Ann Arbor, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality reach Argo Dam compromise
A stop log was put in the Argo Dam today.
Angela Cesere | AnnArbor.com
The Ann Arbor city attorney's office announced this morning it has reached a partial compromise with the state Department of Environmental Quality over the Argo Dam.
The city has been in administrative hearings before a judge in Lansing to contest a DEQ order that addresses safety concerns with the dam. City officials said the DEQ agreed Friday to a 90-day stay of its order, with one exception: The city must comply with orders to stop the flow of water from the impoundment into the headrace, a 1,500-foot stretch of water that canoeists and kayakers use to bypass Argo Dam.
MDEQ officials originally told the city it had until Nov. 1 to completely shut off the flow from Argo Dam's impoundment to the headrace.
DEQ officials think the headrace is exerting too much pressure on the earthen embankment that separates it from the Huron River and could cause dangerous flooding if it is breached.
A view from above shows the new stop log placed in the Argo Dam.
Angela Cesere | AnnArbor.com
Crews installed a "stop log" this morning to stop the flow to the headrace. The stop log also will block water access for canoes and kayaks between the impoundment and the headrace, city officials said. The headrace water level is expected to drop about 3 feet over the next several days.
City officials said all other actions, including dewatering of the headrace, are at a standstill for 90 days while the city and DEQ continue discussions to address concerns with the dam.
"This really is a problem that we can resolve, and it looks to me like the city has reached a workable compromise in that all we're doing is lowering the water 3 feet rather than completely dewatering the headrace," said City Council Member Sabra Briere, D-1st Ward. "Obviously the state doesn't feel we have as serious an issue as they initially thought we did."
Council Member Mike Anglin, D-5th Ward, said he's pleased with the compromise and thinks it's one small step toward addressing the bigger issues with Argo Dam.
The City Council has held off on taking action to make repairs to the earthen embankment identified by the DEQ. Anglin said he thinks the city will go forward with $300,000 in repairs but will hold off on a final "dam-in" or "dam-out" decision for a while.
"It's being done in slow increments here," he said. "I predict what we'll probably do is do the repairs, deal with the embankment and that will be the end of it for a time."
Ryan J. Stanton covers government for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529.
Comments
Hospadaruk
Mon, Nov 30, 2009 : 12:10 p.m.
The poll, referred to earlier can be found here: http://www.twiigs.com/poll/News/38234 Remove the dam!
Huron River Paddler
Tue, Nov 3, 2009 : 4:42 p.m.
Bruce, Great questions! The City manages four dams within the city limits. Of the four, Argo serves the least purpose--a recreational dam with a low potential for profitable hydro-electric power. Removing the dam will provide 6 miles of free-flowing river. That may not seem like a lot, but I would encourage skeptics to paddle a canoe from the pond at Gallup Park upstream towards the Nichols Arboretum. The change is quite dramatic; one could almost imagine that he is in Northern Michigan. The point is that the aesthetics and quality of the river environment can change dramatically over a short distance. Restoration of 6 miles of river will expand a diverse ecosystem that includes freshwater mussels, aquatic invertebrates, and cool-water fish species such as Smallmouth Bass and Walleye. Regarding flooding: Argo Dam does not provide flood control (very few dams in Michigan do). The City of Ann Arbor is legally required to keep the pond level at a set level. The City cannot hold water back to prevent downstream flooding or empty the pond in advance of a heavy rain. Dam removal will actually create flood control. The removal itself will be done gradually-over several weeks-to prevent downstream flooding and stabilize sediments. Once the dam is removed, the river will be reconnected with its floodplain, allowing the river to expand in heavy rain events. The new floodplain will absorb the water, reduce the flow, and settle out sediments and nutrients (HRWC 2009). I hope this information helps. I encourage everyone to check out the FAQ page about dam removal via the watershed council website: http://hrwc.org/argodam/faq3.htm
Bruce Amrine
Tue, Nov 3, 2009 : 1:15 p.m.
If people want the river to flow free, as seems to be the issue with the anti dam folks, wouldn't it make sense to consider all the dams on the river together. If only one dam remains, the river still is not free flowing. The argument for free flowing is somewhat weak unless the river is considered in it's entirety. And what about the function of flood control? Doesn't anybody remember that the river occasionally does flood?
AAJoker
Tue, Nov 3, 2009 : 11:42 a.m.
I'm confused when people say this stop log has stopped paddling, as I see it there is simply a slightly longer walk (which I would actually consider a very small portage compared to some I have undergone).
Huron River Paddler
Tue, Nov 3, 2009 : 10:01 a.m.
