of the Michigan Public Service Commission, the regulatory agency that enforces said law.

RESULT:

SB213 section 27 does mandate that a power producer have a portfolio of 10% renewable energy by 2015.

However, this mandate is written for power producers. The power producer for Niles, Michigan is the I&M division of AEP. They are the power producer, and required to comply. 
Secondly, the law applies to power producers who serve 1,000,000 or more residential customers. Even if the City of Niles were producing power with a hydro dam, it would not apply. It buys power. But if it did produce, Niles population is approx. 8,000. So this contention doesn't apply for 2 reasons.

We have gotten a second clarification and statement from AEP division of regulatory/legislative affaird director; adhering to the mandate in SB213 is their responsibility to comply and the city need not comply.

Closing reminder:

_We will be presenting on the benefits of dam removal for people to get properly educated and informed. 
A regional natural resources expert has agreed to make himself available if there are detailed questions that need answering....
The Niles Community Information Presentation is scheduled for 1 pm on Saturday, Feb. 19th in the Niles District Library Community Room. 
There will be free donuts._(The donuts will have sprinkles).


----------



## Hullyscott

Hola

Looking forward to the meeting on saturday. After the meeting is over, anyone up for grabbing a beer and/or food at the Nugget in downtown Niles? I've included a link to the bar below.

Looking forward to putting faces to names,

Hullyscott

http://www.restaurantdb.net/restaurant/golden-nuggett-restaurant-niles


----------



## Speyday

You bet I'm up for that; sounds great. Bring your stuff , it will be a saturday with great weather. Nuff said.


----------



## Boozer

Great weather and blown out rivers...

Joe was MUD yesterday once you got below the first creek mouth below Berrien, those little creeks were spewing gel like flows into the Joe like they were being shot out of a cannon...


----------



## Hullyscott

Speyday said:


> You bet I'm up for that; sounds great. Bring your stuff , it will be a saturday with great weather. Nuff said.


By stuff, do you mean fishing gear? I'm down for floating the Dowg after a beer or three. I've got my Native Ultimate yak on top of my 4Runner right now!! Bonus is this is the weekend of my winter break, so I'll be able to float it monday and tuesday with hopefully very few other people on the river :lol: Couldn't have timed it better with the warm up. Wish we could have gotten a couple more days though, but I'll take it!!

Hully


----------



## Boozer

Hullyscott said:


> By stuff, do you mean fishing gear? I'm down for floating the Dowg after a beer or three. I've got my Native Ultimate yak on top of my 4Runner right now!! Bonus is this is the weekend of my winter break, so I'll be able to float it monday and tuesday with hopefully very few other people on the river :lol: Couldn't have timed it better with the warm up. Wish we could have gotten a couple more days though, but I'll take it!!
> 
> Hully


Bring your whitewater gear, you see how much the flows jumped on her overnight?


----------



## Hullyscott

Boozer said:


> Bring your whitewater gear, you see how much the flows jumped on her overnight?


Is it just a mess? If that's the case, maybe I'll just go above the dam and try for some browns instead.

Hully


----------



## Speyday

No, I didn't see the graph, but yesterday I got in it and waded ok. It must have really jumped in the last 12 hours.

Whoa! just saw the graph. Looks like I got my tootsies outa there just in time. Umm. Nevermind!


----------



## Boozer

Yeah, my buddies who fished the Joe with me yesterday afternoon fished the D in the morning, said it was perfect, then last night both the D and Joe JUMPED way up in flow.

Joe was really nice yesterday above the two Love Creeks, once you got below them, was outright MUD, Farmers, Lemon and a seasonal creek were launching gel like mud half way out into the Joe just turning it into outright crap below...

I see Lake Chapin broke up and de-iced itself last night, may have ice issues below Berrien today...


----------



## Jay Anglin

I was on the river the past two days all day yesterday it was fishable. You couldn't ask for a better melt...metered out slowly enough to avoid the massive blow out. Rain would've been a nightmare. I finally blew out last night and it won't be doable for another day or two at the soonest I'd say depending on when it levels off. But I was encouraged by the turbidity level thus far. 

That said, I was not encouraged by the number of fish. Better hope and pray that the lower Joe and the lake will bring gifts of chrome soon or this will be a weak spring. 

I have had three separate residents go out of their way to approach me on the river to discuss the dam. If nothing else they are actually paying attention which is impressive. The general consensus from the people I spoke with is that the energy option is preferable at this time but nobody was adamant or up in arms about anything.


----------



## Speyday

Armchair quarterbacks at the top of their game. I don't have a strong feel for you backing your position, but you seem to be able to dictate orders and deliver insight in arrears. Anyone can do that.

Speydude, we didn't plan to change the world, just wanted to say we at least we took a shot with the skills we had and our strong feelings. I'd be sick if this river got dinged in some way and we stood around wondering what happened.

Maybe we wanted wake up a town that votes, but doesn't really have the issue affecting their backyards, as 90% of it is in the township. But all folks could get a public resource radically changed with little to no input. That stuff scares me anywhwere I hear about it.

You want us to get an attorney on retainer? Sure, let me go get some money off my tree. Go get one for us. That way you could help the matter for us instead of doing a web-consult.


----------



## quest32a

Keep this post for information only. If it gets off tangent again I will close it. This is a very useful thread and I don't want to close it.

Speydude, 1st last and only warning. If you are just here to disrupt threads your stay here will be short.


----------



## Speyday

Anyone interested in doing something beyond anonymous internet drivvle?


There is live, in-the-flesh open commentary to the City of Niles invited at tonite's City Council Meeting.

Open Mic is a 15-minute session that gets documented and preceeds the formal written agenda.

The local media will be there to record and report positions on this issue and others.




*Niles firehouse community room: 6 p.m.

*

See you there !!!!





Thanks.


----------



## Speyday

Update:


1. Our group will be obtaining a copy of the forthcoming Niles RFP. It is asking possible buyers to issue a bid and description of what they will do with the dam site. This RFP is expected to be released at the end of May.

2. We are briefing several 501c3 organizations on the situation, with a goal of generating interest from one or several of them thats strong enough to create a Proposal Response to Niles ----offering a purchase, dam removal, and permanent public easment. This is delicate right now, so said organizations need to meet before anything further is revealed publicly.

3. A letter to the editor of the _Niles Daily Star_ admonishes their editorial support for the Kinetic Turbine option presented by Falling Waters, LLC. This letter attempts to clarify mis-prints and incorrect conclusions about some details presented to their readership. We will await to see if its published.

4. Interviews by _Michigan Public Radio_ are being organized to conduct a series of reports with experts to offer perspective on this particular river issue, with a larger theme of americas aging dams and their effects on land ownership, owner liability, and the recreational and environmental impact. Details to follow.

5. Request for help?:
_ One of our volunteers likes to hand out flyers at the end of Sunday mass in Niles at St. Mary's Church. He's out of town this weekend. If anyone is around Niles this Sunday, I can email you the letter to print-off and distribute._ Thanks!

More to follow.


----------



## speydude

Speyday said:


> Update:
> 
> 5. Request for help?:
> _ One of our volunteers likes to hand out flyers at the end of Sunday mass in Niles at St. Mary's Church. He's out of town this weekend. If anyone is around Niles this Sunday, I can email you the letter to print-off and distribute._ Thanks!
> 
> More to follow.


Shoot em my way, coming back from Newaygo Sunday morning


----------



## Speyday

speydude said:


> Shoot em my way, coming back from Newaygo Sunday morning



Your profile says you've elected NOT to receive PMs any longer. We have handed these out in person after mass, and reception has been very good with most people giving us a 10-second pitch as we hand them a sheet. Since I don't have a name or e-mail for you, I have pasted the letter below. You will have to center it, reformat it, and make it fit on a 8 1/2 x 11 sheet. Sorry, but thats all I can do.


