Charley Sullivan

Wed, Sep 16, 2009 : 2:46 p.m.

Sorry, despite my best efforts at proofreading, that last sentence should read: But it is easy to imagine what *one* hopes will be the case before reality hits, and proponents of keeping Argo in have been met with an awful lot of wishful thinking being thrown around, in my opinion.

Charley Sullivan

Wed, Sep 16, 2009 : 2:43 p.m.

Rork: Thanks for your note. The "they" in that instance does indeed refer to Trout Unlimited, but the "dam out" crowd that has presented itself has been rather multi-headed. The visions of a dam-out river can, of course, be multi-formed and various since they don't have to have anything to do with reality, imaginings that they are. I do have to note, though, that the Huron River Watershed Council website lists "Ann Arbor Area Trout Unlimited" as a group endorsing removing the dam, complete with a logo. (http://hrwc.org/argodam/index.html), and to a certain extent, as my grandma used to say, you gotta dance with them that brung you. Personally, I think a lot of what has been presented as reasons to take the dam out are fantasies, from a stocked trout pond, to a place that will draw white water enthusiasts from across the midwest, to, yes, a "natural" running river through Ann Arbor. Now, I fully respect everyone's right to have and pursue their fantasies, visions and dreams; I don't mean that with any disrespect. But it is easy to imagine what what hopes will be the case before reality hits, and proponents of keeping Argo in have been met with an awful lot of wishful thinking being thrown around, in my opinion.

Rork Kuick

Wed, Sep 16, 2009 : 1:34 p.m.

To clarify about fish, Sullivan's phrases include "they say it will support different fish, but that they couldn't survive in natural populations; they'd have to be stocked, if they'd even survive." Here and elsewhere "they" is vague, but here almost surely refers to a small and special group of Trout Unlimited people, who were fantasizing about trout being put in there. The author likely knows that. "They" certainly doesn't mean the average anti-dam folks like me, who think that putting non-native fish in our river is bad. We don't want Tarpon either, thankyou. (To be precise, "trout", which sadly are artificially placed higher in the river, would likely be "rainbow trout", Oncorhynchus mykiss, native to western North America, and "brown trout", Salmo trutta, native to Eurasia.)

lisap

Wed, Sep 16, 2009 : 10:02 a.m.

I agree with Tee -Argo Pond is an urban recreational facility that this city is lucky to have and should be proud to support. That "people will come from all over" to shoot the rapids if the dam is removed makes little difference to me, unless they want to pony up and pay the very high taxes I do to support this city. Ecologically speaking, it would be better for the environment to plow under Vet's Park ball fields, Fuller soccer fields and Leslie Golf Course then to mow, water and chalk them for games - however, the loss of these valuable recreational facilities to city residents makes this idea seem ludicrous. How different is Argo pond from these venues? Last Sunday I counted at least 40 kayaks and paddle boards, as well as 4 boats with people fishing out of them - all in the 2 hours that I was there. Displacing these citizens for others who can find free flowing water in several other locations near the city is short sighted. Leave Argo Pond in place and take pride in the fact that this city offers it's residents such a terrific venue for active recreation like rowing and kayaking, as well as a space to quietly paddle around in a canoe or fish.

Tee

Wed, Sep 16, 2009 : 8:49 a.m.

The city owns golf courses, ice skating rinks, pools. Pretend you are arguing to repair Vet's rink and pool "Those swimmers are being selfish". The slander to the rowers is simply ridiculous and self serving. Fix the dam and take pride in the fact that we have a vibrant, successful and diverse rowing community of high schoolers, college students and adults. Many high schoolers from a wide range of socio-economic status earn scholarships (and not just to Ivy league schools), they come back to A2, volunteer their time to teach rowing to younger generations, and contribute to our wonderful town. Ann Arbor teams are respected in communities in the US and Canada and it seems logical that we support and take pride too. Take a walk thru Bandemere Park on any given day and you'll see this community weeding and maintaining the park. The sport itself lends to appreciating and respecting the beauty of a natural environment. Let's move forward and stop all the political maneuvering, it's embarrassing and sets a poor example to many.

Cheryl

Sat, Sep 12, 2009 : 10:55 a.m.