Cobrall et al: This page shows before/after photographs of the Mill Creek dam removal project in Dexter, Michigan: http://www.hrwc.org/argodam/argo-visions.html The "swamp" (which, by definition is a flooded forest), that you describe is now more ecologically diverse. The explanation for why this is important is too long for a post, but I would suggest reading more about it. A great place to start is "Bringing Nature Home" by Douglas Tallamy http://bringingnaturehome.net
CobraII
Tue, Nov 3, 2009 : 9:48 a.m.
I think Ann Arbor should remove the dam & make a first class swamp like Dexter made when they remove their dam. I really like looking at the 6 foot high cattails with the tickle of a stream in the middle. What an improvement to the West side of Dexter!
Marco
Tue, Nov 3, 2009 : 9:09 a.m.
Tee,   I sympathize with your desire to have environmental groups turn their efforts toward improving Argo Pond, but that's like asking environmentalists to stop worrying about all those polluting factories and just plant flowers around them.   The problem is not that Argo Pond is filling with weeds and sediment and experiencing all the other problems that go with a dam. Argo Pond itself is the problem. To state the obvious, a river's reason for being is to flow. By preventing that, a dam is fundamentally anti-river, and that's why dams hurt every single measure of a river's health.   Argo Dam is no exception. The Michigan DNR has measured damage from Argo all the way down to Lake Erie. Keeping the dam means committing to that damage.   Robert Frost's line that "something there is that does not love a wall" is especially true of dams. Rivers are constantly wearing out dams, pushing and dragging and trying to flow around them. So they require continual maintenance or they'll fail. That's why we've got the toe drain problem with Argo--and why we've got another quarter-million-dollar maintenance coming due in a few years. And more and more beyond that. The longer you keep a dam, the more it costs. And in the meantime, because the river can't do what it's supposed to do, you get all those negative impacts: worse water quality, habitat loss, invasive species, destructive changes in flow, and a weedy, sedimented pond that requires expensive (and environmentally unfriendly) maintenance.   HRWC is just one of many environmental organizations on record opposing Argo Dam. They're not opposed to the dam because it requires expensive maintenance, though it does. They're not opposed because they don't think it's pretty enough; Argo Pond is plenty pretty, most of the time. They're opposed to Argo Dam because it acts contrary to everything the river is supposed to do.
tredd
Tue, Nov 3, 2009 : 8:57 a.m.
Interesting turn of events. Political genius? Consider this...now that you have effectively shut down canoeing and kayaking along the most convenient portion of the river for city residents the populace has to make a choice in their advocacy. The rowing community is relatively tiny at the end of the day. The number of people renting canoes and kayaks throughout the season (I suspect) greatly outnumbers the rowers. How long do you suppose these folk who have been shut down will continue to support the rowers? Remember, most people don't vote the dollars and cents because they figure it is "the other guy", the "rich guy" who will pay most of the load. Will the "common canoeist" now rise up against the "elitist rower" and demand their river back? Just something to ponder...
Bob W
Tue, Nov 3, 2009 : 8:41 a.m.
So, the city can afford a $300,000 temp. fix that may prove wasted should the final decision be to remove the dam? Or, is this just one more of many indecisive issues the city can never seem to come to grips with. Sooner or later, you have to make decisions folks and they will never please everyone. Get on with it!
Rork Kuick
Tue, Nov 3, 2009 : 7:49 a.m.
I do not think the stop log will stop river boating. I don't really see what the headrace is good for right now anyway, except that it might have provided a slightly more convenient portage, but otherwise it seems crazy to maintain it. Maybe a new portage around the dam needs a bit of work is all. Still: Return the free-flowing river, and it's services, and save money in the long run. Removing Argo Dam is a good first step.
Bruce Amrine
Mon, Nov 2, 2009 : 7:46 p.m.
Personally, I favor keeping the dam, but I'm getting tired of the politicians putting off making a decision. They're "hired" to make tough decisions. Let's decide and then move on. We've plenty of issues that need to be addressed. How about using the dam for hydroelectric power like they did years ago?
Tom Teague
Mon, Nov 2, 2009 : 5 p.m.
Re: the poll on TWIIGS. I don't think either side should rely on that poll since it doesn't appear that the results are verifiably representative of local opinion. There is no information on who wrote the question and posted it, how the sample was prepared, or whether responders merely self-selected. There's no evidence that the question was tested for bias. Additionally, since I could email that poll question to friends for their response, it probably was not administered to just Washtenaw or Ann Arbor residents. That said, is there any scientific polling on this issue?
Huron River Paddler
Mon, Nov 2, 2009 : 4:35 p.m.
