TRAVERSE CITY -- There's a big decision around the bend on the Boardman River. Make that four big decisions.
Four dams stand in the way of the Boardman's natural flow, man-made structures that for more than a century reshaped a river that seeded Traverse City's lumbering and industrial roots.
For decades, the dams generated electricity that powered the region's growth; they also created lakes and ponds that attracted residential construction, served as safe havens for birds and wildlife and formed the development footprint for the city's outlying area.
Now -- 140 years after Union Street Dam first altered the river's flow -- stay-or-go decisions loom.
Traverse City and Grand Traverse County own the dams, and their elected officials must choose what to do with the idled structures, following an expensive three-year study that ultimately did little to hash out the most fundamental questions.
Among them:
-- What potential do the dams have to generate renewable, low-polluting energy?
-- Does that potential override cost, maintenance and liability concerns?
-- What impact would dam removal have on homeowners who'd immediately lose their waterfront, including property values?
-- How much would taxpayers bear of the estimated $5 million to $7.9 million cost to remove three dams and modify the fourth?
-- Do ecological benefits that could be realized by unfettering the serpentine, 49-mile main stretch of the Boardman River outweigh other options?
A study group that spent more than $1 million in public and private money on consultants, facilitators and engineering mock-ups ultimately came up with two recommendations -- either leave the dams intact, or remove all but Union Street Dam.
That stance befuddled some city and county officials, who last month said they want more answers about hydroelectric power capabilities before they take another step. It's a "threshold question" in the decision whether to remove the dams, said Chris Bzdok, Traverse City mayor pro tem.
Special interests agenda?
Some believe a three-year study by the Boardman River Dams Committee wasn't designed to find the dams' best use, but rather to determine the best way to remove them.
"They never brought anybody in, any professionals, to come and speak in favor of the dams," said Bruce Carpenter, who lives along Boardman Pond and opposes the dams' removal. "Here we have all these special interest groups with a specific agenda to get rid of the dams and bring the river back for all the little trout."
Committee organizers refute that notion, and said the study was done with a focus on objectivity.
"We did place just as much emphasis on hydroelectric capacity as everything else," said Todd Kalish, a fisheries biologist with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources who chaired the dams committee.
Dams removal would benefit existing trout populations by creating a more naturally flowing river, but Carpenter said draining man-made lakes and ponds would hurt other resident wildlife, such as loons, trumpeter swans and other creatures.
No small matter is the loss of waterfront property for those like Carpenter who live on the water.
From the start, the study was tilted toward dam removal and those who spoke in favor of dam retention were "completely overlooked," Carpenter said.
Beverly Cuthbert lives in East Bay Township, well away from the Boardman River. She attended most of the committee meetings over the years and said early sessions were geared toward dam removal.
"That was the tone," she said. "But they found in the focus groups there were a number of people there who did not automatically assume the dams should come out."
Dissenting voices eventually made their points with the committee, Cuthbert said.
"I think they've gotten the message from the community that if hydroelectricity is possible, the dams should be left in. But, if hydroelectricity is not possible, then they should recommend the dams come out," she said.
Charles Peterson, for one, believes hydroelectricity generation on the Boardman River will work and make money. He wants city and county officials to let him flip the on-switch at Boardman, Sabin and Brown Bridge dams, the three former hydroelectric structures.
Peterson owns Peterson Machinery Sales, an Arizona-based machinery restoration company with a local office in Northport, where he also has a home. His experience with rebuilding previously used machines outweighs his lack of experience in dam operations, he said.
"I understand the commissioners will scrutinize this and our ability to do this, but I want them to see our real intent. It's only a matter of logistics, bringing together what's needed to make it work," Peterson said. "Our pursuit in this thing is to share in the gross revenues with the city and county. This could be profitable."
Peterson wants to take over operations and start generating renewable energy again, a pursuit halted when Traverse City Light & Power, the local public utility, pulled the plug in 2005. Peterson, though, wants the city and county to retain ownership.
He's had to fight just to make his voice heard, he said.
"I don't believe (the study) was objective," Peterson said. "They pushed aside hydroelectric power and didn't want to deal with it until the last several months when they realized they have to address it."
'Based on objectivity'
Boardman River study organizers said the research wasn't intentionally skewed in any direction.