*Attention Niles Residents Important Information *

* NILES PUCKER STREET DAM: PAST, PRESENT, and FUTURE*

_Recently, the YouTube video entitled Pucker Street Dam surfaced; and has residents asking:_

* Will another flood threaten homes in the area?* *What will happen to property values?*  

* Will electricity cost less if the dam is restored?* *Is arsenic in the river-bottom a health-hazard?*

*Background:*_ The Pucker Street Dam , built in 1928, was used to provide 1%-2% of Niles electrical power when it experienced peak-usage periods. It was not designed to prevent or re-route flood water. After several major structural issues, repairs and attempts over the years to re-generate power, it was finally shut down in 1995. _

_Recent professional studies were conducted on this dam. Results? It has been recommended that it NOT be brought back on line; there is no economic benefit vs. cost of re-building. The rivers safety, water quality, and value to real estate diminishes. Irregular accumulations of sediment fill the upstream section above the dam. Sediment depletion is occurring downstream of the damwhich creates erosion and destruction of the banks and trees. Average water temps are climbing. Dissolve oxygen levels are diminishing. There has been a near failure twice, most recently in Sept. 2008. All of these are documented as being caused by the presence of this dam. It has outlived its life-span, but not its impact to the environment._

In 2003, Niles approved a moratorium to remove the dam-- provided that 100% funding is secured at no cost to the city. As of 2007, grants and matching funds *are now available* to thousands of cities with aging dams. The pucker street dam can be removed without cost to Niles Taxpayers. 

Across the U.S., dams have rapidly surpassed their average useful life span of 50 years, and government resource acknowledge this by making grant funds available. Local towns like Watervliet, Jonesville, Wolcott, and Glass Creek have removed or are removing their dams, and reducing risk/liability. Theyre avoiding higher insurance costs, and hope to increase tourism & recreational visitors by restoring rivers to their original character. 

Organizations such as NOAA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, The Nature Conservancy, the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources and the SW Michigan planning commission have been heavily involved with dam removal projects throughout Michigan. The Dowagiac river is of particular interest and value. It has been deemed by the DNR to be: 

_The highest quality water-shed in Southern Michigan.. _

For now. Changes are happening each season that affect the river and its users. Therein lies the opportunity that comes once in our lifetimes ---to restore something unique to Niles area residents. 

*Options:* The plan the city is considering is to rid themselves of the liability by selling it & the land. Current bid is $100,000. After all, its the easiest solution, to be sure. Few, if any, residents realize these proceedings are taking place. 

There are discussions underway by local, state, and National non-for-profit orgainizations, who, if in agreement, will try and go public with a bid to buy , and partner with the city to set up a formal plan for dam removal and river restoration permanent public easement. This has been done previously with much success and virtually zero cost to the dam owner (Niles). The RFP the city is issuing should be released to those parties in late May/Early June.

*Next Steps?* Meanwhile, the city council will need to hear support from YOU that dam removal can be done without cost, and would benefit the city economically, environmentally, and from a flood/risk/insurance standpoint. It could create jobs with stipulations that local contractors be used on the project. A moratorium to remove the dam was issued by Niles in 2003provided there was no cost to the city. Now, that opportunity is her and they need to be reminded by YOU.

If the City delegates a resource (i.e. a project manager) to coordinate getting funding, that position would be paid by dam removal money. Further, many of the above-mentioned organizations assist towns in the dam removal process. The key is that the city needs to be motivated to choose the long-term strategy of dam removal vs. trying to make a quick $100,000 without environmental or tourism consideration.

*Participate:* First, dont take just this letter as gospel! Evaluate for yourself with proper information. 

*Learn the facts:* Visit the web. Watch 2 videos discussing small towns removing dams before and after. Use provided tools to voice your thoughts and take action. Discuss with your community. View the State reports that support this letters claims and recommend removal of the dam, and more recommendations from city-hired consultants done in 2009 that state the dam NOT be brought back on line. 

*Contact the city council:* The Mayor doesnt vote on this. The council does. Tell them..REMOVING THE DAM WOULD: Improve flood control, Increase tourism, Provide Jobs, Reduce insurance liability costs, and improve the quality of the ecosystem within weeks. Please delegate a project manager to get the funds! The contact information for the City administrator, and council members have all been provided for you to  click and send on the web blog site.

Questions? Comments? A site had been created for YOU.
Visit us at*:* *http://dowagiacriverkeepers.blogspot.com*​


----------



## Speyday

Update: 4/29/11


_*Niles Daily Star*_ Prints a Letter to the Editor regarding their support for the kinetic surface water turbine concept for the Pucker Street Dam.


See link below:

http://www.nilesstar.com/2011/04/28/star-editorial-‘irresponsible’/






Thanks!


----------



## speydude

Speyday said:


> Your profile says you've elected NOT to receive PMs any longer. We have handed these out in person after mass, and reception has been very good with most people giving us a 10-second pitch as we hand them a sheet. Since I don't have a name or e-mail for you, I have pasted the letter below. You will have to center it, reformat it, and make it fit on a 8 1/2 x 11 sheet. Sorry, but thats all I can do.
> 
> 
> ​


Left at noon that day, bad timing, did not get to see this, no internet for me in Newaygo. Maybe next time, heading up over Memorial day can drop some off if timing is good.


----------



## Speyday

Update:


In a radical and unexpected move, the City of Niles, in a single meeting, has abandoned its RFP seeking bidders for the dam site. It then voted to restore it to City use through a local contractor who will restore a turbine.

This is big, big, news. I suspect that with all of the changing of position, there are complications arising at every turn. The city was also informed that a consortium of organizations was intending on making a combined bid and proposal for dam removal, and we were to receive a copy of the RFP when it was prepeared. That copy never arrived.


I also suspect that merely fixing the dam's turbine is not THE thing that will bring it up and operational. The latest dam inspection report in 2009 had many many items of concern. Furthermore, there is an issue of re-impounding the site. If that happens, landowners who now took possession of the land after a 5-year "abandoned property" clause will not have to be involved. That would officially involve Niles Township, and the residents along the river-bank who have had so much flooding, basement, and home damage done over the years when the impoundment would laterally flood during heavy rains.

Anyway, here's the article:


http://www.nilesstar.com/2011/05/09/city-moving-ahead-in-pursuit-to-restore-dam


Thanks!


----------



## Boozer

Few questions...

The way I understand it is, they can say they want to do this all they want, but they still have to get the permits to do it, correct?

Also, because this move will be detrimental to the fishery/river, we as anglers can sue the City of Niles, correct?


----------



## Speyday

Well there will certainly be a new and complex process to get a dam running again; since different regs and requirements exist that cant be 'grandfathered' in.

I am currently learning from an insider in Niles gvmt. that there is some mis-information out there on exactly what the RFP is intended for and contains; I am seeking to clarify what is in the above listed article. So I for one, will halt my conculsions and put my battle axe down for a moment.

More to follow......


----------



## Speyday

Update:

The city is simply hiring a firm to prepare the proposal. The article led me to believe otherwise. The proposal costs $2800. The plan to sell the dam is the same. Sorry for the false alarm.


----------



## speydude

Interesting to say the least. If FWLLC buys the land, IMO they will have the right to shut down the access, they could claim it under Homeland security act. Sad to think that possible but in these days and times anything is possible.


----------



## kingfisher2

This whole read is interesting. I am a 4th generation property owner on this river above the dam. I have heard about this dam removal for several years and really wonder if anything will really take place. From what I can remember, years ago the dam removal was suppose to take place and they ran into a snag about who would pay for the silt removal which is needed. I will continue to follow this thread and really appreciate the efforts put in on this.

Thanks!

Marc


----------



## johnny5alive

What happened to your blog?


----------



## woolybug25

johnny5alive said:


> What happened to your blog?


Works fine for me. 


Any updates on this?


----------



## Jay Wesley

Have not heard anything regarding Pucker St. Dam. Last that I heard, the Falling Water LLC was going to make a deal with the City. 

This same outfit Falling Waters LLC commented recently that the Watervliet Dam should not be removed and that they would put in hydro-generators there too.


----------



## quest32a

Jay Wesley said:


> Have not heard anything regarding Pucker St. Dam. Last that I heard, the Falling Water LLC was going to make a deal with the City.
> 
> This same outfit Falling Waters LLC commented recently that the Watervliet Dam should not be removed and that they would put in hydro-generators there too.


Any details on when the watervilet dam is getting pulled?


----------



## Boozer

Jay Wesley said:


> Have not heard anything regarding Pucker St. Dam. Last that I heard, the Falling Water LLC was going to make a deal with the City.
> 
> This same outfit Falling Waters LLC commented recently that the Watervliet Dam should not be removed and that they would put in hydro-generators there too.


