As we all know, nature activists are prone to grand interpretations of facts and reality. The claim that the dam is “collapsing” was made by those unqualified to make such judgments and clearly false. Statements that some “fish habitat” is at stake are equally vague, untrue and ignore other dams up and down the Huron. The claim that removing the dam will somehow be inexpensive or “save money” is erroneous as the Village of Dexter recently experienced when successfully removing a very small dam at significant cost. In fact, there are few verifiable benefits that would result and, in my opinion, they don’t come close to balancing the harm that City Council could inflict on City of Ann Arbor residents.

Another hallmark of activists seems to be their need to trivialize and belittle the interests of others. In this case those who have made investments and commitments to the pond, such as the “rowing community”. This is the same “community” of active residents and students that help make the City special. Flippant, condescending remarks that this pond is merely a “preference” is an insult to those who understand that these programs are unique and subject to specific criteria. Like golf, rowing can be difficult to learn, which also makes it one of our most challenging sports. Also like golf, it is one of our oldest sports and enjoys a wonderful tradition and history. Rowing has been an Olympic event since 1900, is an extremely good workout and popular in rich and poor nations throughout the world.

Should this attack on one of Ann Arbor’s most significant recreational amenities be successful, I hope that the cost estimators include the use of City funds to purchase the leases, property and buildings of the rowing clubs as their Ann Arbor programs are terminated in Ann Arbor. Perhaps, as one snide person wrote, the crews could then hang out in a “doggy poop park” instead.

Our daughter was featured in the Huron River Watershed Council’s “adopt a creek” program ads back when she was fourteen. Her project had nothing to do with Argo Pond but, back then, the council seemed to be more sensible in its approach to their responsibilities. I guess it could be said I’ve been an environmentalist since age 11, but I don’t think that environmentalists are automatically right about everything – and that includes this issue of the dam and impoundment.

I notice that the Ann Arbor News ran two “Other Voices” essays: both support keeping the dam and impoundment. There are still signs of dumping on the West bank of the pond. This should be cleaned upon to provide more park-like terrain. I’d say that further development of the rowing and other recreational features on the pond would be fine. Remove the remaining rubble, keep most of the banks in their natural state, let people treat this as a combination wildlife refuge and recreational park as well as continuing support for the rowing teams. There’s already a new disc golf course and small course for stunt cyclists. It’s a challenge,that’s plain, but heck – when did anyone in Ann Arbor ever let that stop them?

I also think that having Argo Pond visible from N. Main Street is a kind of advertisement for Ann Arbor: the rowers, the cyclists, the fishermen and photographers are all at least briefly visible to visitors arriving downtown from the North. We’re never going to have much of a skyline for our city icon: why not make Argo Pond the icon for Ann Arbor’s love of parks?

Hmm, that gives me another idea. We’ve also become an early leader in the competition for movie locations – so I’m thinking of a movie script which would center around Argo Pond. (I’m a published author and I’ve already shot of ton of home video on that location – so I’ve got a head start.)

I have coached and rowed in Long Beach and Newport Beach, California and have had to interact with a far greater variety of boating and activity than found on the Huron River. Everyone on the water is responsible for understanding and practicing the rules of navigating the waterways. I have interacted with countless kayakers and canoeists, some who were aware and competent and others who were far from it. A bicyclist is expected to understand the rules of the road if they wish to use city streets.

I do recognize that the wake produced by the coaching boats can produce significant wake that can affect other watercraft, none possibly more than rowing shells themselves as their gunwales (sides of the boat) are only 4 to 6 inches above the water line. Various rowing programs around the country employ the use of wakeless launches that cut down significantly on the size of the wake. Unfortunately, the turning radius of these boats would make them useless, if not dangerous, on a body of water as narrow as the upstream end of Argo Pond.

I remember there being a stretch of river below the Argo Dam and farther up the river that provides kayak/canoe conditions similar to those described by those who want to tear down the dam. I took my senior rowers canoeing along this stretch at the end of the season, starting at Hudson Mills and ending in Ann Arbor.