Using Argo Pond as healthy outdoor activity facility, for hundreds of rowers per year and for far more canoeists and kayakers, speaks to the Ann Arbor community's character. Recreation and fitness serves the greater good just as well as the original beneficiaries of the dam did. The local economy benefited from the operation of the mills, and it benefits from the health and well being of the people who exercise and recreate on the ponds. Surface water is highly valued in Michigan, and for many years canoeists, kayakers, and rowers have used Argo Pond to its full potential as a recreational facility. Geddes Pond, while perhaps not as saturated by users, is equally valued by area families and guests as a source of physical education and nature study. These bodies of water do not lie fallow. Removing dams that contain either Argo or Geddes ponds will not only affect a significant number of area residents and guests; removal will promote a glut of pernicious invasive plants growing in the newly exposed riverbed. Both Argo Pond and Geddes Pond are flanked by long sections of invasive plants, including buckthorn and purple loosestrife, among others. Our city does not have the budget to remove the invasives dominating the currently exposed land surface area along the ponds. There are segments of the river bank that have been treated with prescribed burns and other efforts, but the majority of the corresponding river bank areas either contain or are dominated by invasive plant species. As a volunteer who spends time removing invasive plants and as an educator who leads young people in ecological restoration efforts, I am concerned about the spread of invasive plants. The ponds actually hold back the invasive plants at their banks. Opening up great tracts of river bottom will surely invite monocultures of invasives to colonize aggressively within the first several years, as native species tend toward a more patient pace of colonization. As many people know, invasive plants have many advantages, and one of the advantages some invasives have is that their deciduous leaves change the pH of the soil over time as they accumulate and break down. This change of pH can limit the ability of native plants to grow successfully in the area because they cannot adequately absorb nutrients if the soil pH is outside their range of tolerance. Ecologically, removing Argo (which has been said to be only the beginning of the local dam removal efforts on the Huron River) may wind up creating a lot of problems for our Parks and Recreation and Natural Areas Preservation departments and for adjacent property owners. Many land owners are not trained in invasive plant identification and do not realize their land is affected and is a nursery for invasive plant colonization along the river and elsewhere, thanks to the hungry work of birds. It is easy to imagine the flora that will supplant Argo Pond will be a headache. And we still do not know whether we have a problem with the contents of the riverbottom. People have mentioned that the salvage company that used to be adjacent to Argo Pond was said to allow contaminated seepage into the river. It is possible that all of it was swept downriver already. If not, we need to be mindful of what we do with the waterflow. An increase in water velocity could unleash toxins that are currently trapped underneath the riverbottom. I would be very disappointed to see rowing sacrificed only to be replaced by serious, negative ecological consequences, especially given that the people trying to have the dam removed say they argue for ecological principles. The Ann Arbor stretch of the Huron is a semi-urban stretch of the river. It is not an undisturbed waterway, and it is not going to become one. At this point, the ponds hold back invasives and may be allowing trapped contaminants to lie still. The dams also offer a future opportunity for hydro electric power, and the efficiency of the technology to produce power with slow moving water will only improve over time. I fear that removing Argo could result in a simple lesson: don't make the mistake again by removing the other dams. What a colossal waste this would be.

Anthony Clark

Fri, Sep 11, 2009 : 1:25 a.m.

"We've been there not because it was built for us, but because it was built to provide a pond and recreation for the whole city, and rowing fit there" - Charley Sullivan. Argo Dam was not built to provide recreation. It was built to provide power and irrigation. It first provided mechanical power for the grist mill and later hydroelectric power. It hasn't been used for either of it's original purposes for many decades. The dam's only current reason for existing is to provide a pond for recreation. A pond is not necessary for recreation. Many diverse recreational opportunities would exist along that stretch of river without a pond. The only activity that could not exist without the dam is rowing. This being the case, it is only fair that the rowing community should shoulder a significant share of the repair and maintenance costs. I have read your previous comments and understand your position, Charley. You have calmly and eloquently brought up issues that I was not previously aware of (length of water for training, proximity of training location to athletes' classes, etc.). In all likelihood, the removal of Argo Dam would be the end of Michigan Men's Crew. It would be sad to see the loss of that part of Ann Arbor's history. However, I still believe Argo Dam should be removed. Removal of obsolete dams is a groundswell movement across the nation. I just fundamentally believe that all dams that no longer serve their original purpose should be removed. I have to stand up for what I believe in, as do you. Thank you for maintaining a civil and professional discussion.