Of course they would, they want to cash in on our tax dollars by fooling the city with illusions of grandeur and getting free money from the government to do a job they never will do, in the end, everybody will lose except Falling Water LLC...


----------



## woolybug25

Dudes... let's not just allow the Niles Township Council delegate their duties to the city of Niles. Please, if you care about this river or even if you just care about government (of all sizes) being held responsible for their actions, please take a moment to send an email to the list of council members below (just cut and paste the addresses). If they make this decision, lets at least make sure they know that it is not the decision of the people. 

"terry eull" <[email protected]>; "wskalla" <[email protected]>; "bettyjarndt" <[email protected]>; "bcwilliams" <[email protected]>;"dvanden " [email protected]; 

Here are their phone numbers too, if you are more of a conversationalist. 


* Terry Eull . 
*He can reached at *269-683-4700 (then, press 5-2-1 for his asst. Diane)*

*Bruce Williams.* He can be reached at *269-683-3941.*

*Betty Arndt. * She can be reached at *269-684-3630.*

*William ("Tim") Skalla.* He can be reached at *269-362-3142.*

*Dan VandenHeede*. He can be reached at *269-684-4642*

Do your part, fellas.


----------



## countrybiggen

Hey guys I've been reading what everyone has been saying and I have came to.thus conclusion is that yes something needs to.be done with the damn since its a "ticking time bomb" per say but I'm from born and raised I know some of you guys on her are also. ..... but I can I tell you that I was very ticked off with whom ever put that huge pile of dirt there at the bottom of the best sledding hill in north Niles. Now lets not forget them dumping in all the dirt right there in the river. So it leads me to wonder is it the mayor or is it somebody or council that is in charge of stuff like this in Niles. But what ever they decide to do they need to keep in my the fishing, hunting and the people that live in/ on or around the river. 

Just one more thing guys and gals.why is it that paw paw river dam in Hayes park in waterveilet is all of a suddenly needing dam reconstruction done also. But today while I happened to be up there taking pictures they had a little meeting about it an I thought I would just share my two sense to them and the best comment they had was the fish can swim somewhere else right and had asked me if I was a fish hugger or something. 
But if there something that needs to be done on these rivers and creeks is tree work and its causing a lot of issues for anybody who is trying to do any activities on the these waterways..... since kayaking was the main argument for them to tare down the Hayes park dam. But lets not listen to somebody who's been up and down these waterways several times fishing and tubing and all types of young man stupid things.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## woolybug25

countrybiggen said:


> Hey guys I've been reading what everyone has been saying and I have came to.thus conclusion is that yes something needs to.be done with the damn since its a "ticking time bomb" per say but I'm from born and raised I know some of you guys on her are also. ..... but I can I tell you that I was very ticked off with whom ever put that huge pile of dirt there at the bottom of the best sledding hill in north Niles. Now lets not forget them dumping in all the dirt right there in the river. So it leads me to wonder is it the mayor or is it somebody or council that is in charge of stuff like this in Niles. But what ever they decide to do they need to keep in my the fishing, hunting and the people that live in/ on or around the river.
> 
> Just one more thing guys and gals.why is it that paw paw river dam in Hayes park in waterveilet is all of a suddenly needing dam reconstruction done also. But today while I happened to be up there taking pictures they had a little meeting about it an I thought I would just share my two sense to them and the best comment they had was the fish can swim somewhere else right and had asked me if I was a fish hugger or something.
> But if there something that needs to be done on these rivers and creeks is tree work and its causing a lot of issues for anybody who is trying to do any activities on the these waterways..... since kayaking was the main argument for them to tare down the Hayes park dam. But lets not listen to somebody who's been up and down these waterways several times fishing and tubing and all types of young man stupid things.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Hi Countrybiggen (I dig your screen name, btw), thanks for taking some interest in this. The huge hill of dirt you are talking about is silt from above the dam. This had to be removed for the sake of the river, but there is certianly argument for not just putting it in the parking lot. This silt is a major issue that needs to be dealt with as well. It has already caused significant damage to the lower river and the spawning gravel therein. It's something that will most likely not be addressed if it is sold to Falling Waters. 

For the rest of your questions, I could go into them, but I think you should first visit http://dowagiacriverkeepers.blogspot.com . All of the answers to your questions will be on this site. Furthermore, it gives you a ton of information on why our country is trying to remove dams in general, and how to explain these concepts to other people. 

I encourage you to take this information and do your part (writing letters, making calls, talking to your neighbors) in order to protect this river and the city which you call home. 

Thanks Again.


----------



## countrybiggen

Hey woolybug thanks for the link. I'm going to read up on these issues. It just sucks that I go defend the country I love So much for 5 years and get effed up 3 times and come back home to do some fishing since the medically retired me and find that some panty hose wearing Guy in a suit wants to disrupt nature and mess with a lot of blue collar hard working people. ....Uhm no I don't agree with this buddy
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## countrybiggen

OK well now that I'm officially educated on this issue I can say I'm on the fence with the issue of the dam. 
But first off instead people saying the dam out lived its purpose and everything how about we congratulate they hard working folks or the family's that built such a dam that has lasted so long. We as humans are real quick to point out the negative but we (myself included) as humans need also bring up the good things and tell one another hey damn good job brother or sister thanks for the hard work. 

Now back to the issue at hand if removing this dam will improve water quality and do more good then bad then by all means remove but it cons out weight the pros then its of course font to be a gamble. Where I'm confuse is what exactly part of the damn is contaminating the water at such an increasing amount that its not healthy? 

Can the building alone be removed?
Cause if it can then remove it cause I begin to tell everybody how many times I've been down there with my dad David Hargreaves doing tree work and fishing down there or even cleaning up the area with my boy scout troop 579 out of Niles cause of ignorant teenagers or young and dumb people made a mess and seen them do it the would have the cops called and a hug ordeal.would be made out of it cause we told them to pick up the crap..... mind you I was 12 or so at the time and I knew better. So we also need to get our police department or county boys to do some more patrolling of the areas. If I'm wrong I'll listen folks cause I was raised right and I have manors and respect for elders and others. Thanks for listening while I was on my soap box everybody. I hope everybody is enjoying the weather and their summer God bless
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Boozer

No offense, but I can hardly understand a thing you are saying.

You may want to clear this up Biggen...

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?p=3754511#post3754511

No part of the dam is contaminating water, the dam itself is a safety hazard as it has multiple weak points/stress cracks, the foundation has sank, etc...


----------



## countrybiggen

I read in that link you sent something about contamination and I'm trying to find it now
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Boozer

countrybiggen said:


> I read in that link you sent something about contamination and I'm trying to find it now
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


What you likely read was this:

The stream bed directly above the dam is technically contaminated soil. If the City of Niles was to allow the MDNR to help them get the grants to have the dam removed by the MDNR, the MDNR would take all the necessary steps to ensure that contaminated stream bed was removed and disposed of properly.

IF Falling Waters LLC was to purchase the Dam and in the process of removing the Dam themselves in order to install these turbines which don't exist yet, they did not dispose of the contaminated stream bed properly, it could do tons of damage to not only the Dowagiac river, but everything downstream (St. Joseph River, Lake Michigan, etc...) The cost of that cleanup, well that's the whole point of Falling Waters being an LLC, once the business is out of money, you can't go after the owners, so once again, Niles Township and any other Townships effected would be left to cover the cost of cleanup, not to mention the issues that would arise with the local environment and the species that rely on it to survive.

Bottom line, in a nutshell, the best thing for everyone involved in every way imaginable is to do what the Michigan Department of Natural Resources has requested be done, remove the dam...


----------



## woolybug25

Boozer said:


> What you likely read was this:
> 
> The stream bed directly above the dam is technically contaminated soil. If the City of Niles was to allow the MDNR to help them get the grants to have the dam removed by the MDNR, the MDNR would take all the necessary steps to ensure that contaminated stream bed was removed and disposed of properly.
> 
> IF Falling Waters LLC was to purchase the Dam and in the process of removing the Dam themselves in order to install these turbines which don't exist yet, they did not dispose of the contaminated stream bed properly, it could do tons of damage to not only the Dowagiac river, but everything downstream (St. Joseph River, Lake Michigan, etc...) The cost of that cleanup, well that's the whole point of Falling Waters being an LLC, once the business is out of money, you can't go after the owners, so once again, Niles Township and any other Townships effected would be left to cover the cost of cleanup, not to mention the issues that would arise with the local environment and the species that rely on it to survive.
> 
> Bottom line, in a nutshell, the best thing for everyone involved in every way imaginable is to do what the Michigan Department of Natural Resources has requested be done, remove the dam...


Couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## The Myth

I hope if and when they remove the contaminated soil the just dont pile it up next to the river like they did! kinda of defeating the purpose dont you think. Just my two cents.


----------



## Boozer

The Myth said:


> I hope if and when they remove the contaminated soil the just dont pile it up next to the river like they did! kinda of defeating the purpose dont you think. Just my two cents.


It was never just piled next to the river, it was buried, which was perfectly safe as it's a low level of contamination...


----------



## Jay Wesley

Arsenic is the contaminant. It occurs naturally in some soils in SW Michigan. It was also used in agricultural pesticides back in the day. There is no know source in the watershed for this, so you can't go after a company to get money to clean it up. 

There is basically some exposure thresholds put in place to protect human health. High concentrations become an issue if someone is exposed to the contaminated soil and somehow ingests it. As long as it is covered by clean material, it posses no threat. 

The arsenic has been flowing over the Pucker Street dam for 100's of years based on natural occurences. Most of the high concentrations were probably introduced in the 1940's and 50's when there was little regulations on pesticides. 

The arsenic is attached to clay and silt materials and is not associated with sand.


----------



## speydude

jay,

barring all speculation by the other posters, where do you think this is headed?

i understand falling waters is a start-up company as is the french company that designed the turbines( ford and gm were start-ups once), dont really care about that, but what is the current mind-set of niles, and are the funds still out there, especially after the debt ceiling fiasco. first thing to go is money for public resources.

thnx,


----------



## Jay Wesley

As the posts suggest above, Niles is mostly intersted in selling the dam and making some money on it. Falling Waters has not complete a project to date and does not have any grants to my knowledge. 

So, it make take a few years for that whole thing to go through then a few more years to do any construction. 

Funds to remove dams are available now and will be in the future. Reconnecting river systems and restoring high gradient habitat is a national priority. There are several grants in the Great Lakes Region that put priority on these types of projects.


----------



## speydude

Jay,

is ther a way to add the extra 100k (niles wants for land)to these grants you can appropriate? perhaps the dnr can buy the land from them. that would end all debate and conjecture.

sounds like niles wants to be rid of the problem; they may not care who has the $$ just when the $$ arrives.

good luck


----------



## Jay Wesley

Yes! There are funds to purchase land in Michigan. 

The issue is that the DNR then would not only buy the land, which would be good, but they also buy all the liability of the dam. Sometimes this works in the DNR's and public's favor, sometimes it does not. I just don't think that the fishing license dollars of this state should pay for all of the liability of this structure. I have no problem helping to pay for the removal and then buying the property. 

It is kind of like buying a landfill after the owner profited for years off of taking peoples trash. Now the new owner is left with all the libility. Perhaps a bad example but hopefully you get the point. 

If Niles is willing, I am sure the State would be interested in purchasing the land from the City once the dam is removed. The property could continue to be managed by Niles Township. The City would still get their cash, and the dam would be gone.


----------



## woolybug25

Jay Wesley said:


> Yes! There are funds to purchase land in Michigan.
> 
> The issue is that the DNR then would not only buy the land, which would be good, but they also buy all the liability of the dam. Sometimes this works in the DNR's and public's favor, sometimes it does not. I just don't think that the fishing license dollars of this state should pay for all of the liability of this structure. I have no problem helping to pay for the removal and then buying the property.
> 
> It is kind of like buying a landfill after the owner profited for years off of taking peoples trash. Now the new owner is left with all the libility. Perhaps a bad example but hopefully you get the point.
> 
> If Niles is willing, I am sure the State would be interested in purchasing the land from the City once the dam is removed. The property could continue to be managed by Niles Township. The City would still get their cash, and the dam would be gone.


Hi Jay,

Has this option ever been presented to the council? If so, what were their thoughts on this? Also, is it common for other cities to blatantly ignore suggestions from the DNR as Niles is in this situation? Frankly, I find the city of Niles behavior appalling. 

Thanks,

~Bug


----------



## Jay Wesley

Several options have been discussed with current and past City Managers. Not sure if the proposal to purchase the land ever came up though. 

For whatever reason, propbably because we advised them to establish run of river there, the City does not like to work with the DNR. I would be happy to work with them and try to resolve this trust issue. 

It would not hurt to have anglers and the general public push for these options too.


----------



## speydude

Jay,

i get your point, but it sounds like ( to me anyways) niles wants the 100k, to them that is more important than what happens at pucker st.

if you can get the 100k to buy land why not do it? the dnr can close river until all the grants clear for dam removal (that will defray liability) once cleared they can donate land back to niles school district or even twp. either one would remove the liability from dnr.

i have been following this dam thing for a few years now, and to be honest the people that matter who really have a voice just don't give a rip. i am talking about the residents of niles proper. i am sure some do, but most probably feel they do not want to be told by outsiders what to do and how to do it.

i wish you luck with this, but most likely the guy with the first 100k to the table will win out.

how hard would it be to get the $$$ to buy land then aquire the needed grants to fix this once and for all? can outsiders (non-michigan residents) file for these land grants, or does a state office have to?

i would be willing to help file, just dont know the where and how.


----------



## Boozer

speydude said:


> i am sure some do, but most probably feel they do not want to be told by outsiders what to do and how to do it.


That right there is likely a lot more of the reason this is being handled as it is than any of us would like to admit...


----------



## Jay Wesley

speydude said:


> Jay,
> 
> i get your point, but it sounds like ( to me anyways) niles wants the 100k, to them that is more important than what happens at pucker st.
> 
> if you can get the 100k to buy land why not do it? the dnr can close river until all the grants clear for dam removal (that will defray liability) once cleared they can donate land back to niles school district or even twp. either one would remove the liability from dnr.
> 
> i have been following this dam thing for a few years now, and to be honest the people that matter who really have a voice just don't give a rip. i am talking about the residents of niles proper. i am sure some do, but most probably feel they do not want to be told by outsiders what to do and how to do it.
> 
> i wish you luck with this, but most likely the guy with the first 100k to the table will win out.
> 
> how hard would it be to get the $$$ to buy land then aquire the needed grants to fix this once and for all? can outsiders (non-michigan residents) file for these land grants, or does a state office have to?
> 
> i would be willing to help file, just dont know the where and how.


 
The funds would come from the Natural Resources Trust Fund. It is best if a local unit of government or a large non-profit put in an application. Perhaps Niles Township would be intersted in purchasing the land with grant funds.


----------



## Speyday

There is a national and a regional organization that are attempting to leverage and throw their hats into the ring together... "if" some due diligence and background is provided and gets voted upon. More to follow.


----------



## speydude

ahh an enigma wrapped in a mystery, the outcome should be interesting


----------



## Speyday

You should come to the steelheaders meeting on the 15th.....the details of this mystery have been openly shared there before. 

***Plus, there's some folks who've expressed an interest to meet you! Might be good to get out and put some faces to names. Cmon out !

Ken Crowne


----------



## speydude

Speyday said:


> You should come to the steelheaders meeting on the 15th.....the details of this mystery have been openly shared there before.
> 
> ***Plus, there's some folks who've expressed an interest to meet you! Might be good to get out and put some faces to names. Cmon out !
> 
> Ken Crowne



who? nwis? been there done that... waste of my time, too many meat fishermen for my tastes.

thinly veiled threat wrapped in an invite, hmmmm interesting proposal, but nah you boys aren't worth it. good luck with your dam project.

sounds like the option to buy the dam may work best


----------



## REG

Ken was referring to ISH, not NWIS.


----------



## Boozer

Perhaps this will put a little kink in Niles City Government's thoughts on selling the dam to a company which is nothing but a sham...

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-admin-ignored-warnings-solyndra-222742303.html


----------



## LushLife

ten thousand visits! dam!