As for the noise created by the megaphones, they are needed to communicate with the athletes and coxswains (the person responsible for commanding and steering each rowing shell). I have gone spans of time without using a megaphone and have ended up unable to talk because of having to yell loud enough for athletes in multiple boats to hear me. There is a developing technology that allows coaches to communicate with boats through a walkie talkie system but, as of yet, is unreliable and mostly produces static. The noise produced by the coaches pales in comparison to what is produced at football games (think the Big House) or a band practicing on a field. The difference is that football is mainstream enough that people don’t find fault with it. Many cities around the world consider rowing to bring a certain charm to a city’s setting. With that being said, I feel it is still the responsibility of all involved with rowing on Argo to make sure that the noise they produce is necessary and polite.

Ann Arbor is starting to make a name for itself in the national spotlight through rowing. Boats training on Argo Pond are showing up at national championships, putting the town on the rowing map. Two boys from Coach Griffith’s team were just invited to go to selection camp to represent the United States at the World Championships. This all coming from a 3000 meter stretch of water that provides shelter from the wind and an appreciation for being surrounded by trees and wildlife. I am just someone who has seen the benefits of rowing and misses the environment of Ann Arbor. I am speaking out for what I believe to be what will benefit a good section of the population, now and in the future. I realize that rowers do not comprise the majority of Ann Arbor’s citizens. What if everyone that didn’t play hockey wanted to get rid of the city’s ice rinks or what if those who didn’t golf wanted to get rid of greens if favor of either reforestation or development? Varied interests make for enriched and healthy communities. Before you decided to tear down the dam, decide if there is a comparable body of water that affords these kids and adults the opportunity to improve their lives and who they are or will become.

The biodiversity of the impoundment is poor. The MDNR stopped stocking the pond with fish years ago because the water body was so degraded and there was little interest from anglers. Mussel surveys from the 1930s showed 13 different kinds of species in the pond. When the dam breached in 1973 they restudied the mussel population and found only 2 species hearty enough to live. They don’t even bother to sample anymore. Regarding the recent revision (April 2009) to the state’s list of Threatened and Endangered species, the MDNR notes “Many species added to the list are associated with rivers or river wetlands called floodplains.” Michigan’s rivers and the species they support need help, including the Huron. The swans that are often mentioned as symbols of river health–most often they are invasive Mute Swans.

There is an effort to paint Argo pond as a beautiful healthy pond, but it is not. Rowers were among the first to point it out, so it seems disingenuous for the rowing community to now talk about the river’s pristine health. As I drive into my former college town, I see a weed-choked pond that is filling in and not very productive. My personal kayaking and fishing activities are mostly upstream.

I can only see that dam removal will improve the situation with fast flowing, cooler, and more static water that will allow for fish and animal migration and reconnect the river back to a floodplain for greater flood control. Will it be pristine? No. Will it be “natural?” No, but it will be on a path or restoration and improved health.

Ms Lesko – I understand your complaints and hope they can be improved by action taken as a result of a user forum.

Mr Green – I met some of your fellow whitewater enthusiasts in the NCRB pool last Fall (Bryan, Boti, Jan) after learning about the kayak club from Jonathan Lutz’ presentation at the PAC meeting. I only came to one pool session so they may not remember me, but they were very welcoming to a complete newbie. My daughter is a junior at Huron HS who started rowing in Spring 2007. I began that summer and now serve on the Ann Arbor Rowing Club board. I’m expressing my own opinions here. My son is a an 8th grader at Clague. We’ve enjoyed Argo since they were 5 and 8. On our fist adventure they wondered as we hiked along the trail below Longshore Drive if we would be able to find our way back home from the “wilderness”.

I think your statement of the policy question is essentially correct, but I do have comments in a couple of areas.

First, I think use of the pond by non-rowers is being understated. As you avoid certain times for canoeing there are times, particularly weekends in good weather, when rowing is impractical due to the amount of river traffic. There is a large group of paddlers, both in personal and livery boats, that has not become engaged in this process. We heard several speakers at the public meetings that prefer Argo as it is because of the setting or availability even during periods of low flow when the free-flowing parts of the river are impassable. The implication that these users will be served just as well if the dam is removed has not been justified.