Charley Sullivan

Thu, Sep 10, 2009 : 4:48 p.m.

Hey Ross, thanks for the document. It doesn't answer all my questions, but it's a good start. I do have to say, I'm all for the mixed-use solution that creates whitewater while retaining flat water that this study suggests. In fact, it's been my favorite option from the beginning. I would likely keep a kayak in the boathouse and be out there after particularly stressful practices. It would be great. Let's make it happen. Somehow though, we've gotten to a point in the discussion where this option seems to have disappeared from view. It's like we're on Project Rundam, "either it's in, or it's out." I know any form of dam will not be acceptable for some folks, just as any arrangement that doesn't include a rowable Argo Pond would be a very difficult pill for me to swallow. Now, I admit, for me, it's pretty personal; getting rid of a rowable Argo Pond would be throwing away something I've been working for 20 years... developing nationally competitive rowing at the University of Michigan. It's something I'm humbled to have been a part of, and it's something I want to be able to enjoy into the future. And for the men's side at least, barring a very unlikely elevation to Varsity status, getting rid of Argo will functionally get rid of our ability to be competitive. Now, in the future, in the context of a river-wide plan to restore the run of the river, even if it were taking out those 8 dams, it would be a harder case to make to retain Argo Pond. But in the context of it being one step in a chain that is not likely to change anytime in the even semi-distant future, I'm simply not there. I'm glad to work with you to bring the "combo-option" back as a real option in the discussion, if you're interested, and to work on the questions about Peninsular, etc. Thanks for the engagement. Peace Charley

Russ Miller

Wed, Sep 9, 2009 : 10:13 p.m.

Oops - I made a mistake in the gradient list Dexter is lower than Argo, the higher gradient starts at Zeeb Rd.

Charley Sullivan

Wed, Sep 9, 2009 : 7:12 p.m.

Hey Ross. Yeah, I'll bite, mostly because I think there's an interesting split here in how the river is talked about. So, yes, for the sake of argument, speculative and unproven. There are 90 something dams and impoundments on the Huron, and the Argo stretch is (I'm assuming here, but if someone has this data, let me know,) one of the shortest following the impoundment above it. Taking out Argo will do nothing, or next to nothing, towards moving the river to being more ecologically sound, or "natural" if you will within the context of the whole length of the river. Let's say you have 98 boils on your back, and you pop the smallest one with no plans to pop the others, is your back really more healthy? The benefits of taking out Gallup, for instance, would be arguably stronger. It would leave a longer stretch of river "running free". Taking out the Peninsular dam in Ypsi (which would also provide some real rapids to play with and make the area a true paddling destination) would be even better. But even if all three of them came out, and let's assume Barton too, the river would still have 95 boils on its back, and far from a "natural" state (even if the Washtenaw County stretch would be, seen by itself, more "natural.") I understand the symbolism of getting a dam taken down, and of what it represents emotionally and spiritually to many people, and I respect that, but the benefits to the river as a whole are, yes, unproven and speculative, no matter how sincerely held, and that the river would be more "natural" depends on what one means by that. In my experience in this debate, that the river's health would be drastically improved seems to be just thrown out as a matter of faith by some proponents of taking the dam out, without a real rigorous examination of what that means, or what the effect would be. They say the water will get colder, but no-one can say how colder; they say it will support different fish, but that they couldn't survive in natural populations; they'd have to be stocked, if they'd even survive. We're being asked to give up something that works (at least currently)and is important for us without anyone having been able to show what the result after the removal would look like, in concrete terms. So, yeah, speculative and unproven. Even what the rapid would be like is undemonstrated at best. Is there any hydrology on what the run would be like...what class? what water flow? what's the drop? how long's the run? So in that sense, sure, it's speculative. I've been paddling since before I started rowing, and I look at that stretch and don't see rapids that would draw huge numbers of people. (That said, I spent weekends in West Virginia, and the New River the Huron will never be.) But if there were some data on it, then we could at least talk about reality, or potential reality, and not just as an imagined nirvana. I've written other places about how while there are other places in Ann Arbor the can (and need to) support rowing, for my program, they are not long enough to support training at a college level, so no, there's not someplace else me and my athletes, at least, can go. We're not supported financially by the University, and aren't likely to be, so it's not like we can just absorb the cost of relocating and running our program to someplace like Ford Lake or Belleville. And that's not speculative. But, I very much agree with you about the $185K, and thank you for the opening I feel in your comments as well.