----------



## countrybiggen

Well that's a good thing right. .... anybody been doing any fishing on the river or creek? Or has anybody had any luck on these water ways 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Boozer

LushLife said:


> ten thousand visits! dam!


yeah, pretty much the same 100 people visiting multiple times though...


----------



## quest32a

Boozer said:


> yeah, pretty much the same 100 people visiting multiple times though...


Yeah Ive probably clicked on this thread at least 50... maybe more. Ive deleted probably 10 posts different times, in addition to reading it.


----------



## Speyday

Update:


The Dowagiac River Keepers is one of several recipients of a forthcoming Request for Proposal *to be issued October 3rd.* by the Dam owner, the city of Niles.

Other recipients include: private firms and other interests regarding dam purchase, dam re-construction/rennovation/overhaul/repair.

Conference calls will resume once again to arrange for group contributions and participation in this document including an alternate proposal bid involving land purchase as one of 2 desirable options to meet the goal of dam removal and river restoration while limiting indeminification/liability for the possible stake-holders.



More to follow.


----------



## woolybug25

Great news, Speyday. Keep us posted and let us know if there is anything we can do to help.


----------



## Speyday

Yes, there are 2 things that can be done to help.

By far, the most effective thing to happen is:

1. Write the city administrator. Public sentiment and attention from no matter where---is of intense interest to city administrators. 

Bottom Line? Here's what matters to them if you want to write. Unfortunately, its not about "us". Its...."Whats in it for them?"
(in this order of importance)


* Reducing Costs associated with ownership (insurance)

* Eliminating Liability (risk of flood/breach)

* Removing a sediment and toxin problem permanently 
(eliminates $$ for cleanup/inspection/fines/condemnation of landfill)

* Improving Recreational attraction 

(restored rivers draw more tourism, kayakers, families and can spread-out anglers)

* Restores the environment and its inhabitants 
 (higher oxygen, lower avg. temp, improved spawning habitat)


2. Your local club, TU chapter, environmental group, should be made aware of this issue immediately---
and weigh in to vote if they back the notion of dam removal and river restoration. 
If they DO, then the thing to do is write more letters! 
Real, paper letters with a stamp that you can hold in your hand. You Do NOT have to write the mayor !!! (He does not have a vote on these matters).

Ric Huff
Niles City Administrator (as of Oct. 1)
508 E. Main St. 
Niles, MI 49120

You can also submit letters to the editorial department of the Niles Daily Star, attention Katie Rohman. also attention Aaron Mueller. They have been following this issue and make choices on what to publish. If you are inclined to e-mail, the list of Niles Township and Niles City board members is published on the blog below.

You can also attend 'open mic' in the first 15 minutes of the Niles City council meetings at the firehouse
http://www.ci.niles.mi.us/Community/Calendar.htm

So, yes. theres some things people can actually 'do'. 
I encourage action and "do" ing vs. reading and complaining about the state of things.
I am very certain that people who want the dam to remain up are not actually acting to affect change.

More to follow. 


Have a great fall season.

.


----------



## woolybug25

Done, Done and Done. 

I even had some of my buddies send some letters as well.


----------



## REG

http://www.heraldpalladium.com/articles/2011/10/16/local_news/6888911.prt


----------



## woolybug25

Hells Jeah!

One down, one to go. :coolgleam


----------



## Speyday

REG; you beat me to it. THANKS for the above link. in your post earlier. Great Stuff. No coincidence that we are sending copies to the Niles City council for their reading enjoyment !!!

October 13th: 

We have in our hands, a RFP (Request for Proposal) from the city of Niles to offer a solution for what to do with Pucker Street Dam.

It is now also distributed and being combed through by several entities that have been awating its arrival.
Each entity has agreed with Dowagiac River Keepers in principle to contribute a portion of this response.

The goal of the response is to:



Demonstrate that there are entities ready and able to work together as a consortium; to assist Niles in scoping out dam removal. The scoping and study on how to remove it would be done without cost to the city.



Request that the city sell the dam to the consortium for $1.00, but maintain the liability coverage during the removal process.



Demonstrate the consortiums ability to Facilitate the acquistion of grants and endowments available though federal, state, and local entities so that the removal and restoration effort could be completed at no cost to the city



Reveal that local contractors and workers could be enlisted to provide jobs in the area.

Currrently executives from TU, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the EPA, the MDNRE, and the Friend of the St. Joe river have agreed to pool resources to make this analysis, decision, adn execution as easy as possible for the city of Niles.

Ultimately, however, the City and Council must be willing to decide on exploring this option. No matter how much chest-pounding these groups do; it is their dam to sell, restore, or remove.

_Lets keep our fingers crossed that our response on Nov. 18th is a compelling one and gives them pause._

More to Follow,

KC


----------



## REG

Speyday said:


> Ultimately, however, the City and Council must be willing to decide on exploring this option. No matter how much chest-pounding these groups do; it is their dam to sell, restore, or remove.
> 
> _Lets keep our fingers crossed that our response on Nov. 18th is a compelling one and gives them pause._
> 
> More to Follow,
> 
> KC


You said it right there. As you know, but to emphasize the point again, that is why it is important, as much as possible, to partner with the council as opposed to confronting them.


----------



## Speyday

_Preemptive editorial:

So, by past history, we are about 10-12 hours away now from a certain poster to appear who will now get up, share all his wisdom with us and leave---act like he's involved with this; and arm-chair quarterback his way through all this work that other people have done and add some type of negative, non-productive glum comment. 

Save us all the aggravation; because I know you cant resist and its coming. 
Perhaps one day you can associate your various internet monikers as you hop from banned site to banned site with your real name and identity and stand proud in productive activities instead of anonymously lurking and throwing stones._


----------



## Boozer

It's just who he is, don't let it bother you...

You have done a lot of good here Kenny, as have a lot of other people. It's good that there are still people out there willing to give as much or more than they take from our natural resources...


----------



## speydude

woolybug25 said:


> I guess that I am reading that differently than you. He clearly says that removal is an option, but then says that he only got one proposal for getting the dam running again. So I take that as he is talking about his disappointment regarding only having one usable proposal for restoring the dam. I have talked in depth with a lot of people that are involved and can assure you that the proposal was certainly received and that McCauslin has seen it, but either way, it doesn't matter. Because he doesn't actually have a vote on the matter, we are just looking for his support. Which from his public comments, is moving more towards our side than his original stance of restoring the dam. The council's opinion is what will matter. We'll have to wait and see what their opinion is.
> 
> How long ago was this dispute between the DNR and the City Council?



He is basically doing the proto-typical politician waffling BS. 

McCauslin called the lack of proposals disappointing. Among the
citys options, he said, is selling or leasing the dam, which he
 admitted isnt capable of producing much power, or keeping it despite
long-term liability and maintenance concerns. Some, too, have called
for removing it but McCauslin pointed out that carries a high price
tag.


He isn't happy with any scenario were it to cost Niles money or saddle them with any liability which in turn would cost them money. They want it off their plate, that is a given.


Read more at Michigan-Sportsman.com: Dowagiac River Dam Removal: Attn. Niles Residents - Page 11 - The Michigan Sportsman Forums http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=367313&page=11#ixzz1iaXXkmmw​


----------



## speydude

Boozer said:


> The bottom line is Mayor McCauslin and the City of Niles refuse to deal with the Michigan DNR, they have a sour taste in their mouth over an ordeal with a deck or small bridge they wanted to build in their park on the St. Joseph River a couple years ago, apparently the City of Niles feels they got jerked around in regards to the permits. Then you have the last ordeal when they took the dam offline and Niles had to spend money they don't feel they should of had to.
> 
> More than one of the board members has stated their distrust and unwillingness to work with the Michigan DNR based on those two experiences and simply put, no matter what the Michigan DNR tells them, there seems to be nothing that will make them believe the removal will not in the end have all sorts of hidden costs, costs they say, the City of Niles cannot afford.
> 
> You can bet your sweet **** in the City of Niles eye, they are bound and determined to sell this dam to make up for the previous expenses when it was taken offline. Unfortunately for them, it does not appear that anyone is even willing to buy it.
> 
> It's very sad a grudge against an entity is holding a river hostage for all whom enjoy it. Downright childish if you will...


