Dam Reconnaissance Study In The Muskegon Watershed

Muskegon River Watershed Assembly

September 2010

2070782G

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 1

I. PURPOSE ............................................................................................................ 2

II. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 3

III. DATA SETS .......................................................................................................... 4

IV. OTHER DAM INFORMATION ............................................................................ 4

V. DATA DISCUSSION ............................................................................................ 7

VI. GIS MAPS ......................................................................................................... 11

VII. DATA ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 11

VIII. CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................... 16

BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................ 16

Appendices Appendix 1: MDNRE Fisheries Division’s “Opportunity” List .......................................................... 18 Appendix 2: GIS Maps ........................................................................................................................ 19 Appendix 3: Dams Data Matrix ........................................................................................................... 20

Photographs ........................................................................................................... 21

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY With nearly 100 dams remaining in the Muskegon River Watershed, and two very successful dam

removal projects since 2000, there exists an opportunity for the MRWA to build upon prior dam

removal successes by identifying other candidate dams for removal. Dam removal is considered by

fisheries biologists as perhaps the #1-payoff activity that can be taken within a watershed to improve

water quality and ecological habitat.

Because of both federal and state initiatives to elevate the discussion of both the benefits of dam

removal coupled with the crisis of recognizing the long-term financial and environmental impacts of

aging dams, this is an opportune time to develop a decision-support system whereby candidate dams

for removal can be identified well in advance, so that when funding opportunities arise, there are dam

removal projects ready to go. In Michigan, the recently-released Michigan River Partnership report1,

“The Growing Crisis of Aging Dams: Policy Considerations” identifies funding as a critical missing

element in efforts to rehabilitate or remove dams.

In this report, a series of interrelations of available dam data and river segment data was combined

and studied. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology was used to combine data sets in a

way that would help identify which dams within the Muskegon River Watershed would be the most

easily removed when funds become available. Dams data studied includes ownership, condition,

cost of removal, benefit of removal, stream section quality, known or expected opposition to removal

and other factors to develop a list of potential removal candidates. The 15 dams listed in Table 1

have been ranked as those most favorable for removal, at minimal cost and with minimal public and

private opposition based on available information. The MRWA should contact these dam owners to

pursue/continue discussions on dam removal options.

2

Table 1 Highest 15 Ranked Dam Removal Candidates

DAM NAME COUNTY Miller (Nartron) Dam Osceola Ebels Dam Mecosta Acker Dam Mecosta Old Fur Farm Dam Clare Marion Dam Osceola Kelinski Dam Missaukee Buckhorn Creek Dam Mecosta Wraco Lodge Dam Roscommon Vomastek Dam Missaukee Winterfield Conservation Club Dam Clare Barton Road Dam Newaygo Townline Creek Flooding Dam Clare Houghton Lake Flats South Unit Dam Roscommon Johnson Dam #2 Newaygo Tamarack Creek Dam Montcalm

I. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to develop a list of likely candidate dams for removal within the

Muskegon River Watershed. The list is prioritized based upon cost, habitat benefit, support for

removal, and the opportunity for expeditious removal. This information will help the

Muskegon River Watershed Assembly (MRWA) effectively use its resources to target the

removal of those listed dams as funds become available and owner willingness is confirmed.

The ultimate objective of this study is to help the MRWA raise the level of the public’s

consciousness of the benefits of dam removal. This can be done if MRWA can leverage the

scarce financial resources that are available to effect the removal of as many dams as feasible

and as quickly as possible, allowing the concept of dam removal to gain momentum in the

Muskegon River Watershed and across Michigan.

3

“For quite some time we have heard from dam owners, particularly owners of small dams, many of which are small municipalities, who want to do the right thing but are unable to because of the expense.” Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, in a 2004 letter to President George W. Bush.

II INTRODUCTION Dams have an interesting history and they have been used over the years for hydropower,

recreation, wildlife habitat, wetlands, lake level control, invasive species barriers, flood

control/protection, controlled releases of recreational whitewater, irrigation, drinking water

supply, sediment traps, inland navigation, fire water supplies, and storage of tailings.