Ross

Wed, Sep 9, 2009 : 6:12 p.m.

Ecological benefits are speculative and unproven? Are you serious? How can you argue that the river is not more ecologically sound in its natural state, without a gigantic, artificial, transient flow obstruction in the way collecting sediment? Have you seen the rowers having to "mow" the aquatic plant growth? I too am disappointed in the council for spending $185k for a study when we know everything we need to right now. I personally advocate dam removal, for ecological benefit and larger potential river area restoration that this city needs! The potential for paddling through rapids and restoring the con edison brown field just downstream of the dam could bring serious economic gain to Ann Arbor. Rowers may think it selfish of kayakers and canoers to push for a free flowing river for our passion over yours, but you have several other long ponds to work with! Gallup and Barton are equally suitable rowing locations. However this is basically the only plausible steep river gradient in all of southeastern Michigan. People would come from far and wide to ride the rapids of Ann Arbor. Think if the edison site was a street of bars, restaurants and shops overlooking the whole thing... ca-ching for local economy. But I would accept the decision to keep the dam too, since it is not dangerous. The mill race could easily be reconfigured without touching the dam. And portaging should really not be our concern here, that is easily fixable. What I cannot accept is spending $185k for nothing! Grrr. The research has already been done, do your HW already city council. Keeping the dam incurs a lot of maintenance cost for the foreseeable future, while removal is a one time fee. Unless you are only thinking very short term with the current opportunity for removal/repair, keeping the dam clearly costs more than removing it. The Dam might be in good shape now, but it simply will not last forever and removal or serious repair will become necessary. We could take our opportunity now and really make Ann Arbor the "cool city" it wants to be.

Charley Sullivan

Wed, Sep 9, 2009 : 3:45 p.m.

Dave. I agree. You can already portage without the millrace. But characterizing Argo Dam as some massively expensive infrastructure that is purpose-built for rowing (and rowing alone) is a bit disingenuous. Argo Pond has been around for nearly 180 years, and the current dam since the 1970s. Although there was canoeing and rowing on it at various times in the 20th century, as far back as the 1920s for rowing, rowers in some form have been there for the past 30 years. We've been there not because it was built for us, but because it was built to provide a pond and recreation for the whole city, and rowing fit there. It's going to cost money to take the dam out, so why should I and others subsidize that so paddlers can shoot 30 seconds of rapids, particularly when there are other and better places you could paddle, and when the ecological benefits to the river are speculative and unproven?

dave.fanslow

Wed, Sep 9, 2009 : 2:56 p.m.

An alternative portage already exist. Put in at the base of the dam. I portage at the dam to take advantage of the faster water there. Of course there would be a lot more swift water with the dam gone. As a tax payer I am opposed to subsidizing a venue for the rowing community, especially when they have alternatives. If the cycling community wanted a velodrome they would have to pay no doubt, as should the rowers or any other specialized recreational group who needs massively expensive infrastructure to do their sport. So sell the dam to the rowers for $1 if they can prove they can maintain it in perpetuity. If not then ditch the dam, get free land, save money.

Joseph Edwards

Wed, Sep 9, 2009 : 1:49 p.m.

The Alternative Canoe and Kayak Passage presentation is available at http://home.comcast.net/~friends_of_argo_pond/documents/Alternative_Canoe_Route.pdf

AAJoker

Wed, Sep 9, 2009 : 1:12 p.m.

This makes literally no sense, to pay a consultant $185K for a $300K fix on an embankment that is obviously massively overgrown and neglected? Whatever council genius even suggested this need to resign immediately.

clan

Wed, Sep 9, 2009 : 11:19 a.m.