Interesting bit of knowledge, if the DNR did shaft them the trust factor is gone and will not be easily earned. That left a bad taste in their mouths, no wonder this has dragged on. 

IMHO, but this could be at the point where someone with the $$$ and the willingness to take on the liability has to step in and make the dam go bye bye.

Would you happen to know how much it cost Niles to dispose of the tainted soils, and where the price point of 100k on an aging dam came from?

Small town politics can be brutal


----------



## Boozer

speydude said:


> Interesting bit of knowledge, if the DNR did shaft them the trust factor is gone and will not be easily earned. That left a bad taste in their mouths, no wonder this has dragged on.
> 
> IMHO, but this could be at the point where someone with the $$$ and the willingness to take on the liability has to step in and make the dam go bye bye.
> 
> Would you happen to know how much it cost Niles to dispose of the tainted soils, and where the price point of 100k on an aging dam came from?
> 
> Small town politics can be brutal


I was told at one time what the total cost for removing the soil was, but I do not remember right now. I know the MDNR and City of Niles split it 50/50 and I believe it was less than 50K for each entity, but don't quote me on that amount.

I also know there was events leading up to taking the dam offline that upset the City of Niles. For example the MDNR was constantly hounding them in regards to keeping a reasonable flow going below the dam, one minute they would have it a rushing river, the next large sections of gravel would be out of the water. Obviously that was not good for the rivers ecosystem and is why the MDNR was on their case about doing a better job of keeping a more consistant flow.


----------



## Jay Wesley

The cost was $50,000 and was shared 50/50 between City and MDNR. MDNR could have easily had the City pay for 100% but wanted to help because the action to lift the gates was a step in the right direction. 

The sediment took us both by surprise. The city had voted to lift the gates. They just did not want to deal with the cost afterward. Not sure why they have a chip on their shoulder. It always seems easy to blame another group especially the DNR. 

Here is a report that explains what had happened before and after the gates were lifted. 

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/2008-58_301393_7.pdf

We are ready to assist the city to find funds when they are ready. Anyone been to watervliet yet? The city payed nothing for that.


----------



## woolybug25

Thanks Jay. 

What would be involved for Niles to get out from under the dam without cost? Who would apply for grants, how certain can they be that they will get them?, and what types of liability would Niles have to have in order to get the project completed?


----------



## Boozer

woolybug25 said:


> Thanks Jay.
> 
> What would be involved for Niles to get out from under the dam without cost? Who would apply for grants, how certain can they be that they will get them?, and what types of liability would Niles have to have in order to get the project completed?


That has all been covered over and over, read the previous posts on this forum. You will find all that information in really good detail.

Jay even took time out of his personal life to drive down and explain all of that to the City of Niles...

Better yet, since your folks are Niles City Residents, you should call Jay and have him explain everything to you, maybe your folks as residents can make the council listen more. It would be a LOT of typing is why I suggest calling him...


----------



## woolybug25

Boozer said:


> That has all been covered over and over, read the previous posts on this forum. You will find all that information in really good detail.
> 
> Jay even took time out of his personal life to drive down and explain all of that to the City of Niles...
> 
> Better yet, since your folks are Niles City Residents, you should call Jay and have him explain everything to you, maybe your folks as residents can make the council listen more. It would be a LOT of typing is why I suggest calling him...


Good point, I have read all of the explanations and follow the blog, I just haven't heard it directly from the DNR's perspective. A fully written out explanation of his views on it would probably be a pretty time consuming venture for him. 

Jay - Let me know when you have a free moment, I would love to discuss this situation and get the DNR's viewpoint on all of the matters. I also am always trying to find ways to get more involved with this.


----------



## Jay Wesley

Give me a call 269-685-6851 Ext. 117. 

Will be in the office most of the day tomorrow January 6th. 

Basically, as long as the city owns the dam, it is a liability. Once it is removed or they sell it, their liability is gone.

First, there has to be a commitment to remove the dam. The DNR, conservation groups, TU, Steelheads, etc. are not going to spend their time grant writting if there is not a commitment. There are plenty of other communities ready to take their dams out. 

Second, most projects do move forward at little to no out of pocket cost to the dam owner. Now they may have to assist in meetings, help with grants, and perhaps use their staff and equipment in-kind to help create a match for the grants. This is typically how it is done. 

What is amazing is that people forget that the City has held this river hostage for 100 years and was profiting from the dam. Now that it has outlasted its value or purpose, they want to walk away at no charge. This is one of the reasons that hydro-power is not free power. Anyway, with some in-kind labor, they should be able to cover their match costs.


----------



## REG

As an outsider looking in, seems to me that if some Watervliet officials could possibly dialog with some of the Niles council members to share their experience, perhaps that might gain some traction to break up with logjam and move things along.


----------



## Boozer

REG said:


> As an outsider looking in, seems to me that if some Watervliet officials could possibly dialog with some of the Niles council members to share their experience, perhaps that might gain some traction to break up with logjam and move things along.


I believe Ken tried to make that happen at one time, not sure if he had any luck...


----------



## speydude

REG said:


> As an outsider looking in .


That right there says it all, sadly no insiders (Niles residents) have championed this. Small towns do not like outsiders meddling in their affairs, unless the outsider brings in a truck full of money......

If they (Niles) wait long enough Mother Nature may just take care of this for them. That in itself could endanger life and limb for any hapless soul caught in the results of that. I for one won't fish that area after any major weather events.....


----------



## Speyday

Just a quick update here:

There's been some correspondence back and forth with a few Niles officials; they seem to be willing to listen to the explanation that people and organizations are ready and willing to help them organize an inquiry into a funded dam removal project. they recently received letters of support and endorsement stating this from the chairman of TU, the Friends fo the St. Joe River, The SouthWest Michigan Planning Commission, the US ACOE and American rivers. A sincere thanks from our group of supporters from these great organizatons.

We understand Niles repeatedly mentioning to the media that some supporters of dam removal are from out of state and not residents of Niles. Hmmmm.

*BREAKING NEWS:* In an ironic twist, the company that is proposing the magic, never-before used and imaginary turbine is ALSO from ----are you ready for this-----Out of State. 

EGAD !!

In an astonishing coincidence---- all the contractors and former interested parties who proposed or considered buying the dam or think about fixing it (and subsequently ran from it).....well guess what.... THEY ALSO weren't from NILES either. Film at 11.

I think Niles should have a really big bake sale with cakes made by Niles residents. Only people living in Niles can participate and eat them. 

Then, they can take the money and then get a team of only Niles residents who googled "engineering" to go and fix the dam using equipment and labor only from NILES, and generate power for between 80-90 homes.....just for Niles. A town that has 11,000 people and 5,600 housing units. 

(But thats only if the get the maximum 250 kw output. that can only happen via re-impounding. then, they must now get permission to re-acquire the property on either side of its banks; as it has reverted back to abandoned land after 5 yrs of non-use. It is no longer property of Niles, according the circuit courts in northern MI.

Somehow the phrase "eating dollars and pooping nickels" comes to mind, but thats just me.

http://www.nilesstar.com/2012/01/03/pucker-st-dams-future-unresolved/


.


----------



## woolybug25

Good stuff, Speyday! 

What are the next steps the city is planning to take? By that, I mean do they plan on putting it to a vote once the inquiry is completed?


----------



## Boozer

woolybug25 said:


> Good stuff, Speyday!
> 
> What are the next steps the city is planning to take? By that, I mean do they plan on putting it to a vote once the inquiry is completed?


To me common sense would say.

Have your folks whom are Niles City Residents call their local Government officials and ask.

Nothing quite like the people who can vote them in or out of office showing interest...


----------



## Speyday

Thanks go out to Daryl and the team at ABC affiliate 57 for their coverage.

As the river is now 9 ft and over a foot above flood stage, the dam and adjacent bridge are once again creeking and buckling under the strain.

Niles: Funds are available for dam removal and river rehabilitiation, you just have to let the meetings happen. Listen to your planning comission perhaps?

http://www.abc57.com/news/local/City-unsure-what-to-do-with-Pucker-Street-dam-202749451.html



.


.


----------



## Speyday

We interrupt you chasing mudsharks this fall to let you know that time and pressure can equal results!!!!