With almost 100 dams remaining in the Muskegon River Watershed, and two very successful

dam removal projects since 2000,

there exists an opportunity for the

MRWA to build upon prior dam

removal successes by identifying other

candidate dams for removal. Dam removal is considered by fisheries biologists as perhaps the

#1-payoff activity that can be undertaken within a watershed to improve water quality and

ecological habitat. Dams increase impounded water temperatures, reduce dissolved oxygen

levels, disturb natural riverine ecosystems, prevent fish passage, and trap sediments and woody

debris.

Because of both federal and state initiatives to elevate the discussion of both the benefits of

dam removal coupled with the crisis of recognizing the long-term financial and environmental

impacts of aging dams, this is an opportune time to develop a decision-support system whereby

candidate dams for removal can be identified well in advance, so that when funding

opportunities arise, there are dam removal projects ready to go.

4

In Michigan, the recently-released Michigan River Partnership report, “The Growing Crisis of

Aging Dams: Policy Considerations” identifies funding as a critical missing element in efforts

to rehabilitate or remove dams.

Recently-passed or pending legislation affecting dams includes Michigan Senate Bill 1040

which allows for dam removal under a MDNRE General Permit if:

(a) The height of the dam is less than 2 feet.

(b) The impoundment from the dam covers less than 2 acres.

(c) The dam does not serve as the first dam upstream from the Great Lakes or their connecting

waterways.

(d) The dam is not serving as a sea lamprey barrier.

(e) There are no threatened or endangered species that have been identified in the area that will

be impacted by the project.

(f) There are no known areas of contaminated sediments in the area that will be impacted by the

project.

(g) The department has received written permission for the removal of the dam from all riparian

property owners adjacent to the dam’s impoundment.

III. DATA SETS Two data sets were evaluated for this study. The first is the Dam Safety data base maintained

by the MDNRE’s Dam Safety Division. The second is the VSEC stream data base created by

MDNRE’s Fisheries Division. The GIS maps and tables presented in this report and in

Appendix 2 were compiled using this data.

IV. OTHER DAM INFORMATION

5

As part of this study, other opinions relating to dams within the Muskegon River Watershed

were sought from fisheries professionals, environmentalists, and dam safety experts.

According to subjective responses from several of the above sources, the following dams, if

removed, would provide the highest benefit to fish and wildlife habitat within the Muskegon

River Watershed:

Croton Dam

Falmouth Dam

Hardy Dam

Higgins Lake Level Control

Structure

Houghton Lake Level Control

Structure

Marion Dam

Miller (Nartron) Dam

Morley Dam

Reedsburg Dam

Rogers Dam

Rowe Dams #1 and #2

Vomastek Dam

This list reveals one of the problems in trying to identify candidate dams for removal. This

report is trying to identify dams whose removal would not only optimize habitat benefit, but

also could be done at a relative low cost with minimum citizen opposition. For example, the

Croton, Hardy and Rogers hydroelectric dams, while creating major obstructions in a high-

gradient reach of the Muskegon River, also provide intensive recreational and residential

usages while creating clean hydropower. Each dam is licensed to operate as a hydroelectric

generating dam until 2034 when their current Federal Energy and Regulatory Commission

(FERC) licenses expire. Intense opposition to removing these dams is likely from both citizens

6

and Consumers Energy. A recent Consumers Energy report tagged the estimated cost of

removing these three dams at $90,000,000 when its FERC licenses expire in 20342.

Other dams, such as lake level control structures at Higgins and Houghton Lakes would likely

generate public opposition if removal was discussed because of their recreational and

associated property values.

