Article Photos

MARQUETTE - Justin Edge moved to Marquette about a year ago and rents property about 100 yards away from the banks of the Dead River.

The property abuts what was once the edge of the Tourist Park reservoir, which was emptied in 2003 after the Dead River flood destroyed the Tourist Park Dam.

During the years since the flood, Edge said the area surrounding the river has become a habitat for birds, deer and other wildlife as tree saplings and other brush have taken root in the sandy soil.

That's one of the reasons Edge opposes the planned reconstruction of the dam and he has voiced his opinion to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The federal agency is taking comments from the public about the environmental report supporting the restoration of the dam. The deadline for filing comments is Jan. 19.

The Marquette Board of Light and Power, which is overseeing the reconstruction of the dam, hired AECOM, an international consulting firm, to write the environmental report.

Edge, a biologist with a masters degree in environmental science, criticized the report for allegedly using old overhead photographs and old data to describe the conditions of the Tourist Park Basin.

The report references a 2003 post-event environmental assessment that described the basin as having "poor" or "marginal" habitat and "unstable" to "moderately unstable" geomorphological conditions, and that there was significant sedimentation on the channel bed and the adjacent banks.

"That was six years ago - you walk down there now, there's very little sedimentation going on," Edge said. "The stream banks have started to recover."

He said it has become a wetland habitat for songbirds, predatory birds, deer and other animals.

He said the spot has become popular for hikers, dog-walkers, fisherman, kayakers and canoeists, with many trails established by the public.

Kirby Juntila, executive director of the BLP, said FERC officials are well aware of the basin's current condition.

"FERC was here on site as recently as two weeks ago and are very familiar with the facility and the process we're going through," he said. "All of those things will be taken into account as FERC goes through an exhaustive evaluation of the (environmental report)."

Marquette resident Ron Sundell, an environmental professional for 35 years, also opposes the rebuilding of the dam. He said said the dam's energy output is too small to justify the expense of replacing it.

According to BLP officials, the energy output of the dam would power 500 homes, representing about 1 percent of the BLP's total generating power.

The reconstruction of the dam would cost about $4.8 million. BLP officials said the dam will be constructed as it was previously, with all the water passed through it used for energy production. They estimated the dam would generate $57,971 in profits over the first 30 years.

If the dam was built to bypass 20 cubic feet of water per second, maintaining a waterfall and rapids, BLP officials said the utility would lose $744,268 over the first 30 years.

In addition, the Marquette City Commission voted to waive the PILT - payment in lieu of taxes - for 30 years on the new dam. Those payments, owed to the city when capital improvements are made, were estimated to be about $80,000 per year.

When deciding to waive the PILT, city officials said they wanted to see the beach back at the Tourist Park campground and said without a dam, there would be no PILT payments anyway. City staff has reported that attendance at the park has dropped off since the loss of the reservoir, and many campers have said they preferred the campground with a warm-water fishing area.

"The Board of Light and Power is there to generate power in an economical and environmentally conscious fashion, I believe," Sundell said. "Since it was such a marginal project you have to ask yourself was it really necessary. Their business is not to be just putting in recreational beaches, that's not what they're there for."

Juntila said if the economic analysis of the rebuild options were done now, the results would be even more favorable toward the BLP when factoring in the BLP's Renewable Portfolio Standard.

The state-mandated RPS requires utilities in Michigan to have 10 percent of their energy produced by renewable resources by 2015.

"At the time the economic analysis was done we did not have an RPS in the state. Carbon was not being talked about two and three years ago to the degree it is today," Juntila said.

Edge and Sundell disputed a statement in the report that property values surrounding the basin would increase with the return of the reservoir.

Officials with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality also questioned the statement. In its comments on the report, DEQ officials cited a property study in Madison, Wis., that showed "residential property located in the vicinity of a free-flowing stream is more valuable than identical property in the vicinity of a small impoundment."

In response, the BLP said the assessor for the city of Marquette provided a cost of $200 per front foot of river frontage compared to $1,900 per front foot of lake frontage. They said the local real estate market was researched, showing that basin property sold for $254 per foot compared to the highest river front property selling for $98 per foot.

Edge said the report gives very little consideration to the No Action Alternative.

"Under the National Environmental Policy Act, any assessment or report like this, when you're damming a river, a no action alternative has to be taken seriously," Edge said.

Juntila said a no action alternative is addressed in the report, even though BLP officials believe the community overwhelmingly wants the dam back.

"We believed the community was clear that they wanted to see this facility reconstructed and so the BLP assumed that responsibility of rebuilding tourist park dam," he said.

Edge said several weeks ago, BLP officials were in the basin taking out saplings and brush. He said the work was going on without proper sediment control barriers in place.

"They're picking up huge chunks of trees and debris, right out of the river and right on the bank of the river," he said. "Meanwhile this stream is free flowing - sediment is just eroding left and right they're all up and down with these huge machines."

Juntila said erosion control barriers would be required for disturbing soils, or excavating.

"There wasn't excavating," he said. "It was purely brushing that was taking place in preparation for early spring construction season. The MDEQ and the DNR have been on the facility talking about the plans for fishery habitat restoration and we worked with them every step of the way. They were absolutely aware we were out there doing that."