An alternative that would create 4 pools to allow canoes to go past the dam without portaging is being circulated.

Ryan J. Stanton

Wed, Sep 9, 2009 : 10:32 a.m.

HERE'S MORE ON THE MAINTENANCE COSTS: "Currently, maintenance costs for the Argo Dam are born by the Water Utility Fund. Since this dam no longer serves water utility purposes and serves only recreational purposes, staff believes the maintenance costs should be shifted to recreation. A decision on future cost sharing of recreation dam maintenance costs is important early in the process to understand the implications to various user groups. For example, if City Council decides to shift some or all costs for recreation dam maintenance to the recreational users of the impoundment (i.e., rowers, canoers, kayakers), this decision may have an impact on future investments by the rowing community and the livery." THE CURRENT COSTS: Annual Maintenance Costs: $20,000 - These costs cover the regular weekly and monthly inspections of the dam, responding to alarms, electricity to operate gates and other equipment, telemetry, replacement of non-functional equipment, testing and calibration to ensure proper functioning of equipment, vegetation control on right earthen embankment and deicing the gates and walkways in winter. Annual Insurance costs: $17,500 - These costs are specifically calculated for Argo. Every 5-Year Maintenance Cost: $45,000 - These costs cover replacement of public safety features such as buoys, faded warning signs, etc., replacement of malfunctioning equipment, adding rip-rap, and soil on earthen areas to address erosion due to pedestrian traffic. Every 15-20 Year Maintenance Costs: $250,000 - These costs are for repainting of gates, equipment housings and hand rails, replacement of chains and gate seals, and other key gate mechanisms. These costs are based on recent repairs at Superior Dam.

Ryan J. Stanton

Wed, Sep 9, 2009 : 10:19 a.m.

TEXT FROM THE CITY'S REPORT: In considering the timeframe for completing these studies and bringing forward a recommendation, staff recommends that the following timeframe: Initiate work to complete studies and analysis early October 2009 All studies and analysis are completed - May 2010 Review of studies and analysis May to July 2010 Public meetings held to share analysis and gather public input on disposition of dam July and August 2010 Recommendation on disposition of dam completed - October 2010 Findings and recommendation presented to public, Park Advisory Commission, Environmental Commission and City Council October to December 2010 Council decision January 2011 This schedule would allow time to complete the studies and analysis and provide for a long term decision on the disposition of the dam to be made by January 2011. If, after this process, Council decides to remove the dam, and it is made by January 2011, this allows appropriate time to relocate rowing; address the Argo Canoe Livery needs; and complete the dam removal, thereby, negating the need to complete the $250,000 maintenance scheduled for 2012. If a decision is made to remove the dam, the City would take steps to engineer the design and remove the dam. Engineering design could take 6 months, bid award could take 6 months, and dam removal could take another 12 months. Canoeing would be affected at Argo Pond for the first and most likely the second and third season.

Charley Sullivan

Wed, Sep 9, 2009 : 9:14 a.m.

Gee, Bragslaw, maybe if y'all say it enough people will actually think that Argo Pond is stinky... I was just out there this morning; no stench to be found. Are you sure you know what you're talking about? (By the way, it wasn't stagnant this morning either... but I wonder if anyone was washed away by some unexpectedly violent flow of water downstream...) And again, for everyone, this is not about Argo Dam, this is about the millrace, which is a separate structure (please read the report if this isn't clear to you yet.) If the city doesn't want to fix the toe drains, just shut down the millrace; the only people affected would be people who want to canoe or kayak down the river, who would have a longer portage. I don't think this is a good thing, but it would have no effect on the dam or Argo pond. You'd think the folks running Argo canoe livery would be advocating pretty hard for getting it fixed already.

braggslaw

Wed, Sep 9, 2009 : 9:01 a.m.

Tear the dam down. IT is that simple. Turn a stinky pond into a highly oxygenated free flowing river for kayakers and fisherman. Eliminate the maintenance issues/costs and remove the danger of catastrophic failure.

Top Cat

Wed, Sep 9, 2009 : 7:40 a.m.

This past Monday I walked back and forth on the embankment in question. I'm no engineer but I could find no place that the enbankment appeared in any danger. I agree with some of the prior comments. Cut down some of the dead trees already and get the DEQ off our back. Then this can truly be decided on its merits. And by the way, this has already been decided, if nothing else, by sheer inertia. This dam is not going anywhere.