In addition, the MDNRE Fisheries Division maintains a list of dams that are considered as

“opportunities” for selective removal3. Three dams within the watershed are on MDNRE’s list,

and they also appear in the previous list:

1. Miller (Nartron) Dam, on the Hersey River near Reed City in Osceola County.

2. Morley Dam, on the Little Muskegon River in Morley, Mecosta County.

3. Marion Dam, on the Middle Branch River in Marion, Osceola County.

By using the term opportunity, MNDRE means that there are factors such as abandonment or

noted deficiencies in a Part 315 or 307 Dam Safety Report present that may make dam removal

a viable option. The Muskegon River Watershed Assembly (MRWA) has been working with

the owners of the Marion and Miller (Nartron) Dams to explore their removal. The Morley

Dam is owned by the Village of Morley, and although it has experienced a number of historic

safety and maintenance issues its removal would be met with stiff local opposition.

In addition to traditional dams, environmental author Jeff Alexander4 has identified the lengthy

US 31 highway through the Muskegon River’s delta in Muskegon County as an obstruction as

damaging to the watershed’s habitat as dams. The US 31 highway sloped shoulder was

recently fenced for a two mile stretch to direct migrating turtles toward openings under the

highway to prevent excessive kill-off experienced as turtles crossed over the busy highway.

7

V. DATA DISCUSSION Various combinations and permutations of data fields in each of the data sets were studied to

provide a better picture of the potential for dam removal based upon the intersection of dam

data with habitat and stream data.

The purpose of the data analysis (Section VII, page 12) is to identify opportunities to remove

dams with as little cost and controversy as possible, coupled with habitat improvement.

Table 2 lists alphabetically all of the dams that are located in the Muskegon River Watershed.

Table 2 Muskegon River Watershed Dams

DAM NAME COUNTY Acker Dam Mecosta Archie Castle's Dam Wexford Backus Creek Dam Roscommon Backus Lake Dam Roscommon Barton Road Dam Newaygo Baumunk Dam Mecosta Bear Creek Dam Muskegon Bear Creek Dam Roscommon Big Lake Level Control Dam Osceola Big Whitefish Lake Level Control Structure Montcalm Blackledge Dam Osceola Blue Lake Level Control Structure Mecosta Brandy Brook Dam Wexford Brook Cherith Dam Montcalm Brooks Lake Level Control Structure Newaygo Buckhorn Creek Dam Mecosta Carnes Dam Newaygo Chippewa Lake Level Control Structure Mecosta Clam River Control Dam Wexford Croton Dam Newaygo Deadhorse Flooding Dam Missaukee Denton Creek Flooding Dam Roscommon Doc and Tom Lake Level Control Structure Clare Ebels Dam Mecosta Ellis Dam Missaukee

8

Falmouth Dam Missaukee Fawn Lake Dam Mecosta Featherbed Dam Mecosta First Lake Dam Newaygo Fremont Lake Level Control Structure Newaygo Gamble Dam Clare Green Creek Dam Muskegon Hardacre Dam Roscommon Hardy Dam Newaygo Haymarsh Lake Dam Mecosta Hess Lake Level Control Structure Newaygo Higgins Lake Level Control Structure Roscommon Houghton Lake Flats North Unit Dam Roscommon Houghton Lake Flats South Unit Dam Roscommon Houghton Lake Level Control Structure Roscommon Indian Lake Dam Montcalm Jehnsen Lake Dam Mecosta Johnson Dam #2 Newaygo Johnson's Dam Newaygo Jurkiewicz Dam Montcalm Kelinski Dam Missaukee Lake George Level Control Structure Clare Lake James Dam Roscommon Lake Laura Dam Mecosta Lake Lure Dam Osceola Lake Miramichi Dam (Upper) Osceola Lester Dam Missaukee Little John Flooding Dam Mecosta Little Mud Lake Dam Roscommon Little Whitefish Lake Level Control Montcalm Long (Ryerson) Lake Level Control Structure Newaygo Long Lake Control Structure Mecosta Long Lake Level Control Structure Clare Lower Canadian Lakes Dam Mecosta Lower Lake Miramichi Dam Osceola Marion Dam Osceola Meyer's Dam Osceola Michigan State University Dam #1 Missaukee Michigan State University Dam #2 Missaukee Miller (Nartron) Dam Osceola Missaukee Lake Level Control Structure Missaukee Mitchell Creek Dam Wexford Morley Dam Mecosta Negaunee Lake Dam Osceola Newaygo Lake Level Control Structure Newaygo No Name (Bear Creek) Muskegon No Name (Tributary to Bear Creek) Muskegon