The shore and boat anglers at Argo have not been engaged. It’s common on weekday afternoons for a dozen people to be fishing at a number of points along the the pond: on or beside the dam, on the docks, under and around the M-14 and other bridges, below Barton Dam, and in a variety of boats. On weekends I see more
families fishing. We didn’t hear from any of these people at the meetings, but they’re at the Pond every day. Playing fields are used for multiple sports – soccer, field hockey, football, lacrosse – and so is Argo. As cost sharing discussions are approached it’s reasonable to make an effort to identify the entire user community. Since rowing is the largest participation sport at both Pioneer and Huron the schools may have a role too.

Second, Over the last couple of weeks it has been argued that Argo Pond is the rowing community’s preferred location but that other impoundments in the city are adequate. I appreciate the support that all the PAC Commissioners and Larua Rubin have expressed in helping to find new facilities, but fear that the access issues are insurmountable, and removal of the dam would end rowing in Ann Arbor.

I think it’s worth reflecting on why rowing is located at Argo now. In 1976 what is now Bandemer Park was dilapidated, junk covered industrial land. It was close to downtown and outdoor storage space could be leased. An attempt to move to Barton Pond failed in 1984, and when the UM Women’s team became a varsity sport in 1996 discussions with the city about moving that team to Gallup were also abandoned. The facilities at Argo are appreciated, spartan, and took decades to develop.

City park planning has called for a boat launch at Barton Pond for at least 40 years, but on the Huron River Drive side the lack of railroad crossings has prevented any legal access or development. The UM team (both men and women at the time) was granted permission to store boats and access the pond on the Barton Hills private roads by bicycle in 1983 but was not allowed back. In 1984 a planned boathouse was opposed by residents on both sides of the pond. The parcel identified as a potential site now contains the powerhouse, but at 120′ wide seems too narrow to fit 58′ boats and a boathouse, and would place the dock right in front of the turbine intake. It just doesn’t seem safe for our kids, and even if everyone crossed Barton dam from the water pumping station to get there, we have no right to use the Barton Hills roads to bring boats on site.

The lower portion of Geddes Pond isn’t used much, but I can’t find any city owned parcels at that have not already been developed as park. The area downstream of the island chain where rowers would be placed to avoid conflict with livery boats is bounded by the railroad on the South and private property on the North.

Superior Pond is completely inaccessible to rowers at this time. The city owns land East of the sewage treatment plant but there is no road access, and the boats would be blocked by the private Starkstrasse bridge. Likewise, the small parcel on the West end of Superior Dam has no road access.

Rowers dream of a facility with heat and running water, but I think they would be happy enough to have a dirt floored pole barn like the developed with, and leased from the city in 2002. Building that wouldn’t be expensive and volunteer built dock could probably be moved, but doing road or bridge construction, even if access can be arranged, seems economically infeasible.

Last, environmental benefits of removing Argo Dam have not been established – though the comparison is reasonable there’s no basis at this point for saying that Argo Pond has a greater environmental impact than some number soccer or other facilities that could serve all of the Argo users displaced if the dam is removed. In fact, there’s no basis for saying that Argo Pond warms the water of the Huron or reduces the oxygen content – Neither the HRIMP committee nor HRWC have presented any data gathered at Argo. It’s well established that some dams have large effects on these parameters… and some have none.

When I look at Dr. John Lehman’s long term work on the Huron I can’t see a marked effect on pH or conductivity on the water above and below Argo. His team was unable to detect statistically significant Nitrogen or Phosphorus storage or export at Barton or Argo. The assumed link between sedimentation and vegetation has not been established, but there was a marked increase in Secchi depth coincident with the zebra mussel invasion which could have contributed to increased growth. Comparison of the 1943 (DNR) and 2002 Barr study bottom contours reveals very little change, and the vegetation location map is similar. I don’t doubt that removing Argo Dam could improve fish habitat in the stretch.

