Dam In: Keeping Argo Dam is best for Ann Arbor
I have read the staff report summarizing the options and listing the MDEQ deadlines for City Council. I observe that, if the council members of the past eight years had been more attentive and proactive, there would have been a lot more time to complete (and pay for) whatever work they decided to have done. That those past council members left us with just seventeen months to get the job done is nothing short of disgraceful.
But that’s what we face: having the present City Council make a long-lasting decision within the next seven months which leaves only ten months to accomplish the work. ( I was unable to find out what penalties may be assessed if MDEQ deadlines are missed. Whatever they are, they won’t be good for Ann Arbor.)
I make no secret of my desire to see the Dam head race repaired so that Argo Dam will continue to provide an impoundment which many (more than just rowing crews) enjoy during all seasons. Yet I diligently tried to see if my desire was supported by observable facts. I did so by first considering the claims of self-described environmentalists and others who want Argo Dam removed.
The dam out claims are: The river will be returned to its original course, improving oxygenation and providing fast(er) water for canoeists.
But: improving oxygenation isn’t correcting a total deficiency. I see no evidence that fish species (bluegills, bass, sheepshead) are suffering. The faster water over a 2500 yard stretch would provide about 11-12 minutes of “fast water canoeing.”
Draining the pond would provide about 50 acres of additional park land.
But: I see no projections for time and money to develop said park land from a mud flat which would be messy and stinky. Even if it were developed overnight: the several vistas of Argo Pond which now exist would be gone forever.
Argo Pond is used primarily by rowing crews from U of M and our high schools.
But: this is a total misrepresentation. Argo Pond is encircled by a dirt footpath on the East which becomes an elevated wooden walkway at the North and then joins with a wide paved walkway running up and down the West side of Argo Pond. These paths (and the vista points along the way) are used constantly by joggers, walkers, photographers and sports fishers. The pond itself provides slow water for canoe and kayak paddlers as well as small fishing boats and other water craft.
You can get an idea of these features of Argo Pond from my Flickr slide show and YouTube Video.
We must bear in mind that removing Argo Dam and Argo Pond would be a permanent loss - versus claimed (theoretical) gains of minimal importance.
City Council: Past members have deferred action again and again since 2001. The present City Council had staff prepare a detailed report on the alternatives, costs and deadlines imposed by MDEQ. This report was reviewed in a working session Tuesday, September 9th.
City Council has announced they’re thinking of having another study done: at a cost of $185,000. This is transparently aimed at providing additional delay in resolving the fate of Argo Dam. It would significantly add to the cost, no matter which alternative is chosen.
I dispute the need for this study. Surely, a qualified engineer can be assigned a few days to inspect those all-important head race toe drains - at a fraction of the cost and time. The removal of excess trees and vegetation: isn’t in doubt and should be tackled ASAP.
Lastly, I call on all interested citizens to consider what we have (Argo Dam and Argo Pond) and then consider their permanent loss in trade for claimed, minimal benefits. I also call for the formation of a volunteer advocacy group for the purpose of providing whatever help we can to assure the future of Argo Dam and Argo Pond.
Photo of Argo Dam taken by Jack Noel.
Jack Noel has Ann Arbor resident since 1974 and is a retired purchasing agent.
Comments
'Arb boy
Fri, Nov 27, 2009 : 7:02 p.m.
Oops - After feeling like I'd been so fair and eloquent, I just realized the argo is not where I was thinking of! Well, good luck with the decision anyway I still think its a good opportunity (but not as much time to think about it) Cheers
'Arb boy
Fri, Nov 27, 2009 : 6:38 p.m.
Hello gentlemen, I am a resident of Vermont, but grew up in Ann Arbor on the edge of the Arboretum. The stretch of the Huron that runs through the 'arb, and the lake section in Gallup park (argo lake?) is an essential piece of my childhood. Having the river restored to more free flowing condition would be amazing; I have always noticed how the water becomes smelly in the lake, and was warned as a kid not to swim in it because of high E. Coli counts. Of course, the lake is also a major part of the geography of Ann Arbor, homes are built along its shore and paths and parkland surround it. I am actually have a degree in environmental science and am studying civil engineering, and was checking out the dam today after running through Gallup on the paths; doesn't look like it has enough head to produce much power... Anyway, as we debate the future of the dam, it is important to objectively consider the various options, and when is the appropriate time to make changes. Observing what happens at the big rapids site will be very helpful; we should also be learning more about the state of the argo dam, including sedimentation and water quality issues. And remember time is on our side; to keep the lake, eventually the dam will have to be replaced and the lake dredged, which will make the case for river restoration more pertinent. By planning ahead for this decision, I believe we can conduct studies and weigh options in a much more cost effective way; university students and faculty can gather data working largely on grant and tuition money. The land that would be reclaimed by argo removal would be a valuable resource; I feel that the debate should be as much about how we would use that land as whether to remove the dam. The space could be used for community gardens or urban agriculture, if the soil is not too polluted. And proper designs for the drainage of the area could ease runoff and pollution loads on the river. In conclusion, I'm thrilled to discover that this option is on the table, I think it is a good opportunity for the town to begin proactively working with its environment. Let's not butt heads about an immediate decision, but work together to envision our future.