9

No Name (Tributary to Muskegon River) Muskegon North Townline Creek Dam Roscommon Old Fur Farm Dam Clare Olger Lake Dam Mecosta Peterson Dam Newaygo Pickerel (Bergess Lake) Dam Mecosta Pickerel Lake Dam Mecosta Ray C. Andres Dam Mecosta Reedsburg Dam Missaukee Rogers Dam Mecosta Rowe Dam No 1 Newaygo Rowe Dam No 2 Newaygo Shingle Lake Level Control Structure Clare Shores Pond Dam Osceola Snavley Dam Mecosta Sunset Lake Dam Mecosta Tamarack Creek Dam Montcalm Thompson's Pond Dam Osceola Tornbloom Dam Mecosta Townline Creek Flooding Dam Clare Upper Canadian Lakes Dam Mecosta Vomastek Dam Missaukee Windover Lake Dam Clare Winfield Lake Level Control Structure Montcalm Winter Creek Dam Mecosta Winterfield Conservation Club Dam Clare Woods Dam Osceola Wraco Lodge Dam Roscommon

Dam attributes considered for analyzing dam removal potential include the dam’s age; its

condition; its current purpose; miles of stream freed by removal and other similar factors. For

streams, sections with high valley slopes, colder water, and prevalence of groundwater in its

flow were considered as positive habitat factors. Combinations of the above dam and stream

attributes, plus review of MDNRE Dam Safety files, and discussions with dam safety and

resource professionals added additional insight into the potential for dam removal on a case-by-

case basis.

10

The information in Table 3 below describes the dam removal-related attributes considered and

the range of potential ranking points for each. A favorable dam removal attribute received a

higher point value within each ranking.

Table 3 Dam Removal Ranking Attributes

Attribute Range Ranking Points Hazard Potential Low

Significant High

5 3 1

Age (2009-Year Built)/10 0.1 to 13.9 Purpose Retired Hydro

No Listed Use Irrigation Recreation Lake Level Control Active Hydro

6 5 3 2 1 1

Pond Size (Related to Removal Cost) <2 Acres

>2 <10 Acres >10 < 25 Acres Over 25 Acres

5 4 3 1

Pond Size (Related to Habitat Benefit) Over 25 Acres

>10 < 25 Acres >2 <10 Acres <2 Acres

5 4 3 1

Stream Temperature Recovery Potential (T) Cold Mean Low Diurnal

Cold Mean Mod. Diurnal Cool Mean, Mod. Diurnal

5 3 1

Stream Temperature Recovery Potential (GW) Very High Baseflow High Baseflow Runoff Driven

5 3 1

Gradient Recovery Potential High Slope

Moderate Slope Low Slope

5 3 1

11

Miles Freed 0

Up to 2 >2 to 5 >5 to 10 >10 to 20 > 20

1 2 4 6 8 10

Current Condition No known issues

Minor Issues Serious Issues Serious Issues for Past 10 Years or More

1 2 4 5

Owner’s Attitude About Removal No interest at all

Not responsive Receptive, but no money Positive, but no money Enthusiastic, with money

1 1.5 2 2 3

VI. GIS MAPS The GIS maps in Appendix 2 display various dam and stream attributes.

VII. DATA ANALYSIS Each of the previously-listed dam ranking attributes were combined with similar factors into a

score to represent four key dam removal decision factors. Those four decision factors are

described in Table 4 below.

