As most of you are probably aware, Michigan Trout Unlimited was party to the lawsuit involving the 1984 fishkill cause by this dam, and also again with the 2008 fishkill. A settlement agreement, encompassed in a court order was reached in April 2010, and required the owners to remove the dam.

MITU had been working closely with both the dam owners and the state to plan for the removal of the Pigeon River dam, following a process defined in the court ordered settlement. However, the owners have recently asserted they are only going to partially remove their dam. MITU has objected to this. The State of Michigan, for their part in this, has decided to allow the owners to only partially remove their dam. Further, upon MITU objecting to the partial removal, they have abandoned the required dam removal planning process, and have accepted a permit application for the project, and are actively processing the application. Upon MITU making objections to this, we have been excluded from subsequent planning processes. We have many concerns with the current permit submitted by Golden Lotus to the State of Michigan. Our full technical comments on this permit application, along with our motions filed with the court for enforcement of the Interim Order can be found at www.michigantu.org. Your support is needed to help get this back on track.

Please review our concerns below and submit your own comments regarding the permit by email to Jim Pawloski at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . Reference File Number 11-69-0001-P in your comments submitted to the DEQ. Your comments must be submitted no later than Sunday, April 24th.

+ The current plan does not constitute a full dam removal per the consent agreement of April 5, 2010.

In paragraph 3 of the agreement, it states “Golden Lotus shall remove the private dam it owns and maintains on its property creating the impoundment on the Pigeon River known as the Lansing Club Pond…” The permit application submitted by Golden Lotus lists as the preferred option the “Drawdown of the impoundment created by the Lake Lansing Dam, removal of the primary spill gates, modifications to the powerhouse area, and possible dredging of accumulated sand in the structuring during and after drawdown.” The major problem with this approach is that it leaves in place the concrete bottom of the dam which rises 2-3 feet above the streambed with a 40 foot long spillway and this spillway is narrower than the river channel which would create unnaturally high water velocity through the spillway that would block fish passage, watercraft, and waders. It is estimated that the flows over this spillway will be 10.7 feet per second, nearly 2.5 times the fastest flows found in the river. It is also estimated their plan would have an opening of 20 feet in width, when optimum width should be 35 feet. A portion of
the existing impoundment would also continue to exist for ¼ mile upstream. This scenario does not constitute a dam removal.

+ The Permit does not adequately plan for release of sediments which have already caused 3 major fish kills, and as proposed is predicted to create another.

The impoundment behind this dam is completely filled with fine organic sediments, which will be released as part of the draw-down process. The pace of the drawdown will be done by “visual observation of sediment movement” and will be controlled “by systematic removal of the uppermost stop-log based on predetermined prerequisites”. The DNRE predicts that the release of organic matter will lower the dissolved oxygen in the stream; and in combination with water filled with the fine suspended organic sediments will cause a much higher risk of fish mortality than either factor working alone. To prevent this fish mortality, more planning on the sediment release should take place and downstream monitoring of dissolved oxygen and suspended solids needs to occur during the drawdown phase. The levels of dissolved oxygen and suspended solids downstream of the dam can then be used to adjust the rate of the dam drawdown. The permit application, as submitted, is predicted to cause fishkills in the Pigeon River.

+ Sand traps are to be required to prevent damage downstream, but are not proposed in this permit.

The permit application proposes to release 5,400 cubic yards of sand downstream. This is enough sand to cover roughly 12 miles of the Pigeon River with 1” of sand. This would have lasting detriments to the river. The Court Order says the DNRE can require sand traps be used to prevent this, but are not proposed in this permit application.

+ It is not clear who will be making the "observations" to adjust to drawdown schedule, or the basis for their decisions.

Based on the importance of controlling the sediment release to protect downstream section of the river, it should be well defined who will make decisions to adjust the drawdown schedule and how frequently the decisions will be made. In addition, the schedule needs to adapt to reflect acts of nature such as a heavy rain but there is no discussion of this in the permit. It is clear that Golden Lotus does not want this responsibility since their preferred drawdown technique is that once the stoplogs are installed, “The gates will then be opened to some fixed predetermined level. The gate operators will not be used at any time later in the drawdown process.” The consultant report admits that this method has “no provision for fine control of discharge, and no provision for temporarily increasing the discharge below the elevation of the top stop-log in the event of extreme precipitation (and thus possible re-inundation of previously exposed sediments and organic debris).” This suggests the responsibility will fall to the state to control the drawdown rate without any commitment by the state to define this process or to accept it. If this permitted plan occurs, and there is another fish kill, who will be held accountable? Is it Golden Lotus for implementing their poorly designed plan, or the State of Michigan for giving Golden Lotus permission to implement their poorly designed plan by granting the permit?

+ The existing bridge structure does not meet the definition of the requirements of a new bridge as outlined in the consent agreement.

In paragraph 3 of the agreement, it also states, after the dam removal paragraph, “The DNRE agrees that upon removal of the dam structure, Golden Lotus will be allowed the continued use of the existing bridge or, if in the opinion of a Golden Lotus engineer, due to structural concerns with the existing bridge structure, a replacement bridge crossing. Golden Lotus shall apply for and be issued DNRE permits that authorize the construction and placement of a new bridge structure at or near the existing bridge location as long as the replacement bridge crossing is a clear span structure which spans the bankfull channel and has a minimum of a five foot clearance between to high water level and low steel of the bridge and meets the regulatory, engineering, and design requirements…” Golden Lotus is attempting to use the structural integrity of the existing bridge as an issue in this planning process to avoid meeting the standards of a dam removal and restore the full connectivity of the river that is expected with a dam removal.

The complete permit application is here:

www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3307_29692_24403-252881--,00.html

View Michigan TU's documents pertaining to the Pigeon River case at:

www.michigantu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=145&Itemid=255

These include MITU’s motions to enforce the Interim Order and also the technical comments submitted on the permit application.

MITU will be submitting even more detailed technical comments on the permit to the DEQ, but we feel that it is important for the DEQ to hear from our membership on your concerns too.

Thank you for helping protect Michigan’s streams.

Sincerely,