I support river restoration in general and think the Mill Creek dam removal is a great success story – the dam really was crumbling and supported little community activity. Removing it reconnected the largest creekshed with the longest free-flowing stretch of the Huron. None of these are true of Argo.

I trust the motives of those who want to remove Argo Dam, but I think the benefits have not been established, and we stand to lose an irreplaceable community resource.

The key is to recognize that Argo has become essentially the rowing equivalent of a soccer field. It’s no more a natural area than the city’s soccer fields are – nor should it be expected to be. I don’t canoe it when the crews are out, any more than I would try to walk on a soccer field during practice; it’s their time to do their thing. Most other recreational uses, and certainly the environment, would be better served by removing the dam, but then the same could be said of the city’s soccer fields and softball diamonds. Alternatives exist but there’s no win-win. Developing the millrace into a rapid would allow fish passage and whitewater recreation, but it would still leave the water-warming, deoxygenating, environmentally degrading impact of the pond, as well as the dam maintenance costs. Other ponds and lakes are acceptable for rowing but are not as well suited as Argo.

I think the policy question is whether the city should maintain a rowing practice pond, and if so how the costs should be allocated. Rowing is a popular sport in Ann Arbor, and the city certainly maintains park facilities for other sports. Argo Pond is much more expensive to maintain than a soccer field, and it does cause significantly more impact on the environment. So how much environmental degradation do we trade off for a sports facility, who pays for maintenance, and what rules do we set for sharing with users other than the primary sport?

As for the “rower behavior” amendment, I’m delighted. The coaches in their motorboats are absolutely obnoxious in ordering others out of the way, speeding up, creating wakes, and rowing their crews 2-3 across at times (leaving no room for anyone else paddling in Argo pond, or around Bandemer, for that matter). I’d actually like to see the “strategy” for the no wake impoundment rule enforced vigorously.

Hospadaruk – I don’t think that’s true at all. There are only two vocal parties in the discussion, HRWC and the rowing community. A number of other local residents and park users on both sides of the issue have been present at each meeting. This could just as easily, given a more politically astute rowing community, have been framed as an “HRWC-vs.-everyone-else issue”.

I was pleased that the idea for an Argo community users forum was included in the HRIMP Committee recommendations. I made this suggestion in a breakout session of the second HRIMP public input meeting because I think that many of the frustrations that are felt by park users (rowers included) could be alleviated by actually meeting, hearing concerns and seeking solutions together. In most cases interactions on the water take place in a matter of seconds and don’t allow for conversation that would allow for gauging intent. Don’t we see the same problem with terse emails, or when skateboarders and pedestrians or cyclists and motorists share resources?

I suppose it’s not surprising at the end of a long meeting on a contentious issue, but I was disappointed to hear the amendment characterized by the Chair as a “rower behavior” amendment. I do not know about the other teams, but I checked and the Ann Arbor Rowing Club had not received any complaints through the website, email or from livery staff in 2007, 2008 or 2009. There was one yesterday afternoon that mirrors the amendment language, and it was taken seriously – coaches were reminded to use minimum megaphone volume (none before 9am), produce minimum wake and be alert for paddlers. I’m sure there are frustrated paddlers who haven’t written complaints to the teams, just as there are rowers who are frustrated by some paddlers who weave unpredictably.

A number of the Huron and Pioneer crew team members have invited their City Council members to come and ride along with a coach to observe a practice. As a Huron parent and AARC rower I’ve volunteered to coordinate this and would like to extend the offer to all other Commissioners and anyone else interested. Their season is almost over – they row today, Tuesday and Wednesday next week and then head to St Catharines, Ontario for the Canadian Scholastic Championships which ends the season. It’s a unique opportunity to see the length of Argo Pond, watch first hand the teamwork and dedication of these student athletes, and see how they interact with other Argo users. The teams will be on the water anytime between 4:30 and 7:30. Call me at 734-945-6470 or email rusmil@gmail.com if you want to be sure there is a seat in a coaching launch.