12

Table 4 Description of Dam Removal Decision Factors

Decision Factor Formula Max. Total Points Cost to Remove Dam Hazard Potential Points (5)

+ Dam Age Points (13.9)

+ Pond Size (Removal) Points (5)

23.9

Social Acceptance for Dam Removal

(Purpose Points (6) +

Pond Size (Removal) Points (5) x

Owner Attitude Points (3)

33

Habitat Benefit Pond Size Points (Habitat) (5)

+ Temperature Recovery Points

(T,GW%) (5) (5) +

Gradient Recovery Points (5) +

Miles Freed Points (10)

30

Opportunity for Removal Purpose Points (6)

+ Current Condition Points (5)

+ 5*(1/Pond Size (Cost) Points) (1)

16

Using the above ranking criteria, the 15 dams in Table 5 have been identified as those whose

removal should be pursued by the Muskegon River Watershed Assembly. For each dam, one

criterion (the dam’s condition) was not ranked because little or no data was readily available

and the scope of this study did not allow for visiting each dam to determine conditions.

Instead, each dam was assigned “1” because there were “No known issues”. Another criteria

(the owner’s willingness to consider dam removal) was ranked using limited or incomplete

information. A letter survey was sent to every dam owner in the watershed and 17 dam owners

13

responded, all indicating “No Interest”, and their dams were assigned a “1” accordingly. A

“No Interest” ranking of “1” was also assigned to a few other dams where the MRWA knew

the owners opinion from prior discussions. For the remaining dams, a “Not Responsive”

ranking of “1.5” was assigned for this criteria. Both of these criteria should be evaluated on a

case-by-case basis to refine the list in Table 5. This list, however, provides a good basis for

initiating dam removal discussions within the watershed.

Table 5 Highest 15 Ranked Dam Removal Candidates

DAM NAME COUNTY Miller (Nartron) Dam Osceola Ebels Dam Mecosta Acker Dam Mecosta Old Fur Farm Dam Clare Marion Dam Osceola Kelinski Dam Missaukee Buckhorn Creek Dam Mecosta Wraco Lodge Dam Roscommon Vomastek Dam Missaukee Winterfield Conservation Club Dam Clare Barton Road Dam Newaygo Townline Creek Flooding Dam Clare Houghton Lake Flats South Unit Dam Roscommon Johnson Dam #2 Newaygo Tamarack Creek Dam Montcalm

Tables 6 through 9 rank the highest-scoring dams in the Cost to Remove, Social Acceptance,

Habitat Benefit and Opportunity categories.

14

Table 6 Highest Ranked Dam Removal Candidates: Cost to Remove

DAM NAME COUNTY Barton Road Dam Newaygo Acker Dam Mecosta Shores Pond Dam Osceola Rowe Dam No 1 Newaygo Buckhorn Creek Dam Mecosta Vomastek Dam Missaukee Ebels Dam Mecosta Marion Dam Osceola Rowe Dam No 2 Newaygo Tornbloom Dam Mecosta Falmouth Dam Missaukee Michigan State University Dam #1 Missaukee Michigan State University Dam #2 Missaukee Blue Lake Level Control Structure Mecosta Kelinski Dam Missaukee

Table 7 Highest Ranked Dam Removal Candidates: Social Acceptance*

DAM NAME COUNTY Acker Dam Mecosta Ebels Dam Mecosta Kelinski Dam Missaukee Carnes Dam Newaygo Lester Dam Missaukee Vomastek Dam Missaukee Miller (Nartron) Dam Osceola Johnson's Dam Newaygo Michigan State University Dam #2 Missaukee Meyer's Dam Osceola Barton Road Dam Newaygo Shores Pond Dam Osceola Tornbloom Dam Mecosta Winter Creek Dam Mecosta Ellis Dam Missaukee

*Owners of these dams need to be contacted to determine / confirm level of interest in dam

removal, which could affect a dam’s listing in Table 7. Previous attempts to reach these dam

owners have been inconclusive.