Before you read, I'd like to thank Andy S. from Interfluve for giving another presentation that didn't come from a FIP. (Apparently if youre from Oregon its not as many strikes against you)

Also thanks to *Marcy C. from the Southwest Michigan Planning Commission *for working with myself and a few others to be briefed on the research done thus far, and corraborating with USFWS, the MDNRE, and the city of Niles.

And also to Jay Wesley from MDNRE for continued level-headedness and a consistent stance on this matter. 

Bryan Burroughs of Michigan TU for guidance and strategic help, and for allowing our articles on this to be published.

So What changed? A federally funded study on barriers to fish migration on the great lakes tribs fingered the pucker street dam as a number 1 priority to remove. This study was done in part due to a desire for the Pokagon band of First Nations to restore sections of the upper dowagiac that passes through their land. The coincidental relationship between this project and the issue downriver have merged together in the public eye to be seen in a larger view, one that has the watershed as a whole needing attention. Also, a new director of Utilities is in place and he has publicly weighed in that the electric potential of this dam to produce power is, as clamied earlier.....not worth it. And now the city council has had a staff change, and a formerly animate voter to keep the dam is no longer with us. Those issues and YOUR letter writing and support and afew local residents showing up have turned the tide at last.

As expected, the view of the city is that it will NOT pay for the removal. Thats old news. They've been told for a couple years now that funds are available thru grants. 

So what? So now they HAVE allowed someone in govmt. to round the grant info up and give a summary so they can go about the work of getting them. That work to start applying will come to a vote in Sept. and is expected to pass...and that work can begin.

As developments arise, the SWMPC will work to deliver info to the blog site ......so info is accurate and available to all.

GREAT NEWS GREAT NEWS !!!!



http://leaderpub.com/2013/08/27/niles-plans-to-remove-pucker-street-dam/




..




.


----------



## Boozer

Way to watch the papers Ken 

Should have been at the meetings, very informational!

Just an FYI to those who enjoy fishing the lower Dow...

The way Losensky Park is set up, it is owned by the City and leased to the Township...

The Township has stated, the moment the decision is made to remove the dam, they will no longer be taking care of the park, meaning they will lock the gate and nobody can get in... So if you enjoy fishing there, might want to get your fix sooner than later... MDNR claims they will do what they can to stop this though so not all hope is lost.

There is quite a bit of work that needs to be put into the park to bring it up to snuff and the City can revoke the lease at any time the way it is set up, so the Township no longer wants to care for a park they basically know they will lose eventually given the current situation which is understandable...

Short term, this will make it more difficult to enjoy the lower river...

Long term, it will be a great thing for the river and all whom enjoy it!


----------



## Boozer

To Whom It May Concern,

I sit here today, writing this for one reason and one reason only, I put the health of our local environment above all else.

About 2 years ago, I began writing all of you encouraging you to remove the Pucker Street Dam. Upon doing so I also began doing a large amount of research because I wanted to find facts that would back my desire for the dam to be removed...

What I found, did not back my own personal desires like I wanted...

My findings found many many cases showing dam removal was the right option and all things being equal, dam removal is the best thing for the Dowagiac River ecosystem...

You have heard arguments from both sides, you have been bombarded with facts about why dam removal is your best option, I don't disagree with any of that. You have also been bombarded by individuals whom did not want the dam removed, their reasoning, I will go into further detail about that.

1) Many anglers do not want to lose the migratory fish from the lower river, you see, currently the Pucker Street Dam acts as a barrier blocking upstream migration of Summer steelhead, Winter steelhead, Coho Salmon, King Salmon and Lake Run Brown Trout. What most anglers fear "and they are correct with their assumptions" is that once the dam is gone, they will lose the Summer, Fall and Winter steelhead fishery on the Dowagiac River. When the Summer steelhead ascend the Dowagiac River in the Summer, once the dam is gone, they will disappear up into the upper reaches of the system. The odds of an angler catching Summer steelhead on the river will be decreased substantially. Now not only will this effect the Summer fishing, but many of those fish that run during the Summer months, make up the majority of steelhead in the river during the Fall and Winter, so with these fish for all intensive purposes, darn near unreachable, you will greatly decrease the number of angling opportunities in the Fall and Winter as well. This is largely why local anglers and fishing guides oppose the dam removal, not because they disagree dam removal will be good for the river, they know it will be bad for angling opportunities.

2) Another reason you will find local anglers opposing the dam removal is that, they don't want these migratory species getting into the upper river. As these migratory species will in fact displace and bully around many of the smaller resident fish. They will take over the primary holding lies, making it harder for resident species to sustain themselves and therefore, making it harder for anglers who enjoy fishing for those resident species, to chase their preferred quarry. 

3) Something very few people have brought up and is something of perhaps more importance than the other two reasons is pollution. Recent studies have proven migratory Trout & Salmon deposit pollution into the streams they ascend. In some small streams, studies have shown this pollution has made it borderline unsafe to consume the resident species of these streams. I will spare you my own words on this matter and forward you to an article which depicts these issues very well: http://www.michiganrivernews.com/2011/12/great-lakes-salmon-polluting-michigans-stream-fish/

Is this really something we want to risk with our local environment?

The one thing that would solve all these issues is actually pretty simple. The MDNR guarantee once the dam removal is done, a weir be installed at the site of the old dam, ensuring none of the above things can happen. You have the best of both Worlds, the river gains the advantage of the dam being gone and you ensure these migratory species cannot do any harm to the upper river, but those that enjoy fishing for them still have the same ability to do so as they always have. 

Because these migratory fish are not native to our watersheds, they bring an entirely new element into the mix and something we cannot ignore.

At this point, the MDNR does not wish to install a weir... I and many other local residents urge you to ask them to reconsider based on the above criteria.

Send your comments to both Jay Wesley of the MDNR at: [email protected]

Also send your comments to the Niles City Council: http://www.ci.niles.mi.us/ReferencePages/Contact.htm


----------



## hogmansp

Is there anything that was mentioned at the time of the installation of the Dam that in the need of the removal of the Dam what the reclamation would be? I am still digging through to find the picture of it prior to the build that would back what you are proposing. There was a steeped boulder run that was full of brush that I would think would serve as a natural weir. Well thought out write up.


----------



## Boozer

It seems like the sort of thing that everyone involved would get what they want and the safest option. Not to mention the closest thing to making it as if there was never a dam there, just go back to the boulder field it was before they built the dam.


----------



## Boozer

Boozer said:


> It seems like the sort of thing that everyone involved would get what they want and the safest option. Not to mention the closest thing to making it as if there was never a dam there, just go back to the boulder field it was before they built the dam.


I should have added to this, or install a weir...


----------



## Boozer

*I asked Jay Wesley about my above comments, here is his response:*

Hi Kory,

I appreciate the note and hope that we can all continue to have a good conversation about this.

DNR preference is to have an open system where all fish can move up and down as nature intended. Smallmouth bass, walleye, suckers, various minnow and darters can all benefit from a free flowing system along with the salmonids.

I do believe that there is some competition, but I have not seen anything that would scare me too much. We have a lot of high quality fisheries that also have open access for salmon.

The contaminant issue used to come up a lot with bald eagles. Consumers Energy used to really fight hard with this issue. However, I do not think that the data is conclusive. It has been awhile since this issue has come up so there may be some new information out there.

As far as a weir goes, who would own, operate, and maintain it. We tried to maintain one on Brandywine Creek in Niles, but it was tough to maintain and was not 100% at keeping salmon and steelhead out of the system. It also presents an issue with canoes and the need for a portage, which will come at a high cost.

If there is a natural rapid or fall that prevents salmon from migrating, I could live with that. It will be really interesting what the engineers come up with.

Last, most of the funding for these projects come from fish passage dollars. If the project does not pass fish, it will score very low.

Anyway, I would like to continue the open discussion on this. I am just not on board at the moment to replace a structure with another structure.