Rork Kuick
Mon, Sep 21, 2009 : 11:39 a.m.
Least it be forgotten after all that string: HRIMP survey of anglers asking about the reach from Barton Pond to superior dam found that the free-flowing piece below Argo was most popular, even though it is a small piece of the 10 mile long reach. That is not some individual's observation. I brought up the fact about Mill creek simply to show how fast plants can recolonize, but perhaps it must meet someone's personal "exact equivalence" test to be relevant. Why not stick to the point and say what you think will happen. Walking/biking/jogging/picnics are on average likely to benefit by increased parkland. Edwards and Tru do not really dispute that. Jack Noel is writing as if existing paths and park will be lost and that is false. Can we find anecdotes of people who like impoundment better than freeflow - yes, but they are likely not the rule. Should there be diversity of opportunity in outdoor pursuits - yes, but impoundment is not the rare commodity. I will hardly attempt to rebut all of Tru2blu's writing.
Joseph Edwards
Fri, Sep 18, 2009 : 7:59 a.m.
And the decision regarding the Argo dam should be made based on an objective alternatives analysis, not impassioned arguments (junk or not).
Joseph Edwards
Fri, Sep 18, 2009 : 7:51 a.m.
R&R - Your ability to identify junk arguments is very questionable.
Ross
Thu, Sep 17, 2009 : 10:23 p.m.
Just a note on your intense defense of fishers: Every single time I kayak the Huron, I see orders of magnitude more folks fishing in the fast moving stretches of the huron than in Argo pond. Sometimes on beautiful sunny summer days there is no one fishing in Argo at all (while there can be dozens up near the metroparks). Quite often after passing through Argo I find a few guys fishing down past the broadway bridge, too. I don't fish personally, but this seems to imply something to me. Comparisons to the mill pond in Dexter are completely fair! They are different versions and conditions of the same issue. And an argument that this stretch of the Huron can never be natural because it is not remote is ridiculous... Like our paddler said above, going through ann arbor on the Huron is beautiful and peaceful, and naturalizing this stretch of the river would only add to the beauty. Furthermore I do not believe its fair to equate people suggesting that alternatives for the rowers DO exist as not caring about their needs or lacking respect for them! That's quite a leap. Let's keep the discussion civil, as most of us really do want to see a solution that tries to benefit everyone.
Huron River Paddler
Thu, Sep 17, 2009 : 3:35 p.m.
Tru2Blu76 writes: "The Huron River running through Ann Arbor is not the same as the Pere Marquette or Pine River running through open country for miles. Like it or not: we are bound to make the best of the urbanized Huron River..." Indeed, but stretches of the Huron--including the section from the UM hospital to Gallup Park--remind me of being on the Pine or the PM and don't require I drive 3+ hours to get there. In fact, I can walk or ride my bike and then wet a line, paddle, or bird watch--the same activities I do "up north!" Freeing the Argo-stretch of river only expands these opportunities, which many people believe is really "making the best of the urbanized Huron River." A side note: calling those who share this view arrogant or referring to us as antagonists is really unnecessary. Negative comments have been lobbed from both sides--the unfortunate nature of these debates. And I think it is an error to say where the majority lies at this date.
Rork Kuick
Wed, Sep 16, 2009 : 3:56 p.m.
I'll bite a bit. 1) You are nitpicking on that one. Yes the Big Rapids dam is not the last one on the Muskegon, but the improvement is nearly universally agreed to by the residents. The mudflats will have flowers in the first year, judging from what I see in Dexter. Making our past blight be invisible will take more time though, but facing that problem is inevitable. We are trying to do the right thing on very large timescales here. 2) Rowers are trying to deny that dams are bad, I know. I thought it not in dispute that the majority of anglers preferred the free-flowing river. If it's not called shore-fishing when the water is faster that's just technicalities. I'll add that there are hundreds of lakes in Washtenaw county, and I have fished at least 2 dozen of them, all more beautiful than Argo impoundment. Flat water is not the rare environment. 3) Lower Michigan often does not provide many large vistas besides lakes, cause it's fairly flat, and large trees grow here. I embrace that physical reality. Hey, perhaps we can add some mountains here, eh? I might want glaciers on basalt. 4) I said "the real river" not "a real river". I mean the Huron. For example the 3 nearby metroparks upstream of Ann Arbor. That is what I would wish the Argo reach to look like. I am concerned others have not seen that, and so simply don't know what could be. The public owns astonishing amounts of the river bank from Portage Lake to Ann Arbor thanks to some old visionaries, so that canoes encounter rather few houses on the free-flowing reach. We are blessed.
Rork Kuick
Wed, Sep 16, 2009 : 12:16 p.m.
There are quite a few junk arguments there. I thought it was agreed that there are fewer species in the impoundments than in the freeflowing river (see HRWC's stuff). People in favor of removal want it partly because it is expected to be more beautiful, and only messy for a little while (visit Big Rapids at the site of the removed dam across the Muskegon in 2001 if you doubt this - oh, and just try to find a resident who wants that dam back). We will still be able to walk around the river even if the dam is removed - in fact, there will be more opportunity for that. The "vistas" stuff is romatic, but if you know the sights of the real river, dams and their impoundments get uglier.