15

Table 8 Highest Ranked Dam Removal Candidates: Habitat Benefit

DAM NAME COUNTY Hardy Dam Newaygo Rogers Dam Mecosta Croton Dam Newaygo Miller (Nartron) Dam Osceola Buckhorn Creek Dam Mecosta Reedsburg Dam Missaukee Higgins Lake Level Control Structure Roscommon Falmouth Dam Missaukee Wraco Lodge Dam Roscommon Houghton Lake Level Control Structure Roscommon Morley Dam Mecosta Clam River Control Dam Wexford Houghton Lake Flats South Unit Dam Roscommon Ebels Dam Mecosta Kelinski Dam Missaukee

Table 9 Highest Ranked Dam Removal Candidates: Opportunity*

DAM NAME COUNTY Old Fur Farm Dam Clare Johnson Dam #2 Newaygo Winterfield Conservation Club Dam Clare Brandy Brook Dam Wexford Townline Creek Flooding Dam Clare Tamarack Creek Dam Montcalm Little John Flooding Dam Mecosta Reedsburg Dam Missaukee Wraco Lodge Dam Roscommon Houghton Lake Flats South Unit Dam Roscommon Backus Creek Dam Roscommon Deadhorse Flooding Dam Missaukee Denton Creek Flooding Dam Roscommon Houghton Lake Flats North Unit Dam Roscommon Hardacre Dam Roscommon

* Rankings in Table 9 could change as more information becomes available regarding a dam’s

current condition.

16

VIII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The main objective of this study was to generate a list of dam removal candidates that can be

pursued based on relative low cost, social acceptance for removal, habitat benefit and

opportunity.

Using mostly readily available information, this study identifies and ranks a number of dams

which appear to be good candidates for removal based on a number of factors. Dam owners in

the top 15 ranking (Table 1) should be contacted to pursue / continue discussions on dam

removal options. As more detailed information becomes available regarding specific dam

removal candidates, the top 15 list of dams can be refined so that the MRWA can focus its

efforts on the most promising dam removal projects.

The results of this study should be publicized in the media to take advantage of the opportunity

to share with the general public the benefits of dam removals. Similarly, any dam removal

projects that result should be strongly publicized as well across a broad public audience.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Coscarelli, M. and Hegarty, J., The Growing Crisis of Aging Dams: Policy

Considerations, 2007 2. Alexander, J., Muskegon Chronicle, June 6, 2007. 3. MDNRE Fisheries Division, River Restoration Through Selective Dam Removal:

Candidates in Michigan. 4. Alexander, J., The Muskegon: The Majesty and Tragedy of Michigan’s Rarest River,

2006.

17

Appendices

18

Appendix 1 MDNRE “Opportunity” List

River Restoration Through Dam Removal: Candidates in Michigan1

Muskegon River Watershed Candidates on MDNRE’s “Opportunity” List Village of Marion Dam, Middle Branch River, Osceola Co.* Village is interested in dam removal or breach with off channel pond and other recreational improvements. USCOE completed Phase 1 preliminary restoration plan and the Village accepted the plan and submitted a letter of intent to proceed to Phase 2 (feasibility study) in 2003. Phase 2 efforts have been on hold by USCOE since 2003. Village obligation would be 35% of total project cost estimate of $4.5M if project proceeds to construction. MRWA and MDNRE more recently assisted the village and their consulting engineer in completing a preliminary engineering assessment of a less costly alternative during 2010. Village officials, however, are at an impasse with the alternative and unable to fund their share of the cost. Not funded to date. Miller (Nartron) Dam, Hersey River, Osceola Co.* This dam occurs near Reed city upstream of the recently removed Hersey dam. MRWA is seeking owner’s willingness to proceed. Village of Morley, Little Muskegon River, Mecosta County* Long term dam safety and maintenance issues with private operator. Power house burned in 1995 after recent renovations. Owner wants power house rebuilt. Owner has no funds to rebuild. This document was compiled by MDNRE, Fisheries Division and represents a partial list of dams known to be of little or no value to their owners and which may be good candidates for proactive dam removal. This is not a complete list of such candidates and should not be construed to describe the intentions of the MDNRE in dam removal. Dam removal is at the discretion of the dam owner.

* Updated 8/20/10 to reflect knowledge of MRWA as to dam’s current status.

1 This document was compiled by MDNRE, Fisheries Division and represents a partial list of dams known to be of little or no value to their owners and which may be good candidates for proactive dam removal. This is not a complete list of such candidates and should not be construed to describe the intentions of the MDNRE in dam removal. Dam removal is at the discretion of the dam owner.

20

Appendix 3

Dams Data Matrix