Jay Wesley

*On a personal note, I do not believe Jay Wesley would ever allow something to be done to our Southwest Michigan rivers which would have a serious negative impact on them. I have for many many years asked him questions and spoke to him and he has never been anything but helpful. It is however good for him to know how we as anglers feel so please make sure to share your thoughts with him. My personal thoughts are it is better to keep the steelhead & Salmon out of the upper river, especially out of the very small tribs of the Dowagiac River, but that is my personal feeling based on the research I have done and I support what is best for the public at large, not just myself. If there was indeed a natural dam in the form of a boulder field at the dam site before the dam was built, it should be restored back to its natural state. The Dowagiac has been changed enough by humans, it's time it gets to go back to the way nature intended it to be.*


----------



## danimalt14

DUDE --WHEN THAT DAM COMES DOWN--THE STEELHEADERS R SCREWED:sad:


----------



## Multispeciestamer

danimalt14 said:


> DUDE --WHEN THAT DAM COMES DOWN--THE STEELHEADERS R SCREWED:sad:


Not if you have knowledge of the upper river.


----------



## Boozer

Multispeciestamer said:


> Not if you have knowledge of the upper river.



Yes & No...

There isn't a lot of steelhead that run that river when you consider the size of the entire system and the main river likely wont hold a large percentage of the fish, it will be the cold small tribs...

Most anglers are upset as they know they will flood into the very small tribs in the Summer and just like a few of the small tribs of the Joe that hold Trout, once the skams come in and take over the primary lies, gets pretty tough to catch the resident fish... You would basically be looking at having steelhead in some of those small tribs, 9 months of the year and that bothers a lot of guys who like fishing for other species...

One of the coolest parts about our watershed is the diversity, by allowing migratory fish to pass up river, you take away some of that diversity...

Because I don't fish those small tribs for resident fish, I looked past that and only had dreams of more steelhead natural reproduction, which would take place, but because none of these species anglers are concerned about are native I now look at two things, the recent studies regarding pollution by migratory species and the angling opportunities of the public at large, a natural weir or a man made weir would address all the issues people had with dam removal...

I would be willing to bet, if it wasn't for the fact it makes it harder to get funding for dam removal by not passing fish, fish passage would not be recommended. The City of Niles swears up and down when the dam was taken off line, the MDNR had stated fish passage was not recommended at that time, it was one of the biggest issues convincing them of removal as they wanted to know why the MDNR stance on that issue flip-flopped...


----------



## Jay Wesley

Boozer said:


> Yes & No...
> 
> There isn't a lot of steelhead that run that river when you consider the size of the entire system and the main river likely wont hold a large percentage of the fish, it will be the cold small tribs...
> 
> Most anglers are upset as they know they will flood into the very small tribs in the Summer and just like a few of the small tribs of the Joe that hold Trout, once the skams come in and take over the primary lies, gets pretty tough to catch the resident fish... You would basically be looking at having steelhead in some of those small tribs, 9 months of the year and that bothers a lot of guys who like fishing for other species...
> 
> One of the coolest parts about our watershed is the diversity, by allowing migratory fish to pass up river, you take away some of that diversity...
> 
> Because I don't fish those small tribs for resident fish, I looked past that and only had dreams of more steelhead natural reproduction, which would take place, but because none of these species anglers are concerned about are native I now look at two things, the recent studies regarding pollution by migratory species and the angling opportunities of the public at large, a natural weir or a man made weir would address all the issues people had with dam removal...
> 
> I would be willing to bet, if it wasn't for the fact it makes it harder to get funding for dam removal by not passing fish, fish passage would not be recommended. The City of Niles swears up and down when the dam was taken off line, the MDNR had stated fish passage was not recommended at that time, it was one of the biggest issues convincing them of removal as they wanted to know why the MDNR stance on that issue flip-flopped...


You have to be careful with who you talk to with the City as the City manager has changed several times in my career. With any hydro-dam, we (DNR) often reserve the right to ask for fish passage. In the case of Pucker Street, it did not make sense to force them to pay for a fish ladder when dam removal would probably cost less. When it went off line, we could all see dam removal in the future.


----------



## Boozer

Jay Wesley said:


> You have to be careful with who you talk to with the City as the City manager has changed several times in my career. With any hydro-dam, we (DNR) often reserve the right to ask for fish passage. In the case of Pucker Street, it did not make sense to force them to pay for a fish ladder when dam removal would probably cost less. When it went off line, we could all see dam removal in the future.


Definitely understand that except multiple City council members swore up and down the exact statement by the MDNR was the migratory fish were not good for the fishery upstream, that is something they absolutely would not let go of and I find it hard to believe somebody at the MDNR did not tell them that at one time based on their reaction to that.

One question Jay, when the plans are made regarding exactly what the old dam site will look like if indeed removal does take place, which it is looking like it will. Will the public have any say over it? Will there be multiple options for what the site will look like? Will what the site was like before, play a major role in how it will be when/if dam is removed?

You have stated if there was a natural dam of sorts there before in the form of a boulder field, that the boulders should still be there under all the sediment and that is the way the site would be reinstated to be like, I did understand that correctly, right?

If there was not a natural dam/weir there and no man-made weir put in place, is there any chance a structure of that sort would ever be built upstream of the old site, say on the local tribes land?


----------



## Dirtybird25

> March 23, 2015
> 
> The Department of Natural Resources recently announced it has approved four Dam Management Grant Program projects totaling $350,000. These projects will help remove obsolete structures or repair functioning dams, resulting in improved fisheries, aquatic resources and public safety.
> 
> The four projects funded this year were:
> 
> The DNR Wildlife Division, which was awarded $102,050 to provide further assistance to fund the Otsego Dam removal project located on the Kalamazoo River (Allegan County).
> 
> The city of Niles, which was awarded $90,750 to provide further assistance to fund the Pucker Street Dam removal project located on the Dowagiac River (Berrien County).
> 
> The DNR Parks and Recreation Division, which was awarded $53,800 to fund the Union Springs Dam removal located in the Porcupine Mountains (Ontonagon County).
> 
> The DNR Fisheries Division, which was awarded $103,400 to fund the Big Creek Impoundment repair project (Crawford County).
> This grant program was designed and launched in late 2012 to support Gov. Rick Snyder's initiative concerning local infrastructure needs, and is funded by General Fund dollars appropriated by the Legislature for this purpose. A committee consisting of DNR and Department of Environmental Quality staff, along with local fisheries biologists and technical experts, reviewed the proposals.
> 
> "Grants awarded this year will enhance aquatic environments and fishing opportunities in Michigan," said Chris Freiburger, coordinator of the DNR's Dam Management Grant Program. "They will also reduce long-term infrastructure costs and improve public safety throughout the state."


http://michigan.gov/som/0,4669,7-192-45414_45416-350611--,00.html

I kept forgetting to post this, I know Steve posted it in another forum, but I thought I would bring it to the attention of those that only frequent the sw river forum.


----------



## Julez81

Dirtybird25 said:


> .... I thought I would bring it to the attention of those that only frequent the sw river forum.


Thank You!

I believe Pucker, Lyons, and Hubbardston (Ionia Co) are on this year's chopping block.

http://michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-58225---,00.html


----------



## johnny5alive

Julez81 said:


> Thank You!
> 
> I believe Pucker, Lyons, and Hubbardston (Ionia Co) are on this year's chopping block.
> 
> http://michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-58225---,00.html


I believe only lyons this year, I think the others are still trying to find full funding.

either way the people who want the fish stopped so they have them to themselves in their "honey holes" they found will start flipping out.


----------



## Boozer

The Pucker Street Dam removal hit a minor road block due to the integrity of the bridge directly upstream of the dam, not sure on specifics, but I know it threw a monkey wrench in there...


----------



## jastharp

Conceptual plan.
http://www.swmpc.org/downloads/puckerposter_0316_final_1.pdf


----------



## cireofmi

Surprised Lyons dam hasn't been removed yet. It is right on the Grand and there is stealhead already going by it with the fish ladder.


----------



## Grizzyaries

Jay, I would hate to see the multiude of common carp get up above pucker street dam. That would be a nightmare!


----------



## Grizzyaries

Jay, I thank you for your answer on the question I had on common carp in the dowagiac river at the resent TU meeting. I was unaware thar there already was carp above the pucker st. dam. As a fisherman I always have concerns with non native exotic fish causing an ecological unbalance with our natural resources. 


Sent from my iPad using Ohub Campfire


----------



## Spin to Win

I just heard that public comments on the removal of this dam should be submitted by today to: 

[email protected]

Maybe somebody more familiar with this project can elaborate, but I for one have already sent a note on my vote to tear this damn dam down!


----------

