Chapter Six CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Our research suggests that while removal of Argo Dam is possible, it will be a difficult process because of the strong opposition. We found that of the features in the Argo area, the parks around the pond are more important to residents than the pond itself, and the pond is more important than the dam. Most residents feel strongly that the parks around Argo Pond are attractive, are an asset to the local area, provide good recreational opportunities, and increase local property values. They feel that Argo Pond is a suitable place for most types of recreation and that the pond is generally attractive and good for property values. They feel that Argo Dam improves recreation on the Huron, despite their belief that it is unattractive and that it harms the health of the river ecosystem. A majority of the Ann Arbor public would be in favor of removing Argo Dam if they were aware of the costs and benefits inherent in dams and dam removal, and they would be willing to pay for removal and restoration. In fact, based on the willingness to pay exercise in our survey, we estimate a net economic benefit of approximately $2 million per year citywide from dam removal. However, while the general public is supportive of removal, the pond’s most important recreational user group, the rowing community, is strongly opposed to removal and would work very hard to prevent it without a satisfactory alternative site. Nonetheless, the rowers agree that aquatic plant growth in the pond is a serious problem, severely limiting its usefulness for recreation. Most other user groups are divided on the question of dam removal; they are not likely to take positions as groups, although individuals from these groups will probably be found on both sides of the debate. Dam removal remains a distant outcome at this time, as City officials believe that it is not an urgent issue, the City’s budget is already tight, and no alternative site is currently available to the rowing community. While our survey results indicate a general willingness on behalf of the public to support dam removal, there are numerous issues that must be considered before dam removal can progress. If the HRWC aims to pursue dam removal, it will likely be necessary to encourage the City to act, address the objections of key stakeholders, and motivate the public to be involved in the process. As means to those ends, we make the following recommendations to the HRWC.RECOMMENDATIONS Additional Research Research on the following topics would be useful to help inform the decision-making process and the general public: • The effect of dam removal on the flood plain and the likelihood of floods and sewer backups • Sediment composition and rate of accumulation • The shape of the river following removal; including an assessment of the feasibility of whitewater rapids and an analysis of the unnaturally sharp bend in the river below Argo Dam, particularly as it pertains to the contaminated sites owned by MichCon adjacent to the river • Potential wetland loss or creation • Restoration options; including whether or not both the millrace and the concrete structure would need to be removed, whether partial dam removal is a possibility and whether permanently opening the gates to restore water flow would suffice. Research on these topics will help to assess the feasibility and outcomes of dam removal. It will also aid in efforts to educate the public and decision-makers. The HRWC may choose to conduct this research in coordination with the City of Ann Arbor, the University of Michigan, or consultants. Additionally, the USGS and MDNR have both expressed interest in being involved in dam removal efforts that could serve as case studies for future Michigan dam removals. Information from sources other than the HRWC may add legitimacy and counteract potential charges of bias from dam removal opponents, and could facilitate fundraising for the removal. Education In the course of our research we found a general lack of knowledge and some misconceptions about the Argo site and the costs and benefits of dams and dam removal. Decision-makers may like to have a question-and-answer document that addresses the issue of dam removal, why it is being discussed, and the potential advantages and disadvantages (Naud 2003a). The following topics should be included:• Location and description of Argo Dam • Dam’s purpose, specifically that it does not provide flood control or generate electricity, and that its purpose is not likely to change in the near future • Negative ecological effects of the dam, emphasizing that it increases unwanted plant growth, increases water temperature and causes other water quality issues, fragments habitat for aquatic organisms, and disrupts and/or alters normal flows of both water and nutrients to downstream reaches • Impact of poor water quality on fish and wildlife species • Dam removal’s effects on ecosystem including benefits such as improved water quality, increased dissolved oxygen levels, decreased nutrient loading, and increased fish migration and diversity • Expected appearance of the river after removal including water width and depth with a visual representation of the site. • Changes in the floodplain and the effect of those changes on flooding at the MichCon site and the DTE substation • Changes in wetland areas • Possibility of 50 acres of parkland that could be created if the dam were to be removed. • Effect on recreational opportunities and the possible creation of a portage-free kayak or canoe route from Argo to Gallup. Alternative Sites for Rowing Dam removal is very unlikely to occur without the successful relocation of the rowing community. Both the rowing teams and the City are satisfied with Argo Pond as the site for their activities, so finding a new location for them will be a challenge. The rowers are strongly opposed to the idea of removing Argo Dam, thus it will be extremely important to engage them and develop options that meet their needs. The two most promising alternative sites for rowing are Geddes and Barton Ponds, but all alternatives, and combinations of alternatives, should receive due consideration. Gallup Park on Geddes Pond is already heavily used for other activities and the City feels that it does not have sufficient space to provide the entire rowing community with parking and
View Full Document
Unlocking...