Bob Heinold

Wed, Sep 9, 2009 : 7:40 a.m.

Good old Ann Arbor. Greenbelts, statements on wages and war, arguing over building heights; all while taking action on safety and regular maintenance.

Ryan J. Stanton

Wed, Sep 9, 2009 : 7:30 a.m.

There's a lot more to this story that we'll be following as it progresses. In the meantime, I suggest everyone read the report put out by city staff. You can download it here: http://www.a2gov.org/news/Documents/2009_News_Releases/Argo_Facilities_Report_Sept2009.pdf It essentially lays out every scenario the city is considering and the costs (and there are some great maps that help give a better understanding of the geography of the area for those not familiar with the dam and its various components).... Option 1 Contest MDEQ Order to Close Headrace based on Technical Issues in Dispute between City and MDEQ... Option 2 Completely Shut Off Flow from Impoundment to Headrace and Dewater Headrace... Option 3 Address Headrace Embankment Deficiencies by Repairing Toe Drains... Option 4 Address Headrace Embankment Deficiencies and Remove Canoe Portage

81wolverine

Wed, Sep 9, 2009 : 6:58 a.m.

The city has already wasted a multiple of the $300,000 it will take to repair the toe drains via all the wasted meeting time, consultants, and foot-dragging over the last 5 years. The cheapest and most common sense thing to do is just to fix the toe drains, clean up the tree overgrowth on the earthen berm, and be done with it! Don't waste $185,000 more on a consultant - that would pay for almost 2/3 of the toe drain repairs. As for the endangered species, I'm no expert on the subject, but I would assume in a case like this (where public safety is a major issue) that a permit could be obtained to do the necessary dam repairs. Again, no more studies please! In my opinion, the whole "dam out" proposal is really a separate issue entirely and should never have been used to bog down the discussion about repairing the dam. Long term water and river use planning is another subject that entails a different process. As a taxpayer, I'm really mad about the excessive money being spent to debate a straight-forward repair project that was approved & budgeted years ago. Why are they making this more complicated than it is?

Jon Saalberg

Wed, Sep 9, 2009 : 6:30 a.m.

"Although the DEQ is leaving it up to the city to decide whether to remove or repair the dam, McCormick said the city is taking issue with the 2012 deadline to have the dam removed should it go that route. She said the DEQ should not be imposing any timeline for removal. "That doesn't make any sense to us," she said. "We believe that that's inappropriate." Hmm. The city can get a new parking structure going in the blink of an eye, but it's going to take three years(!) to tear down the dam? Yes, a larger project, but really, this is hyperbole.

corazon

Wed, Sep 9, 2009 : 3:52 a.m.

Is another costly study needed? Maybe the City Council members could make a decision & save the money.... Trim the leaning trees & get rid of the deadwood!

Ann Arbor Resident

Wed, Sep 9, 2009 : 3:46 a.m.

Another delayed decision? This smells very political. I did not realize the city council members were experts on dam construction, etc.

751

Tue, Sep 8, 2009 : 11:02 p.m.

City Administration will do whatever possible to delay a decision which will require them to appropriate funding to this project immediately. Obviously, the budget is tight and this problem was not anticipated. I understand the political and fiscal reasons for presenting the dilemma as has been done. However, I do urge City Administrators to carefully weigh the potential public safety impact of a dam failure as they consider impacts to the budget. This is certainly an unenviable position to be in, but your constituents trust that you will make the best decision with their safety in mind.

crayzee

Tue, Sep 8, 2009 : 10:07 p.m.

Yet another issue that won't be resolved for years. I hope they manage to get the E. Stadium bridges rebuilt first.

halflight

Tue, Sep 8, 2009 : 8:56 p.m.

City officials noted tonight that an endangered plant species called the "purple turtlehead" lives in areas of the headrace embankment and could be adversely impacted by the dewatering and repairs.... Oh, please. I have this stuff growing in my garden and all I do is water it on a regular basis. I smell another bogus environmental cause (think "spotted salamander") used by some to serve non-environmental agendas.