"From the beginning of the project, we based it on a line of objectivity, right through to the very end," said Kalish, the committee chair and DNR representative. The river's ecology won't improve if the dams remain, he said.
"If you want to enhance any environmental aspect of the Boardman watershed, then the dams have to be removed or modified. Otherwise, it just maintains the status quo and that's not a bad thing. There is value there," he said, especially for existing wildlife.
But dams removal would end degradation of the trout stream, allow resident trout populations to grow, end the disrupted flow of sediment and woody debris downriver, and expose fish spawning and invertebrate habitats, Kalish said.
Don Tilton is a consultant from Environmental Consulting and Technology, Inc., a company that studied the dams and wrote recommendations for the committee to consider. It's good that city and county commissioners have additional questions about the river's hydroelectric capacity, he said.
"To me, the questions indicated the commissioners are engaged and want to understand the issues," Tilton said.
Tilton's company determined hydroelectric generation is not feasible nor financially viable on the Boardman. And consultants didn't rely solely on data supplied by Light & Power, but also completed their own cost assessment and preliminary dams engineering study, Tilton said.
"I'm not sure what else would have been required," Tilton said.
Compromise, or not?
It's paramount to protect the naturally reproducing brook and brown trout populations above Sabin Dam, whether the dams stay or go, said Dave Leonhard, owner of the Streamside Orvis store in Traverse City.
"I hope that at the very least they'd protect that much of the upstream waters," he said.
Fish barriers should prevent salmon, steelhead and invasive species from tampering with upstream brook and brown trout if the dams are removed; if the dams remain, cold water passage beneath the dams should be allowed, Leonhard said.
"I think most anglers are concerned about cold, clear water and when we remove dams, the water cools and we have cold, clear water," he said.
Compromise may be best, Leonhard said, because "it can't be all one way or the other. There's too much at stake for too many people and families. Everybody has a stake in this great resource. That's why we're here."
Others locals seem split on the dams' future.
Robert Hoxie lives along the river, between Boardman and Brown Bridge ponds.
"I've been out here 30 years and it's time for the dams to go. It will make the fishing better," Hoxie said, though he acknowledged others don't want change.
That group includes Ron Alpers, who lives alongside Boardman Pond.
"I would like to see (the dams) in place. I have a huge investment for the water frontage that I never thought would go away," Alpers said.
More information needed
City and county commissioners met last month to hear the dam committee's presentation, but several seemed puzzled by the report.
"It's like, thank you very much for dumping it in our laps," said City Commissioner Deni Scrudato. "I was a little perplexed by the outcome. I thought we would get a little better direction, but we got two completely opposite recommendations."
The committee failed to thoroughly research hydroelectricity, Scrudato said, but she didn't believe they intentionally turned a blind eye to the idea.
"I almost wish the county and the city would say to the dams committee that they have one final task. They need to research hydro more," she said.
Fellow city Commissioner Jim Carruthers agreed.
"I'm a little frustrated because we spent more than $1 million and spent three years to not really have a compromise recommendation," he said. "It's too bad they didn't spend more time studying the effects of hydropower. I don't want to throw more money at it, but I'm sick of studying things and putting it on the shelf."
Both said they want more information before they make a final call on the dams.
Mayor Michael Estes, though, has made up his mind.
"I make no bones about it. I'm strongly supportive of removing the upper three dams of the Boardman River. I support the removal of the dams for no other reason than it's the right thing to do," Estes said.
Some county commissioners also want more details about hydroelectricity.
"The hydroelectric question was not definitively answered through the (committee). It would have been nice if it were answered through a more-than-$1 million study," said county Commissioner Beth Friend.
Friend wants a request for proposals to go out so officials can learn whether there's much business interest in Boardman hydroelectricity, she said.
County Commissioner Christine Maxbauer said she's undecided on the dams' fates.
"I don't have enough information," she said.
City and county commissioners suggest a dams decision could be made in as little as three months, or at least by year's end.
State documents show the county has a December 2010 deadline to improve spillway capacity if the dams are kept in the river, or a December 2012 deadline if they decide to cleave the dams from the Boardman.
Dams history
1869 -- Union Street Dam built
1894 -- Boardman Dam built, hydroelectric
1906 -- Sabin Dam built, hydroelectric
1921 -- Brown Bridge Dam built, hydroelectric
1930 -- Boardman and Sabin dams rebuilt