A poll regarding favor for keeping/removing Argo Dam was administered by this website and indicated a 55% majority for removing the dam. The results were never reported, but you can see them here: http://www.twiigs.com/poll/News/38234. To date, this is the only demonstration of a majority favoring one side or the other. I don't think yard signs and attendance at public hearings is a fair measurement for support; people from all over lower Michigan feel ownership for the river and use it in many ways, bringing vitality and dollars to the Ann Arbor community.
Tee
Mon, Nov 2, 2009 : 3:51 p.m.
I've attended numerous council meetings and work sessions that are packed with Argo Pond supporters (and not just the rowing community), I see the yard signs and this topic is widely discussed. I'm not oppossed to a vote but given the lengthy debate, it has at the very least allowed council the time to review the facts and listen to interested residents. I agree it's shame more people don't vote but am confident that council can now make sound decisions that are feasible to implement.
Ryan J. Stanton
Mon, Nov 2, 2009 : 3:37 p.m.
She said discussions are expected to continue for the 90 days, with a possibility that the stay could be extended even after that.
Ryan J. Stanton
Mon, Nov 2, 2009 : 3:35 p.m.
I just talked to assistant city attorney Abigail Elias and she didn't have much more to share other than to say the city is still in discussions with the DEQ on the safety order and that she is coordinating outside counsel (Bodman LLP) that is representing the city in the contested case.
treetowncartel
Mon, Nov 2, 2009 : 3:04 p.m.
Tee, I am just wondering how you know a majority support it. the only way you can really know what the majority supports is by putting it to the populace in the form of the vote. even then, you are only seeing what a majority of the people who appreciate their soverignty and excerise it feels. its a crying shame that few people turn out to vote.
Tee
Mon, Nov 2, 2009 : 2:58 p.m.
Drysuit, It's understandable how frustrated you feel not having a nearby venue for your sport but Argo Pond is already being utilized and it's unrealistic to rip out the dam because a group of water enthusiasts want to repurpose it for another use and environmentally inefficient to build new boathouses, parking lots, etc. in another location. I'm sure, given enough research, your group can find a suitable six-mile stretch of water elsewhere. The majority of local residents are not in favor of a costly project to remove the dam and are very supportive of the local rowing community that includes a large population of students at three local high schools. My hope is that the HRWC will use it's resources and experts to initiate a program to improve the quality of Argo Pond and showcase it's beauty, not destroy it.
81wolverine
Mon, Nov 2, 2009 : 2:52 p.m.
The stop logs are only necessarily temporarily until the toe drains are repaired - a job that should have been done years ago and which the City has been dragging it's feet on. Once the toe drains are repaired, the pressure should be off the embankment and the stops can be removed restoring water to the headrace. At least that's my understanding after attending the meetings. But, again, this is only necessary because of the neglected repair work that was identified by the state as early as 2001. If you want to blame someone for losing the headrace to canoe or kayak down, blame the city council.
Dr. I. Emsayin
Mon, Nov 2, 2009 : 2:49 p.m.
It sounds like a head race where no one is getting ahead.
treetowncartel
Mon, Nov 2, 2009 : 2:34 p.m.
Ed, is this the new hot dining spot in town? By my count, you have had two meals there already today.
treetowncartel
Mon, Nov 2, 2009 : 2:32 p.m.
Can't we just re-route the river around Argo pond and make everyone hapy?
Huron River Paddler
Mon, Nov 2, 2009 : 1:24 p.m.
Mr. Anglin - the only thing that is being "ended for a time" are paddlesports on this stretch of the river. The stop log prevents safe downstream passage from Argo Pond to the Huron River below Argo Dam. Ann Arbor has an opportunity to provide a year-round resource to canoers and kayakers, while providing improvements to the health of the river. The opportunity is the removal of Argo Dam and the restoration of a six-mile stretch of river that has some of the steepest gradient in lower Michigan. Instead of having the foresight and vision to expand outdoor recreation and improve the urban waterway in Ann Arbor, council members have stumbled with the DEQ and submitted to a small but vocal group of special interest holders. Today's closing of the Mill Race is a step backwards.
Arboriginal
Mon, Nov 2, 2009 : 1:11 p.m.
Well.....a flowing river does ice over. Get to know your Huron. Still, the dam should be removed.
DrySuit
Mon, Nov 2, 2009 : 1:02 p.m.
Kayaker wearing DrySuits paddle all year long in Michigan. We don't have a season, it's all 12 months, 365 days a year. The stop log blocks access, killing the venue. A flowing river doesn't ice over, a stagnant pond will. Remover the Argo Dam, paddlers will come to open flowing water.